RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/AG/R/11
28July1997
ORGANIZATION(97-3181)
Committee onAgriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OFTHE MEETING HELD ON26-27 JUNE 1997
Note bytheSecretariat
1. TheCommittee onAgriculture helditseleventh meeting on26-27 June 1997 under the
Chairmanship ofAmbassador Nestor Osorio Londoño ofColombia.
2. Theagenda ofthemeeting, contained inWTO/AIR/619, wasadopted.
PartI:TheReview Process
3. TheCommittee reviewed thefollowing notifications aslisted ontheagenda:
(i) ontheadministrationoftariffandotherquotacommitments(TableMA:1):fromCanada
(G/AG/N/CAN/6), theEuropean Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/3), Hungary
(G/AG/N/HUN/8) andtheUnited States (G/AG/N/USA/2/Add.1 &2,andUSA/11);
(ii) relating toimports under tariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:2): from
Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/14), theCzech Republic (G/AG/N/CZE/8 andCorr.1), the
European Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/4), Hungary (G/AG/N/HUN/9), Japan
(G/AG/N/JPN/10/Add.1), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/9), Poland (G/AG/N/POL/9),
Slovenia(G/AG/N/SVN/6),Switzerland(G/AG/N/CHE/9),Tunisia(G/AG/N/TUN/9),
theUnited States (G/AG/N/USA/9) andVenezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/3);
(iii) inthecontextofthespecialsafeguard(TablesMA:3toMA:5):fromtheCzechRepublic
(G/AG/N/CZE/9), theEuropean Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/6), Hungary
(G/AG/N/HUN/7), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/18 and19),Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/6),
Namibia(G/AG/N/NAM/2),Poland(G/AG/N/POL/8),SouthAfrica(G/AG/N/ZAF/8),
Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/19), Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/6), Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/7)
andVenezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/2);
(iv) relating todomestic support commitments (Table DS:1): from Botswana
(G/AG/N/BWA/5), Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/6), theCzech Republic (G/AG/N/CZE/12),
Fiji(G/AG/N/FJI/1),Iceland(G/AG/N/ISL/2/Corr.1),Japan(G/AG/N/JPN/21),Mexico
(G/AG/N/MEX/5),Morocco(G/AG/N/MAR/7),Namibia(G/AG/N/NAM/3),Pakistan
(G/AG/N/PAK/3),theSlovakRepublic(G/AG/N/SVK/9),Slovenia(G/AG/N/SVN/5),
Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/7), Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/3/Add.1 andTUR/4), theUnited
States (G/AG/N/USA/10), Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/9) and Venezuela
(G/AG/N/VEN/4);
(v) inthecontext ofnew ormodified support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2): fromNamibia (G/AG/N/NAM/4) andSouth Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/10);G/AG/R/11
Page2
(vi) relating toexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3): from Australia
(G/AG/N/AUS/8), theCzech Republic (G/AG/N/CZE/10 andCorr.1), theEuropean
Communities(G/AG/N/EEC/5),Fiji(G/AG/N/FJI/2),Iceland(G/AG/N/ISL/6),Japan
(G/AG/N/JPN/20),Namibia(G/AG/N/NAM/1),Norway(G/AG/N/NOR/10),Pakistan
(G/AG/N/PAK/2), thePhilippines (G/AG/N/PHL/6), Poland (G/AG/N/POL/4/Rev.1
andPOL/7),SouthAfrica(G/AG/N/ZAF/11),Switzerland(G/AG/N/CHE/10),Tunisia
(G/AG/N/TUN/8), theUnited States (G/AG/N/USA/8), Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/8
and10),Venezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/5) andZambia (G/AG/N/ZMB/1);
(vii) onexport prohibitions andrestrictions (Table ER:1): from theCzech Republic
(G/AG/N/CZE/11).
4. Specific points raised withrespect tothenotifications listed inparagraph 3above andthe
responses thereto, aswellasanydeferred replies toquestions raised attheprevious meeting, are
summarized intheAnnex tothisreport.
5. TheCommittee agreed torevert tothenotifications ofJapan (G/AG/N/JPN/21), Morocco
(G/AG/N/MAR/7), Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/7) andtheUnited States (G/AG/N/USA/10) atitsnext
meeting.
6. Thefollowing notifications were subject topreliminary review andaretobereverted toat
thenextmeeting inaccordance withparagraph 9oftheCommittee 'sWorking Procedures:
(i) ontheadministration oftariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:1): from
Venezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/6);
(ii) relating toexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3): from Norway
(G/AG/N/NOR/10/Corr.1).
7. TheCommittee noted thatnocounter-notifications hadbeenreceived under ItemDofPartI
oftheagenda.
Matters Relevant totheImplementation ofCommitments under theReform Programme: Article 18:6
8. Thefollowing matters relating totheimplementation ofcommitments under thereform
programme were raised pursuant toArticle 18:6oftheAgreement onAgriculture:
(a) Canada: Implementation bythePhilippines ofitsporkandpoultry access commitments
9. Canada noted thatithad,withother Members, consulted withthePhilippines concerning
implementation ofthePhilippines 'market access commitments forporkandpoultry. ThePhilippines
indicated thattheywereundertaking areview ofAdministrative Order No.9,inparticular regarding
thereallocation ofunused licences. Canada sought clarification regarding thestatus ofthatreview
andastowhen exporting countries would haveanopportunity tocomment inthecontext ofthereview.
10. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines noted thatAdministrative Order No.9provided forthe
mandatory review oftherulesandregulations fortheimplementation oftariffquotas andthatthisreview
wasnowunder way. Theprincipal focus ofthereview wastheallocation andreallocation methods
oftheminimum access volumes withtheobjective ofassessing thepresent administrative procedures
taking intoaccount, interalia,theirconsistency withWTO rules. Itwasintended toconclude the
consultations withthevarious stakeholders regarding theminimum access volumes bythefirstweek
ofJuly1997andtocomplete anamended Administrative Order bymid-July 1997. TherepresentativeG/AG/R/11
Page3
ofCanada responded thatCanada would endeavour tomake itsviews known within theindicative
timetable.
(b) NewZealand/United States: Canada 'sspecial milkclasses scheme
11. With regard toCanada 'sspecial milkclasses scheme, theUnited Stated sought clarification:
(i)astohowCanada calculated themonthly prices onthe5(a),(b)and(c)classes ofmilkandhow
theprices forclasses 5(d)and(e)wereadjusted toconditions inworld markets; (ii)whether Canadian
dairy farmers received more thanonepriceformilksales, i.e.onesalepriceforfluidmilkandanother
forindustrial milk; (iii)astowhat therelationship wasbetween provincial governments andthe
Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) inproviding farmers withsales revenues, whocontrolled and
distributed thepooling system andfarmers 'returns, andhowrevenues fromsalesofthespecial product
classes weretransferred tothepool, i.e.viaprocessors orprovincial milkauthorities; and(iv)asto
howtheCDC determined theproportion ofmilksaleswhich would bepooled.
12. Interms ofthequestions raised bytheUnited States, therepresentative ofCanada provided
thefollowing response:
(i) Prices inClasses 5(a)and(b)werederived fromaformula based onseveral reference
prices oftheUnited States, including theUSDA Basic Formula Price. Prices inclass 5(c)were
established under anagreement between theCanadian Milk Supply Management Committee andthe
confectionery product manufacturers. Prices in5(d)and(e)werearrived atbynegotiation ofthemilk
price inlightoftheexpected price obtainable forthefinalgood intheexport market andtheprices
available foralternate opportunities. Milkproducers, acting through theirmarketing boards, processors
andanyother actors inaparticular transaction, sought themostadvantageous price from theirpoint
ofview.
(ii) Farmers received several prices formilkbased ontheend-use ofthemilk. Inmost
provinces there wasonefluidmilkclass(Class 1)andseveral industrial milkclasses (Classes 2to5).
Farmers received ablended payment fortheirmilkshipments based ontheprices received forsales
ineachoftheseclasses. InBritish Columbia andAlberta, producers received adifferent blended price
fortheirfluidmilkshipments andfortheirindustrial milkshipments butitwaslikely thatthetwoquota
systems inthese provinces would bemerged inthefuture.
(iii) Neither provincial governments northeCDC provided farmers withsalesrevenues.
These were derived from sales ofmilktodairy processors byproducer marketing boards ineach
Province. Processors paidprovincial milkmarketing boards formilkdelivered totheirplants onthe
basis oftheusestowhich themilkwastobeput. Thesystems fordistributing theproceeds from
milksalesamong milkmarketing boards wereoperated bytheCDC onbehalf oftheCanadian Milk
Supply Management Committee. Class 5milksalesweremade byprovincial milkmarketing boards
todairy processors thatheldspecial classpermits.
(iv) Dataonsales ofmilkwere senttotheCDC byeachprovincial marketing agency.
TheCDC calculated theratioofsalesforClass 5usestototalsalesineachprovince. Theproportion
oftotalsaleswhich would bepooled (theparticipation level) wasequal totheratioofClass 5sales
intheprovince withthehighest suchratio. Receipts from thesales ofmilkuptotheparticipation
level were pooled among allprovinces, resulting inanaverage return perunitofmilk. Costs of
operating thepoolwere deducted andtheremaining funds were divided among provinces onaper
unitbasis andpaidtoproducers.G/AG/R/11
Page4
13. Therepresentative ofNew Zealand stated thatNew Zealand hadparticipated inseveral
consultations onthismatter which hadbeenheldunder theauspices oftheChairperson. Canada 's
responses topoints raised inthecontext of,andfollow-up to,these consultations hadnotallayed
NewZealand'sfundamentalconcernsoverthisschemeandthepotentialforit,andothersimilarschemes,
toundermine theexport subsidy disciplines oftheAgreement onAgriculture. Intheview of
NewZealand there waslittlemerit incontinuing topursue thisissue attheinformal levelandinthe
Committee, andNewZealand wasnowconsidering theoptions available forpursuing itsconcerns
further, including formal dispute settlement. Therepresentatives ofAustralia, theECandthe
United States expressed theirconcerns withregard totheoperation ofthisscheme. TheUnited States
indicated thatitwasconsidering whatactions might betaken inthefuture.
(c) NewZealand/United States: TheEuropean Communities 'inward processing arrangements
forcheese
14. NewZealand sought clarification fromtheECregarding (i)themainelements ofthenewinward
processing arrangements forprocessed cheese; (ii)therelevance oftheKyoto Convention fortheEC's
export subsidy obligations under theWTO, and(iii)theminimum levels, ifany,ofcomponents required
tobeimported from outside theECunder itsinward processing arrangements forprocessed cheese
exports. Inaddition, NewZealand requested theECtorespond toanumber ofwritten questions New
Zealand hadposed earlier.
15. TheUnited States noted that,according totheECSchedule, cheese exported under HS0406.30
(processed cheese) fellunder theEC'sexport subsidy commitments forcheese. TheUnited States
sought clarification: (i)astowhether regulations Nos.300/97 L50,417/97 L64and418/97 L64(or
others) allowed forthepossibility ofexporting processed cheese using subsidies drawn against theEC’s
commitments onmilkpowder andbutterfat; (ii)withrespect tothemechanisms which ensured that
subsidized dairy exports received thecorrect HScodeandwere counted against thecorresponding
export subsidy ceilings (especially withregard totheinward processing arrangement); and(iii)as
towhatportion, ifany,ofthefinalvalue orcomposition ofprocessed cheese needed tobeimported
fromoutside theCommunity forthecheese tofallunder thenewscheme (specifically withregard to
Commission Regulations 417/97 and418/97).
16. Therepresentative oftheECexpressed theviewthatthequestions theEChadreceived from
New Zealand andtheUnited States were based onamisunderstanding ofthesystem inquestion.
