RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/R/50 
6 March 2008 
 
 (08-0990) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON  21 NOVEMBER 2007 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its Fiftie th Regular Meeting on 21 November 2007 under 
the Chairmanship of Ms Valeria Csukasi of Uruguay.  
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/3118 of 9 November 2007 was adopted, 
with the addition of two points raised by the United States under "other business". 
I. THE REVIEW PROCESS 
A. M
ATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CO MMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
(a) New Zealand:  Canada's compositional standards for cheese  
3. Having voiced concerns bilaterally at the March 2007 meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture as well as in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) regarding 
Canada's proposed new compositional standards fo r cheese, New Zealand registered its continued 
interest in this matter.  New Zealand had provi ded a formal submission to the Canadian Food 
Inspection Agency outlining their concerns, and it expected its comments to be taken into account, 
particularly with respect to Canada's obligatio ns under the TBT Agreement. New Zealand sought 
further clarification on the timeframe for the fina lization of the new standard.  The United States 
indicated that it too had submitted comments to Canada  on this issue and was in terested in the future 
timing of the new standard. 
4. Canada confirmed that it had received the comments by New Zealand and that these would be 
taken into consideration as part of the review of all comments received.    
(b) Australia:  European Communities (EC)  member States subsidies  
5. With reference to the EC's response at the September 2007 meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture, Australia sought confirmation of the accuracy of a statement contained in the WTO 
World Trade Report 2006 that total EC spending  by member States and Community outlays was 
different from the subsidy amounts notified to the WTO.2  The EC confirmed the accuracy of that 
statement and noted that the Aggregate Measurement  of Support (AMS) notified under the Agreement 
on Agriculture includes support resulting from the pr ice wedge between the administered prices and 
the 1986-1988 fixed external reference prices.  Ther efore the amounts notified by the EC to the WTO 
                                                      
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. 
2 WTO (2006), World Trade Report 2006, p.130. G/AG/R/50 
Page 2  
 
  contained support that could not be expressed as act ual expenditure in the European Agriculture 
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) accounts.
3 
6. Australia also requested confirmation that national aids such as those provided under 
Article 141 of Finland's Treaty of Accession to the EC and aids provided by the French Government 
to pigmeat producers were included in the EC's dome stic support notifications.  This was confirmed. 
7. The United States indicated that it shared many of the concerns raised by Australia.  Although 
the United States was still in the process of reviewing the last EC notification, it hoped to be able to 
raise further detailed questions at the next meeting of the Committee. 
(c) Australia and Thailand:  India's sugar export subsidies  
8. Referring to India's internal and international transport and freight, freight handling and price 
subsidies, along with entitlements accruing to su gar exporters under the Central Duty Entitlement 
Passbook Scheme4, Australia sought details on these measures, their status, the basis for calculating 
the subsidies when introduced, and the duration of su ch measures.  Australia also sought explanations 
and requested supporting data regarding th e reference to "ocean freight disadvantage"5 for Indian 
sugar export shipments against competing sugar exporters from other countries in Indian Ocean 
regional markets.  In addition, Australia requested clarification of the subsidies available for buffer 
stocks and whether such stocks could be drawn down for export ship ments.  Finally, Australia asked 
India when it intended to submit its next export s ubsidy notification to the Committee on Agriculture. 
9. Thailand requested detailed information relate d to the sugar export measures under the Open 
General Licence from 19 April 2007 to 18 April 2008 (i .e. the amount of budget, form of payment and 
calculation of subsidies); the current progress of th ese subsidy programmes with regard to monthly 
spending and quantity, type of sugar (raw or refine d) and export destination.   Thailand questioned the 
compliance of these measures with the definition of an export subsidy under Articles 9.1(d) and 
Article 9.1(e) of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
10. India pointed out that these issues had been rai sed bilaterally, were currently being examined 
by the Government of India.  India undertook to  provide an adequate response as soon as possible. 
11. The United States registered its on-going interest  in these matters and recalled having raised 
them bilaterally through the U.S. Office in India.  In addition to its concer ns regarding export subsidy 
issues, the United States was also concerned about some of the new sugar buffer stock policies.  
(d) United States:  Japan's state trading for rice  
12. The United States raised a series of questions concerning Japan's latest notification on state 
trading enterprises, in particular, the statement th at Japan's Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and 
Fisheries (MAFF) was not responsible for the dist ribution and marketing of rice imports outside the 
tariff quota but mainly conducted such im ports under the minimum access opportunities.6  T h e  
United States also noted that they were  also discussing this issue bilaterally. 
13. Japan confirmed that MAFF was responsible for importing and selling rice to domestic 
distributors and other dealers and that the rice impor ted within the tariff quota was effectively sold by 
                                                      
3 The EC noted that an explanati on for this principal difference was also provided in the World Trade 
Report 2006, p.131. 
4 Australia understood that the Central Government and some State authorities (including Maharashtra 
and Uttar Pradesh), together with th e EXIM Corporation had introduced subsidies for sugar export shipments.  
5 Reference contained in the Order of the Department of Food and Public Distribution, 19 April 2007. 
6 See G/STR/N/11/JPN, item IV.  G/AG/R/50 
 Page 3 
 
 
  MAFF to distributors and other dealers.  It was then  sold by the distributors and dealers to consumers 
and processors in the same manner as domestically-produced rice. 
14. In response to a follow-up question regarding the timeframe between importation and actual 
distribution to consumers, Japan clarified that af ter importation, MAFF sold the rice to distributors 
and through these distributors, retailers and other de alers, the rice became available to consumers. 
15. As regards the share of rice imports that were actually consumed as whole-grain rice, Japan 
noted that once MAFF sold the imported rice to distributors and other dealers such entities autonomously decided whether the rice was sold as  whole grain, broken or other forms of rice to 
consumers and processors, based on commercial consid erations.  As regards the share of imported 
rice that was used as food aid, Japan said that impo rted rice did form part of food aid transaction 
which were in compliance with WTO Agreements.  As food aid transactions were conducted in 
response to the requests from recipient countries or international organizations, the amount of 
imported rice used for food aid changed from one year  to the next.  of the share of imported rice 
which went into further processing depended on the commercial decisions taken by distributors and 
dealers as to whether such rice woul d be sold to consumers or processors, either in the form of whole 
grain or broken rice.  In terms of the percentage of domestically-produced rice that was available for 
sale to rice millers, Japan stated that since domes tically-produced rice was distributed by market 
mechanisms to consumers and users, including the rice flour industry, all domestically-produced rice 
was available to the rice flour industry.  
16. The United States requested information on the prices at which Japan sold rice internally 
(i.e. comparing domestic vs. foreign prices), and how such prices were determined.  Japan indicated 
that rice was traded internally through various channels, such as tender and direct transactions 
between rice producers and consumers or users.  In the case of rice sold by MAFF, regardless of 
whether it was domestic or foreign, the price was de termined with reference to the market price used 
in tenders.  Japan pointed out that the price lists u sed for sale of domestic and foreign rice is published 
on MAFF's Website.
7 
17. The United States asked whether MAFF mainta ined incentives to motivate domestic rice 
millers to increase their utilization of impor ted over domestic rice for processing, and more 
specifically, sought clarification on the intent a nd function of the sales guidelines for rice flour8.  
Japan replied that its marketing efforts were intended to enhance dema nds for both imported and 
domestically-produced rice in a non-discriminatory ma nner. The  guidelines applying to the supply of 
rice flour originating from rice imports were intend ed to guarantee a stable price to domestic users 
and to facilitate the exploration of new demands.   In evaluating the impact of the guidelines on the 
market for foreign supplies, Japan had found that  the guidelines had enabled MAFF to supply rice 
flour at a stable price, in response to demands of  domestic users; and that  the guidelines successfully 
contributed to the expansion of new demand for imported rice.  Overall, Japan considered that the 
guidelines had positive effects. 
(e) Australia:  Chinese Taipei's monetization of rice donations  
18. Australia reported that Chinese Taipei had recently provided 500 tonnes of rice to the 
Republic of Nauru in the form of a food aid donation.   This donation had, in Australia's view, resulted 
in significant commercial displacement, with the Nauruan Government monetizing the donation and 
on selling the rice on the domestic market at rate s which undercut commercial trade.  As the donation 
was estimated to account for over 40 per cent of th e total annual consumption of rice in Nauru of 
                                                      
