RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/AG/R/13
19December 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-5561)
Committee onAgriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OFTHE MEETING HELD ON20-21 NOVEMBER 1997
Note bytheSecretariat
1. TheCommittee onAgriculture helditsthirteenth meeting on20-21 November 1997 under
theChairmanship ofAmbassador Nestor Osorio Londoño ofColombia. Theagenda ofthemeeting,
contained inWTO/AIR/730, wasadopted.
PartI:TheReview Process
2. TheCommittee reviewed thefollowing notifications aslisted ontheagenda:
(i) ontheadministration oftariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:1): fromthe
European Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/3/Corr.1), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/8/Corr.1
andJPN/23), thePhilippines (G/AG/N/PHL/12) andThailand (G/AG/N/THA/24
and25);
(ii) relating toimports under tariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:2): from
Canada(G/AG/N/CAN/16),Iceland(G/AG/N/ISL/8),Japan(G/AG/N/JPN/24),Korea
(G/AG/N/KOR/12), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/14 and 15), the Philippines
(G/AG/N/PHL/8), theUnited States (G/AG/N/USA/9/Add.1) andVenezuela
(G/AG/N/VEN/3/Corr.1 andVEN/10);
(iii) inthecontext ofthespecial safeguard (Tables MA:3 toMA:5): from Canada
(G/AG/N/CAN/15),Indonesia(G/AG/N/IDN/4and5),Japan(G/AG/N/JPN/22),Korea
(G/AG/N/KOR/13) andVenezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/7);
(iv) relating todomestic support commitments (Table DS:1): from Argentina
(G/AG/N/ARG/4), Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/14), Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/6/Rev.1),
Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/17), Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/6 and 7), Cuba
(G/AG/N/CUB/6), Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/9), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/21/Corr.1), Korea
(G/AG/N/KOR/14), NewZealand (G/AG/N/NZL/12), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/11),
thePhilippines(G/AG/N/PHL/10),Poland(G/AG/N/POL/12/Rev.1andPOL/13/Rev.1),
Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/23), South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/13), Switzerland
(G/AG/N/CHE/6/Corr.1 andCHE/11/Corr.1) andVenezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/4/Rev.1
andVEN/8); and
(v) relating toexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3): from Burkina Faso
(G/AG/N/BFA/1), Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/2 and3),Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/16), Norway
(G/AG/N/NOR/12and13),Poland(G/AG/N/POL/14),Turkey(G/AG/N/TUR/5/Rev.1)
andVenezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/5/Rev.1 andVEN/9).G/AG/R/13
Page2
3. Specific points raised withrespect tothenotifications listed inparagraph 2above andthe
responses thereto aresummarized inPartIoftheAnnex tothisreport. Deferred replies toquestions
raised onnotifications atprevious meetings aresummarized inPartIIoftheAnnex.
4. Withrespecttopointsconcerningnotificationsraisedatpreviousmeetingsthathavebeenpursued
bilaterally (Part I,Agenda ItemB),therepresentative ofUruguay noted that,although there wereas
yetnoresults toreport, therepresentative nonetheless wished toseize theopportunity tothank both
Japan andtheDominican Republic forparticipating inbilateral informal consultations regarding trade
inrice. Uruguay intended topursue these informal consultations withaviewtoreaching aconclusion
ontheissues involved. Therepresentative ofArgentina registered Argentina 'sinterest inthese
consultations andtheiroutcome given thatthematter wasoneofgeneral interest.
5. Under thisagenda item, therepresentative ofSwitzerland informed theCommittee that
NewZealand hadprovided awritten response toaquestion posed bySwitzerland attheSeptember 1997
meeting oftheCommittee regarding fiscal exoneration ofkerosene usedonlyforairtransport of
agricultural products internationally. Switzerland hadasked whether themeasure wascompatible with
paragraph 1(c)ofArticle 9oftheAgreement onAgriculture ("the Agreement") (G/AG/N/NZL/11
andG/AG/R/12, page4,refer). According totherepresentative ofSwitzerland, thequestion raised
waspatently ofgeneral interest anddeserved toberaised under thisitemoftheAgenda. The
representative stated thatSwitzerland wasstudying NewZealand 'sreply (Annex -PartIIrefers) and
might wishtorevert totheissue ataforthcoming meeting oftheCommittee.
6. Thefollowing notifications were subject topreliminary review andaretobereverted toat
thenextmeeting inaccordance withparagraph 9oftheCommittee 'sWorking Procedures:
(i) relating totheadministration oftariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:1):
from theUnited States (G/AG/N/USA/13);
(ii) relating toimports under tariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:2): from
Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/16/Corr.1), theEuropean Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/8) and
Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/8 and9);
(iii) relating todomestic support commitments (Table DS:1): from Hong Kong, China
(G/AG/N/HGK/2) andPoland (G/AG/N/POL/13/Rev.1/Corr.1); and
(iv) relating toexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3): from Hong Kong,
China (G/AG/N/HGK/3), Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/10 and 11), Slovenia
(G/AG/N/SVN/7), South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/11/Rev.1) andtheUnited States
(G/AG/N/USA/12).
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:
(a) United States: Canada 'snewpoultry pricing system
9. TheUnited States reverted toamatter ithadpreviously raised (G/AG/R/12, paragraph 17)
andnoted thatCanada hadprovided verylimited information inresponse toitsquestions onCanada 'sG/AG/R/13
Page3
newexport initiative forpoultry. Although theUnited States recognized thatthere wasnoexplicit
pricing system under Canada 'sexport initiative forpoultry, therepresentative oftheUnited States
stated thatthesupply management system operated byCanada appeared toallow forimplicit control
ofdomestic andexport prices. Given thefactthatCanada hadazeroexport subsidy commitment for
poultry, theUnited States wasconcerned thatthenewpolicy could function asanimplicit export subsidy
forpoultry andtherefore wished toobtain more information about thesystem.
10. Therepresentative ofCanada confirmed thattheCanadian government andthenational supply
management agencies hadnoroleinpoultry pricing oneither thedomestic orexport markets. The
representative ofCanada alsoreiterated thatthesupply management system involved national and
provincial production quotas forchicken andthattheproduction quotas allocated toeachprovince
included products destined forboththedomestic andexport markets. Inreply toaquestion bythe
European Communities, therepresentative ofCanada stated thatthere were noseparate quotas for
production ofpoultry forexport. Although theproduction quota allocated toeachprovince wasasingle
quantity, thisquantity could include acomponent thatmustnotbemarketed inCanada, aswellasa
component thatcould besoldoneither thedomestic orexport market.
(b) United States: Information concerning theDominican Republic 'sUruguay Round rectification
11. TheUnited States sought confirmation thattheDominican Republic hadfinalized itsreview
of,andimplemented, itsUruguay Round Schedule rectification.
12. Therepresentative oftheDominican Republic responded thatduetoanumber ofimportant
events which hadoccurred intheDominican Republic, thedelegation designated tofinalize the
negotiations onthetechnical rectification oftheDominican Republic 'sschedule hadbeenunable to
travel toGeneva. Therepresentative reiterated theDominican Republic 'sfirmintention toconclude
negotiations during thefirstquarter of1998. Therepresentative oftheUnited States thanked the
Dominican Republic foritscooperation andexpressed thehopethatthematter would beresolved in
early 1998.
(c) United States: Ecuador 'simport prohibition andlicensing requirements
13. Therepresentative oftheUnited States reminded theCommittee that,attheNovember 1996
andJune1997meetings oftheCommittee (G/AG/R/9, paragraph 27,andG/AG/R/11, paragraph 28
refer), theUnited States hadinquired astowhen Ecuador would openitstariff quotas forproducts
listedinSectionI-BofitsSchedule.Furthermore,attheSeptember1997meeting(G/AG/R/12,page19,
refers), theUnited States hadregistered itsconcerns regarding Ecuador 'srequirement fortwosignatures
onSPSdocuments -onebeing thatofthecompetent SPSofficer, thesecond being thatofthe
Under-Secretary forSectorial Policies whowasnotincharge ofhealth andsafety issues. Considerable
delays wereinvolved inobtaining thissecond signature. TheUnited States wasagain submitting its
questions forconsideration inthehopethatEcuador would respond atthepresent meeting asto:(i)when
Ecuador would open tariff quotas onagricultural products; and(ii)when Ecuador would bring its
SPSpractices intoconformity withtheWTO?