According tothedefinition contained inanAnnex totheKyoto Convention, goods could bebrought
intoacustoms territory andconditionally berelieved frompayment ofimport duties andtaxes. Such
goodsmustbeintendedforre-exportationwithinaspecificperiodafterhavingundergonemanufacturing,
processing orrepair. Products originating from inward processing procedures were notconsidered
asexports ofthecountry concerned. TheEChadmerely extended itsexisting procedures byallowing
certain products originating intheECtobeused ininward processing arrangements forcheese
manufacturing. Theingredients ofECorigin which benefited fromexport subsidies werenotified to
theCommittee andcounted against theEC'sexport subsidy commitments. Cheese exports under inward
processing arrangements would notbecounted against theEC'sexport subsidy commitments oncheese
since thecheese inquestion waspartly manufactured withingredients originating inthirdcountries.
TheECconsidered thatthere were noprovisions which prohibited suchanarrangement.
17. Therepresentative ofNew Zealand stated thatNew Zealand wasnotreassured thatthis
arrangement forcheese didnotconstitute circumvention oftheexport subsidy disciplines ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture. NewZealand considered that,sincetheEC'sexport subsidy commitments
forcheese werebeginning toconstrain theirsubsidized exports ofprocessed cheese, theEChadextended
itsexistinginwardprocessingregulationsinordertoprovideanalternativewayofdeliveringthesubsidy.
Under thenewprocedures, processors werepermitted topurchase subsidized inputs ofbutter, skimmedG/AG/R/11
Page5
milkpowder andnatural cheese aspartofinward processing. Theexport subsidies werepaidonthe
inputs because theyweredeemed tohavelefttheEC'sdomestic market. Thefinalproduct -processed
cheese -could thenbeexported atworld market prices. Theprocessed cheese wasasubsidized product
buttheECdidnotcount thisproduct against itsexport subsidy commitments forcheese when the
processed cheese wasexported. IntheviewofNewZealand, thiswascircumvention ofexport subsidy
disciplines. While theECwasnotdenying thatthereweresubsidies involved, NewZealand considered
thattheECwascounting them against thewrong commitments. Processed cheese wasincluded in
thelistofcheese items towhich theEC'sexport subsidy commitments oncheese applied. Moreover,
theECdidnotregard theexported processed cheese ashaving leftthecustoms territory oftheEC
untilithadbeenexported fromtheinward processing zone. Indeed, thesubsidies ontheinputs were
notpaiduntilthefinalproduct -processed cheese -hadbeenshipped from thecustoms territory of
theEC.While theECtriedtodrawsupport fromtheKyoto Convention 'sreference toinward processing
procedures, NewZealand wasnotaware ofanything thatwould make theKyoto Convention relevant
tointerpreting obligations under theWTO. Anycountry could otherwise setupdesignated zones
outside oftheir"domestic" market without anyreference toWTO commitments. Therepresentative
ofNew Zealand requested theCommission andthemember States oftheECtoreconsider this
arrangement inthelightofNewZealand 'sinterventions andtoeliminate it.
18. Therepresentative oftheECtooknoteofthepoints made and,while hewasnotconvinced
bythem, indicated thattheECwasready tocontinue thedialogue onthismatter.
19. Therepresentative ofAustralia stated thatAustralia considered thatthescheme inquestion
appeared tobeadeliberate attempt bytheECtoincrease thetotallevelofitssubsidized exports of
cheese beyond itscommitment level. Since theEC'scommitment inthebaseperiod wasonprocessed
cheese, theECcould notnowdetermine thatthecommitment wastobebased onthecomponent
products. TheAnnex intheECSchedule indicated thatthebasequantities andannual quantity
commitment levels were thetotalquantity ofproducts encompassed bythedescription ofproducts
"independently ofthestateofprocessing orpresentation inwhich theproducts areexported". Ifthe
EChadintended totreatexport subsidies onprocessed cheese byutilizing subsidies oncomponent
products, itshould haveindicated intheAnnex under thecheese category thatprocessed cheese would
betreated ascomponent products. Todootherwise meant, intheviewofAustralia, thattheECwas
trying tocircumvent itsexport subsidy commitments.
(d) NewZealand: Mexico 'scheese import regime
20. NewZealand sought clarification withrespect toMexico 'simplementation ofitsmarket access
commitmentsforcheese(G/AG/N/MEX/1and2),inparticular(i)whetherimportlicenceswererequired
toimport cheese, andifso,forwhat types ofcheese; (ii)astohowsuchlicences were allocated;
and(iii)whether Mexico hadimplemented itsscheduled tariff quota of9,385 tonnes, ofwhich
2,405 tonnes wastobeavailable onanMFN basis. Therepresentative ofMexico responded thatMexico
hadtaken noteoftheconcerns expressed byNewZealand andundertook toprovide toaresponse in
writing.
(e) United States: Clarification ontheEuropean Communities 'policy onpoultry exports
21. TheUnited States raised concerns regarding reports thattheECmight utilize, inthecurrent
implementation year, "unused" export subsidy quantities forpoultry meatcarried overfrom thelast
implementation year. Given thesubstantial unused export subsidy quantities available bothinthe
United States andtheEC,thisaction inthepoultry meatsector could, intheviewoftheUnited States,
setapotentially dangerous precedent withrespect totheeffectiveness oftheexport subsidy disciplines.G/AG/R/11
Page6
22. Therepresentative oftheECnoted thattheEChadexported 418,000 tonnes ofsubsidized
poultry meatinthemarketing year1996/95 against acommitment levelof434,500 tonnes inthatyear,
leaving the"unused" quantity of16,400 tonnes withrespect totheEC'scommitment levelin1996/95.
TheECconsidered thatArticle 9oftheAgreement onAgriculture provided, toacertain extent, the
possibility ofcarrying oversuchunused quantities. Inanyevent, theECexpected thatthesubsidized
exports ofpoultry meatinthemarketing year1996/97 would notexceed theEC'sscheduled commitment
level forthe1996/97 marketing year. TheECnevertheless reserved theright, inaccordance with
Article 9oftheAgreement, toutilize anycarry-over from oneimplementation yeartoanother.
23. Therepresentative ofArgentina expressed thehope thattheECandother Members would
behave responsibly when using export subsidies andavoid using "downstream flexibility" asprovided
forinArticle 9oftheAgreement. Therepresentative ofAustralia questioned theassumptions made
regarding theextent towhich anyshortfall intheuseofexport subsidies permitted inoneimplementation
yearcould becarried forward asacredit thatcould beusedinasubsequent implementation year.
IntheviewofAustralia, Article 9:2(b) oftheAgreement wasnotnecessarily applicable, nordidit
necessarily allow Members toaccumulate suchunused subsidies, sincethatprovision involved anumber
ofinterpretative issues. Itwasnotclear, forexample, what wasmeant by"fullcompliance" and
consequently what wascumulated: theactual levels or1.75percentofthebaseperiod quantities.
Inanyevent, Australia wasconcerned thatthere wasthepossibility thatsome Members might utilize
downstream flexibility, andurged restraint. Therepresentative ofCanada alsoappealed totheEC
toactwithprudence. Therepresentative oftheUnited States considered thatallMembers should act
inthespirit oftheAgreement onAgriculture which envisaged thecontinuous reduction ofexport
subsidies. Therepresentative ofNewZealand voiced concerns overtheuseofflexibility asprovided
inArticle 9oftheAgreement. Itwasnotforeseen thatanyMember would increase thelevelofexport
subsidies during theimplementation period andNewZealand therefore appealed totheECandother
Members toexercise caution inthismatter. Therepresentative oftheECassured Members thatthe
ECwould always actwithgreat prudence andinconformity withtheprovisions oftheAgreement
onAgriculture.
(f) United States: Clarification ofVenezuela 'simport licences policy foryellow cornandsorghum
24. TheUnited States raised concerns regarding Venezuela 'simport licence requirements foryellow
cornandsorghum which required importers topurchase acertain amount ofdomestic product before
importation wasallowed. TheUnited States understood thatVenezuela wasconsidering implementing
asimilar domestic purchase requirement forfluidmilk. TheUnited States sought clarification asto
howVenezuela justified these measures under theWTO.
25. Therepresentative ofVenezuela responded that,inmid-March 1997, Venezuela hadestablished
atariffquotasystemforyellowmaizeandsorghumwhichwasadministeredonthebasisofnon-automatic
import licensing (G/AG/N/VEN/6). Theapplied in-quota tariffs werebelow thebound levels. Imports
ofyellow maize inJanuary toJune1997 totalled 704,000 tonnes, 500,000 tonnes ofwhich entered
under the583,000 tonne tariff quota regime. Asregards sorghum, therepresentative noted thatthere
werenosignificant imports inthepastfiveyears despite theabsence ofquantitative restrictions. The
tariffquota forsorghum wasestablished inaccordance withVenezuela 'scommitment interms thetariff
quota volume. Importers ofyellow maize andsorghum wererequired toprovide information concerning
imports inthepreceding twoyears, estimates oftheproduction forthecurrent yearaswellasstatistics
onpurchases ofdomestic grains. Venezuela intended toapply thetariff quotas onatransitional basis
foraperiod of180daysasfromMarch 1997. Thereafter, atariff-only regime would beapplied for
these products, withthetariffs respecting thebound levels. Asregards milkanddairy products,
Venezuela didnotapply tariffquotas norimport licensing formilkandtherewasnointention tomake
imports conditional ondomestic purchases.G/AG/R/11
Page7
(g) UnitedStates:ClarificationoftheDominicanRepublic'simportpoliciesforagriculturalproducts
26. TheUnited States sought clarification: (i)astowhether theDominican Republic continued
torequire phytosanitary permits forimports ofmostagricultural commodities, issuance ofwhich was
dependent ontheavailability ofdomestic product, (ii)astowhether imports ofporkandporkproducts
required theapproval oftheNational PorkCommission andwhether suchdiscretionary licences were
alsodependent ondomestic production, and(iii)astohowtheDominican Republic justified these
requirements, given itsobligations under Article 4oftheAgreement. Furthermore, theUnited States
sought clarification onthestatus oftherectified Schedule with respect toagriculture, the
Dominican Republic having submitted arectification proposal totheWTO inApril 1996. The
United States enquired whatstepstheDominican Republic wastaking toimplement itsUruguay Round
commitments, including those resulting from rectification.
27. Therepresentative oftheDominican Republic indicated herGovernment 'sintention toestablish
tariffs astheonlyborder measure. Tothatend,theGovernment wasintheprocess offinalizing a
decree thatwould abrogate allexisting non-tariff barriers. Atthesame time, thelegislature hadbeen
requested torepeal lawsestablishing non-tariff barriers. Asregards imports ofporkandporkproducts,
Decree No.216-94, according towhich import licences were required from theNational Pork
Commission, wasstillinforce butthisdecree wasamongst those which would berepealed under the
terms ofthedecree thatwascurrently being drawn up.Asregards thetechnical rectification ofthe
Schedule oftheDominican Republic, therepresentative expressed thehopethat,withoneproduct still
being subject tonegotiations, these would beconcluded inJuly1997andtherectified Schedule could
soonbedistributedtoMembers.TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesthankedtheDominicanRepublic
fortheefforts made bilaterally togivetheUnited States assurances thatthereforms wereunder way.
Hestated thathewasencouraged bythetime-frame putforward andlooked forward toafinalresolution
ofthismatter.
(h) UnitedStates:Ecuador'simportprohibitionandimpositionofdiscretionarylicensingforpoultry
andfruitimports
28. TheUnited States sought clarification fromEcuador astowhether Ecuador 'simport prohibition
andimposition ofdiscretionary licensing forpoultry andfruitimports werestillinplace andastohow
Ecuador justified these measures, given itsobligations under Article 4oftheAgreement.
29. Withrespect topoultry meat, therepresentative ofEcuador stated thatsinceEcuador 'saccession
totheWTO therewasnodecree, regulation orlawinforcewhich allowed theGovernment toimplement
measures ofadiscretionary nature inviolation ofArticle 4oftheAgreement. Poultry meatimports
weresubject totheCommon External Tariff oftheAndean Group andtheAndean pricebandsystem.