7 www.syokuryo.maff.go.jp/ archives/index.htm#class5 ;  and  www.syokuryo.maff.go.jp/notice/kakou-
MA-teirei.html . 
8 17 SHOKU No. 284, June 2005. G/AG/R/50 
Page 4  
 
  which Australia has previously been a primary suppl ier, Australia requested Chinese Taipei to clarify 
whether it considered placing specific provisions on any similar future food aid donation (including 
requirements that it not be monetized) to mini mize potential further commercial displacement.  
19. Chinese Taipei noted that the food aid donation in  question was in response to an appeal from 
the Government of the Republic of Nauru.  The ri ce was provided as humanitarian food aid, in fully 
grant form, and Chinese Taipei had covered shipment  costs.  Chinese Taipei pointed out that WTO 
Members were currently discussing new disciplines in  the framework of the Doha Round negotiations 
aimed at ensuring that food aid was provided solely  for humanitarian purposes to meet the needs of 
food-insecure populations, while complying w ith the objective of preventing commercial 
displacement.  Chinese Taipei would continue to  participate actively in these discussions and would 
abide by any new disciplines once an agreement would be reached. 
20. Following-up on its questions
, Australia asked Chinese Taipei to explain how its measure 
complied with the principle that food aid donations  should result in additional consumption in the 
recipient country, in line with Members' obligations under Article 10.4(b) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  Chinese Taipei reiterated that it had pr ovided the food aid in question in good faith, as 
described in the preceding paragraph.   
B. REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram  
21. The Committee reviewed the notifications as listed in the agenda.  Specific points raised with 
respect to these notifications and the r esponses thereto are summarized in Annex 1  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  
22. The Committee took note of the notifications which had been circulated in advance of the 
date on which the notice convening the present me eting was issued, but in respect of which no 
questions had been raised by that date under th e Committee's Working Procedures (G/AG/1).  These 
notifications are listed in Annex 2. 
(c) Notifications circulated or made available af ter the notice convening the meeting was issued  
23. 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. 
(a) in the context of the administration of tariff and other quota commitments 
(Table MA:1):  from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MKD/7); 
(b) in the context of imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  
from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MKD/8);  and 
(c) in the context of the special  safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Chinese Taipei 
(TPKM/51).  G/AG/R/50 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings  
24. The Chairperson 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  
25. 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  
26. There were no deferred replies to questions previously raised. 
27. Australia noted that a reply from Turkey remained outstanding since the March 2007 
meeting.9  Although Turkey had previously indicated th at it would provide a written answer as soon 
as possible, to date no responses had been supplied.  Australia requested Turkey to provide a response 
at the earliest possible opportunity.  Turkey indicated  that it hoped to submit to the Secretariat written 
replies, accompanied by statistical data soon.  The EC also expressed its interest in receiving Turkey's 
response.  
(g) Overdue notifications  
28. An updated room document showing the current  status of compliance with notification 
obligations was made available by the Secretariat.   The Chairperson noted that 17 new notifications, 
including three relating to the administration of tariff quotas and imports under tariff quotas, three relating to the special agricultural safeguard an d nine in the field of domestic support, had been 
received since the September meeting of the Committee. The Chairperson underlined that 
notifications from 77 Members were still outst anding for the period 1995-2001 alone.   
II. OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. A
NNUAL CONSULTATION UNDER ARTICLE 18.5  WITH RESPECT TO MEMBERS ' PARTICIPATION 
IN THE NORMAL GROWTH OF WORLD TRADE IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS WITHIN THE 
FRAMEWORK OF THE COMMITMENTS ON EXPORT SUBSIDIES  
29. The Committee took note of the statistical background paper prepared by the Secretariat for 
the purpose of the annual consultations under Article 18.5.10 The paper provided, for selected 
exporters and selected agricultural products/pro duct groups, statistical data on export volumes 
(including international food aid) and shares in  world exports, showing the evolution of the 
participation of the main exporters of these pr oducts in global markets during the Uruguay Round 
base period for export subsidy reduction commitments, i.e. 1986-90, and the most recent period for 
which data is available.   
30. Given recent changes introduced into the external  databases used by the Secretariat to prepare 
this background paper, it was not possible to upda te the paper in advance of the meeting.  The 
Secretariat undertook to update the paper as soon as possible.  
                                                      
9 G/AG/R/48. 
10  See G/AG/W/32/Rev.9 (dated 2 October 2006). G/AG/R/50 
Page 6  
 
  B. 
ANNUAL MONITORING EXERCISE ON THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE MARRAKESH NET 
FOOD -IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (NFIDC ) DECISION UNDER ARTICLE 16.2 
31. 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 notifi cation requirement under the 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. 
32. The Committee took note of the circulation of th e following notifications in the NF:1 series 
since the January 2006 monitoring exercise11: Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/68), Canada 
(G/AG/N/CAN/67), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/125 an d Corr.1), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/44) and 
South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/60).12  A revised background note for the purpose of facilitating the 
annual monitoring exercise was also circulated by the Secretariat.13  
33. Cuba noted that this was a very important i ssue for their delegation and the annual monitoring 
exercise had allowed Members to become familiar w ith changes in food and price levels.  Although 
Cuba was cognisant that the Doha Round negotiations  were aiming to develop a new legal framework 
though a new Agreement on Agriculture, they were con cerned that this could dilute this monitoring 
and evaluation exercise and the relevant provisions of the Marrakesh Decision.  Cuba questioned both 
the Secretariat and Members as to what would happen to the monitoring exercise under a new Agreement on Agriculture.  The Chairperson noted that  this was not a question for the Secretariat, but 
for Members as it would be a decision taken by Member s.  Cuba noted that it would appreciate the 
views of other delegations and underlined the im portance to consider this question from a legal 
perspective to ensure that the substantive provisions of the Marr akesh Decision were preserved.  
Furthermore, Cuba considered that it would be necessary to have the annua l monitoring exercise 
explicitly referenced in any new Agreement on Agriculture.  
34. The representatives of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 
and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNC TAD) made contributions to the monitoring 
exercise.  The International Monetary Fund (IMF) submitted a written contribution subsequent to the 
meeting.  The Committee took note of these statements.
 14  
C. IMPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES  
35. Paragraph 2 of the Doha Ministerial D ecision on Implementation-Related Issues and 
Concerns15 instructs the Committee to follow up on three di stinct issues:  (a) Members must develop 
disciplines on export credits as per Article 10.2 of  the Agreement on Agriculture;  (b) the Committee 
must examine possible means for improving the eff ectiveness of the implementation of the NFIDC 
Decision;  (c) the Committee must al so ensure that Members' tariff quota regimes are administered in 
a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manne r, keeping such regimes under review.  In this 
context, the Chairperson recalled that a first report had been submitted four years ago to the 
General Council.16  The discussions held in 2006 had enab led the Committee to submit a factual 
update to the General Council at  its meeting on 27 July 2006.17   Moreover, the Chairperson had also 
                                                      
11 A reminder airgram was circulated on 26 October 2007, WTO/AIR/3105. 
12 A notification had also been received by the Secr etariat from Switzerland but had not been issued 
prior to the CoA meeting.  It was subsequently issued as G/AG/N/CHE/39 and Corr.1.  
13 See G/AG/W/42/Rev.10 (dated 20 November 2007). 
14 These statements were subsequently circulated in G/AG/GEN/76. 
15 WT/MIN(01)/17 (dated 14 November 2001). 
16 G/AG/16 (dated 4 July 2003). 
17 G/AG/16/Add.1 (dated 13 June 2006).  G/AG/R/50 
 Page 7 
 
 
  provided two oral reports to the General Council concerning the Committee's consideration of a 
proposal by the African Group18 as part of its follow-up to the NFIDC Decision as well as in the 
context of the Doha Ministerial Decision on Im plementation-Related Issues and Concerns.  The 
Chairperson had essentially informed the General Council that since the May 2006 report19 prepared 
by the preceding Chairman, the situation had remained unchanged. 
36. Cuba raised the issue of the relationship be tween points B and C of the Committee's agenda 
and expressed the view that the annual monitoring of the follow-up on the Marrakesh Decision should 
be linked to the question of implem entation, otherwise Members would be  losing a substantial part of 
the discussions, particularly in terms of the contributions by the FAO, IMF, UNCTAD and WTO.  Cuba also felt that the issues being discussed in th e agriculture negotiations should be linked to the 
relevant implementation issues covered by th e regular session of the Committee on Agriculture, 
especially as regards the proposed modalities on export credits, credit guarantees or insurance 
programmes, since these could po ssibly supersede the mandate on e xport credits under the Marrakesh 
Decision on NFIDCs.  Cuba noted that both the Do ha and the Hong Kong Ministerial Declarations 
referred to the need to duly take into account, a nd implement, all the elements of the Marrakesh 
Decision in an integral manner. Should new discip lines become effective, th en the annual monitoring 
exercise should be maintained.  Therefore, this ite m would still need to be retained on the agenda of 
the Committee on Agriculture. 
37. In response, the Chairperson acknowledged that  these two issues were linked and underlined 
that she did not believe that any Member denied this linkage.  However, the two elements stemmed 
from two difference backgrounds – one from the Doha Ministerial Decision on Implementation-
Related Issues and Concerns (whi ch covered all of the issues liste d in paragraph 35 above) and the 
other related to the Marrakesh Decision on NFIDCs, of  which the issue of export credits was not the 
only item to be considered during the annual monito ring exercise.  Moreover, the annual monitoring 
exercise was to be undertaken by  the Committee at its November meetings, in accordance with the 
Committee's Working Procedures. Although both issues were listed as  separate items on the 
Committee's agenda, the reality was that everybo dy knew they were linked. The Chairperson noted 
that it would be best for all Members to wait until th ere was more clarity on all issues, including in the 
negotiations context. 
38. Argentina stated that, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 10.1 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, the establishment of additional and sp ecific disciplines on export credits, export credit 
guarantees and insurance programmes remained an  outstanding implementation issue resulting from 
the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.  Argen tina therefore requested that this item be 
retained on the agenda of the Committe e on Agriculture in regular session.   
D. O
THER BUSINESS  
39. The United States proposed (i) to increase the period between the circulation of the room 
document listing Members' questions and the actual date  of the meeting, and (ii) to change the timing 
and frequency of meetings. 
40. In order to help improve the efficiency a nd effectiveness of the Committee meetings, the 
United States considered that it would be preferab le to expand the time between the issuance of the 
room document containing Members' questions an d the actual date of each meeting (and adjust, as 
necessary, all other appropriate deadlines to ensu re a longer time period).  The United States proposed 
that the room document be issued 15 or 20 days prio r to the meeting to give each Member sufficient 
time for bilateral or plurilateral discussions and/ or allow the responding Member to provide a more 
                                                      