14. Therepresentative ofEcuador responded thatitwasoutofplace toraisetheissues ofadouble
signature onSPSdocuments andanopening oftariffquotas under theheading of"Import Prohibition"
since there werenocurrent import prohibitions inEcuador. Therepresentative stated thatthedouble
signature required onSPSdocuments reflected theinternal administrative structure oftheEcuadorian
Ministry ofAgriculture, which wasaimed atcontrolling foodsecurity andsanitary related aspects.
Thesignature oftheDirector ofEcuador 'sSpecialized Agency forSanitary andPhytosanitary Affairs
(SESA) guaranteed thesanitary control ofimported agricultural products, while thesignature ofthe
Under-Secretary forSectorial Policies corresponded toahigher administrative supervision body forG/AG/R/13
Page4
technical andstatistical control purposes. Therepresentative ofEcuador stated thattheadministrative
controls wereconsistent withtheprovisions oftheWTO Agreement onImport Licensing. Furthermore,
theadministrative controls didnotleadtodelays, nordidtheydiscriminate against specific products
orcountries. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thattheexplanation given bythe
representative ofEcuador wasnotconsistent withtheexperience thattheUnited States hadhadinthat
market andindicated thattheUnited States might revert tothematter. Therepresentative ofEcuador
replied thattheexperience reported bytheUnited States wasnotshared byEcuador, andstated that
theofficial information available, asjustpresented totheCommittee, would beforwarded tothe
delegation oftheUnited States.
15. Therepresentative ofEcuador noted that,withregard totheUnited States question andthose
ofAustralia,theEuropeanCommunities,JapanandNewZealandontariffquotas(G/AG/R/12,page19,
refers), Ecuador hadnotyetopened itstariff quotas, butthatitwould, asappropriate, notify the
Committee astotheopening ofitstariff quotas.
(d) United States: Egypt 'srestriction onbeefimports
16. Therepresentative oftheUnited States sought clarification onthebasis forandapplication
ofEgypt 'sprohibition ofbeefimports withafatcontent greater than7percent, aswellasonhow
therestriction wasjustified under thenational treatment provisions ofGATT Article III.
17. Therepresentative ofEgypt confirmed thattheEgyptian Standard N1522 of1991 required
thatpartsofmeatimported fordirect consumption should notcontain more than7percentoffat,while
partsofmeatimported forprocessing purposes should notcontain more than20percentoffat.These
percentages werebased onstandards established byexperts taking intoaccount chemical changes in
fatsasaresult ofstorage andhandling conditions intheEgyptian climate andpossible effects onpublic
health. Therepresentative ofEgypt stated thattheconditions setbyStandard N1522didnotrepresent
abarrier totrade since Egypt wasanimporter ofmeat anditsimports offrozen meat were subject
toaverylowtariff rate(5percent). Therepresentative ofEgypt further stated thatthenational
treatment provisions ofGATT Article IIIwerenotrelevant since Egypt didnotproduce frozen meat,
andthattheapplied import conditions wereconsistent withArticle 2oftheAgreement onTechnical
Barriers toTrade.
18. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thatwhilst Egypt 'seffort andcollaboration to
helpresolve theissue wasappreciated, theUnited States stilldidnotfeelthatEgypt 'sprohibition of
beefimports fordirect consumption withafatcontent greater than7percentwasjustified under WTO
provisions andtherefore requested Egypt toliftthebanimmediately. Therepresentative ofArgentina
stated thatallmeasures adopted regarding beefimports hadtobeconsistent withtheSPSAgreement
rather thantheTBTAgreement. Furthermore, allelements related totheclimate ortoother country-
specific characteristics hadtobealigned withthestandards ofscientific organizations which formed
thebackbone oftheSPSAgreement. Therepresentative ofUruguay added thatgiven thatcountries
didnotproduce frozen beef,theproduct referred towasmeatandthesaidregulations should beapplied
nomatter where themeatwasproduced.
(e) United States: Egypt 'stariff ratesandbanonpoultry
19. TheUnited States reverted toamatter ithadpreviously raised (G/AG/R/12, paragraph 27)
andsought clarification fromEgypt onthejustification foritscurrent dutyrateof80percentonpoultry
having regard totheprovisions oftheMarrakesh Protocol totheGATT concerning tariff reductions
andtothefactthatEgypt hadcommitted itself tobinditscustoms dutyonpoultry at60percentby
2005. Therepresentative oftheUnited States alsosought anexplanation astohowEgypt 's80percent
dutyrateonwhole poultry incombination withanarbitrary import value of$1,500 pertonne, whichG/AG/R/13
Page5
resulted inaneffective tariff exceeding Egypt ’sWTO bound rates, could bejustified under GATT
Articles IIandVII. Finally, therepresentative oftheUnited States asked when Egypt 'simport ban
onpoultry parts would belifted.
20. Therepresentative ofEgypt responded that:
(i) theapplied rateof80percentwasinfullconformity withtheprovisions ofArticle 4
oftheAgreement, aswellaswithparagraph 2oftheMarrakesh Protocol toGATT 1994.
Furthermore, Egypt 'stariff schedule didnotcontain anyspecific timetable forstaged annual
reductions foragricultural products. TheSchedule, asapproved byMember countries, specified
areductionschemeoftenyearsforagriculturalproductswithoutstatinganystagesforreduction.
Nonetheless, during thelastthree years Egypt hadstarted reducing basetariff ratesonmost
agricultural items bymore than25percent;
(ii) thearbitrary import value of$1,500 pertonne forwhole poultry, setaccording to
Article 22oftheEgyptian Customs LawN66of1993, wasafairvalue fullyinconformity
withparagraph 3ofArticle IIandwithparagraph 2(b)ofArticle VII,on"actual value", of
theGATT. Theimport value of$1,500 pertonne wasdetermined onthebasis ofthelowest
prices recorded forimported European andAmerican poultry andwould continue tobeadjusted
periodically. Furthermore, Egypt hadfixedtheimport value forpoultry according toitsrights
under Article XXofGATT 1994; and
(iii) clearstandards hadyettobedefined fordetermining whether imported poultry parts
hadcome from poultry slaughtered inaccordance withIslamic rules andimports ofpoultry
parts would beallowed assoonasthestudy onthematter hadbeenconcluded.
21. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thathewished todraw theattention ofthe
Committee tothefactthattheprinciple under discussion wasofgreat importance. TheUnited States
wished toreiterate itsunderstanding thattheMarrakesh protocol required equal annual reductions from
baselevels tariffs unless otherwise specified. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted thatthe
reference price of$1,500 pertonne waswellabove theactual market prices forpoultry parts and
constituted asignificant barrier toimport. Lastly, therepresentative oftheUnited States stated that
iftheimport banonpoultry parts wasanissue ofcertification, theUnited States wasready towork
withtheEgyptian Government tohelpresolve theissue.
(f) Chile: Support tocanned peaches intheEuropean Communities
22. Therepresentative ofChile noted thattheEuropean Communities hadnotified measures of
support tothe"fruit andvegetable sector" under Article 25oftheAgreement onSubsidies and
Countervailing measures (G/SCM/N/3/EEC andG/SCM/N/16/EEC). Thismatter hadbeenraised
bytheGovernment ofChile inorder toobtain additional andmore detailed information onthevarious
aidsgranted forcanned peaches bytheEuropean Communities.
23. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities responded thatitwasdifficult torespond
tothelarge setofdata-seeking questions raised byChile, especially under thisitemoftheAgenda,
since Article 18.6 specifically covered issues related totheimplementation ofcommitments.
Furthermore, thesetofquestions raised byChile referred backtoadocument submitted toanother
Committee. However, theEuropean Communities would behappy tomeetwithChile andexplain
thenewreforms justimplemented inthefruitandvegetable sector.