Asregards thesanitary regime forpoultry meat, aregulation fortheimportation fromthirdcountries
ofpoultry meatanditsproducts wasinforce forthepurpose ofprotecting public andanimal health,
published asMinisterial Agreement No.181intheOfficial Gazette No.963on10June1996. This
regulation contained criteria conforming withinternational sanitary andphytosanitary standards aswell
astherulesoftheSPSAgreement. Thesanitary requirements forintra-regional tradeaswellasimports
fromthirdcountries weregoverned bydecisions taken bytheAndean Group, i.e.Decisions 347and
449oftheCommission oftheCartagena Agreement ofFebruary 1994andFebruary 1997, respectively.
Anytemporary restrictions applied inthepasttopoultry meatimports fromtheUnited States hadbeen
implemented inaccordance withtheinternational sanitary standards andtheSPSAgreement.
30. Withrespect tofruit, imports weresubject totheAndean Common External Tariff andsanitary
regulations. Thesanitary regulations forfruitimports were modified toharmonize them withthe
applicable international standards andtoavoid tradebarriers ofadiscretionary nature. Furthermore,
fruitimports weresubject tomeasures harmonized attheAndean levelandestablished byDecisions 431G/AG/R/11
Page8
and451oftheCommission oftheCartagena Agreement ofDecember 1996 andFebruary 1997,
respectively. Anytemporary restrictions onfruitimports wereimposed inorder toprotect planthealth
andinaccordance withlegislation adopted bytheAndean Group andWTO rules. Intheview of
Ecuador, Article 4oftheAgreement onAgriculture wasnotinfringed.
31. Therepresentative oftheUnited States responded thatsome confusion stillremained, possibly
because ofthevarious levels oflegislation anddecision-making inEcuador andbecause theinformation
received from therepresentative ofEcuador contradicted information received bytheUnited States
from contacts inQuito. TheUnited States indicated thatitwould follow upthismatter inwriting.
(i) United States: Costa Rica'sfailure toestablish tariff quotas forpoultry anddairy
32. TheUnited States wasconcerned thatitwould continue tolosemarket access forpoultry and
dairyproductspendingCostaRica’simplementationofthesetariffquotas.TheUnitedStatesunderstood
thattheinjunction thathadbarred theimplementation ofthetariff quotas hadbeen lifted. The
United States therefore sought clarification astowhat steps Costa Ricahadtaken toimmediately
implement these tariff quotas.
33. Therepresentative ofCosta Ricaconfirmed thattheSupreme Court ofJustice ofCosta Rica
hadlifted theinjunction onestablishment ofthetariff quotas atissue. TheGovernment wasinthe
process offinalizing thelegalandadministrative procedures toimplement theglobal market access
commitmentsassumedbyCostaRica,takingintoaccountthespecificprocedureswhichwerestillpending
before Supreme Court.
(j) United States: Turkey 'sbanonimported cattle
34. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed concerns about Turkey ’sbanonimported
cattle andthepossibility thatitcould beextended indefinitely. TheUnited States hadraised thisissue
bilaterally andhoped thatitcould beresolved inatimely manner. Therepresentative ofTurkey took
noteofthestatement bytherepresentative oftheUnited States andundertook toprovide aresponse.
(k) Australia: Article 9:4oftheAgreement onAgriculture
35. TherepresentativeofAustraliastatedthatAustraliarecognizedthattheAgreementonAgriculture
provided therightfordeveloping countries nottotakecommitments withregard toArticle 9:1(d) and
(e)export subsidies. Australia would nonetheless encourage developing countries concerned toprovide
intheirnotifications, fortransparency purposes, further details onthenature andthelevel ofsuch
subsidies andinformation onwhen theywereintroduced. Therepresentative ofNewZealand supported
theviews expressed byAustralia andproposed thatdeveloping countries concerned consider including
informationintheirnotificationonthetotalvalueofexportsforpurposesofcomparisonwiththesubsidy.
36. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines expressed, onbehalf ofASEAN, disagreement withthe
statement made bytherepresentative ofAustralia. Theavailability ofmeasures under Article 9:1(d)
and(e)waspartofthebalanced package ofspecial anddifferential treatment accorded todeveloping
countries. Theproviso inArticle 9:4referred tocircumvention ofreduction commitments ofmeasures
identified inArticle 9:1(a), (b),(c)and(f)andwasunrelated towhatwascontained inAGST supporting
tables, schedules ornotifications.
37. Therepresentative ofAustralia clarified thatAustralia acknowledged therightofdeveloping
countries touseArticle 9:1(d) and(e)export subsidies anddrew nolinkwiththefinalclause of
Article 9:4.Australia wasmerely asking formore transparency since there appeared tobealackofG/AG/R/11
Page9
informationonsuchsubsidies.TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesnotedtheUnitedStates'continued
concern overthismatter.
(l) United States: Switzerland -export subsidies andwheat tariff quota
38. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesinformedtheCommitteethattheUnitedStateshadpursued
issues related toSwitzerland 'simplementation ofexport subsidy andmarket access commitments both
atthebilateral andplurilateral levels. TheSwiss responses totheconcerns raised hadnotreassured
theUnited States. Theissues involved were Swiss beefexports andthequestion ofrelated export
subsidies aswellasinternal policy changes introduced inMay 1997 which, intheview ofthe
United States, would affect theimplementation oftheSwiss tariff quota forwheat. Thelatter issue
involved thepolicy ofdomestic purchasing requirements which theUnited States considered tobe
inconsistent withWTO rules.
39. Therepresentative ofHungary supported theconcerns expressed bytheUnited States regarding
theSwiss cereal import regime. Therecent policy change might addtotheimport-restrictive effect
ofthedomestic absorption requirement, theWTO consistency ofwhich inHungary 'sviewwashighly
doubtful. Therepresentative ofArgentina endorsed theviews bytheUnited States andindicated that
theissueofbeefsubsidies wasseriously examined andArgentina would revert toit.Therepresentative
ofCanada noted thatCanada wasseriously concerned thattheSwiss cereal policy hadthepotential
fornullification andimpairment ofitsmarket access concession forwheat andexpressed thehopethat
Canada 'sconcerns would betransmitted tothehighest leveloftheSwiss authorities. Therepresentative
ofAustralia urged Switzerland toensure thattheproblem withregard tobeefexports would notbe
repeated inthefuture andexpressed concerns thattherecent policy changes would reduce market access
ofwheat.TherepresentativeofNewZealandexpressedconcernsthatbothissueshighlightedanapparent
inability bySwitzerland toimplement basic Uruguay Round commitments since Switzerland appeared
tobeunable toresolve theproblems satisfactorily. Healsonoted thathewould hopethattheseconcerns
would betransmitted toahighleveloftheSwiss Government. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland
tooknoteofthestatements butrejected categorically theviewthatSwitzerland might notbeinaposition
torespect itsWTO commitments. Inanyevent, Switzerland wasatthedisposal ofMembers forfurther
consultations ifsodesired.
Other Matters Relating totheReview Process
40. Withregard tothequestion ofoverdue notifications, theCommittee tooknotethat,asrequested
attheMarch 1997meeting, theSecretariat hadmade available aRoom Document showing compliance
withthenotification obligations oftheCommittee onAgriculture.
41. Therepresentative ofNewZealand expressed concern regarding thelarge number oflate
notifications,particularlythoseofimportantMembers.IntheviewoftherepresentativeofNewZealand,
thedeadlines forsubmitting notifications should berespected soastoensure thetimely assessment
ofnotifications.
42. Therepresentative ofArgentina stated, withrespect totheimplementation ofArticle 10:2of
theAgreement onAgriculture, thatwhile thework undertaken sofarwithin theOECD regarding an
understanding onagricultural export credits wasconstructive andtimely, itsoutcome remained highly
uncertain intheabsence ofreasonable compromise. Therepresentative ofArgentina stressed thatthe
lackofagricultural export credit disciplines affected thebalance ofrights andobligations obtained in
theUruguay Round inthat:(i)intheabsence ofexport credits disciplines lowbudget orresource-poor
countries would continue tobearthecostofmatching subsidized credit conditions prevailing inthe
international market; (ii)lackoftimely compliance withArticle 10:2would, inpractice, represent
abreach ofWTO disciplines andanimpairment ofMembers rights andobligations; and(iii)theabsenceG/AG/R/11
Page10
ofexport credit disciplines could directly impair theagriculture export subsidies anti-circumvention
provisions. Therepresentative ofArgentina stated thatArgentina would pursue itsefforts and
contribution totheOECD process which itregarded asthebestavailable option inreaching amutually
agreeable compromise onexport credits inthenearfuture, failing which, other options would need
tobeconsidered.
43. Therepresentatives oftheUnited States, NewZealand, Australia andCanada supported the
viewthatthenegotiations within theOECD werethebestoption available toimplement Article 10:2
oftheAgreement onAgriculture andstated theircommitment toparticipate intheprocess withthe
aimofrapidly reaching amutually acceptable solution onexport credits.
PartII:Other Matters within thePurview oftheCommittee
Chairman 'sreport ontheprocess ofanalysis andinformation exchange (AIE process)
44. TheCommittee tooknoteofthefollowing report bytheChairman ontheprocess ofanalysis
andinformation exchange (G/AG/R/10, paragraph 36):
"(a) TheCommittee 'sdecision onthefollow-up totheSingapore Ministerial Declaration
regarding theprocess ofanalysis andinformation exchange (nowreferred toasamatter ofconvenience
asthe"AIE Process") provides that"fortransparency purposes anitemrelating totheprocess would
beincluded ontheagenda ofregular meetings oftheCommittee toenable theChairperson tomake
afactual andsummary report totheCommittee ontheprocess."
(b) Inthislight, thefirstsession oftheAIEprocess washeldataninformal open-ended
meeting oftheCommittee on27May1997. Theprincipal matters discussed related tothedetailed
arrangements forcarrying outtheAIEprocess. Insummary thefollowing arrangements wereagreed:
- thatinthecurrent yearinformal meetings oftheCommittee forcarrying outtheAIE
process would beheldback-to-back withtheregular meetings oftheCommittee on
Agriculture inJune, September andNovember, withthepossibility, ifnecessary, of
holding additional meetings intheinterval between regular meetings;
- thatinorder forinformal papers tobeconsidered atasession oftheAIEprocess they
would havetobecirculated bytheSecretariat toallMembers oftheCommittee atleast
threeweekspriortothesessionconcerned.Informalpaperswouldbecirculatedinitially
intheiroriginal language andassoonaspracticable thereafter intheother working
languages.Informalpaperscirculatedafterthethreeweeksdeadlinecouldbethesubject
ofageneral presentation atthenextmeeting butwould notassuchbeforsubstantive
consideration atthatmeeting, unless otherwise agreed onacase-by-case basis;
- thatinformal papers would generally betaken upindividually intheAIEprocess in
theorder inwhich theyhavebeencirculated (each informal paper would benumbered
andidentified bycode: e.g.AIE/1). Arrangements would bemade bytheChairman,
asappropriate, forjointconsideration ofinformal papers dealing withthesame ora
related topic.
(c) Finally, asregards thefirstsession oftheAIEprocess, aninformal paper ontariff
quota administration waspresented byAustralia andwasthesubject ofapreliminary exchange ofviews.
Equally, twopapers oftheUnited States werepresented butnotyetsubject ofapreliminary exchange
ofviews.G/AG/R/11
Page11
(d) ThesecondsessionoftheAIEprocesswasheldataninformalmeetingoftheCommittee
on25and26June1997. Informal papers onthefollowing topics were considered:
AIE/1: byAustralia onAdministration ofTariff Quotas
AIE/2: bytheUnited States onCircumvention ofExport Subsidy Commitments
AIE/3: bytheUnited States onDataSupplied Through Notifications
AIE/4: byAustralia on"Green Box" Domestic Support
(e) Thediscussion proved fruitful andthere wasgeneral agreement tofollow upthe
discussions inallrelevant areas. Withregard tothefurther discussions ontheadministration oftariff
quotas, theinitial analysis willfocus on:(i)purpose ofthetariffquota; (ii)themethods ofallocation
oftariff quotas; (iii)access toimport licences; (iv)validity andtiming oflicence periods; (v)sub-
allocation ofbroadly-defined tariff quotas tospecific products and(vi)administrative barriers. This
selection ofitems would beusedtofocus discussions, butwould notlimitreference toother items.