18 Paragraph 52 of TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2 (dated 17 July 2002). 
19 G/AG/22 (dated 16 May 2006). G/AG/R/50 
Page 8  
 
  detailed answer.  The United States noted that there was no mention of the room document in 
Committee's working procedure
20 but that the notice of regular meetings of the Committee and a draft 
agenda had to be issued at least 10 days  prior to the date of the meeting.   
41. With respect to the second point, the United Stat es considered that under the current schedule 
of meetings (March, [June], Sept ember and November), there was little time between the September 
and November meetings.  The United States therefore considered it better to ha ve three meetings per 
year on a revised calendar of April, September and December, with the ability to hold other meetings 
as appropriate. 
42. Zambia, on behalf of the LDCs, supported by Cu ba, requested that the Chairperson consider 
the implications for small delegations when ex amining these issues.  Zambia noted that some 
delegations were unable to be present at the Comm ittee meeting due to a conflict between the timing 
of the General Council and an Aid for Trade meeti ng.  The Committee on Agricu lture was of interest 
to the LDCs and they would like to be able to pa rticipate in an effective manner.  The EC supported 
the United States' proposals but noted that there w as a need to take account of the concerns of 
developing country Members.  As the EC was not in favour of a September meeting, it suggested to 
have three meetings in March, June and October instead.  But as the Doha negotiations are on-going 
with possible new enhanced disciplines on monitori ng and surveillance, the EC considered that 
Members should await the outcome of the negotiations  before changing the periodicity of meetings.  
43. While noting that these were interesting sugg estions, and to some extent linked, Canada 
considered that the timing of the Committee on Agri culture related to other factors which may be 
outside the control of the Committee.  For example,  the timing of reporting to the Council for Trade in 
Goods; the annual review of the Marrakesh De cision on NFIDCs which had to take place in 
November in accordance with the working proced ures, which was itself tied to the timing of the 
release of relevant statistical and other informati on by the participating in ternational organizations 
having observer status.  Canada concurred that the time between the September and November 
meetings was short, but there had been some logic to the scheduling of meetings in that manner.  
Furthermore, with the prospect of negotiati ng a new Agreement and proposals for enhanced 
monitoring and surveillance, Canada believed th at Members might want to consider more 
comprehensively on how future mee tings (i.e. post-Doha Round) were organized.  With respect to the 
comments made by Zambia regarding conflicting mee ting schedules, Canada noted that in the past, 
meetings had been changed on an ad hoc  basis as necessary.  Canada would support such changes in 
the future if these were necessary, as part of a comprehensive review. 
44. In terms of the rescheduling of the issuance of the room document, Australia expressed 
support for any ideas that would improve the ability of  Members to engage more fully in the activities 
of the Committee.  That said, Australia noted that the effectiveness of the Committee was also 
contingent on the timeliness of the notifications themselves.  Australia supported Canada's comments 
relating to the need to have a more comprehensiv e review to be organized in the context of a 
successful Doha Round.  Brazil also supported a more comprehensive review post-Doha Round. 
.Argentina remarked that if there were only three meetings per year, these meetings would be longer 
in duration.  Argentina preferred the status quo  for the moment and supp orted Canada regarding a 
more comprehensive review to be undertaken in  the context of an enhanced monitoring and 
surveillance mechanism in a Doha Agreement.  As a preliminary comment, Argentina did not think it 
that this was the appropriate time to start revi ewing the Committee's the rules of procedure as there 
were likely to be other changes required in the context of a successful Doha Round.  Argentina 
indicated that it would consult with capital.  
                                                      
20 G/AG/1.  G/AG/R/50 
 Page 9 
 
 
  45. Supporting the comments made by Zambia, on beha lf of the LDCs, Tunisia queried whether 
questions could be transmitted to de legations further in advance of the meetings so as to provide 
delegations, particularly the sma ll delegations, sufficient time for transmission to capital so that 
appropriate responses could be supp lied in a more timely manner.  
46. The Chairperson wished to consult more fully w ith interested delegati ons before considering 
the US proposal any further.  There were a number  of points to be considered and the Chairperson 
indicated that she would be particularly interest ed in hearing the views of developing country 
Members.  An particular, a change of timing w ould have a domino effect on other procedures and 
corresponding timelines, and Members would need to  carefully examine the implications for small 
delegations.  The Chairperson also acknowledged th e question of overlap between the timing of the 
regular meetings and other high-level meetings th at were taking place at, or around, the same time.  
This placed significant resource pressure on small delegations. 
47. For the sake of consistency between implemen tation and negotiation issues, Cuba recalled 
that its delegation remained interested in having an  update on the state of the agriculture negotiations 
being supplied by the Chairman of the Commi ttee on Agriculture in Special Session.  The 
Chairperson responded that in terms of receiving an update on the state of the agriculture negotiations, 
as such sessions were of an informal nature, no S ecretariat report was being issued.  The Chairperson 
suggested that Members might need to reflect on what more could be done taking account of the 
mandate of the regular Committee on Agriculture, which was linked to implementation, not negotiation, issues.  
(a) Date of next meeting 
48. The next (51
st) regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture is scheduled for Tuesday, 
18 March 2008 .  The convening airgram will be issued on Friday, 7 March 2008, and the reminder 
airgram on Friday, 22 February 2008. G/AG/R/50 
Page 10  
 
  Annexes 
  
   Page
 
 
Annex 1 Summary of points raised with respect to notifications 11 
 Annex 2 Notifications subject to review  in respect of which no questions 28 
  have been raised in advance of the issuance of   the convening airgram  
 
    
 
   G/AG/R/50 
 Page 11 
 
 
  ANNEX 1 
 
Summary of points raised with respect to notifications  
 
 
Page  
 
(i) imports under tariff and other quot a commitments (Table MA:2): 
- Tunisia G/AG/N/TUN/37 12 
 
(ii) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): 
- Japan G/AG/N/JPN/129 13 
- New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/50 13 - Tunisia G/AG/N/TUN/39 14 - United States G/AG/N/USA/60 15 
 
(iii) new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction (Table DS:2): 
- United States G/AG/N/USA/58 23 
- United States G/AG/N/USA/59 23   
 G/AG/R/50 
Page 12  
 
  (i) Table MA:2 
 
 Tunisia  G/AG/N/TUN/37
 
 
1. Question by the United States - Further clarific ation sought on Tunisia's response to the 
question raised at the previous meeting .  The additional value added tax (VAT) on selected 
imported products (including snack foods, confectionery products, processed fruits and 
vegetables, and tree nuts) of 22.5 per cent (18 per cent for domestic products) and the 10 per cent advance payment on income tax for the same imported products may be inconsistent with WTO rules, specifically GATT Article III, par agraph 2, regarding na tional treatment.  
Explanation sought as regards the application of the taxes to domestic products as well as to 
imported products.  
 With regard to the 10 per cent advance pa yment for imported products, the Tunisian tax 
system includes several tax collec tion mechanisms (withholding at source, instalments and advances).  
Such payments are offset against the tax actually due.  These mechanisms apply to domestic sales and 
services relating to several categories of income, such as rents, fees, commissions, brokerage fees, 
salaries and pensions, sales within the goods or services markets or even out-of-market sales in the 
case of sales in excess of TD 1,000.  In this cont ext, the 10 per cent pre-payment on imported goods 
was instituted in order to ensure more effective income  tax or business tax collection.  It represents an 
advance on the final tax due by the person ha ving made the payment and is deductible from 
instalments paid or the tax due.  Any amount pre-pa id in excess is refundable within the time-limits 
and under the terms established by the applicable le gislation.  Consequently, the 10 per cent import 
levy does not in itself constitute a discriminatory tax on imported products but a simple advance tax 
payment. 
 