24. Therepresentative ofChile explained thattheChilean authorities were concerned thatthe
subsidies inquestion hadasignificant effect ontheinternational tradeofpeaches given theimportanceG/AG/R/13
Page6
oftheEuropeanCommunity'sproductionofcannedpeaches.Chile'sintentwastoquestiontheEuropean
Communities onaseries ofsubsidies applicable topeaches aswellasontheiroperation andthatof
thewithdrawal programme. Therepresentative ofChile stated thatthematter wasraised under this
agenda itemoftheCommittee onAgriculture because itwasoneofduecompliance withcommitments
entered into. Chile would accept detailed written replies providing further details astothemanner
inwhich theEuropean Communities acted inthisregard. Therepresentatives ofAustralia, Brazil,
SouthAfrica,Mexico,ArgentinaandEcuadorexpressedtheirsupportforChile'srequestforinformation
onamatter which wasofconcern toanumber ofMembers, inparticular given thefactthattheEuropean
Communities 'support fortheproduction ofcanned peaches affected notonlytheirdomestic salesbut
alsoexports tothird markets. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thattheUnited States
hadhadquestions forsome timeastothetransparency oftheEuropean Communities 'system. All
theclarifications received onthemethods ofcalculation andpayment oftheprocessing aidstoprocessors
significantly differed from explanations received inresponse tosimilar questions raised inthepast.
TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesfurthernotedthattheEuropeanCommunitiescontinuedtoexpand
itssalesofcanned peaches inthedomestic markets ofmajor importers andevenofexporting countries,
andthatMexico, Argentina, Brazil andSouth Africa hadinitiated relief actions against imports of
subsidized canned peaches from theEuropean Communities. According totherepresentative ofthe
United States, thesteady lossofmarket share byallcanned peach exporters indicated thatthelevel
ofEuropean Communities 'subsidization ofcanned peaches wasextreme tosaytheleast.
25. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thattheallegation ofalackof
transparency referred tobytheUnited States wasunacceptable since theEuropean Communities had
recently provided asubstantial amount ofinformation regarding itssupport scheme bilaterally toa
number ofMembers, andtheUnited States hadbeenrecently provided, orally andinwriting, with
additional information onthesubject. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities noted thehigh
interest inhowtheEEC system ofsupport forcanned peaches functioned andstated thatcopies of
theEuropean Communities latest regulations covering areform introduced inthesector wereavailable.
Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities reminded Members thattheCommittee 'sfocus was
onmonitoringcommitmentsrelatingtodomesticsupport,marketaccessandexportsubsidiesasspecified
inMembers 'Schedules. TheEuropean Communities would soonbesubmitting itsdomestic support
notification which would show thattheEuropean Communities waswellbelow itsAMS commitment
levelandwasfullyrespecting itsWTO commitments.
(g) United States: European Communities useofexport subsidy roll-over
26. Therepresentative oftheUnited States enquired whether theEuropean Communities hadrolled
overexport subsidies from previous years'commitments onpoultry oranyother products covered
initsSchedule.
27. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thattheEuropean Communities was
intheprocess ofdrawing upitssecond notification inrespect ofitsexport subsidy commitments, and
thatinanyevent thesesubsidies would notexceed theEuropean Communities 'scheduled commitments.
Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thatfromthepreliminary datareceived, itwas
alreadyclearthattheEuropeanCommunitieshadmadeuseofthepossibilitytoroll-overunusedquantities
from oneyeartothenext. Fulldatawould bemade available totheCommittee attheappropriate
time. Inreply toaquery bytheUnited States, therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities noted
thatbeefandpossibly several other products might beinvolved intheEuropean Communities 's
preliminary review ofthese data.G/AG/R/13
Page7
(h) United States: Poland 'stariff quota administration
28. Therepresentative oftheUnited States requested further clarification astotheexact meaning
ofthecondition that"quantity allocations toeachimporter maybelimited" inPoland 'snotification
relating totheadministration oftariff quotas (G/AG/N/POL/10). TheUnited States wished toknow
what"limit" Poland wasreferring toandwhether thismeant thatthetariff quota allocations could be
divided onaproratabasis.
29. Therepresentative ofPoland responded thatthecondition inquestion meant thatthebody in
charge ofmaking theallocation reserved therighttoapply limits when allocating thequota inspecific
cases. Generally theruleapplicable when allocating quotas wasfirst-come, first-served, butinpractice,
thelimits onquota allocations affected onlypoultry meat, tomato concentrate, gelatin andtobacco.
Animporter which hadsupplied thecommodity under animport licence could apply foranother
allocation untilthequota wasexhausted.
(i) United States: Romania 'sgreen boxpolicies
30. TheUnited States reverted toamatter ithadpreviously raised (G/AG/R/12, page36)andnoted
thatitunderstoodtheprovisionsofparagraph2ofArticle6oftheAgreementtomeanthatinputsubsidies
for"low-income orresource-poor producers" could beexcluded from Current AMS calculations.
However, Romania hadindicated attheSeptember meeting oftheCommittee thatallfarmers, notjust
resource-poor farmers, wereeligible forsuchinput subsidies. Thus theprogramme didnotseem to
meetthecriteria ofparagraph 2ofArticle 6.Therefore, theUnited States didnotconsider thatRomania
wasentitled toexclude suchpayments from itsCurrent AMS calculations.
31. Therepresentative ofRomania stated thattheaforementioned programme wasaGreen Box
measure. Furthermore, awritten reply hadbeenprovided tothedelegation oftheUnited States giving
supplementarydetailsonhowtheprogrammewasdesignedandhowitbenefitedlow-incomeorresource-
poorproducers.
(j) United States: Turkey 'simport bansonagricultural products
32. TheUnited States expressed itscontinued concern withregard toTurkey 'suseofimport bans
onagricultural products toprotect certain domestic industries. Therepresentative oftheUnited States
stated thatTurkey 'simport bansappeared tobeinconsistent withtheWTO prohibition onerecting
non-tariff barriers toagricultural trade. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted thatconcerns
hadbeenraised regarding Turkey 'simport banonlivecattle inprevious meetings oftheCommittee
onAgriculture, andthatsimilar concerns regarding abanonbeefhadbeenraised withTurkish officials.
Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted therecent import banonsunflower seeds byTurkey and
stated thattheUnited States would beforced toconsider appropriate actions should Turkey continue
tomaintain orintroduce bansinconsistent withitsobligations under theWTO. TheUnited States sought
information regarding: (i)theproducts currently subject toimport bansandthejustifications for
imposing suchbans; (ii)Turkey 'scurrent import policies regarding theimportation oflivecattle,
soybeans, sunflower seeds, andpaddy rice; and(iii)thetimetables fortheelimination ofbansfor
which there wasnoWTO-consistent justification.
33. TherepresentativeofTurkeyrespondedthatnoimportbanswereimposedonsoybeans,sunflower
seeds orpaddy rice. However, duetoanunforseen riseinthedemand forcontrol certificates forthese
products, importers might havefaced temporary delays. Ontheother hand, Turkey 'simport banon
livecattle wasrelated toanimal health concerns andwasconsidered tobenecessary inorder toeradicate
certain diseases inTurkey.G/AG/R/13
Page8
34. Therepresentative oftheUnited States welcomed Turkey 'sstatement thatnoimport banswere
imposed onsoybeans, sunflower seeds, andpaddy rice.However, theUnited States remained concerned
about delays inissuing import certificates fortheseproducts andabout Turkey 'sbanonimported cattle,
andindicated thatitwould takethese issues upbilaterally withTurkey.
(k) United States: Venezuela 'simport licensing requirements
35. TheUnited States stated thatitspurpose inreverting tothisissuewas: (i)toobtain aresponse
towritten questions posed regarding import licensing requirements inVenezuela; (ii)tosupport the
concerns expressed bytheEuropean Communities andNewZealand attheSeptember meeting regarding
Venezuela 'simport policy formilkpowder; (iii)toseekclarification about whether theGovernment
ofVenezuela intended tomake thegranting ofimport licences formilkpowder, white corn, andrice
conditional ondomestic supply oftheseproducts being exhausted; and(iv)torecord theUnited States '
strong opposition totheestablishment ofasystem which imposed suchconditions onimport licences
andwhich eroded thevalue ofthetariff quota, thusconstituting abarrier totrade.