Thefocus offollowing meetings would beleftforfurther consideration, butontheunderstanding that
other items would becovered atfuture AIEmeetings.
(f) Inaddition, theSecretariat wasrequested toprepare factual background papers based
oninformation provided byMembers innotifications onthefollowing subjects toassist thefurther
work intheAIEprocess: (i)tariff quotas andimports within tariff quotas; (ii)areport onthe
availability ofinformation concerning advalorem equivalents ofspecific duties; (iii)summary tables
concerning domestic support andexport subsidy commitments andamounts notified inrespect ofthose
commitments; and(iv)alisting ofgreen boxmeasures bycategory asnotified byMembers."
Follow uptoParagraph 18(i)oftheCommittee 'sReport fortheSingapore Ministerial Conference on
theMarrakesh Ministerial NetFood-Importing Developing Countries Decision
45. TheChairman noted thatthisitemwaslimited tothefollow-up oftherecommendation in
paragraph 18(i)oftheCommittee 'sReport totheSingapore Ministerial Conference because ithadbeen
considered atrecent meetings oftheFood AidCommittee inLondon. TheExecutive Director ofthe
International Grains Council (IGC) wasinvited, inlightoftherenegotiation oftheFoodAidConvention,
toreport onrecent andplanned activities bytheFood AidCommittee inrelation totheDecision of
theWTO Singapore Ministerial Conference concerning thequestion ofNetFood-Importing Developing
Countries. Thefullstatement oftheExecutive Director oftheIGChasbeencirculated indocument
G/AG/GEN/2.
46. The representative ofPeru, along with therepresentatives ofPakistan andthe
European Communities noted theimportance ofpursuing thedialogue between recipients anddonors
started bytheFood AidCommittee inLondon asanecessary steptowards establishing aleveloffood
aidcommitments andconcessionality guidelines inaccordance withtherecommendation asagreed by
theMinisterial Conference inSingapore. Boththerepresentatives ofPeruandPakistan expressed the
wishthatinthefuture renegotiation ofthecurrent Food AidConvention, specific consideration be
given totheproblems faced byNetFood-Importing Developing Countries andmutually acceptable
ways andmeans befound toaddress these problems. Asrequested bytherepresentatives ofPeru,
Pakistan andtheEuropean Communities, itwasagreed thatregular updates relating tothefollow up
toparagraph 18(i) oftheCommittee 'sReport fortheSingapore Ministerial Conference onthe
NetFood-ImportingDevelopingCountriesDecisionwouldbeincludedontheagendaoftheCommittee's
meetings asappropriate.
47. TherepresentativeofArgentinastressedthatdiscussionsintheCommitteeonAgriculturerelating
tofoodaidshould beconducted within theframework oftheprovisions oftheNetFood-Importing
Developing Countries Decision, asreferenced inArticle 16oftheAgreement onAgriculture.G/AG/R/11
Page12
48. Therepresentative oftheFAOstated thattheFAOhadprepared apaper withpreliminary ideas
onpossible improvements oftheFood AidConvention. TheFAOproposals aimed at:(i)broadening
thecommodity baseandthedonor baseoftheFood AidConvention withaview ofincreasing the
overall volume offoodaid;and(ii)improving theflexibility intheprovision anduseoffoodaid
soastobetter respond tothevariable needs. Therepresentative oftheFAOstressed thattheproposals
were ofapreliminary nature andthattheFAO, incollaboration withallagencies concerned, was
prepared tofurther elaborate onthem. TheFAO paper, aswellasapaper submitted bytheWorld
Food Programme (WFP) totherecent meeting oftheFood AidCommittee inLondon, havebeen
circulated indocuments G/AG/GEN/3 and4,respectively.
Requests forObserver Status byInternational Intergovernmental Organizations
49. TheCommittee tooknotethattheChairman hadinitiated informal consultations, asagreed
attheMarch meeting oftheCommittee, onoutstanding requests forobserver status bytheACP
Secretariat, theInter-American Development Bank (G/AG/W/29 refers) andIICA. TheChairman
informed theCommittee thatfurther consultations would beheldasappropriate.
Other Business
50. Noitems ofother business were raised under ItemDofPartIIoftheagenda.
DateofNext Meeting
51. ThenextregularmeetingoftheCommitteeonAgriculturewillbeheldon25-26September1997.
The airgram convening this meeting and the draft agenda will beissued on
Wednesday, 10September 1997.G/AG/R/11
Page13
ANNEX
Review ofNotifications bytheCommittee onAgriculture atitsMeeting on26-27 June 1997
Summary ofSpecific Points Raised andResponses Thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/6 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Switzerland -Noted thattariff quotas for
"broiler hatching eggs andchicks" are
allocated tofederally registered hatcheries
onthebasis ofthenumber ofchicks
hatched. Who iseligible toregister? How
many hatcheries arerecorded bytheExport
andImport Controls Bureau (EICB)? What
does "number ofchicks hatched" mean in
thecontext ofquota allocation toimporters?
Arethere anyconditions forissuance ofthe
import permit?Inorder tooperate, ahatchery must obtain apermit from
theCanadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Tobe
eligible foraproduction permit, afacility must beableto
incubate 1,000 eggs ormore atthesame timeandmeet
some additional criteria such asanimal health and
construction standards. 125federal facilities are
registered bytheCFIA and32allocation holders are
recorded bytheEICB. Tariff quotas areallocated to
federally registered hatcheries only, andonthebasis of
their market shares. Market shares arecalculated
according totheweekly Report onChicken Hatchery
Operations which isprepared forAgriculture andAgri-
Food Canada. Anyresident ofCanada whoholds an
import allocation forthegoods iseligible fortheimport
permit. Such resident must filloutanapplication form
andpayafeeforeach import permit. Anindividual
import permit isrequired foreach shipment.
Switzerland -Thenotification indicates that
thetariff quotas for"chicken live, meat and
products" isbeing increasingly allocated to
importers onthebasis oftheir "current
industry roles" andfurther processors
receive tariff quota shares onthebasis of
their "import-competing production" of
domestic products. What does "industry
roles" mean? What does "import-
competing production" mean? What isthe
difference between processors andfurther
processors?Inorder toimprove quota access tonewentrants, anew
method ofallocation wasintroduced on1January 1996
andwillbephased inoverfouryears. Beginning 1999,
tariff quotas willbeallocated inpriority tothree groups:
(i)historical importers which include firms importing
chicken before theintroduction ofimport controls in
1979 totheextent oftheir initial allocation;
(ii)processors ofchicken products thatarenotonthe
import control list,totheextent oftheir need forinputs
andmembers ofthefood-service sector; (iii)the
remainder ofthetariff quota isdivided between chicken
processors (onthebasis oftheir market share or
minimum equal share) andchicken distributors (onthe
basis ofequal shares), respectively 70percentand
30percent. Theconcept of"import-competing
production" refers todomestic production ofchicken
products thatarenotontheimport control list. A
processor carries outactivities such asslaughtering of
chickens, cutting upandboning. Further processors are
involved inthemanufacture ofproducts such aspatties,
nuggets, fingers, rolls androasts.G/AG/R/11
Page14
ElSalvador G/AG/N/SLV/1 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members at
theMarch 1997 meetingResponse byNotifying Member
New Zealand/United States/Australia -
CanElSalvador confirm thatthe
applied tariff rates forimports of
products listed inSection I-Bofits
Schedule areequal to,orlower than,
thebound in-quota tariffs? Confirmation
requested thatimports ofthese products
arenotsubject toanylimitation in
terms ofvolume.ElSalvador hasnotopened tariff quotas. Imports aresubject
tobetter conditions thanthose included inElSalvador 's
Schedule.
Thetariffs applied toimports ofoil-seeds were asfollows:
Tariff item
numberDescription Applied
tariff
rate
%
1201.00.10
1202
1202.10
1202.10.10
1202.20
1202.20.10
1204.00.00
1205
1205.00.10
1206.00.00
1207
1207.10
1207.10.10
1207.20
1207.20.10
1207.30.00
1207.40.00
1207.50.00
1207.60.00
1207.9
1207.91.00
1207.92.00Soya beans, whether ornotbroken, forsowing
Ground-nuts, notroasted orotherwise cooked,
whether ornotshelled orbroken
Inshell
Forsowing
Shelled, whether ornotbroken
Forsowing
Linseed, whether ornotbroken
Rape orcolza seeds, whether ornotbroken
Forsowing
Sunflower seeds, whether ornotbroken
Other oil-seeds andoleaginous fruits, whether or
notbroken
Palm nutsandkernels
Forsowing
Cotton seeds
Forsowing
Castor oil-seeds
Sesamum seeds
Mustard seeds
Safflower seeds
Other
Poppy seeds
Shea nuts(karite nuts)0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/3 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Noted thattheallocation ofimport
licences forrawcane sugar issubject tothe
condition thatapplicants undertake torefine the
quantity ofrawsugar before 1Julyfollowing the
dateofimport (page 14refers). Wasthis
requirement included inFinland 'sUruguay Round
commitments?
Arethere anyprovisions fornewentrants?Thisquota hasbeen transposed from Finland 's
Uruguay Round commitments totheEC'snew
Schedule according toArticle XXIV:6 ofthe
General Agreement.
There areprovisions fornewentrants.
Australia -Could theEuropean Communities
clarify theterm "thequota isallocated infunction
ofthevolume ofrequests" which appears under
item(b)(iii)formany products?Alltheimport licences willbeissued provided that
thetariff quota isnotover-subscribed. If
applications exceed tariff quota quantities, a
coefficient isapplied inorder tobring the
quantities down tothequantity made available.G/AG/R/11
Page15
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/3 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -What does theterm "drawings" mean
withreference totheallocation oflicences for
various horticultural products?Theconcept of"drawings" means thatthe
imported quantity iscounted against thetariff
quota. Forhorticultural products, importers submit
toamember State adeclaration ofentry forfree
circulation, including anapplication forthe
benefits ofthetariffs quotas. Ifthedeclaration
hasbeen accepted bythecustom authorities, the
member State hastonotify theCommission thatit
wishes todraw theamount applied foragainst the
tariff quota. Drawings aregranted bythe
Commission inorder ofthedateofacceptance of
declarations ofentry forfreecirculation bythe
member States 'authorities.
Argentina -Clarification sought regarding
imported products which areprocessed intheEC
andthenre-exported withhighvalue added. Are
these products counted against tariff quotas?Import quantities forfurther processing and
re-export arenotcredited against thetariff quota.
Australia -Foranumber ofproducts, theEC
requires thatlicence recipients must behistorical
importers. Isthere anyallowance fornew
entrants?There isanallowance fornewentrants. New
applicants must prove thattheyareengaged in
trade withthird countries.
Canada -Noted thatthenotification covers the
marketing year1995/96. Dothese import
arrangements apply alsoforthemarketing years
1996/97 and1997/98?Thenotification reflects changes following the
enlargement oftheECandcovers alsoproducts
forwhich tariff quotas have been opened in1996.
Canada -Why areimport licences fordurum
wheat valid forseven days only?
Argentina/New Zealand -Expressed concern
regarding theshort period ofvalidity ofanimport
licence andtheuncertainty foranimporter toget
access toatariff quota 'sshare.Importers have aperiod of45days from the
opening oftheprocedure forapplying fora
licence totheendofthevalidity period ofthe
import licence. Traders have 30days toapply for
animport licence inamember State. Within 8
days, applications arecommunicated tothe
Commission forallocation andthecompetent
authorities inthemember State issue thelicence.
Import licences arevalid for7days.
Tariff quotas were filled which means thattraders
canadapt tothemethod ofallocating tariff quotas.
Thismethod iscompatible withGATT rules and
avoids over-subscription ofthetariff quota.