 VAT paid on imported goods by persons subject  to VAT, whether at a normal rate or at a 
higher rate, has no effect on the cost of the imports  since the VAT paid gives an entitlement to deduct 
the VAT collected in the domestic market, unlike customs duties which are payable on a definitive 
basis without any possibility of deduction.  Impor ted products, whether or not subject to the higher 
rate of VAT on importation, are resold on the domestic market to buyers subject to VAT, without any increase.  Furthermore, the higher VAT base cannot be regarded as a new tax import, the re-introduction of a previously abolished charge, or an  increase of existing duties given the rule for the 
deduction of VAT and the possibility of its recovery in the event of persons subject to this tax being in 
credit.   The increase instituted under Article 52 of the Finance Law 2003 has no effect on customs 
value as defined in Article 26 of the Customs Code , which applies to imported products affected by 
the 25 per cent increase on importation, and will not entail an increase in customs value or customs 
duties because the value subject to  these duties does not include VAT. 
  The objective of the above-mentioned measur e is to improve VAT collection without 
increasing VAT rates, since with the mechanism of deduction of VAT paid on importation and the refund mechanism, the final rate of VAT for an im ported product subject to the 25 per cent increase 
is, as the following example shows, 18 per cent and not 22.5 per cent.  G/AG/R/50 
 Page 13 
 
 
   
Price of product on 
importation and at sale Product subject to the 25% 
increase on importation Product not subject to the 25% 
increase on importation 
- Customs value 
- Customs duty (43%) 
- VAT base on importation - VAT amount on importation 
 
- Selling price excluding VAT 
(mark-up 25%) 
- VAT amount (18%) 
 - VAT amount paid 
 
- Selling price including VAT 100,000 
43,000 
100,000 + 43,000 = 143,000 143,000 x 22.5% = 32,175 
 
143,00 x 1.25% = 178,750  
178,750 x 18% = 32,175 
 32,175 – 32,175 = 0 
 
210,925 100,000 
43,000 
100,000 + 43,000 =143,000 143,000 x 18% = 25,740 
 
143,000 x 1.25% = 178,750  
178,750 x 18% = 32,175 
 32,175 – 25,740 = 6,435 
 
210,925 
 
 It should also be noted that the 25 per cent  increase applies equally to the domestic sales by 
those subject to VAT to buyers who are not subject to VAT.  Consequently, the 25 per cent increase and the 10 per cent increase advance payment are clea rly measures intended to improve tax collection.  
They do not involve any discrimination whatsoever  and are offset by the mechanism of recording 
payments made against the final tax amount due (i n the case of the 10 per cent advance payment) and 
by the deduction mechanism (in the case of the 25 per cent increase). 
 
(ii) Table DS:1  
 Japan  G/AG/N/JPN/129
 
 
2. Question by Canada - With regards to the agricultural insurance scheme , what is the 
averaging period used to calculate the level of  production compared to which the production 
loss is measured?  
 Under the Agricultural Insurance Scheme, which covers a wide variety of products, such as 
rice, wheat, barley, vegetables, fruit and livestoc k products, a three-year average based on the 
preceding five-year period and other preceding periods  are used to determine the level of production, 
against which the production loss is measured in a manner consistent with the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
 
 New Zealand  G/AG/N/NZL/50  
 
3. Question by Canada - With regards to the adverse climatic events  measure, would 
New Zealand please explain what is the averaging period used to calculate the level of production, compared to which the production loss is measured?  
 In New Zealand, emphasis is placed on the preparedness and readiness for severe climatic 
events.  This involves rural communities developing approaches to prepare for adverse events that suit 
their circumstances and provide adequate resistance .  The adverse climatic events measure is a 
framework for adverse events relie f.  The framework grades the adve rse event to ensure a clear and 
consistent response, while allowing flexibility to take into account the unique circumstances of each 
event.  In the case of a disaster, the assessment woul d be based on the impact at the wider community 
or regional level, rather than at the individual farm level.  
 G/AG/R/50 
Page 14  
 
   In the event that a rare climatic or natural di saster occurs on a scale that will seriously impact 
the regional and/or national economy, central gove rnment may provide additional support to local 
community and regional organizations under this framework.  The calculation of the scale of a 
disaster takes into account both historical and expect ed future production for the season.  In no case is 
a disaster recognized where the production loss does not exceed 30 per cent of the production in the 
preceding three-year period. 
  In these cases, a special recovery measure may be  made available at the discretion of central 
government.  A special recovery me asure would reimburse a 50 per cent share of the costs (subject to 
limits) for the following:  (i) restoration of uninsurab le on-farm infrastructure;  (ii) re-establishment of 
uninsurable pasture, crops and forestry (excluding s lips);  and (iii) initial clean up of silt and debris 
(where uninsurable).  No compensation would be paid to farmers for production or income losses. 
  Tunisia  G/AG/N/TUN/39
 
 4. Questions by Canada – Although not agreei ng with previous inflation adjustments
 made 
by Tunisia, could Tunisia provide corresponding inflation and exchange rate data for 2005 and 
2006 and Current Total AMS data for 2002 through 20 06 and explain how an adjusted external 
reference price satisfies the stipulation regarding a fixed external reference price (Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture)?  
 Tunisia considers that inflation and the depreciation of the local currency vis-à-vis foreign 
currencies recorded between 1988 and 2006 were excessive and justify the adjustment made.  
Cumulative inflation from 1988 to 2006 was 60 per cent due to the fact that the annual inflation rate 
measuring the variation of the ge neral consumer prices index stood at between 5 per cent and 7 per 
cent up to the year 2000 and between 2 per cent and 4 per cent from 2000 to 2006.  The inflation rate in Tunisia is published in the Annual Report of the Central Bank of Tunisia, which gives the 
following figures: 
 
Year Annual inflation 
rate Exchange rate 
US$/Dinar 
1988 
1989 
1990 1991 
1992 
1993 1994 
1995 
1996 1997 
1998 
1999 2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 2005 
2006 7.2 
7.7 
6.5 7.8 
5.5 
4.0 4.7 
6.3 
3.7 3.7 
3.1 
2.7 2.9 
2.0 
2.7 
2.7 
3.6 2.1 
4.5 0.8543 
0.9946 
0.8602 0.9459 
0.8844 
1.0057 1.0133 
0.9458 
0.9747 1.1029 
1.1374 
1.1884 1.3716 
1.4390 
1.4212 
1.2877 
1.2456 1.2981 
1.3294 
 
 Similarly, the exchange rate used to determine the reference prices of the base period 
1986-1988 in the local currency, has varied considerably, from US$0.88 to the Tunisian dinar during  G/AG/R/50 
 Page 15 
 
 
  the reference period, to the order of US$1.3 to the Tunisian dinar in 2006.  These rates are published 
in the Financial Statistics Report of the Central Bank of Tunisia and show the evolution of the 
exchange rate of the dinar vis-à-vis  the US dollar as indicated in the above table.  Thus, inflation and 
the depreciation of the local currency vis-à-vis  foreign currencies recorded between 1988 and 2006 
were excessive under the terms of Article 18.4 of  the Agreement on Agriculture and justify an 
adjustment of the external reference prices. 
  In accordance with the wishes of the Cana dian delegation, Tunisia calculated the AMS 
without taking into account the adjustment of th e reference prices.  The following table shows the 
evolution of the current AMS without adjustment  of the reference prices for the period 2002-2006. 
 
 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 
Current AMS without reference 
price adjustment, in millions of dinars 114 132 138 134 124 
 
 Follow-up comments by Canada:
  Canada noted that inflation ra tes between 2.0 and 4.5 per cent for 
the period 2000-2006 were probably not excessive.  In addition, Canada was of the view that the 
Agreement on Agriculture did not provide for ad justments based on cumulative inflation over an 
18-year period.  
 