36. Therepresentative ofVenezuela responded thatwritten replies hadbeen provided tothe
United States regarding import licensing requirements inVenezuela. Asregarded import policies for
milkpowder, Venezuela applied anautomatic licensing system forstatistical purposes andtoensure
compliance withquality andhealth requirements applicable inVenezuela inaccordance withArticle
2oftheAgreement onImport Licensing. Licences could beissued toallnatural orlegalpersons meeting
therequirements laiddown intheOfficial Bulletin dated 13October 1997. These requirements included,
interalia:(i)submission ofthetrade register oftheimporting body; and(ii)thehealth registration
oftheproduct established bytheHealth Ministry. Thislicensing system entered intoforce on
13November 1997. Forty-eight hours afterthepublication oftherelevant official bulletin, asignificant
number oflicences weregranted covering atotalof7,000 tonnes. Therepresentative ofVenezuela
alsonoted thatVenezuela wasapplying anon-automatic licensing system foryellow cornandsorghum,
together withanautomatic licensing system formilkpowder inaccordance withArticles 2and3of
theAgreement onImport Licensing. Inrespect ofwhite cornandrice,itwasnottheintention of
Venezuela toimplement anytypeofimport licensing system.
Other Matters Relating totheReview Process
37. With respect tooutstanding replies toquestions raised atprevious meetings under thereview
process, therepresentative ofUruguay asked whether themeasures notified byMexico in
G/AG/N/MEX/5underthespecialanddifferentialtreatmentprovisionsoftheAgreement,weredesigned
tosubsidize investment generally available toagriculture inadeveloping country, thusfalling under
paragraph 2ofArticle 6oftheAgreement. Uruguay requested some clarifications from Mexico on
itsnotification which described these measures asbeing available forallagricultural producers. The
questions hadarrived lateandUruguay would waitforthereply from Mexico.
38. Under thisitemoftheagenda, therepresentative ofCanada noted thatCanada had,atthe
June1997meetingoftheCommittee,putanumberofquestionstoMexicoregardingitsdomesticsupport
measures. AttheSeptember meeting oftheCommittee Mexico hadstated thatitwasintheprocess
ofpreparing thereplies. Canada wished toknow when itcould expect theanswers. Therepresentative
ofCanadaalsoremindedtheCommitteeofquestionsithadaskedtheUnitedStatesattheSeptember1997
meeting oftheCommittee regarding milkmarketing orders inthestateofCalifornia andstated that
theUnited States hadconfirmed Canada 'sunderstanding oftheprogramme (G/AG/R/12, paragraph 52,
refers). Canada wished toknow whether themost recent United States 'export subsidy notification
G/AG/N/USA/12 included allexports ofdairy products made from milksoldattheexport price in
California as"subsidized exports" andwhich specific products were included.G/AG/R/13
Page9
39. Therepresentative ofMexico stated thatitwould shortly provide ananswer toallthequestions
puttoMexico, including thequestions posed byUruguay. Inresponse tothequestion from Canada
regarding milkmarketing plans inthestateofCalifornia, therepresentative oftheUnited States stated
thattheUnited States tooknoteofCanada 'sinterest andthatitwould lookintotheissue further.
40. Withregard tothequestion ofoverdue notifications theCommittee tooknotethat,asrequested
attheMarch 1997 meeting, theSecretariat hadmade available aRoom Document dated
21November1997showingcompliancewiththenotificationobligationsoftheCommitteeonAgriculture.
Under thisitemoftheagenda, therepresentative ofUruguay wondered whether itwasproper forthe
European Communities 'notifications tobemade onthebasisofits15Members, given thattheofficial
15-Member EEClistwasyettobefinalized andcirculated. Therepresentative ofUruguay alsoinquired
astowhen Colombia would submit itsnotification withregard toexport subsidies. Therepresentative
ofColombia noted thatColombia wasintheprocess ofpreparing notifications thatwould beprovided
inthenearfuture totheSecretariat forcirculation. Therepresentative ofCosta Ricainformed the
Committee thatCosta Ricawould shortly submit itsnotifications for1995 andpartof1996.
PartII:Other Matters within thePurview oftheCommittee
(a) Annual monitoring bytheCommittee oftheFollow-up totheMinisterial Decision onMeasures
concerning thepossible negative effects oftheReform Programme onLeast-Developed and
NetFood-Importing Developing Countries under Article 16.2oftheAgreement including the
Follow-up toparagraph 18oftheCommittee 'sReport fortheSingapore Ministerial Conference
ontheDecision
41. TheChairman noted thatunder Article 16.2oftheAgreement, theCommittee isrequired to
monitor, asappropriate, thefollow-up totheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision onMeasures Concerning
thePossible Negative Effects oftheReform Programme onLeast-Developed andNetfood-Importing
Developing Countries. Under theCommittee 'sWorking Procedures (G/AG/1, paragraph 18),this
Monitoring exercise isundertaken attheregular November meetings oftheCommittee. Themonitoring
exercise isconducted onthebasisofcontributions byMembers, including notifications intheNFseries
concerning actions taken within theframework oftheNetFood-Importers 'Decision. Fifteen Members
had,sincetheNovember 1996monitoring exercise, submitted notifications intheNFseries (Australia,
Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Cuba, Fiji,Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malta, NewZealand, Norway,
Philippines, South Africa andtheUnited Arab Emirates). TheChairman noted thatthefollow-up to
paragraph 18oftheCommittee 'sreport fortheMinisterial Conference ontheNetFood-Importer 's
Decision (G/L/125) wasalsoanimportant feature ofthegeneral follow-up totheDecision.
42. Under thisitemoftheagenda, therepresentatives oftheFAO, UNWorld Food Programme,
theIMFandtheWorld Bank, respectively, tookthefloorandcontributed statements ondevelopments
intheirrespective areas. TheOECD observer alsomade astatement regarding theprogress onan
understanding onsubsidized export credits andrelated facilities. Thestatements oftheaforementioned
observer international intergovernmental organizations arereproduced indocument G/AG/GEN/15.
43. TheChairman alsonoted that,asagreed attheJune1997 meeting oftheCommittee, the
follow-uptotheSingaporeMinisterialrecommendationswithregardtofoodaidmatters(paragraph18(i)
ofG/L/125) would continue tobeforreview attheregular meetings oftheCommittee.
44. Therepresentative ofPeruthanked observer organizations forthereports presented tothe
Committee andunderlined theimportance ofthecontinued monitoring ofprogress regarding the
Ministerial Decision onMeasures concerning thepossible negative effects ofthereform programme
onLeast-Developed andNetFood-Importing Developing Countries.G/AG/R/13
Page10
(b) Chairman 'sreport ontheprocess ofanalysis andinformation exchange (AIE process)
45. TheCommittee tooknoteofthefollowing report bytheChairman onthesession oftheAIE
process heldon19-20 November 1997:
"(i) TheCommittee 'sdecision onthefollow-up totheSingapore Ministerial Declaration
regarding theprocess ofanalysis andinformation exchange (now referred toasthe"AIE
Process") provides that"fortransparency purposes anitemrelating totheprocess would be
included ontheagenda ofregular meetings oftheCommittee toenable theChairman tomake
afactual andsummary report totheCommittee ontheprocess" (G/AG/R/10, paragraph 36,
refers). Inthislight, following thefirstthreesessions oftheAIEprocess reported onatprevious
meetings oftheCommittee (G/AG/R/11, paragraph 44andG/AG/R/12, paragraph 58refer),
anopen-ended informal meeting oftheCommittee washeldon19and20November. Members
hadbefore them11informal papers submitted byMembers along withfourbackground papers
prepared bytheSecretariat i.e.:
Informal papers submitted byMembers:
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
AIE/5: byNewZealand onTariff Quota Administration
AIE/6: byPakistan, PeruandtheDominican Republic onIssues ofInterest toDeveloping
Countries
AIE/7: bytheUnited States onAdministration ofTariff Quotas
AIE/8: byUruguay onImplementation ofTariff Commitments
AIE/9: byAustralia onTariff Quota Administration: First-come, First-served
AIE/10: bytheUnited States onArticle 6.5: Direct Payments under Production-Limiting
Programmes
AIE/11: bytheUnited States onStateTrading Enterprises (Single Desk Buyers andSingle
Desk Sellers)
Secretariat background papers:
AIE/S1: Tariff andOther Quotas
AIE/S2: Domestic Support
AIE/S3: Export Subsidies
AIE/S4: Tariff Quota Administration Methods andTariff Quota Fill.