Japan -Thenotification includes country
allocations which were notincorporated inEC's
Schedule forthefollowing products: rawcane
sugar forrefining, husked (brown) riceandsemi-
milled orwholly milled rice. How does theEC
justify country-specific allocations?Country allocations areinconformity with
Article XIIIofGATT 1994 even though theyare
notincluded inEC'sSchedule.
New Zealand -Does thetariff quota forbeef(page
19refers) relate toNew Zealand 'scountry-specific
tariff quota allocation? Ifso,whyhastheECput
"none" under theitem"allocation ofquota to
supplying countries"?Following theenlargement oftheECtoFinland,
Austria andSweden, theECundertook toopen a
country-specific tariff quota forhighquality beef
of300tonnes reserved toimports from New
Zealand.G/AG/R/11
Page16
Hungary G/AG/N/HUN/8 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/Canada/Switzerland -Noted thatfor
many products thegranting ofanimport
permit issubject tothecondition that
importers submit anapplication foruptoa
limited quantity orpercentage ofthetariff
quota atanyonetime. Why didHungary
introduce thisrequirement? Why didHungary
reduce thequantity limit foranumber of
products in1996? Could Hungary provide
information onthenumber ofimporters
receiving import permits foreach tariff quota
category, aswellasthenumber oftimes that
animporter hasfully utilized itsquota andhas
requested further import permits?Thesizeoftheimport permits islimited inorder to
avoid themonopolization oftariff quotas byimporters
andthedisruption oftrade flows. Thechanges inthe
sizeofimport permits areaimed atimproving tariff
quota utilization bysetting them atalevel which
represents commercially meaningful quantities. In
1996, about 5,000 applications forimport permits have
been received forquotas administered onaprorata
basis. Inthecaseoftariff quotas administered ona
first-come/first-served basis, between 1,500 and2,000
applications have been received. Inbothcases the
quantities applied forwere allocated entirely.
Canada/New Zealand/Ecuador -Why are
in-quota imports ofrice, cheese andcurd
subject toareimbursable deposit? What are
theconditions forreimbursement?Thereimbursable deposit aims atforestalling market
manipulation. Deposits arereimbursed within ten
days after theimporter hasproven afillratesuperior
to80percent.
New Zealand -Why were tariff quotas for
milk andcream under-utilized? Does the
restriction onthesizeofthetariff quota shares
of40tonnes contribute tothe
under-utilization?
New Zealand considered thattheimportation
of40tonnes amonth totalling 480tonnes per
yearwasnoteconomically viable. Thematter
willbepursued bilaterally.Thelimitation onthesizeofimport permits aims at
ensuring wide andcontinuous access tothemarket and
atavoiding anti-competitive practices. Thelimits are
setatacommercially sound level wherever theabove-
mentioned objectives andtheactual sizeofthequotas
allow forit.Inthemajority ofcases where reductions
inthelimitation onapplications hadoccurred, thefill
rateincreased.
Thenotion ofeconomically viable quantities varies
strongly depending onthesize, geographical location
andtrade pattern ofimporters andexporters. Hungary
considers thatthese import limitations donotimpede
trade. Given thefactthateconomic operators arein
anywayrestricted inengaging inagricultural
activities, Hungary 'sauthorities have totakeaccount
oftheresulting highnumber ofimporters applying for
tariff quotas. Under-utilization isnotlinked tothe
method ofallocating tariff quotas. Fillrates are
usually influenced byawide range offactors such as
domestic consumption, domestic versus international
prices, other access opportunities atlower thanMFN
rates, differences between in-quota andMFN tariffs,
development ofrealincome, andchanges inconsumer
preferences.
Switzerland -Who isadministering tariff
quotas? Who isissuing import permits? What
isthevalidity ofimport permits? What
happened totariff quotas allocated butnot
used? Arethere country-specific allocations?TheMinistry ofIndustry, Trade andTourism isin
charge oftheadministration oftariff quotas andissues
import permits. Tariff quotas areadministered intwo
equal parts forthefirstandthesecond halves ofthe
year. Imports permits arevalid until 30June and
31December respectively. Allocated, butunused,
quotas cannot becarried over. Hungary does not
apply country-specific allocations.G/AG/R/11
Page17
Hungary G/AG/N/HUN/8 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Brazil -Clarification sought withregard to
tomatoes, onions andlettuces. Canan
importer whohasfully utilized itsquota
allocation apply foranother import permit?Animporter whohasfully utilized itsquota allocation
might apply, provided thattariff quotas areavailable.
Brazil -Could Hungary provide more
information onthetypeofimporters of
poultry, bovine animals andswine (pages 2
and3refer)?Hungary didnotinanywayrestrict economic
operators from engaging inagricultural import
activities. Neither import monopolies norstate trading
enterprises areinplace.
United States G/AG/N/USA/2/Add.1 and2Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Colombia -Clarification sought regarding the
rawsugar cane tariff quota.
Could theUnited States indicate thestatus of
thenewregulation referred toindocument
G/AG/N/USA/2/Add.1 (page 2refers)?
What arethecriteria forincreasing thetariff
quota bound intheSchedule?
How many times andwhen didtheUnited
States modify thebound tariff quota?
What isthelevel oftariff quota opened forthe
fiscal year1997?Thenewregulation allows theUSDA todetermine
when thetariff quota should beincreased ordecreased.
Thedecision ismade onthebasis of"stocks-to-use-
ratio" andisimplemented bytheOffice oftheUnited
States Trade Representative asfollows: ifthestocks-to-
useratio isgreater than15½ percent, thetariff quota
willbeincreased. Iftheratio islessthanorequal to
15½ percentnoadditional allocation willoccur. The
Secretary ofAgriculture isauthorized toincrease the
in-quota quantity above theminimum access
requirement when more sugar isneeded tomeet United
States domestic needs. Thetariff quota forthefiscal
year1996 wasincreased fourtimes andwasmodified
once in1997. Thetariff quota quantity opened forthe
fiscal year1997 amounted to2,100,000 tonnes. Under
thenewregulation themaximum quantity could have
been 2,300,000 tonnes.
What tariff lineinforce prior to1July1995
corresponds tothetariff quota bound inthe
United States 'Schedule under thetariff line
HS1701.11.10?Thetariff lineinforce prior to1July1995 was
HS1701.11.01.
What isthereference period used toallocate
country-specific tariff quotas referred toin
document G/AG/N/USA/2/Add.2 (page 3
refers)? How didtheUnited States calculate
thespecific quotas allocated toBarbados,
Congo, Gabon andHaiti inthe1995, 1996
and1997 fiscal years?Country-specific quotas were allocated onthebasis of
theperiod 1975-1981. They correspond tothefiscal
year1996 which began on1October 1995. Infiscal
years 1995, 1996 and1997, 7,258 tonnes were
allocated toCongo, Gabon andHaiti onthebasis of
historical imports. Infiscal years 1995, 1996 and1997
Barbados wasallocated ashare based onthequantity
supplied during therepresentative period 1975 to1981.
Could theUnited States provide import data
forrawsugar bycountry oforigin during the
years 1991-1996 bothoncalendar andfiscal
basis?Undertook toprovide data.G/AG/R/11
Page18
United States G/AG/N/USA/2/Add.1 and2Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Thenotification reports in-quota imports of
2,005,819 tonnes whereas thetariff quota
commitment isestablished at
1,117,195 tonnes. What wasthetariff
applied toout-quota imports?Thein-quota tariff wasapplied toout-quota imports.
Further clarification sought regarding theuse
ofthebaseperiod 1975-1981 toallocate
country-specific tariff quotas. How dothe
United States claim thatthebaseperiod used
iscompatible withtheprovisions of
Article XIIIoftheGATT 1994?Article XIIIoftheGATT 1994 provides that"...the
contracting party concerned shall allottocontracting
parties having asubstantial interest insupplying the
products shares based upon theproportions, supplied
bysuch contracting parties during aprevious
representative period...". During theperiod 1975 to
1981, theUnited States didnotimpose anyrestrictions
onsugar imports andtherefore theperiod used isfully
inconformity withtheprovisions ofArticle XIIIofthe
GATT 1994.G/AG/R/11
Page19
Table MA:2 Notifications
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/14 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/Argentina -Dothenotified import levels
include trade under NAFTA?
Colombia -How does preferential trade operate?According toCanada 'sSchedule, in-quota imports
include imports from allcountries except inthe
caseofbeefandveal, where Canada does not
count imports from theUnited States andMexico.
Thecount ofimports within atariff quota is
consistent withthecount ofimports used to
calculate thesizeofthetariff quota.
Canada hasacommitment initsSchedule notto
count imports from NAFTA partners.
European Communities -DidCanada useitsright
tosub-allocate theglobal tariff quota foreggs and
eggproducts? Ifso,howdidCanada divide the
global quota?In1996 theoverall tariff quota foreggs andegg
products, established at14.5 millions dozen eggs,
wassub-allocated asfollows: 7.1million dozen
shell eggs; 1,774 tonnes offrozen, liquid and
further processed eggs; 409tonnes ofpowdered
eggs. DuetothefactthatWTO commitments are
larger thantheamount established bilaterally under
theCanada-United States Free Trade Agreement, a
residual quantity of1.6million dozen eggs was
allocated tonestruneggs imported forbreaking
purposes in1996.
New Zealand -What were theproducts imported
under "other products ofmilk constituents"? Why
wasthetariff quota notfilled?Milk protein concentrate isthemain product
imported under thetariff quota. Blends ofnatural
milk constituents such ascasein/whey protein
blends arealsoincluded. Under-utilization ofthe
tariff quota isduetotheexchange rateand
competitive domestic prices. Allapplications for
import permits were approved.
New Zealand -What were theproducts imported
under "other dairy"? How didCanada administer
imports outside thetariff quota?Soya andwhey blends, cultured wheat dough and
soya flour-milk blends areincluded within this
tariff quota. Additional import permits were
issued tomeet Canadian market needs under the
supplementary import policy, andwere subject to
thein-quota rateofduty.
New Zealand -Clarification sought withregard to
footnote 1which indicates thatthefigures notified
maydiffer from Statistics Canada (page 7refers).Export andImport Controls Bureau (EICB) figures
maydiffer from Statistics Canada since imports
have tobeconverted intotheunitofthetariff
quota, forsome tariff quotas which are
administered onabasis other thanbyproduct
weight.
European Communities/Argentina -What arethe
rates ofdutyapplied toin-quota imports?Thetariffs applied onin-quota imports mayvary
depending ontheorigin oftheproduct imported
andthetrade arrangements. Theapplied tariffs
forimports within tariff quota mayvary, for
instance, under theterms oftheCanada-United
States Free Trade Agreement orother preferential
arrangements, e.g.forAustralia andNew
Zealand.G/AG/R/11
Page20
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/14 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Considered thatimports under
preferential trade should notbecounted against in-
quota imports. Suggested thatthismatter should
betaken upintheAnalysis andInformation
Exchange forum.Note taken oftheconcern expressed.
European Communities -Could Canada provide
details ofthetariff treatment applied inwriting?Willprovide theanswer inwriting.
Czech Republic G/AG/N/CZE/8 andCorr.1 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Dothenotified import levels include
preferential trade?Preferential trade withtheECisincluded inthe
volume ofimports notified formilk powder
(300 tonnes), butter (320 tonnes) andpotatoes
(15,000 tonnes). Inaddition, 400tonnes of
poultry have been allocated totheUnited States as
aresult ofabilateral dealconcluded during the
Uruguay Round.
Australia -Incases where in-quota imports
correspond exactly tothecommitment levels,
could theCzech Republic indicate thelevel oftotal
imports?In1996 theCzech Republic imported
54,378 tonnes ofpotatoes; 1,702 tonnes of
sunflower seed; 34,436 tonnes ofglucose and
glucose syrup; 5,111 tonnes ofpasta; 10,004
tonnes oficecream and3,719 tonnes ofdextrine.
Thetariffs applied toout-quota imports were as
follows: potatoes: 144%;sunflower seed:
45.6 %;glucose andglucose syrup: 98.1 %;
pasta: between 24.7 %and26.7 %;icecream:
34.6 %;dextrine: within arange of60to100%
depending onthetariff position.