 United States  G/AG/N/USA/60  
 
5. Question by Australia - Supporting Table DS:1 :  Further details sought on the nature of 
expenditure notified as general services expendi ture on state programmes for agriculture, for 
each of the four marketing yea rs covered by the notification.  
 The data on state programmes for agriculture  come from the United States Bureau of the 
Census' Census of Governments, an annual survey of state and local government expenditures.  State 
programmes reported in the survey as "agriculture" include:  
"Support and promotion of agricultural associations, fairs, livestock 
and poultry shows, and the like; agricultural boards and advisory 
commissions; provision of agricultural extension services; agricultural experiment stations and other research activities; promotion, improvement, and c ontrol of livestock production and 
dairy products; promotion of improve d methods to store, pack, label, 
and market farm products; promoti on of the sale or consumption of 
agricultural goods; regulation of the quality, safety, and handling of agricultural products, such as inspection, licensing, and standardization; protection of crops and stocks from predatory 
animals and other natural hazards." 
6. Question by Australia - Supporting Tabl e DS:1 – decoupled income support
:  Under 
Sections 112 and 114 of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996  (FAIR 
Act), Production Flexibility Contract (PFC) paymen ts were provided on the basis of historical 
acreage and yields restricted to seven commoditi es – wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, 
rice and upland cotton – and that planting flexib ility limitations contained in Section 118 of the 
FAIR Act prohibited the planting of fruit and vegetables on PFC acreage.  Further, the 
Appellate Body found in United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton  that conditioning PFC G/AG/R/50 
Page 16  
 
  payments on a producer's compliance with planting flexibility limitations meant that the 
amount of those payments under the PFC measu re was related to the type of production 
undertaken by a producer after the base period, within the meaning of paragraph 6(b) of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture  and that accordingly, PFC payments were not 
"decoupled income support" within the meaning of paragraph 6, and were not Green Box 
measures exempt from reduction commitments (Appellate Body Report , paragraphs 341–342).  
How is the classification of PFC payments as  decoupled income support under paragraph 6 of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture consis tent with the Appellate Body’s findings and 
how, in light of planting flexibility limitatio ns, do PFC payments meet the requirements of 
paragraph 1 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
 The United States believes that these payments  meet the criteria for decoupled income 
support in paragraph 6 as well as paragraph 1 of  Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 Follow-up comments:
  Australia took note of response supplie d by the United States.  However, 
Australia would welcome any additional information on which the United States based its conclusion.  
New Zealand also expressed interest in receiv ing further information on how the United States 
concluded that these payments meet the respective criteria. 
 
7. Question by Australia - Supporting Tabl e DS:1 – decoupled income support :  Under 
Sections 1101 and 1102 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRI Act), direct 
payments were provided on the basis of historical  or updated acreage and yields restricted to 
nine commodities - wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, soybeans and 
other oilseeds - and that due to production flex ibility limitations contained in Section 1106 of the 
FSRI Act, direct payments were conditional upon the non-production of fruit, vegetables and 
wild rice on base acres.  Referring to the A ppellate Body findings (see paragraph 6 above) 
Australia wondered how classification of direct  payments as decoupled income support under 
paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agri culture was consistent with such findings in 
light of planting flexibility limitations, are dire ct payments consistent with paragraph 1 of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
 The United States believes that these payments  meet the criteria for decoupled income 
support in paragraph 6 of Annex 2, as well as pa ragraph 1 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
 
Follow-up comments by Australia:   Noting that the United States had notified an aggregrate value for 
decoupled income support, Australia requested the United States to explain why this support had been 
notified in such a manner given the Appellate Body's ruling in the United States Subsidies on Upland 
Cotton , paragraph 384, that cotton payments up to the proportion of cotton base acres planted to 
cotton constituted support granted to a specific commodity.  Australia noted that on the basis of the 
Appellate Body's ruling in that case, direct pa yments for cotton were not exempt from reduction 
commitments under Annex 2 of the Agreement on Ag riculture.  Therefore, Australia sought an 
explanation as to how the United States could determ ine that the entire amount of direct payments for 
this and other programme crops we re exempt on the grounds of dec oupled income support.  Canada 
and New Zealand supported the follow-up comment by Australia and also expressed interest in 
receiving further information on how the United St ates came to that conclusion with respect to 
decouple income support   
8. Question by Australia – Supporting Table DS:1
:  Under Section 1101(a) of the Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 , producers were given an opportunity to elect a 
method for which base acres for the covered co mmodities were to be established – therefore 
allowing producers to elect to update their hist orical base acres used to determine direct 
payments.  How is this measure consistent with  paragraph 6(a) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on  G/AG/R/50 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Agriculture which stipulates that eligibility for such payments, when determined by criteria 
such as production level, should be done so in a defined and fixed base period?  Also, how is this 
measure consistent with the requirement in para graph 1 of Annex 2 that such domestic support 
measures should have 'no, or at most minimal, tr ade-distorting effect or effects on production'?  
 Under the 2002 Farm Act, owners of farms ha d a one-time opportunity to select a method for 
determining base acreage.  Owners had to enrol and make selections no later than 1 April 2003.  The 
criteria for the base period for area and yields were sp ecific and clearly defined.  The historical bases 
and yields are fixed and unchanging for the life of the programme, consistent with paragraph 6(a) of 
Annex 2.  The United States believes that these direct  payments meet the criteria in paragraph 1 of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
9. Question by Australia - Supporting Table DS :1 – payments for relief from natural 
disasters, crop disaster payments :  Assistance to crop producers suffering production losses of 
at least 30 per cent was US$1.741 billion in 200 2, US$1.295 billion in 2003 and US$1.160 billion 
in 2004.  In 2005 the level of expenditure for th is assistance was US$3 million.  Reasons for the 
sustained high level of expenditure under this programme prior to 2005?  
 The payments simply reflect a series of on-goi ng weather-related disasters in different parts of 
the United States – floods, blizzards, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.    
10. Question by Australia - Supporting Table DS :1 – structural adjustment through 
investment aids:  farm credit programmes :  Via the Farm Credit Programme, short- and long-
term loans at preferential interests rates were offe red to producers who, as a result of structural 
disadvantage, could not obtain credit elsewhere.  What methodology was used to ensure that the 
benefits were limited to the amount required to  compensate for the structural disadvantage 
suffered by eligible producers in accordance wi th paragraph 11(f) of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture?  
 To qualify for assistance, applicants must meet  all loan eligibility requirements, including 
being a member of an eligible group.  The loan  is limited to specific purposes or activities on the 
farm.   Follow-up comment:
  Australia noted that the question was aimed at seeking an explanation for the 
methodology used to ensure that the benefits are limited in a manner requi red under paragraph 11(f) 
of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Australia  noted its interest in receiving further details 
as to how the loan eligibility requirements ensured th at the benefits are limited to the amount required 
to compensate for the structural disadvantage suffe red by eligible producers.  Canada also expressed 
its interest in receiving a response to the follow-up comment by Australia.  
11. Question by Australia - Supporting Table DS:1 – decoupled income support:  
environmental payments, conservation security  programme (marketi ng years 2004 and 2005) :  
In addition to payments made under contract, enhanced payments may be made to eligible 
participants who undertake activities which have an expected environmental benefit value, or where this cannot be demonstrated, are made at a rate that does not exceed a producer’s cost to 
implement the given activity (16 U.S.C. § 3841).  Request for further info rmation on the criteria 
used to judge an ‘expected environmental bene fit value’, and how such enhancement payments 
are consistent with paragraph 12(b) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
 As criteria had not been developed for estim ating the economic value of the environmental 
benefit, the payments were limited to a portion of the costs of implementing the environmental 
practice.  G/AG/R/50 
Page 18  
 
  12. Question by Australia - Supporting Table DS:5  – product-specific AMS:  market price 
support:   The United States used an applied administered price equal to the loan rate for sugar 
cane to calculate market price support for sugar .  As Australia understands that more than half 
of United States sugar production is refined beet sugar, why did the United States use an applied administered price equal to the loan ra te for sugar cane for the purposes of market 
price support for sugar?  
 The United States calculated market price suppor t for sugar by multiplying the loan rate for 
raw value sugar (that which applies to sugar from cane) by all eligible sugar production expressed in 
terms of raw value.  Thus, the value of beet sugar,  which in fact is processed directly into refined 
sugar, is converted to its raw sugar value for purposes of the market price support calculation.   
 
13. Question by Australia - Supporting Table DS:9 - non-product-specific AMS
:  As 
budgetary outlays paid to ranchers for grazing livestock on Federal land were reported as 
non-product-specific AMS, on what basis does th e United States considers support to livestock 
producers to be non-product-specific support?  
 The reason behind this designation was that th is support is available to any grazing livestock 
on the same basis.  The grazing programme is not linke d to specific types of livestock and data are not 
available on which animals are actually using the programme.  
 Explanation for the difference in budgetary expenditure reported in G/AG/N/USA/60 
and the expenditure outlined in the United St ates Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
Report of September 2005 entitled ' Livestock grazing – Federal expenditures and receipts vary, 
depending on the Agency and the purpose of the fee charged ' (GAO-05-869)? 
 
 The United States notifies as grazing support to pr oducers the share of US  Department of the 
Interior/Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Department of Agriculture/Forest Service (FS) 
rangeland management and rangela nd improvement expenditures allocated as support for grazing by 
BLM and FS in their budget accounting.  From this outlay total for grazing are subtracted grazing fees 
collected.  The use of this method produces the share of expenditures that can be attributed to direct 
support for producers.     The GAO report referred to in the question provides a comprehensive accounting of all 
Federal expenditures, direct and indirect, that support grazing on public lands.  This includes not only 
direct support to producers through grazing programmes,  but also all expenditures for maintaining and 
improving public rangeland for all purposes, as well as for other services such as Department of Justice legal services for agencies involved in grazing lawsuits, and Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and US Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 
water quality programmes. 
 