"(ii) Themeeting focused onthose papers thathadbeensubmitted since thelastmeeting
intheAIEprocess, orthathadonlybeensubject topreliminary review intheprevious meeting.
"(iii) Specifically, thepaper byPakistan, PeruandtheDominican Republic onIssues of
Interest toDeveloping Countries waswarmly received byalarge number ofdelegations.
Members underlined theimportance ofexamining thesituation ofdeveloping country Members
inthepost-Uruguay Round period andanumber ofMembers indicated thattheyintended to
submit papers onspecific issues andexamples fromtheirexperiences tothegroup toenhance
work onthistopic inthefuture. Many Members referred tothework being carried outby
otherinternational organizations andtheirroleinhelping developing country Members identify
issues ofparticular interest inorder toassist allMembers 'fullintegration intotheinternational
trading system. Anumber ofdelegations suggested thattheSecretariat actasacoordinatingG/AG/R/13
Page11
bodyforbringing together thework ofother organizations andproposed areas ofwork which
could beundertaken bytheSecretariat directly, concerning, forexample, statistics ontrade
patterns. Reference wasmade toaction taken under theMinisterial Decision onMeasures
Concerning thePossible Negative Effects oftheReform Programme onLeast-Developed and
NetFood-Importing Developing Countries asalsobeing relevant tothistopic.
"(iv) Inlightofsuggestionsmade,theSecretariatundertooktoprovidetotheMarchmeeting
oftheAIEprocess, anoverview ofrelevant information concerning special anddifferential
treatment provisions relating totheAgreement. Itwould alsoprovide alisting ofstudies which
havebeenundertaken bytheWTO andother international organizations ontopics relevant
totheissue. Itwasalsonoted thattarifflinetradedatasuchasthatcontained intheIDBwould
berequired tocarry outeffective analyses inthisarea. Iwillconsult withMembers onthe
bestwayfordeveloping country Members tosubmit information ontheirspecific experiences
totheAIEprocess andsolicit views onrelevant information which could besought fromother
international organizations. When other international organizations areinaposition tomake
additional information available theywould beinvited, onanadhocbasis, tomake aspecific
presentation onittotheAIEprocess.
"(v) Ontheissueoftariff quota administration, there wasawide-ranging discussion on
theissues raised bytheUnited States 'paper onthesubject (AIE/7). Many Members appeared
toconsider thatthepaper provided agood overview oftheadvantages anddisadvantages of
thevarious tariff quota administration mechanisms inuse.During thediscussion, reference
wasalsomade topapers thathadbeenpresented totheprocess atearlier meetings andtothe
Secretariat background papers. Anumber ofMembers commented that,intheirview, the
paper showed thatthere wasnoonesingle method oftariff quota administration which could
beconsidered superior inallcases having regard totherange ofproducts andcircumstances
involved. Itwasalsosuggested thattherewasacertain balancing actthathadtobeundertaken
tosatisfy different objectives suchasthegreatest possible reduction ofrestrictions totrade,
anorderly management ofimports throughout ayear, areduction ofbureaucratic intervention,
control ofspeculation andthepromotion ofcompetition. Discussions concerning theissue
ofquota rentsalsotookplace withdiffering views concerning theeffects ontheshares ofquota
rentsobtained byimporters andexporters ofdifferent administration methods andthepotential
forquota rentstoencourage vested interests which maynotsupport further tradeliberalization.
"(vi) Continuingonthetopicoftariffquotaadministration,MembersdiscussedAustralia's
informal paper onthefirst-come, first-served (FCFS) allocation method andtheparticular
advantages anddisadvantages ofthatsystem (AIE/9). Itwasnoted thatadistinction needed
tobemade between FCFS allocation methods which involved theissuance oflicences andthose
thatrelied solely onthephysical entry ofgoods. Anumber ofMembers, while acknowledging
thepotential disadvantages oftheFCFS method, considered thatsome ofthemcould bereadily
addressed through means suchastheuseofanumber oftranches ofthetariffquota throughout
theyearandpenalties applying toimporters ifallocations werenotfullyused. Thereallocation
ofshortfalls where atariffisapparently notgoing tobefilled during aperiod wasalsodiscussed.
Suchre-allocations could beusedincases where anindividual importer wasunable toimport
itsallocated quantity or,incases where acountry-specific allocation wasinvolved, asupplying
country would notfillitsallocation. Anumber ofother issues were raised suchasthe
implication suchreallocations could haveforfuture year'sallocations, theeventual participation
ofnewparticipants andthepossibility ofrolling overunused portions oftariff quotas tothe
nextyear. Anumber ofMembers offered theviewthatwhile suchmechanisms mayenhance
tariff quota fillrates, theywent beyond theobligations ofMembers which were toprovide
access opportunities inlinewiththeirscheduled commitments.G/AG/R/13
Page12
"(vii) Astothepaper presented byUruguay ontheimplementation oftariffcommitments,
itwasnoted thatwhile theUruguay Round hadinvolved thereplacement ofnon-tariff barriers
withtariffs, anumber ofthose tariffs remained highandinsome casesspecific duties orspecific
components alsorequired study. Anumber ofMembers proposed thatinformation should
becollected ontradeflows ontarifflineswhich hadtariffs resulting fromtheUruguay Round 's
tariffication process tofurther thediscussion, along withanexamination ofadvalorem
equivalents ofnon-ad valorem duties. Other Members didnotconsider thatthescope ofsuch
adiscussion laywithin theAIEprocess. Concerning measures suchasentry prices, non-
automatic licensing systems andsimilar measures asraised inthepaper byUruguay, some
Membersconsideredthatthiswasnotanappropriatetopicfordiscussionsince,ifotherMembers
considered thatthesemeasures wereinconflict totheWTO rules, otheravenues wereavailable,
including thedispute settlement system. Other Members considered thatitwasappropriate
tocontinue discussions inthisareainthecontext ofconsidering options fortheupcoming
negotiations thatwould tackle thespecific problems facing some agricultural trade. The
Secretariat undertook toexamine theavailability ofstatistics onout-of-quota tradeinagricultural
products inthecontext ofthework under wayonexamining theavailability ofadvalorem
equivalents ofspecific duties.
"(viii) Apreliminary discussion wasundertaken ontheUnited States 'paper onArticle 6.5
oftheAgreement. Some Members considered theissuedeserved attention astherewereonly
averylimited number ofMembers overall using theprovision anditwas,intheirview, not
based onsound economics andcould delay thetransition ofagricultural policy towards the
green boxofmeasures (Annex 2oftheAgreement). Other Members didnotconsider there
werereasons toexamine theprovision asintheirviewitwasnotinconsistent withthegeneral
reform process, itwasnotatransitional measure norwastheAIEprocess anappropriate forum
fordiscussing possible changes totheprovision 'scriteria oritselimination. Asthisinformal
paper oftheUnited States wasforpreliminary discussion itistoberevisited.
"(ix) Apreliminary discussion wasalsoheldontheUnited States 'informal paper onState
trading enterprises (single deskbuyers andsingle desksellers). Many Members recognized
thatthepaper provided arather complete outline ofpotential trade distortions which could
result fromtheuseofsuchentities. Some Members, however, didnotconsider thatthepotential
wasalways backed upbypractical experience andthatsome ofthepotential trade distortions
citedinthepaper necessarily contradicted others. Intheirviewtheentities were, insome cases,
themostappropriate means ofcarrying outcertain objectives suchasstock piling forsecurity
reasons andtheattainment ofeconomies ofscale. Asthisinformal paper oftheUnited States
wasforpreliminary discussion ittooistoberevisited.
"(x) While thegeneral back-to-back nature ofAIEmeetings withthose oftheCommittee
onAgriculture wasnoted, itwasagreed toholdanadditional meeting oftheAIEprocess on
20January 1998.