Canada/New Zealand/United States -Why were a
number oftariff quotas notfilled?TheCzech Republic does notapply anymeasures
which might constitute trade barriers against in-
quota imports. Reasons forunder-filling are
related tomarket conditions. Inaddition, tariff
quota quantities were setonthe1992-1993 base
period inwhich imports were high.G/AG/R/11
Page21
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/4 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Could theECprovide thelevel of
imports foreach product under theglobal tariff
quota forsheepmeat?TheECwillbeabletoprovide more detailed
information for1996.
Australia -Why were tariff quotas forbeefand
sheepmeat under-utilized?Oneofthereasons forunder-utilization ofthe
tariff quota forbeefisduetotheBSEcrisis which
ledtoageneral decline ofthedemand forimports.
Asregards sheepmeat, oneofthereasons for
under-utilization oftariff quotas wasthereduction
ofstock levels insome ofthesupplying countries.
Canada -Could theECprovide information
concerning thedistribution ofimports amongst
supplying countries?TheECconsiders thatithasmetthenotification
requirement. Providing import figures bycountry
oforigin would beanadditional requirement.
Canada -Why were thetariff quotas forthe
following products notfilled: loins, cutsand
bellies ofdomestic swine; boneless pork loins and
hams (page 10refers)?Under-utilization ofthese tariff quotas is
attributable tothelowmarket price intheEC
leading toalackofinterest forimports.
Canada/New Zealand -Thenotification is
indicated asprovisional forthemarketing year
1995/96 andthecalendar year1995. When will
theECsubmit afinal notification?Thenotification isnotlikely tobesubject to
modification. TheECwillconfirm thefigures
shortly.
Canada/New Zealand -Noted thattariff quota fills
have notbeen notified for27products. When will
theECnotify quota fillfortheremaining
products?Inthecontext ofArticle XXIV:6 ofGATT 1994
regarding theaccession ofAustria, Finland and
Sweden, theECopened uptariff quotas initsnew
Schedule CXL-European Communities which took
effect on1January 1996. Quota fillswillbe
provided inthenextnotification.
Canada -Clarification sought ontheutilization of
import licences. How does theECcollect
information from member States? How isthis
information made available toexporters?Members States report totheCommission the
quantities oflicences thathave been used.
Japan -Why were thetariff quotas forthe
following products notfilled: sweet potatoes,
manioc starch, bran, sharps andother residues?Thereason forunder-utilization ofthesweet
potato tariff quota wasthelackofdemand for
imports. Asregards manioc starch, theprovisions
intheSchedule relating totheend-use ofthe
product hasbeen removed andtheEChasreduced
in-quota tariffs from April 1996. Imports ofbran,
sharps andother residues areincompetition with
certain animal feeds available within theECand
other imports from third countries
Japan -Clarification sought regarding footnote 1,
which provides details onthecalculation ofthe
tariff quota forbovine meat forthemarketing year
1995/96 (pages 2and4refer). How does theEC
justify thiscalculation? How does theECjustify
thecarry-over ofapartofthetariff quota tothe
following year?Undertook toprovide aresponse.G/AG/R/11
Page22
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/4 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Clarification sought onthe
methodology used tocalculate tariff quotas
implemented onamarketing yearbasis. Why are
thecommitments from Schedule LXXX-European
Communities referenced asapplying forthefull
calendar year1995, whereas theEChas
implemented itscommitments asfrom
1July1995?Tariff quotas fortheperiod July1995 to
June 1996 have been established byadding uphalf
ofthevolumes listed ineach ofthetwoSchedules.
Australia -Could theECprovide dataonthe
proportion ofsugar imports which relate tothe
newaccess resulting oftheenlargement oftheEC?Undertook toprovide aresponse.
Brazil -Why were tariff quotas forsweet oranges
andother citrus fruits notfilled (page 4refers)?Undertook toprovide aresponse.
New Zealand -Why were anumber oftariff
quotas forbovine animals notfilled (pages 2and3
refer)?Undertook toprovide aresponse.
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/10/Add.1 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina -Why wasthetariff quota forstarches,
inulin andpreparation ofstarches notfilled?During thefiscal year1995, international prices
roseleading toadecrease indemand forimports.
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/9 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/New Zealand/United States -Why were
tariff quotas foranumber ofproducts notfilled?
Dotariff quota auctioning andcountry-specific
allocations contribute tolowquota fill?Tariff quotas forbeef, sheepmeat, eggs, butter and
cabbages were fully allocated atthe1996 quota
auction, whereas thequotas forswine meat,
poultry meat andbutter were partly allocated.
Quotas aretradeable andanyquota holder who
does notutilize hisquota share maysellit.No
tariff preferences apply tothein-quota tariff
except developing countries aregranted a10per
centtariff reduction ofthebound in-quota tariff
rate. In-quota imports have increased from 1995
to1996, inparticular forbeef, sheepmeat and
eggs. Themain reason forunder-utilization of
tariff quotas wasrelated tohighworld market
prices in1996. Thetariff quota forsheepmeat
wasnotfilled duetothescrapie.
Japan/New Zealand -Noted thattariff quota fill
hasnotyetbeen notified foranumber ofproducts.
When willNorway submit anotification?On1July1995 Norway reduced itstariffs tothe
final bound levels indicated initsSchedule. These
tariff levels equal thetariffs ofmany ofNorway 's
current access tariff quotas. There were no
specific steps taken toopen these tariff quotas
since itwasfeltthattheywould beofno
particular interest toimporters.G/AG/R/11
Page23
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/9 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Japan/New Zealand -Noted thatthere area
number ofinconsistencies between thegrouping of
products intheMA:2 notification andthegrouping
intheSchedule. Could Norway explain these
inconsistencies inparticular forbutter, meat of
sheep andgoats?Initial andfinal tariff quota quantities areincluded
inNorway 'sSchedule. Theannual increase is
equal toonesixth oftheaccess increase over the
period. Forexample, theinitial tariff quota for
sheepmeat ofzerotonsincreases to206tonnes in
2000. Theannual increase equals 34.5 tonnes and
therefore thetariff quota commitment amounted to
69tonnes in1996.
New Zealand -Incases where tariff quotas were
notopened because applied tariffs equal in-quota
tariffs, could Norway supply import data?Note taken oftherequest.
Poland G/AG/N/POL/9 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina -Why were tariff quotas forthe
following products notfilled: arrack, vermouth,
whiskies andcigars?Quota fillsforarrack andrumwere lower whereas
forgin,quota fillhasincreased. Itmayindicate a
change inthecustomers 'comportment.
Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/9 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Could Switzerland provide import data
forsheepmeat andbeefincluding highquality beef
under theglobal tariff quota "animals for
slaughter" (tariff quota 5inthenotification)?Thetariff quota commitment forbeefwas
established at2,000 tonnes, including 867tonnes
ofhighquality beef. Imports amounted to
5,903 tonnes, including 1,198 tonnes ofhigh
quality beef. Theaccess commitment for
sheepmeat wassetat4,500 tonnes andSwitzerland
imported 6,990 tonnes.
Australia -Could Switzerland provide import data
foreach product under theglobal tariff quota
"dairy products" (tariff quota 7inthe
notification)?Nosub-allocations arespecified inSwitzerland 's
Schedule. In-quota import shares expressed asa
percentage oftheglobal tariff quota were as
follows: milk: 4.3;dried whole milk: 7.5;butter:
17.6; cheese: 65.2; others: 5.4.
Tunisia G/AG/N/TUN/9 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina -Why were anumber oftariff quotas
notfilled?Low in-quota imports referred toincolumn 4are
duetoseveral reasons. Tunisia implemented its
tariff quota commitments asfrom July1996 and,
therefore, in-quotas imports cover onlyafive-
month period. Other reasons have ledtoalackof
demand forimports, including agood wheat
harvest, anincrease indomestic production in
particular formilk powder, butter andmeat, and
highworld prices foralmonds.G/AG/R/11
Page24
United States G/AG/N/USA/9 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/European Communities -Why were
tariff quotas foranumber ofproducts under-
utilized? Doimports under NAFTA influence
trade outside NAFTA?Most ofthequotas withlowfillareadministered
onafirst-come/first-served basis. Under-
utilization oftariff quotas isrelated tomarket
conditions. With regard tolowfatchocolate
crumb, thetariff quota isnotfilled duetothelack
ofdemand forimports. NAFTA imports have no
greater impact onnon-NAFTA trade fortariff
quotas thantheydofornon-NAFTA trade inother
products.
Australia -Clarification sought ontheterm "filled"
which appears incolumn 4foranumber of
products. Does thismean thatimports equal the
access commitments?Imports ofpeanuts (during theperiod 1April 1995
to31March 1996) andofmixtures ofsugar
(during theperiod 1October 1995 to
30September 1996) equal tariff quota allocations.
Canada -Concern raised about theutilization of
thetariff quota for"evaporated/condensed milk"
and"dairy mixtures". Isthere anypossibility of
re-allocating unused country allocations within a
quota year?These tariff quotas areadministered onafirst-
come/first-served basis. There isnoexisting
regulation thatprovides forre-allocation of
unfilled quantities. With regard to
"evaporated/condensed milk", tariff quota
quantities allocated toCanada andavailable to
"any country" were notfilled.
Canada/European Communities -Could theUnited
States explain whythetariff quota quantity notified
for"dried whey/buttermilk" (page 2refers) does
notreflect thecommitment?Thenotification contains anerror. Acorrigendum
willbeforthcoming.
Canada -Noted thatthetariff quotas formixtures
ofsugar andblended syrups referred toinpage 9
were under-filled byMexico in1995 and1996. Is
there anypossibility ofre-allocating Mexico 's
unused allocations within aquota yeartom.f.n.
quotas?These tariff quotas areadministered onafirst-
come/first-served basis. There isnoexisting
regulation thatprovides forre-allocation of
unfilled quantities.
New Zealand -Explanation sought regarding the
lowquota fillforthenon-cheese dairy quotas
which arenotsubject toimport licensing.Thereason forunder-fill could beattributed to
market conditions.
European Communities -Clarification sought
regarding thetariff quota forCheddar referred to
incolumn 3(page 3refers). Why isthequota
share allocated toCanada notincluded?Thenotification contains anerror. Acorrigendum
willbeforthcoming.G/AG/R/11
Page25
United States G/AG/N/USA/9 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Why hastariff quota fill
forolives notyetbeen notified?
TheEuropean Communities supported byNew
Zealand andAustralia, considered thatthetariff
quota forolives waspartoftheUnited States '
Schedule andthatanotification hadtobemade.Tariff quotas forolives andsatsumas were not
established asaresult ofthetariffication anddo
notrepresent either minimum access orcurrent
access commitments. Forinformation, theUnited
States hadimported 2,232 tonnes ofolives
representing arateoffillof27percent. Thein-
quota tariff equalled 3percentwhereas theout-
quota tariff was7percent. Thetariff quota for
satsuma wasfilled. Both tariff quotas were
administered onafirst-come/first-served basis.
Anotification willbeforthcoming
Venezuela G/AG/N/VEN/3 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina -Why were tariff quotas formany
products notfilled ?During thefiscal year1995 Venezuela didnot
open tariff quotas. Atariff-only regime was
applied.G/AG/R/11
Page26
Tables MA:3 toMA:5 Notifications
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/18 Volume-based Special Safeguard (Table MA:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Clarification sought onwhether thetariff
quota forevaporated milk wasfilled before the
SSGwasinvoked.
Canada/Argentina -Clarification sought regarding
thecalculation ofthetrigger level. Why didJapan
use105percenttocalculate thetrigger level?Before theSSGwasinvoked (endofFebruary
1997), in-quota imports amounted to340tonnes.
Inaccordance withArticle 5.2oftheAgreement
onAgriculture, noadditional dutywasimposed on
in-quota imports even after theinvocation ofthe
SSG.