14. Questions by Australia - Supporting Table DS:9 - non-product-specific AMS, crop and 
revenue insurance :  The United States notified subsidized crop and revenue insurance as 
non-product-specific support.  The value of the subsidy is reflected in the net value of the 
indemnities paid to producers for losses less the amount of the producer-paid premium.  Does 
the United States acknowledge that there are other ways of calculating this subsidy which may 
yield a higher value for the subsidy in most years and, if so, what consideration was given to the 
alternative methodologies?  
 The United States considers that there may well be other methods that could be used to 
calculate the subsidy for crop insurance programmes,  depending on the operation of the programme.  
The United States is aware that other WTO Members use different methods for notifying crop  G/AG/R/50 
 Page 19 
 
 
  insurance subsidies.  The United States has chosen a method they believe is appropriate for their 
programmes.    
 How does the United States account for negative numbers that arise when the indemnity 
is less than the producer paid premium? 
 
 The crop insurance net indemnities reported in th e United States notifications are based on the 
grand total of all premiums collected, all premium subsidies provided, and all indemnities paid.  Thus 
far, these totals have never produ ced a negative number.  Should ther e be negative net indemnities in 
some year, they would presumably be reported as zero  (or not reported at all), in the manner used for 
other programmes throughout the notifications.  There could well be in any year individual farmers 
who report a negative net indemnity (i.e. paid out mo re in premiums than received in indemnities) but 
such cases are accounted for in the aggregate figure. 
 
 Australia understands that the United States provides a number of crop insurance plans 
to producers – including the Crop Revenue  Coverage (CRC) plan and the Revenue 
Assurance (RA) plan and that the CRC and th e RA plans are only available in respect of a 
particular group of commodities:  barley, ca nola, corn, cotton, rice, sorghum, soybeans, 
sunflower and wheat.  If insurance plans such as the CRC and the RA are only available for a 
limited number of crops, why have these programmes been classified as non-product-specific de minimis  support rather than product specific support? 
 
 All crop insurance programmes are combined togeth er in the grand totals used to calculate net 
indemnities for the crop insurance programme, without reference to variations in type of coverage. 
 
15. Questions by Australia - Supporting Ta ble DS:9 - non-product-specific AMS
:  The 
United States notified countercyclical payments (CCP) as non-product-specific AMS, but given 
that CCPs are only available in respect of historical production of a limited group of commodities, and that production of fruit, vege tables and wild rice on base acres is prohibited, 
how is this classification consistent with Article 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture which 
specifies that non-product-specific support is support provided in favour of agricultural 
producers in general?  Given the Appellate Body’s ruling in United States – Subsidies on Upland 
Cotton  that a proportion of CCPs constitute supp ort granted to a specific commodity (cotton), 
why are all CCP payments classified as non-product-specific AMS?  
 The CCPs are reported as non-product specific becau se payments are based on fixed historical 
area and yields (i.e. production) and not current pr oduction.  Recipients were not required to produce 
any product to receive payments.  Recipients in cluded producers of fruit and vegetables (whether 
because of historical production, double-cropping, or the availability of non-base-acres).  Because any 
eligible crop can be grown on the base acres, pa yments cannot be ascribed to a specific product.  
 
 Details regarding the percentage of CCP reci pients growing fruit, vegetables, wild rice 
or producing meat animals, poultry/e ggs, milk, greenhouse or nursery products. 
  The United States indicated that it does not have detailed data that can be presented at this 
time.  However, interested parties could read a recent report by USDA’s Economic Research Service 
that looked at a related question.
21  
 Follow-up comment:
  Australia noted that it would look at th e report noted by the United States.  In 
addition, Australia would be interested to know if the United States had plans to collate such data in 
the future, and, if so, whether it would be accessible to interested Members.  
                                                      
 21 The report is available at:  http://www.ers.usda.gov/publica tions/err30/err30_lowres.pdf  G/AG/R/50 
Page 20  
 
  16. Question by Australia - Supporting Table DS:9 – Non-Product-Specific AMS: Crop 
Disaster Payments :  Confirm that for the notified peri od 2002-2005 the United States did not 
provide support for crop losses of less than 30 per cent in value?  
 The United States confirmed that for Crop Disaster Programmes between 2002 and 2005, 
crop losses must have been in excess of 35 per cent. 
 
17. Question from Canada - In light of the conclusion of the Panel in United States - 
Subsidies on Upland Cotton  (DS267) that PFC payments and DP payments  do not fully conform 
with paragraph 6(b) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, why are these payments reported as 'green' support under the heading 'D ecoupled income support', i.e. paragraph 6?  
 See response to paragraph 6 above. 
 
18. Question from Canada - For each measure no tified under Annex 2, paragraph 8 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, what is the averaging period
 used to calculate the level of 
production, compared to which the production loss is measured?  
 The United States remarked that the answer  was complicated because there were many 
different programmes and the averaging, or base  period, was defined differently in different 
regulations.  The United States had not had sufficient time to review all the regulations in order to 
provide an answer at this time.  Follow-up comment:
  Noting the above response by United States, Canada indicated that it was 
interested in receiving such information as soon as it was available.  
 
19. Question from Canada – Where are loan de ficiency payments for unshorn pelts  
accounted for in the notification and what is the value of production of unshorn pelts?  
 The United States stated that these payments we re included in the loan deficiency payments 
total figure for wool.  The value of unshorn pelts wa s also included in the total value of production for 
wool.  This has been the case consistently since the original United States' Schedule was submitted. 
 
20. Questions from EC - CCPs:  Given that there are distinct target prices for the different 
programme commodities, why have CCPs been included in the non-product specific AMS 
category and not under the respective product sp ecific support categories?  What are the 
budgetary outlays per commodity for the notified four-year period?  
 See response to paragraph 15 above. 
 
 The data requested are not relevant to th e United States notification but are publicly 
available.22  
 Follow-up comment:
  The EC commented that the United States reference to fixed historical areas and 
yields and to the fact that no production was required for such payments served as a reminder of 
issues relating to the classification of Green or Bl ue Box support and not so much on the difference 
between classification in product-specific de-minimis  or non-product-specific de-minimis  which 
related more to the EC question.  The EC noted  that it would examine the data available on the 
internet site provided.  
                                                      
 22 http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/ .  G/AG/R/50 
 Page 21 
 
 
  21. Question from EC - crop and revenue insurance :  The United States notified crop 
insurance, stating that "the value of the subsidy is reflected in the net value of the indemnities paid to producers for losses less the amount of  the producer paid premium".  Why does the 
United States use this particular notification pr actice as opposed to the amounts of government 
subsidies paid and could the United States provide the amount of the government premium 
subsidy paid in the four years notified?  
 Net indemnities measure producer support from the crop insurance programme and reflect the 
actual full direct benefit of this programme to produ cers – what they receive, less what they pay in.  
The United States has used this method since thei r original Schedule was submitted for the 1986-1988 
base period.  The data requested are not relevant  to the United States notification but are publicly 
available.
23   
 Follow-up comment:
  The EC remarked that although the United States believed that their 
methodology was appropriate as it had been used sin ce the base period, if the United States were to 
notify the amount of governments subsidies for the year 2004, this would amount to approximately 
US$2.5 billion, and to US$2.3 billion for the year 2005.  On the basis of the US methodology, these 
amounts were approximately US$1. 5 billion and US$0.8 billion for 2004 and 2005 respectively.  In 
other words, the figures notified by the United St ates were approximately US$1.0 and US$1.5 billion 
lower than the amount of government subsidies paid .  The EC invited the United States to comment 
on this difference.  
22. Question from Japan - Supporting Table DS:1 :  Regarding rural development, only the 
programmes entitled "Rural Cooperative De velopment Grants" and "Renewable Energy 
Programme" were notified to the Committee on  Agriculture.  Why have other programmes 
such as “Rural Utilities Service” not been notified?  
 Programmes such as those supported by the Rural Utilities Service are not agricultural 
programmes.  They provide loans and loan guarantees to rural communities for improving or 
expanding services such as water, electricity, and telecommunications that benefit the entire 
community.  
23. Question from Japan - Why did the budget level for the "environmental quality 
incentives programme (EQIO) ” increase significantly from  US$165 million in 2003 to US$690 
million in 2004?  
 Additional federal funding has been made available because of an increased emphasis on 
enhancing conservation and environm ental benefits under the programme. 
 