"(xi) Thisbeing said, inconcluding myreport ontheAIEprocess Iwould liketo
remindMembersthat,asagreed,theprocess"wouldbeundertakenthroughopen-endedinformal
meetings oftheCommittee onthebasis, interalia,ofpapers tobesubmitted byMembers"
(G/AG/R/10, paragraph 36).Iamreiterating thisinorder toencourage Members toensure
thatalltopics ofinterest tothem canbediscussed intheprocess andtoremind youthatthe
presentation ofapaper isnotaprerequisite foranissue tobediscussed asIamaware ofthe
difficulties faced bysome Members inpreparing papers."
46. TheEuropean Communities, Switzerland andJapan tookthefloortoexpress theconcern that
theChairman 'sreport ontheprocess ofanalysis andinformation exchange andthusthediscussionsG/AG/R/13
Page13
undertaken within theframework oftheAIEprocess were toodetailed andformalized. According
totherepresentative oftheEuropean Communities, circulation oftheChairman 'sreport ontheprocess
ofanalysis andinformation exchange totheCommittee, would make itapublic document andwould
thusenable theinformal AIEdiscussions tobetraced publicly. AstheAIEprocess developed, and
more sensitive issues werediscussed, suchdetailed reports bytheChairman could, therefore become
more controversial. Therepresentatives oftheUnited Sates, Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay, the
Dominican Republic, Malaysia, Peru, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Ivory Coast andSouth Africa,
respectively,statedtheirappreciationoftheChairman'sreportontheprocessofanalysisandinformation
exchange, areport which, intheirview, wasfactual andperfectly neutral andbalanced, asmandated
bytheCommittee.
47. TheChairman noted thatthereport ontheprocess ofanalysis andinformation exchange was
made onhisresponsibility asChairman, onafactual andinformal basisasmandated bytheCommittee
(G/AG/R/10, paragraph 36refers).
(c) Annual consultation under Article 18.5withrespect toMembers 'participation inthenormal
growth ofworld trade inagricultural products within theframework ofthecommitments on
export subsidies under theAgreement
48. TheChairmannotedthatArticle18.5oftheAgreementprovidedforMemberstoconsultannually
intheCommittee withrespect oftheirparticipation inthenormal growth ofworld tradeinagricultural
products within theframework ofthecommitments onexport subsidies under theAgreement. The
Committee 'sWorking Procedures stipulated thatthisannual consultation wastobeundertaken atthe
regular November meetings oftheCommittee (G/AG/1, paragraph 17).Asrequested atthemeeting
oftheCommittee onAgriculture on25-26 September 1997, theSecretariat hadprepared andmade
available totheCommittee abackground noteforthepurpose oftheconsultation (G/AG/W/32 and
Corr.1, refer).
49. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities thanked theSecretariat forproducing this
background notewhich provided agood basis tofollow uponthisitemoftheagenda annually. The
representative oftheEuropean Communities noted thatthedatapresented inthenoteshowed somewhat
erratic movements inthegrain sector possibly linked toshortages oncertain markets and,inthecase
ofrice,adramatic shiftseemed tohaveoccurred forIndia. Australia andArgentina 'sexports seemed
tohavebeendeveloping while theEuropean Communities 'exports remained stable orhaddropped
incertain areas. Therepresentative ofArgentina stated thathewasstillwondering about thepurpose
ofArticle 18.5oftheAgreement, especially when compared tothelastsentence oftheArticle 13Peace
Clause. Argentina indicated thatitwould follow thediscussions withgreat interest withaview to
better understand theissues involved.
(d) Chairman 'sreport totheCouncil forTrade inGoods
50. TheCommittee tooknotethatthebrieffactual report, which wasbefore theCommittee as
aroom document following itsearlier consideration andamendment attheinformal meeting ofthe
Committee, would besubmitted byAmbassador Osorio Londoño totheCouncil forTrade inGoods
onhisresponsibility asChairman. TheChairman confirmed thattheAnnex tothereport would reflect
allthenotificationssubmittedtotheSecretariatupto24November1997.(Thereporthasbeencirculated
asdocument G/L/211.)G/AG/R/13
Page14
(e) Requests forobserver status byInternational Intergovernmental Organizations
51. TheCommittee noted thatthere werethree outstanding requests forobserver status, namely
bytheACP Secretariat, theInter-American Development Bank andtheInter-American Institute for
Agricultural Cooperation (G/AG/W/29/Rev.1 refers). Asagreed attheCommittee 'smeeting in
September 1997, theChairman hadpursued informal consultations onthisissueandaconsensus was
yettobereached. TheChairman would continue hisinformal consultations withaviewtoreaching
adecision attheMarch 1998 meeting.
Other Business
52. Noitems of"other business" were raised.
DateofNext Meeting
53. Thenextregular meeting oftheCommittee onAgriculture willbeheldonThursday andFriday,
19-20 March 1998, andtheairgram convening themeeting andcontaining thedraftagenda willbe
issued onFriday, 6March 1998.G/AG/R/13
Page15
ANNEX
PartI
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
PartII
(i)
(ii)Summary ofspecific points raised onnotifications andresponses thereto
(20-21 November 1997 meeting)
ontheadministration oftariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:1):
theEuropean Communities (EEC/3/Corr.1), Japan (JPN/23), Philippines
(PHL/12) andThailand (THA/24 and25);
relating toimports under tariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:2):
Canada (CAN/16), Iceland (ISL/8), Japan (JPN/24), Korea (KOR/12),
Norway (NOR/14 and15), Philippines (PHL/8), theUnited States
(USA/9/Add.1) andVenezuela (VEN/10);
relating totheuseofthespecial safeguard (Table MA:5):
Canada (CAN/15), Japan (JPN/22) andKorea (KOR/13);
relating todomestic support commitments (Table DS:1): Argentina
(ARG/4), Australia (AUS/14), Brazil (BRA/6/Rev.1), Canada (CAN/17),
Colombia (COL/6 and7),Iceland (ISL/9), Korea (KOR/14), NewZealand
(NZL/12),Norway(NOR/11),Philippines(PHL/10),Poland
(POL/12/Rev.1 andPOL/13/Rev.1), South Africa (ZAF/13), Thailand
(THA/23) andVenezuela (VEN/4/Rev.1 andVEN/8);
relating toexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3): Korea
(KOR/16), Norway (NOR/12 and 13), Poland (POL/14), Turkey
(TUR/5/Rev.1), Venezuela (VEN/5/Rev.1).
Deferred replies toquestions onnotifications raised atprevious meetings
relating todomestic support commitments (Table DS:1): Japan (JPN/21
andCorr.1) andPoland (POL/12);
relating toexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3):
NewZealand (NZL/11).Page
16
16
19
26
27
44
49
49
51G/AG/R/13
Page16
ANNEX -PartI
Review ofNotifications bytheCommittee onAgriculture atitsMeeting on20-21 November 1997
Summary ofSpecific Points Raised andResponses Thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/3/Corr.1 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina -Why areretail establishments orrestaurants
whoselltheir products tofinal consumers barred from
access tothetariff quotas?
Canada -Why wastheminimum quantity thatalicence
applicant hastoimport ineach ofthetwoprevious
calendar years increased from 50to100tonnes?Thisrestriction andthisrequirement are
designed togiveanopportunity toapplicants
toobtain areasonable quantity toimport
under their licence andtofacilitate trade.
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/23 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina/Colombia -Clarification sought
regarding the"other qualifications" required in
order toparticipate inthecompetitive bidding
system.Thenotification wasmade justtoreflect thechange of
thestate trading enterprise 'sname from Livestock
Industry Promotion Corporation (LIPC) toAgriculture
andLivestock Industries Corporation (ALIC). In
order toparticipate intenders applicants must have
pastrecord imports andmust beregistered as
corporations under theCommercial Law.
Argentina -Does therequirement regarding
"previous import records" mean thataccess for
newimporters isnotallowed?New entrants, whohave imported quantities outside
thetariff quota, areeligible toparticipate intenders
forimport contracts withtheALIC.
Colombia -IstheALIC thesolepurchaser of
allimported products? Ifso,does Japan claim
thatthemechanism isinconformity with
Article IIIofGATT 1994?Allin-quota imports ofdesignated dairy products for
general useareconducted bytheALIC while out-of-
quota imports areopen toprivate importers. The
ALIC isastate trading enterprise anditsactivities are
consistent withArticle XVII oftheGATT. With
respect toArticle IIIoftheGATT, imported products
arenolessfavourably treated thandomestic products.G/AG/R/13
Page17
Philippines G/AG/N/PHL/12 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -DidthePhilippines
notify onlytariff quotas which
appear initsSchedule?