Theaverage quantity ofevaporated milk imports
overthethree preceding years was171tonnes,
while theaverage consumption during the
corresponding period was2,013 tonnes. Since
imports asashare ofconsumption waslessthan
10percent, thebasetrigger level equalled 125
percent. Thetrigger volume equals zerowhich
corresponds tothesumofthebasetrigger level
(125%) multiplied bytheaverage quantity of
imports overthethree preceding years (171
tonnes) andtheabsolute volume change in
domestic consumption inthemost recent year
(1,801 tonnes in1995) compared tothepreceding
year(2,019 tonnes in1994). However Article 5.4
stipulates thatthetrigger level shall notbeless
than105percentoftheaverage quantity of
imports andJapan therefore setthetrigger level at
180tonnes which represents 105percentof171
tonnes.
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/19 UseoftheSpecial Safeguard (Table MA:5)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Reiterated itsconcerns withregard
tothewayinwhich Japan wasimplementing the
special safeguard mechanism (SSG). Firstly,
Japan invoked theSSGwhere tariff quotas hadnot
been filled. Why didJapan import above thetariff
quota even though there arestillquantities
available within thetariff quota? Thesecond point
related totheapplication oftheSSGforeach tariff
linewhen tariff quota commitments apply toa
basket ofproducts. New Zealand considered that
allimports within thetariff quota have tobetaken
intoaccount.Paragraph 2ofArticle 5oftheAgreement on
Agriculture stipulates thatimports under current
andminimum access commitments shall be
counted forthepurpose ofdetermining thevolume
ofimports required toinvoke theSSG. However,
in-quota imports shall notbeaffected byadditional
duties. AsArticle 5oftheAgreement on
Agriculture does notprovide anyprovisions
regarding theSSGinvocation unit, Japan
considered thattheSSGmaybeinvoked foreach
tariff linecovered byatariff quota commitment.G/AG/R/11
Page27
Table DS:1 Notifications
Chile G/AG/N/CHL/6 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Information requested
regarding the"promotion programme
(PROFO)" referred toinSupporting
Table DS:1 (page 3refers).Theprogramme isintended topromote associations of
enterprises inorder toadopt efficient managerial and
marketing techniques, aswellasup-to-date technology. Tobe
eligible, atleast fivesmall andmedium sizeenterprises with
annual sales offrom US$75,000 uptoUS$3,100,000, have to
bebrought together. Exporting enterprises maybeassociated
withtheprogramme, provided thatthevalue oftheir exports
does notexceed US$2,500,000 peryear. TheProduction
Promotion Corporation (CORFO) subsidized upto3years and
compensated 70percentoftotalcosts during thefirstyear.
Thefund amounted toUS$94,000 foreach programme andthe
benefit granted perenterprise islimited toUS$12,500.
Czech Republic G/AG/N/CZE/12 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/New Zealand -Information
requested regarding themeasures entitled
"beef cattle farming", "renewal of
vineyards, hopgardens andorchards" and
"support forbeekeeping" referred toin
Supporting Table DS:1 (page 3refers).
How does theCzech Republic claim that
these measures areinconformity withthe
provisions inparagraph 11ofAnnex 2to
theAgreement onAgriculture?Support tobeefcattle farming aims atencouraging the
production ofbeefonextensive pastures andinhighland
areas. Regarding vineyards, hopgardens andorchards,
incentives aregranted togrowers inorder torenew the
plantings. Theestablishment ofonehectare ofvineyard,
hopgarden ororchard costs between Kc500,000 and
Kc600,000. Thesupport provided covers aportion ofthe
associated costs, representing between 10and20percent
ofthetotal costs. In1995 and1996 theState supported
theplantings of510hectares ofvineyard, 624hectares of
hops and1,434 hectares oforchards, which amounted to
Kc170million.
Support forbeekeeping aims atpreserving asufficient
number ofbeecolonies (estimated at650,000 or700,000)
which isvital forpollination ofalarge variety ofplants.
Anannual subsidy isgranted toabeekeeper which
amounts toKc120perwinterized beecolony.
Canada -Clarification sought asregards
the"farmer-programme addressing the
settlement ofrestitution" referred toin
Supporting Table DS:1 (page 3refers).
Could theCzech Republic explain howthe
programme meets thecriteria in
paragraph 11ofAnnex 2tothe
Agreement onAgriculture?Thisprogramme aims atincreasing theeffectiveness andat
improving thecurrent structure offarming enterprises. It
grants subsidies ontheinterest tobepaidonloans used to
purchase ortorenew plantings, livestock production or
processing technologies, torenew orcomplement itsstock
herd, todevelop agro-tourism activities. Thesupport
provided under thisprogramme cannot beused topurchase
landorbuildings.G/AG/R/11
Page28
Czech Republic G/AG/N/CZE/12 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Clarification sought withregard
totheprogramme "services, programme
oflongterm support forenterprises that
provide agricultural services" referred to
inSupporting Table DS:9 (page 5refers).
How does theprogramme work? How is
thesupport measured? What does
"enterprises thatprovide agricultural
services" mean?New business farms have emerged asaresult ofthe
restitution andprivatization oftheland. They donothave
sufficient funds topurchase expensive machinery and
given theperformance ofmachinery, individual farms may
nothave thearearequired tofully utilize thecapacity of
theequipment. Sothelongterm programme grants
subsidies tooperators forinvestments inmachinery and
equipment inorder toprovide services tofarmers.
Fiji G/AG/N/FJI/1 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Clarification sought regarding the
measure entitled "policy andadministration"
referred toinSupporting Table DS:1 (page 2
refers). Could Fijiexplain howthemeasure meets
thecriteria ofAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture?Thefund isused toadminister theactivities ofthe
Ministry ofAgriculture, Fisheries, Forests and
ATLA. Expenditures include administration costs,
stafftraining, quarantine inspection andcosts
related tomarketing services. Nosupport is
granted toproducers orprocessors andtherefore
thepolicy meets thecriteria inparagraph 2of
Annex 2totheAgreement onAgriculture.
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/21 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding
"public stockholding" and"agricultural insurance"
programmes referred toinSupporting Table DS:1,
respectively under items (b)and(f)(page 5
refers). How does Japan claim thatthemeasures
meet thecriteria ofAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture?Japan undertook toprovide responses upon receipt
ofwritten questions.
New Zealand -Areprefectural government
support measures andsub-national support
measures included inthecalculation oftheAMS?
New Zealand -Information requested withrespect
tosupport provided tonewfarmers. Arethe
measures included inthecalculation oftheAMS?
New Zealand -Clarification sought asregards to
theprogramme introduced toalleviate theUruguay
Round 'simpact onJapanese farmers. How did
Japan include themeasures intheAMS
calculation?G/AG/R/11
Page29
Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/5 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/Canada -Information requested with
respect tothePROCAMPO programme referred to
inSupporting Table DS:1 (page 3refers).Mexico undertook torespond inwriting.
Australia -Clarification sought regarding the
calculation ofmarket price support formilk
referred toinSupporting Table DS:5 (page 6
refers).
Canada -How didMexico convert thecurrent total
AMS for1995 into1991 pesos?
Canada -Noted thatadditional products have been
included inthecalculation oftheproduct-specific
AMS compared tothebaseperiod. Could Mexico
provide further information ontheprice used?
Canada -Noted thattheeligible production for
wheat referred toinSupporting Table DS:5 is
17,028 thousand tonnes, whereas theSupporting
Table indicates 1,373 thousand tonnes. Could
Mexico explain thisdiscrepancy?
Canada -Clarification sought regarding direct
payments toproducers referred toinSupporting
Table DS:6 (page 7refers). Could Mexico
provide thenames andthedescription ofthe
programmes?
Namibia G/AG/N/NAM/3 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Noted thatNamibia hasincluded
subsidies onpurchasing animal fodder andthe
leasing ofgrazing under "drought aid"referred to
inSupporting Table DS:1 (page 2refers). Can
Namibia explain howthemeasures meet the
criteria inparagraph 8ofAnnex 2tothe
Agreement onAgriculture?Duetosevere weather conditions inrecent years,
Namibia wasdeclared drought stricken inJuly
1995. Inorder tocompensate thelosses ofcrops,
subsidies were granted tofarmers forbuying
animal fodder orleasing grazing inother areas.
Pakistan G/AG/N/PAK/3 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/United States -Could Pakistan
provide datatosupport thedeminimis calculation?Thetotal value ofagricultural production
amounted toUS$19,156.1 million.
Argentina -Thenotification indicates in
Supporting Table DS:5 (page 6refers) negative
values ofAMS. Insuch asituation could Pakistan
indicate azero?Pakistan agreed andtooknoteofthestatement for
future notifications.G/AG/R/11
Page30
Slovak Republic G/AG/N/SVK/9 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/New Zealand -Clarification sought
regarding "quality promotion" support provided to
rawcowmilk (Supporting Table DS:5, page 6
refers). Why didtheSlovak Republic include the
measure inthecalculation oftheAMS? How did
theSlovak Republic calculate themarket price
support?Inorder toencourage theproduction ofhigh
quality milk, support isgranted toproducers. This
measure meets thecriteria fordecoupled income
support setoutinparagraph 6ofAnnex 2tothe
Agreement onAgriculture. ThetotalAMS forraw
cowmilk arises from themultiplication ofeligible
production (column 6)byfeesperunit(column 7).
Canada -Information requested withrespect tothe
support provided for"worse natural conditions"
referred toinSupporting Table DS:9 (page 7
refers).Thisprogramme aims atpromoting agricultural
production inmountainous regions andnon-
agricultural activities. Thesupport isgranted ona
perhectare basis, depending onthequality ofthe
land.
New Zealand -Supporting Table DS:1 reports two
measures under theprovisions ofAnnex 2relating
to"environmental programmes" and"regional
assistance programmes", respectively "ecological
procedures" and"rural tourism". CantheSlovak
Republic provide thename andthedescription of
themeasures withreference totherelevant criteria
ofAnnex 2totheAgreement onAgriculture?The"rural tourism" programme isaimed at
supporting thereconstruction offacilities for
tourism purposes andthedevelopment of
traditional production activities. Subsidies for
"ecological procedures" areaimed tocover costs
ofregular testing ofexhausted pollutants andcosts
ofbiological fuelproduction.
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding the
setaside programme referred toinSupporting
Table DS:3 (page 4refers). CantheSlovak
Republic provide thename andthedescription of
themeasure withreference tocriteria setoutin
Article 6.5oftheAgreement onAgriculture?Thisprogramme provides subsidies tofarm
enterprises forafforestation anddevelopment of
grassland inlessfavoured areas. Thesubsidy can
reach Sk10,000 perhectare forafforestation and
Sk6,000 perhectare forgrassland.
Slovenia G/AG/N/SVN/5 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -CanSlovenia confirm thatproduct-
specific support isnolonger provided to"vine
reed, vinegrapes" and"rape orcolza"?Slovenia confirmed thatproduct-specific support
previously notified inSupporting Table DS:4 isno
longer granted tothese products.
Australia -CanSlovenia confirm thatno
subsidized credits were granted tosheepmeat,
grapes, rapeorcolza andvine?Slovenia confirmed thatsubsidized credits were
notavailable forthese products.
Australia -What arethepolicies/programmes
involved under "supplementary activities" referred
toinSupporting Table DS:9 (page 9refers)?Programmes covered by"supplementary activities"
aredesigned tosupplement farm incomes by
promoting economic activities such asfarm
tourism, craft andother culturally oriented
activities.G/AG/R/11
Page31
Slovenia G/AG/N/SVN/5 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding
"marketing andpromotion services" referred toin
Supporting Table DS:1 (item (a)6, page 3refers).
What does theterm "market organization
measures" mean? How does themeasure meet the
criteria inAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture?Theprogrammes entitled "marketing and
promotion services" areintended toassist farmers
tomarket their products through advertising,
proper channels ofdistribution andbymeans of
technical support. Support includes advisory
services, education andtraining andinsome cases
market research. TheGovernment andlocal
authorities co-finance theprogrammes. Theterm
"market organization" ismisleading since the
programmes referred tointhenotification concern
market information.