24. Question from Japan - Supporting Table DS:9 :  The United States notified CCPs as 
non-product-specific de minimis  from 2002.  What are the factors behind significant fluctuation 
in the values of this support year  by year?  What were the eligible crops subject to payment of 
the programme on a yearly basis, and if eligible crops can be identified, what is the rationale for 
this programme notified as "non-product-specific de minimis "? 
 The United States noted that payments fluctuated  with crop prices.  The payments were based 
on historical production of eligible crops (wheat , corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, rice, upland 
cotton, soybeans, other oilseeds, and peanuts).  See also response given in paragraph 15. 
 
25. Question from New Zealand - Supporting Table DS:1 - decoupled income support :  How 
does the classification of the production fl exibility contract (PFC) payments meet the 
                                                      
23 http://www.rma.usda.gov/data/sob.html  G/AG/R/50 
Page 22  
 
  requirements of the Green Box, consistent  with the Appellate Body's finding in United States - 
Subsides on Upland Cotton ? 
 See response provided in paragraph 6. 
 
26. Question from New Zealand - Supporting Ta ble DS:1 - decoupled income support, 
direct payments .  Given that direct payments are only available for a limited number of 
commodities, how are these payments consistent with the criteria in paragraph 1 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
 The United States believes that these payments meet the criteria in paragraph 1 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
27. Question from New Zealand - Supporting Table DS:9
:  Spending on non-product-
specific AMS remained high at nearly US$6 billion.  Explanation of reasons for continued high levels of support, given it is around six tim es greater than that in the 1986-1988 base period.  
 The addition of new programmes since th e base period and additional payments under 
existing programmes have contributed to the level of outlays.   
 
28. Question from New Zealand - Supporting Ta ble DS:9 - non-product-specific AMS
:  
CCPs were notified as non-product-specific AMS.  What was the basis for classifying CCPs as 
non-product-specific, given the relationship to prices received by specific crops?  
 See response to paragraph 15. 
 
General follow-up comment :  Argentina noted that it was concerne d by the lack of notification by the 
United States on de minimis  or AMS, for specific products for th e benefits received by producers as a 
result of the subsidies granted to bio-fuel production on the basis of agricultural products, in particular 
ethanol.  Argentina also indicated that it reserves its right to present a counter-notification on this 
matter, as provided for under paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Brazil noted that in the past it had raised many questions regarding the classification of 
agricultural support provided by the United States.  As Brazil had not received satisfactory responses, 
it had felt compelled to register its concerns in  the context of the Dispute Settlement Body.  
According to Brazil, it appeared that in recent y ears, the levels of domestic support provided by the 
United States in favour of its agricultural producer s had acceded its commitment levels as specified in 
Section I of Part IV of the US Schedule of co mmitments, in contradiction of Article 3.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  In this context, Braz il noted that the notifications provided by the 
United States indicated that the product-specific support programmes were of particular concern to 
developing country Members.  In light of the resu lts of the cotton panel for instance, the level of 
subsidies and their potential to distort world prices became evident.  As such, a remedy for the delay 
in notifying to the Committee on Agriculture was n eeded.  It was for these reasons that the G-20 and 
the Cairns Group had put forward substantial propo sals in the Doha Agriculture negotiations to 
improve the existing monitoring and surveillance m echanisms.  Brazil consid ered that the existing 
system was too flexible and inefficient.  This  had led to an abuse and infringement of the 
commitments, such as delays of many years of notif ication and the lack of information.  There was 
also a need to improve the quality of information provided.  Brazil considered that the United States 
notifications were a clear example of the shortfalls of the current system.  It was a reflection of the poor existing practice that the United States just pr esented its notification regarding the 2002 Farm 
Bill when it was about to approve its 2007 Farm Bill.    G/AG/R/50 
 Page 23 
 
 
  (iii) Table DS:2 
 United States  G/AG/N/USA/58  
 
29. Question from the EC - American Indian livestock feed programme (AILFP) :  Point 3 
states that "A livestock feed emergency is a situ ation in which a natural disaster causes more 
than a 35 per cent reduction in the feed produced in a region".  How is it ensured in this programme that the 30 per cent production loss of paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2 is met at the level 
of the individual producer?  
 Individuals seeking compensation under the AI LFP must submit individual records to the 
local Farm Service Agency office to en sure proper documentation of losses.   
 
30. Question from the EC - flood compensation programme
:  How is it ensured that the 
30 per cent loss criterion of paragraph 8(a) of An nex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture is met?  
 Individuals seeking compensation under the flood compensation programme must submit 
individual records to the local Farm Service Agency  office to ensure proper documentation of losses.   
 
 United States   G/AG/N/USA/59  
 
31. Question from Canada - How does the Unit ed States ensure that payments under the 
conservation security programme (CSP)  only relate to the extra costs or loss of income involved 
in complying with the government programme as stipulated in paragraph 12(b) of Annex 2 of 
the  Agreement on Agriculture?   
 The United States noted that the CSP progr amme was complex and contract payments 
involved one or more of the following components:  stewardship, existing practice, new practice, and 
enhancement.  The written response provides add itional detail.  In summary, all payments were 
related to costs incurred and only paid for portion of those costs. 
 
Additional Background :  An annual per acre stewardship componen t is used to offset the conservation 
costs incurred by farmers and ranchers if they have achieved a benchmar k level of conservation 
treatment.  This component is calculated separatel y for each land use based on  eligible acres and the 
stewardship payment rate.  An annual existing prac tice component is used for maintaining existing 
conservation practices.  Existing practice payments ar e generally calculated as a flat rate of 25 per 
cent of the stewardship payment, a level that is below estimated costs for the benchmark conservation 
practices.  These two payments offset the cost of  maintaining pre-existing practices.  For the two 
years CSP was notified (2004 and 2005), these two pa yments accounted for 14 per cent of total CSP 
payments.    
 The new practice component and the enhancem ent component are both cost-share items, 
where payments are limited to sp ecified costs.  The new practice component is made for additional 
practices.  New practice payments for limited resource  farmers and beginning farmers are made at not 
more than a 65 per cent cost-share rate.  New practi ce payments for all other contracts are made at not 
more than a 50 per cent cost-share rate.  New practi ce payments accounted for only one per cent of all 
CSP payments for 2004 and 2005. 
 
 Most CSP payments have been an a nnual enhancement component for exceptional 
conservation effort and additional conservation practices or activities that provide increased resource 
benefits beyond minimum requireme nts.  Enhancement payments ar e "flat-rate" payments, normally 
multiplied by the number of acres treated by the ac tivity eligible for an enhancement payment.  
Enhancement payments cannot exceed the economic  value of the environmental benefit being G/AG/R/50 
Page 24  
 
  produced or cannot exceed the cost of implementi ng the practice if an ec onomic benefit cannot be 
determined.  Because criteria have not been de veloped for estimating the economic value of the 
environmental benefit, payments are limite d by costs of implementing the practice. 
 
 Costs of specific practices are determined  by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, based on an inventory of local practices.  In addition, annual payment limits, based on the tier 
of participation, conservation treatments complete d, and the acres enrolled, ensure that payments 
remain below costs incurred and income foregone. 
 
32. Question from the EC - Conservation Reserve Programme (CRP)
:  Point 3 of the 
notification states that "Participants enrol in CRP  contracts for 10 to 15 years."  Point 6 of the 
notification states that "The CRP is in effect through 31 December 2007.  Contracts can continue beyond 30 September 2007, depending on  their duration."  Clarification of the 
contract obligations of participants in the pr ogramme?  Do the contract obligations continue 
after 30 September 2007, or are they optional after that date?  
 The contract obligations continued after 30 September 2007.  Funding was mandatory, which 
meant that current contracts would be funded through the lifetime of the contract. 
 
33. Question from the EC - Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) programme :  In 
point 3 of the notification the United States states that "AMA is available in 15 states where participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Programme is historically low."  Could the 
United States  explain the complementarities between the AMA programme, that it claims to be 
a Green Box programme, and the participation in Federal Crop Insurance Programmes, that it 
has notified in the Amber Box?  Is there any in tention to extend the AMA programme to those 
states where participation in FCI programmes is historically high?  
 There was no direct complementarity between the AMA program and the crop insurance 
programme.  The AMA was a cost share programme that  partially offsets costs incurred by farmers in 
adopting conservation practices that can help manage risk in states where crop insurance has not been 
typically utilized.  Eligibility was not limited by states, but individual landow ners were required to 
develop a conservation plan and agree to maintain cost-shared practices for the life of the practice.  
The conservation practices supported by AMA were  also eligible for assistance through the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Programme , which was available in all states. 
 