Tunisia G/AG/N/TUN/7 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/Argentina -Clarification sought on
themethod used tocalculate thetotalAMS. What
reference prices didTunisia usetocalculate the
product-specific AMS (Supporting Table DS:5,
page 6refers)? Why didTunisia subtract the
negative AMS values reported forsugarbeet and
olives from thetotalAMS? Noted thatbyadding
upthepositive product-specific AMS, Tunisia
exceeded itscommitment level.Tunisia undertook torespond upon receipt of
written questions.
Turkey G/AG/N/TUR/3/Add.1 andG/AG/N/TUR/4 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/New Zealand/United States -Could
Turkey provide further details withrespect to
"special anddifferential box" measures relating to
vineyard plant, milk production, fertilizer andseed
(Supporting Table DS:2, page 4refers)? How are
theses policies inconformity withArticle 6.2of
theAgreement onAgriculture?Turkey counts 4million agricultural
establishments, 85percentofwhich average less
than5hectares insize. Support isgranted tolow-
income orresource-poor farmers inorder to
purchase inputs such asfertilizers andseeds. The
measures areinlinewiththeprovisions of
Article 6.2oftheAgreement onAgriculture.
Specific subsidies aretemporally (generally for
oneyear) provided tovineyard plants inless
favoured areas according toaGovernment
Communique, dating back to1992, andtolow-
income milk farmers inorder toincrease their
productivity.
New Zealand -Noted thatsupport wascalculated
using aggregate measurements ofsupport (AMS)
inG/AG/AGST/TUR, whereas thenotification
indicates theuseofaproduct-specific equivalent
measurement ofsupport (EMS). Why didTurkey
calculate anEMS, although thenecessary datato
calculate anAMS areprovided inSupporting
Table DS:8 (page 5refers)?Turkey calculated anEMS duetothelackofthe
necessary statistical information.G/AG/R/11
Page32
Turkey G/AG/N/TUR/3/Add.1 andG/AG/N/TUR/4 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Could Turkey provide theproduct-
specific EMS referred toincolumn 11of
Supporting Table DS:8 inmonetary terms?Figures areexpressed inmillion US$intheAnnex
toSupporting Table DS:8 (column 10,page 6
refers).
Australia -Clarification sought regarding the
footnote indicating thatthere were noprivate
buyers forsugarbeet (Supporting Table DS:8,
page 5refers).TheGovernment owns thesugarbeet industry. It
isthesolebuyer ofsugarbeet. There were no
special rights, privileges orpower within the
meaning ofArticle XVII oftheGATT 1994.
Australia -Noted thatpaddy riceisadded inthe
calculation oftheproduct-specific EMS
(Supporting Table DS:8, page 5refers). Did
Turkey provide support tofarmers?Turkey provided asubsidy tolow-income farmers
inaspecific region for1996 only.
New Zealand -Why didTurkey notnotify any
"green box" measures using Supporting Table
DS:1?Turkey isconsidering thepossibility ofmaking a
notification intheform ofSupporting Table DS:1.
Argentina -Clarification sought asregards the
Annex toSupporting Table DS:8 showing that
administrative prices arelower thaninternational
prices forrye,oatsandtobacco (page 6refers).Price support foroatsandtobacco isnegative in
value. Nevertheless Turkey hasshown positive
values inSupporting Table DS:8 todemonstrate
thattheproducts were stillsubsidized.
Uruguay G/AG/N/URY/9 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -CanUruguay provide the
name anddescription oftheprogrammes
under theitem"investment subsidies
generally available toagriculture" referred
toinSupporting Table DS:2 (page 2
refers)? How dotheprogrammes square
withthecriteria ofArticle 6.2ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture?Uruguay hasimplemented several programmes inorder
toprovide investment subsidies tolow-income and
resource-poor producers according toArticle 6.2ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture. The"Rural development"
programme offered credit atmarket interest rates tosmall
producers inorder tosupport investments andworking
capital. Asmall producer isafarmer whose annual
income isbelow thepoverty linesetatUS$3,200 per
family group. TheInternational Fund forAgricultural
Development supported theprogramme. Thefunds
available amount toUS$2,496,000. The"Water and
natural resources development" programme provided
support forinvestments inirrigation infrastructures for
collective uses. Subsidies aregranted bytheWorld Bank
andthefunds engaged amounted toUS$5,592,097. The
"Farm development programme" aimed atpromoting
non-traditional agricultural exports such asfruits,
horticultural products andfarm animals. Thisprogramme
issupported bytheWorld Bank andatotal amount of
US$2,418,889 hasbeen devoted tothisprogramme.
Uruguay willprovide further information onthe
"conversion anddevelopment ofsmall farms" which has
justbeen implemented andinvolved anamount of
US$4,875,050.G/AG/R/11
Page33
Venezuela G/AG/N/VEN/4 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Why didVenezuela useexternal
reference prices based ontheyears 1993 to1995
tocalculate theAMS forrice, coffee, tomatoes
andcertified seeds (Supporting Table DS:5, page 7
refers)?Venezuela used reference prices forthe1993-95
period duetothedifficulties ingetting reference
prices forthe1986-88 baseperiod. Venezuela is
ready tomake thenecessary modifications to
Supporting Table DS:5.G/AG/R/11
Page34
Table DS:2 Notifications
Namibia G/AG/N/NAM/4 New orModified Support Measures Exempt from Reduction (DS:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding the
measures entitled "marketing incentives scheme",
"leasing forgrazing" and"Karakul peltsubsidy".
How arethese measures compatible withthe
criteria setoutinparagraph 8ofAnnex 2tothe
Agreement onAgriculture?Duetoconsecutive severe droughts, Namibia was
declared drought stricken inJune 1996. The
Government introduced programmes inorder to
assist farmers. Theobjectives of"marketing
incentives scheme" istoprevent permanent
damage tolandcaused byover-stocking andover-
grazing. Leasing ofgrazing landwassubsidized
inorder toavoid over-grazing inaffected areas.
Subsidies designed toavoid over-grazing were also
granted tofarmers whohave switched tomutton
production duetothelower Karakul peltprices.G/AG/R/11
Page35
Tables ES:1 toES:3 Notifications
Czech Republic G/AG/N/CZE/10 andCorr.1 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Could theCzech Republic provide the
tariff lines covered bythecategory "other dairy
products"?Other dairy products cover evaporated milk
HS0402, whey HS0404, butter HS0405 and
cheese HS0406.
Australia -Does theCzech Republic provide
internal transport andcredit subsidies tomilk
powder andtoother dairy products?TheCzech Republic granted onlydirect export
subsidies tomilk powder andother dairy products.
Japan -Confirmation requested thattheCzech
Republic provided export subsidies onlytomilk
powder andtoother dairy products in1996.TheCzech Republic confirmed thatexports of
milk powder andother dairy products onlywere
subsidized.
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/5 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 toES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/Canada -Could theECprovide a
breakdown oftheproducts exported forthe
following items: wheat, coarse grains, cheese and
other milk products referred toinTable ES:1
(pages 2and3refer)?TheECconsidered thatithasmetthenotification
requirement. Products included ineach item are
listed intheannex totheEC'sSchedule.
Australia -Information requested regarding sales
ofstocks forwheat andcoarse grains referred to
inSupporting Table ES:1 (page 5refers). How
much ofthesales went intofood aid?Sales ofstocks relate tointervention stocks anddo
notinvolve food aidtransactions.
Australia/New Zealand/Canada -Noted thattotal
exports ofolive oil,butter andskimmed milk
powder (inTable ES:2, page 8refers) areless
thansubsidized exports (inTable ES:1, page 2
refers). Could theECexplain these discrepancies?Total exports covered theperiod 1Julyto30June
andareexpressed inproduct weight. Subsidized
exports arerelated tothemarketing yearandare
based ontheexport licences issued andnotonthe
basis ofactual exports.
Australia -Areexports ofsugar related toimports
ofACP andIndian origin included intotal
exports?Total exports include exports ofsugar related to
imports ofACP andIndian origin.
Australia -Why aretotalexports ofwine and
alcohol expressed bytwosetsoffigures (page 9
refers)?Total exports ofwine andalcohol areexpressed in
thousand tonnes (first figure) andinthousand
hectolitres (second figure).
Canada/New Zealand -Could theECexplain the
differences infood aidreported inTables ES:1
andES:3?These differences areduetotworeasons. First,
thevolume offood aidreported inTable ES:3
includes additional products such asvegetable oils,
pulses andtomato concentrates. Secondly, data
contained inTable ES:3 represents thevolume of
food aidpurchased bytheECinthird countries or
purchased byorganizations inthird countries and
delivered directly tobenefiting countries withEC
funding, whereas Table ES:1 covers Community
origin products forfood aidexported from the
EC.G/AG/R/11
Page36
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/5 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 toES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Does thelevel ofsubsidized exports for
cheese include processed cheese?Subsidized exports include exports ofprocessed
cheese.
Argentina -Expressed concerns asregards the
discrepancies between awards andexport
shipments foranumber ofproducts including
sugar, tobacco, fruits andvegetables, cheese.
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/10 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response provided byNotifying Member
Australia/New Zealand -CanNorway confirm that
exports ofpoultry meat, whey powder, fruits and
vegetables andhoney were notsubsidized?Norway confirmed thatnoexport subsidies were
provided forthese products in1996.
Australia -DidNorway useproducer financed
subsidies in1996?Thenotification contains anerror. Acorrigendum
isbeing circulated (G/AG/N/NOR/10/Corr.1)
indicating thatinSupporting Table ES:1 the
figures incolumn 3(sales ofstocks) should be
moved tocolumn 4(producer financed subsidies)
(page 3refers).
Canada -Does Norway intend tonotify total
exports for1995 and1996 using Table ES:2?Norway willnotify total exports.
Pakistan G/AG/N/PAK/2 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Thenotification indicates thatPakistan
provides export subsidies exempt from the
reduction commitments forfresh fruitand
vegetables intheform ofarebate onthecosts of
transport. Could Pakistan provide detailed
information ontheprogramme including reference
totherelevant legislation andthedateofentry into
force oftheprogramme? What were theproducts
subsidized in1996? What aretheproducts eligible
forthesubsidy?Undertook toprovide aresponse.
Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/5/Rev.1 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 toES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Could Switzerland provide a
breakdown ofsubsidized dairy products?In1996, about 96percentoftheexport subsidies
under thecategory "dairy products" were applied
tocheese.G/AG/R/11
Page37
United States G/AG/N/USA/8 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/Canada -Could theUnited States provide
abreakdown ofthedifferent subsidized products
foreach group ofproducts?Undertook toprovide thedata.
Australia -Dotheexport figures forcheese
referred toinTable ES:2 relate toactual
shipments?Export figures reported relate toactual shipments
andaretaken from theUSCensus Bureau.
Australia/New Zealand -Noted thattotalexports
forother milk products andcheese referred toin
Table ES:2 arelessthansubsidized exports
referred toinTable ES:1. How does theUnited
States explain these discrepancies?Total exports forother milk products reported in
Table ES:2 reflect actual (physical) shipments
made withawards under theDairy Export
Incentive Program (DEIP). Under theDEIP
exporters have flexibility astowhen theyshipthe
product. Shipments mayoccur several months
after awards aremade andtherefore fallintothe
nextreporting period. Thisisthereason why
awards forother milk products in1995 totalled
4,501 tonnes whereas actual exports amounted to
3,000 tonnes.
European Communities -Footnote 2referred toin
Table ES:2 (page 5refers) indicates thatexport
subsidies were notapplied torice, whereas Table
ES:1 (page 2refers) shows aquantity of
9,900 tonnes ofsubsidized exports. Were exports
ofricesubsidized?Table ES:2 contains anerror. Exports ofrice
were subsidized.
New Zealand -Noted thattheUnited States had
exported 18,536 tonnes ofcheese ofwhich
3,275 tonnes wassubsidized. CantheUnited
States confirm that15,261 tonnes ofcheese were
exported without subsidies?Asubstantial proportion ofcheese didnotreceive
export subsidies.