34. Question from the EC - Biomass Research and Development Act :  Point 3 of the 
notification states that "The Departments of Energy and USDA cooperate in funding joint 
research and development projects, working through a joint Biomass Research and 
Development Board."  Provision of examples of  the projects concerned and an indication 
whether these projects target the use of specific agricultural products?  
 The United States indicated that there had been dozens of projects approved under this 
initiative.  There are at least two websites that list approved projects.  Some involve specific 
agricultural products.24  
 
(i) Metabolix, Inc. (Cambridge, MA) - advanced biorefinery feedstocks :  The objective of 
this project is to develop a genetically engi neered biomass crop (switchgrass) that can be 
processed in a biorefinery to produce a family of biodegradable, biobased polymers, 
                                                      
 24  Examples of three projects were provided.   
http://www.brdisolutions.com/news/Ne wsletterArchive/Oct2003.asp#active8 ;  
http://www.usda.gov/rus/i ndex2/0208/programs.htm   G/AG/R/50 
 Page 25 
 
 
  polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), and energy.  The ABF project focuses on developing 
transgenic plants that produce PHAs at ec onomic levels and reta in robust agronomic 
characteristics.  This project will apply recent advances in plant gene expression 
technology coupled with high-th roughput metabolic profiling. 
 
(ii) Utah State University (Logan, UT) - research and demonstration of anaerobic system on 
a large dairy farm :  The objective of this project is to develop a full-scale anaerobic 
digester dairy farm system that generates significant amounts of electricity (two 80 kW 
microturbines) that will be fed into the power  grid.  The three main goals of the project 
are to (1) demonstrate the induced blanket reactor (IBR) system in full scale on a large 
dairy farm and verify technology perform ance expectations, (2) identify areas of 
opportunity for system and technology improvement, and (3) investigate the commercial 
and economic viability of the IBR system and estimate the market potential. 
 
(iii) Earth Resources, Inc. (Carnesville, GA) - animal waste management-chicken litter to 
energy :  This project's objective is to use chic ken litter as a fuel for power generation and 
the combusted ash for fertilizer using wast e combustion or gasification.  Fixed-bed 
combustion will be experimentally compared w ith fluidized-bed gasification in terms of 
combustion and thermal efficiencies. The potential to generate hydrogen during 
fluidized-bed gasification will be investigated .  A primary objective of this programme is 
to develop cost-effective, environmentally sound thermochemical conversion 
technologies to convert biomass feedstocks into  useful electric power, heat, and potential 
fuels and products. Data will be generated to  demonstrate the technical feasibility of 
gasification of chicken litter to produce power  (steam and eventually electricity) and 
fertilizer. 
 
35. Question from the EC - renewable energy development programme, renewable energy 
systems and energy efficiency improvements grant, guaranteed loan, and direct loan 
programme:   Point 3 of the notification states that "To achieve goals related to renewable 
energy and environmental enhancements, the legisl ation establishes a loan, loan guarantee, and 
grant programme to assist eligible farmers, ra nchers, and rural small businesses in purchasing 
renewable energy systems and making energy efficiency improvements."  What are "goals related to renewable energy" and what are some examples of the loans and grants provided?   
 Two specific goals articulated by President Bush were: 
 
(i) Reduce gasoline usage by 20 per cent in te n-years, setting a fuel standard at 35 billion 
gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017.  This will displace 15 per cent of 
projected annual gasoline use in 2017.  The President's proposal will also increase the 
scope of the current Renewable Fuel Standard  (RFS), expanding it to an Alternative Fuel 
Standard (AFS).  The Alternative Fuel St andard will include sources such as corn 
ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, methanol, butanol, hydrogen, and alternative fuels; 
and  
 
(ii) Foster the breakthrough technologies need ed to make cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive 
with corn-based ethanol by 2012.  
 
 The United States provided two specific examples of projects related to meeting such goals:  
 
(i) On 17 October 2005, the USDA announced a US$16 million loan guarantee to help 
finance construction of an electrical genera ting plant in rural Arizona that will use G/AG/R/50 
Page 26  
 
  wildfire-damaged timber along with waste fibre from a nearby paper mill as a fuel 
source; and 
 
(ii) In February 2006, the USDA announced the award of a competitive High Energy Cost 
grant of US$1.9 million to Sacred Power Corporation of Albuquerque, New Mexico.  
The grantee in partnership with the Camer on Chapter will install 100 Residential Solar-
Wind Hybrid Power Systems plus energy efficient lighting and refrigerators for homes 
without electricity in the Cameron area on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona.  Even 
though the area is crisscrossed with high voltage transmission lines, many homes have 
been dependent on gasoline  
 
36. Question from the EC - Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for farmers :  In point 3 of 
the notification it states that "Under th e TAA for Farmers programme, USDA provides 
technical assistance and cash benefits to elig ible producers if increased imports are found to 
contribute importantly to a price decline of at least 20 per cent in a current marketing year 
compared to a historical period".  The techni cal assistance provided would, just as the cash 
benefits to farmers, seem to mitigate price re ductions following increased imports and therefore 
the effect of the assistance provided would seem to be trade distorting.  Consideration of 
notifying this aspect of TAA in the Amber Box?  
 The technical assistance generally consists of  one-day training that focuses on improving 
current business practices.  Some training can last sev eral days and is geared to restructuring or 
exiting a farm business.  There is no cash assistance involved in the training and the training is not 
linked to price mitigation.   
 
37. Question from the EC - sugar beet disaster programme :  Point 3 of the notification 
states that "The loss must have been sustained due to a weather-related condition".  
Elaboration on how "a weather related condition" has been defined in terms of paragraph 8(a) 
of the Agreement on Agriculture?  How did th e formal recognition of the natural disaster 
occur?  
 The formal recognition of the disaster was made  in the authorizing statute (P.L. 108-7), which 
authorized payments for sugar beet production losses, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.  
The weather-related condition in this case was abnormally dry weather that reduced yields. 
 
38. Question from Japan - direct payment programme :  In which year does the 
United States set the historical base acres and payment yields for each crop subject to the 
payment of the programme?   
 With respect to the years which owners estab lished their historical base acres and payment 
yields, owners of farms had a one-time opportunity to select a method for determining base acreage. 
Owners had to enrol and make selections no later than 1 April 2003.    With respect to the period that the historical acres and yields were based, this is complicated 
because owners and producers had several options.    
Additional Background
:  An owner who failed to make an  election was considered to have 
selected 2002 Production Flexibility Contract acres (established under the 1996 Farm Act), and for 
oilseed base, the four-year av erage of oilseed plantings. 
  G/AG/R/50 
 Page 27 
 
 
   To receive payments on historical production covered by the programme (wheat, corn, grain 
sorghum, barley, oats, rice, upland cotton, soybeans,  other oilseeds, and peanuts), a producer enters 
into annual agreements for crop years 2002-2007.   Farmers had two options for designating base acres: 
 
(i) Choose base acres equal to contract acreage fo r the historical commodity production that 
would otherwise have been used for 2002 PFC pa yments plus average oilseed plantings in 
crop years (CY) 1998-2001, so long as base acr es do not exceed available cropland; or 
 
(ii) Update base acres to reflect the 4-year av erage of acres planted, plus those "prevented 
from planting" due to weather conditions, during CY 1998-2001. 
 
 Each producer selected one of the two options to apply to all covered historical commodity 
production for direct payments.  Base acres for p eanuts could be determined separately, so long as 
total base acres did not exceed available cropland.  Pa yment acres are equal to 85 per cent of the base 
acres. 
 
 Programme payment yields were unchanged for historical commodity production previously 
covered under the PFC programme.  For soybeans a nd other oilseeds, which were added to the 
programme, payment yields were the farm’s averag e yields for 1998-2001, multiplied by the national 
average yield for 1981-85, divided by national average yield for 1998-2001.  Peanut payment yields were based on the farm’s average yields for 1998-2001.   
 
 There is information that more recent base periods were set for soybeans and 
groundnuts, which were newly added crops to the programme.  Can this be deemed as “fixed 
base periods” in line with the requirement of paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and, if so, what is the rationale? 
 
 Owners of farms that previously produced peanuts and oilseeds had a one-time opportunity to enrol acreage, which is described in the backgroun d for the previous question.  The base period for 
area and yields is fixed for the life of the programm es, consistent with paragr aph 6 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
 G/AG/R/50 
Page 28  
 
   
ANNEX 2 
 
Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
 
 
(i) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):   
- Panama  G/AG/N/PAN/14  
 
(ii) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):   
- Japan G/AG/N/JPN/130  
- Japan G/AG/N/JPN/131  
 
(iii) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  
- Canada G/AG/N/CAN/69 
- Cuba G/AG/N/CUB/29  - Honduras G/AG/N/HND/23 
 - Saudi Arabia G/AG/N/SAU/2 
 - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/48  - Trinidad and Tobago G/AG/N/TTO/10  
(iv) new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction (Table DS:2): 
- Honduras G/AG/N/HND/24 
 - New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/51 
 
(v) in the context of export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): 
- Saudi Arabia G/AG/N/SAU/1 
- Trinidad and Tobago G/AG/N/TTO/9  
 
__________