Inlight ofthereply, Australia
stated thatitwashelpful toknow,
forreasons oftransparency, which
products arefacing tariff quotas.ThePhilippines notified onlytariff quotas forwhich ithas
commitments.
Australia -Does thePhilippines
intend tomaintain atariff quota
arrangement forfrozen beef?Forthetimebeing, thePhilippines willcontinue toallow certain
import quantities attheapplied tariff of30percentinstead ofthe
bound tariff of60percent.
European Communities -
Information requested asregards
the"Department ofAgriculture
Administrative Order No.8, Series
of1997".The"Department ofAgriculture Administrative Order No.8 hasa
built-in quota reallocation system. Ifalicensee failstoutilize its
licence totheextent oftheminimum threshold level, thevolume of
itslicence isprogressively reduced asfollows: 50percentthefirst
year, 75percentthesecond consecutive yearand100percentthe
third consecutive year. Thethreshold level issetat50percentof
itslicence volume fortheten-month period (January toOctober).
Thistranslates into60percentforatwelve-month period.
Considering however thatpeak demand isinNovember and
December, thistranslates intoeffectively higher threshold level
rate. Penalties areimposed regardless ofreasons fornon-
importation. Allunutilized tariff quota quantities areadded tothe
minimum access quantity andconstituted intoaBeginning-Year
Pool (BYP). Subject tocertain priorities, theBYP isallocated on
afirst-come/first-served basis. Priorities areestablished as
follows: (i)tolicensees whohave utilized atleast 80percentof
their licences andtonewentrants; and(ii)tolicensees whohave
utilized between 50and80percentoftheir licences. Ifalicensee
voluntarily surrenders itslicence onorbefore thelastworking day
ofApril, thequantities areconstituted intotheMid-Year Pool
(MYP). TheMYP isallocated onafirst-come/first-served basis
subject toapriority infavour ofthelicensee whohasutilized at
least 30percentofitslicence asof30April. Anewentrant is
someone whohasbeen engaged inanybusiness foratleast
12months andwhohasimported theproduct atleast once inthe
ordinary course ofbusiness attheout-quota tariff oratthein-quota
tariff, ifhehashadaccess totheMYP.G/AG/R/13
Page18
Thailand G/AG/N/THA/24 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Brazil -Information requested onthe
method used toallocate tariff quotas for
soya bean oilandcoconut oil.Tariff quotas areallocated directly totheend-users inorder
toreduce unnecessary additional costs. Tariff quotas for
soya bean oilareallocated toanyjuristic person which isa
member oftheThai Food Processors 'Association. With
respect tococonut oil,tariff quotas areallocated ona
proratabasis toanyjuristic person whooperates afactory
utilizing coconut oilasaninput foritsproduction.
Thailand G/AG/N/THA/25 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/Colombia -Why wasthe
tariff quota forpalm oilallocated to
thePalm OilRefinery Association in
1997, whereas itwaspreviously
allocated tothePublic Warehouse
Organization? Hadthetariff quota
been reduced?Since most oftheapplicants ofthetariff quota forpalm oilwere
members ofthePalm OilRefinery in1996 andinorder to
reduce unnecessary costs totheend-users 20,000 tonnes ofpalm
oilwere directly allocated tothePalm OilRefinery Association
whoaredirect users ofpalm oil.Thetariff quota hadbeen
reduced to20,000 tonnes according todomestic demand and
production. However, thisamount represented more than
300percentofthetariff quota bound inThailand 'sSchedule.
Thetariff applied onpalm oilimports waszero, whereas the
bound in-quota tariff is20percent.G/AG/R/13
Page19
Table MA:2 Notifications
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/16 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina/European Communities -Why
were thetariff quotas forwheat, barley and
barley products notfilled?Tariff quotas forwheat, barley andbarley products were
notfilled duetothecompetitiveness ofCanadian grains
ontheCanadian market. Tariff quotas areadministered
onafirst-come/first-served basis. Tariff quota fillfor
wheat (74percent) hasincreased in1996/97 duetothe
reduced quality oftheCanadian crop inthatyear. The
rateoffillforbarley was6.8percent. Asregards
barley products lowtariff quota fill(70-75 percent) was
duetothelackofdemand forimports. Imports are
primarily speciality malts andmaltextracts used inbeer
production andforfood processing.
Australia -Doin-quota imports notified
represent totalimports?Total imports were higher thanthein-quota imports.
European Communities -Clarification
sought regarding thetariff itemHS
2309.90.38 "preparations ofakindused in
animal feeding, other, within access
commitment" referred inCanadian
Schedule V,PartI,Section I-A. Towhich
tariff quota isthisitem attributed?Notariff quota wasestablished forthisproduct as
indicated inCanada Schedule V,PartI,Section I-B.
Japan -Clarification sought withrespect to
footnote 1which states thatthecount ofin-
quota imports forbutter, cream anddried
whey isbased onpermits issued bythe
Exports andImports Controls Bureau
(EICB) (page 7refers). Why didtheEICB
notuseactual imports during theperiod?
Areactual imports substantially smaller than
thein-quota imports notified incolumn 4?Import trade datafrom Statistics Canada maynot
provide anaccurate count where, forexample, product
conversion factors apply ortheproduct isdefined
differently from theHarmonized System. Aspenalties
areapplied fornotusing ahighpercentage ofthequota
allocated, actual imports aregenerally quite close tothe
in-quota imports notified incolumn 4.
Switzerland -Dotariff quota quantity and
in-quota imports include preferential trade
(regional agreements andGeneralized
System ofPreferences)?Scheduled tariff quota quantity andnotified imports
include preferential trade.
Switzerland -Arethere imports under
preferential trade agreements/arrangements
during themarketing year1996/97? Ifyes,
howmuch isimported andfrom which
countries? Dothese countries have access to
thetariff quota atthebeginning ofthe
marketing year?Notified imports under theseven tariff quotas include
preferential trade asfollows:
Product Country Quantity
(tonnes)
Wheat
Barley
Wheat products
Barley products
Drywhey
ButterUnited States
United States
United States, Mexico
United States
United States
NewZealand, Australia,
United States114,118
18,577
70,961
3,586
3,225
2,234
Allcountries hadaccess tothese tariff quotas from the
beginning ofthemarketing year.G/AG/R/13
Page20
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/16 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Switzerland -Arethetariffs applied onin-
quota imports thesame asthose applied on
preferential imports?Tariff applied onpreferential imports aredifferent from
MFN tariffs applied toother countries, except where all
imports arezero-rated. Depending ontheproducts
preferential tariffs mayapply toin-quota imports from
theUnited States, Mexico, Australia andNew Zealand.
Switzerland -Intheevent thatCanada would
provide, inexcess ofitsMFN quotas,
specific tariff quotas allocated onlyfor
imports under preferential regime andinthe
casewhere tariff quotas would befilled,
would thecountries concerned have access
totheMFN tariff quotas included in
Canada 'sSchedule?Canada preferred nottospeculate onthishypothetical
question.
Switzerland -Arethere preferential imports
intheFree Trade Agreement withChile? If
yes,willtheybecounted against thetariff
quotas?Incases where there arepreferential tariffs, imports
from allsources would generally becounted within tariff
quotas.
European Communities -DidCanada apply
preferential rates ofdutyonimports from
New Zealand andAustralia forcertain
products?Canada applied preferential rates ofdutyonimports
from New Zealand andAustralia forcertain products.
Therepresentative ofCanada believed thatsuch
preferences dated from theBritish Imperial Preference.
Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/8 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Brazil -Clarification sought
regarding thelowquota fillfora
number ofproducts including
potatoes, cabbages, cereal groats
andanimal fat.Under-utilization ofthetariff quotas forpotatoes andcabbages is
attributable tothelackofdemand forimports. Noquantitative
restrictions areapplied oncurrent access imports andin-quota
tariffs areapplied seasonally. Imports ofthese products have
through theyears tended tofluctuate substantially, depending on
domestic production which hasbecome more competitive inter
aliaduetoadvances inproduction techniques. Asregards
products such ascereal groats, lowin-quota imports areinter
aliaduetoproduction-limiting programmes intheagricultural
sector which have ledtoasignificant decline inmeat anddairy
production since thebaseperiod andtolowimports ofproducts
forfeedpurposes.G/AG/R/13
Page21
Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/8 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Brazil -What isthetariff applied on
in-quota imports forsugar and
derived products, barley, corn,
wheat, soya bean oilandanimal or
vegetable fatsandoilsandtheir
fractions, partly orwholly
hydrogenated?These products arenotsubject toanyquantitative restrictions and
market demand isthesoledeterminant ofimport levels. Applied
tariffs forthese products areasfollows inpercentage:
Sugar andsub-products:
1701 0
1702 0
1703 0(unless forfeedpurposes, then55)
1704 20(except 1704.9001, then0)
Barley 0(unless forfeedpurposes, then55)
Grain 0(unless forfeedpurposes, then55)
Wheat 0(unless forfeedpurposes, then55)
Soya bean oil 0
Animal fats 0
Vegetable fats 0
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/24 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina/European
Communities/Canada -
Clarification sought regarding the
lowquota fillfordairy products
(other thanforgeneral use). Has
Japan taken anysteps toexamine
theadministration ofthedairy
products tariff quotas?Asregards skimmed milk powder forschool lunch, thetariff
quota wasnotfilled duetoadecline inthenumber ofpupils
which hasledtoadecrease inimports. Low quota fillfor
skimmed milk powder forother purposes isduetothedecreasing
number oflivestock animals andhigher import prices caused by
thedepreciation oftheyen. Thedemand forimports of
evaporated milk islimited asitsutilization isstillinadeveloping
stage. Low in-quota imports ofwhey andmodified whey for
feeding purposes isattributable tothedecrease inthenumber of
livestock animals. Thedecline inthenumber ofnewborn babies
andtheincreasing interest inbreast feeding hasaccounted forthe
underfill ofthetariff quota forprepared whey forinfant formula.
Thescheduled tariff quota forbutter andbutter oilincludes
quantities foroutward processing trade (1,263 tonnes) andfor
consumption inthecruise ofinternational maritime vessels and
international airlines (29tonnes). Trade statistics fortheses
quantities were notavailable. Low in-quota imports ofbutter and
butter oilareduetotheexcessive stock from theprevious year.
Regarding mineral concentrated whey, domestic users arenotyet
familiar withitsutilization andthedevelopment ofproducts using
whey asaninput islagging.
Themain reason forunder-utilization ofsome tariff quotas is
attributed tothedecline indemand forimports andnottoJapan 's
tariff quota administration method. Incases where thetotal
amount ofapplications isbelow thetariff quota quantity, all
applications are,inprinciple, accepted. With respect totheactual
tariff quota administration, theGovernment receives reports on
theactual usesofeach tariff quota andmayreview asappropriate
required qualifications andcriteria forallocation.G/AG/R/13
Page22
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/24 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Why did
Japan notnotify evaporated milk
(HS0402.91) under theglobal
tariff quota "other dairy products
forgeneral use"asmentioned in
Japan 'sSchedule XXXVIII?Japan established anindependent tariff quota forevaporated milk.
Low quota fill(50percent) isduetothefactthattheutilization
ofevaporated milk isstillinadeveloping stage.
Argentina -Why were thetariff
quotas forthefollowing products
notfilled: prepared edible fat,
dried leguminous vegetables,
starches andgroundnuts?Low in-quota imports ofstarches used forsweeteners isrelated to
higher costascompared tocorn starches domestically produced
from imported corn. Demand forimports forgroundnuts has
declined duetoarecent diversification offood intake andahigh
degree ofcompetition withother kinds ofnuts. Asregards
prepared edible fatanddried leguminous vegetables, tariff quotas
were almost filled.
Argentina -What isthetariff
applied toout-of-quota imports?In-quota tariffs areapplied toallimports notified.G/AG/R/13
Page23
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/12 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Clarification sought regarding the
tariff quota forginseng. Why isthetariff quota
fillsolow? Inwhat form wasginseng imported
in1995 and1996?In1995, Korea imported theentire tariff quota of
34.1 tonnes ofginseng. Although allthetariff quota
wasallocated byopen andcompetitive bidding in
1996, imports didnotgetthrough thecustoms dueto
pesticide residues. Ginseng wasimported inthe
form ofroots in1995 and1996.
European Communities -Noted thattariff
quotas forpigmeat, poultry meat andorange
juice areimplemented onathree-year basis
(1995-97) according toKorea 'sSchedule LX.
How does Korea implement these tariff quotas?
What willbethetariff quota quantity open in
1997?Thetariff quotas forpigmeat, poultry meat and
orange juice expired 30June 1997 asspecified in
Korea 'sSchedule. Asof1July1997 thefull
liberalization ofimports ofthese products occurred
andMFN tariffs areapplied asnotified in
G/AG/N/KOR/11.
European Communities -Why were thetariff
quotas forthefollowing products notfilled:
whole milk powder (HS0402.21/29), condensed
milk (HS0402.91/99) andpotatoes (HS
0701.10/90)?Low import demand forcondensed milk andwhole
milk powder isduetotheincrease inimports ofmilk
powder blend atlowtariff. Thereason forlowin-
quota imports ofpotatoes isthesmall price gap
between thedomestic andtheworld market prices.
United States -Noted thatthere were anumber
ofinconsistencies between thetariff quota
quantity notified inTable MA:2 andthe
commitments. Could Korea explain these
discrepancies inparticular forchicken andfresh
oranges?
United States -Why isthetariff quota for
orange juice notfilled?Under-utilization ofthetariff quota fororange juice
(76percent) isattributable tothelackofdemand for
imported orange juice whereas theconsumption of
other fruitjuices hasbeen increasing.
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/14 and15Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Clarification sought
regarding thelowquota fillsince most of
thecurrent access tariff quotas are
subject toatariff-only regime in
particular forskimmed milk powder,
butter, other wheat, groats andmeal of
maize, barley cereals.In-quota import level foreach product must beanalyzed in
connection withtotal import levels ofproducts ofthesame
kind. Forexample in-quota imports ofmilk andmilk
products (Chapter 4)were notlowascompared tothe
access commitment, although thequota fillforeach product
wasdifferent. Imports ofwheat, maize andbarley should
becompared tothetotal imports ofcereal andgrains
(Chapters 10and11). Thereason forthese differences is
duetothefactthatontheinternational andNorwegian
markets, some products aremore attractive thanothers.
Under thepresent import regime, noGovernment action or
procedure prevents anyone from importing anyofthe
products inquestion.G/AG/R/13
Page24
Philippines G/AG/N/PHL/8 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/Japan -Dothenotified import levels
reflect tariff quota commitments ortotalimport
levels forthefollowing products: horses,
cattle, potatoes, sugar, cornandrice?Thenotified import levels reflect tariff quota
commitments forthese products.
Brazil/European Communities/Japan -Why was
thetariff quota forpoultry meat (HS0207) not
filled?Theglutofpoultry meat in1995 and1996 resulting
from theexpansion inlocal production capacity
accounted fortheunder-utilization ofthepoultry meat
tariff quota. Responding tothefoot-and-mouth
disease (FMD) problem inthepork sector, poultry
producers invested heavily inorder totakeoverthe
pork market. However, theFMD problem waseasily
contained, thereby leaving poultry producers with
excess inventories which forced poultry producers to
reduce prices. In1995 chicken meat wassoldfor
P25perkg.despite production costs reaching P35per
kg.In1996, average domestic wholesale price of
whole chicken wasP47.05 perkg.while thelanded
costwasabout P53perkg..
Japan/European Communities -Why does the
tariff quota quantity forsugar notcorrespond to
thecommitment level?Asconducted intheprocès-verbal ofrectification, the
tariff quota forsugar wasadjusted from 103,400 to
38,430 tonnes intheinitial quota year(1995) and
from 103,400 to64,050 tonnes inthefinal quota year
(2004). Thisprocès-verbal wasissued bytheGATT
Director-General on30November 1994.
European Communities -Incases where tariff
quota commitments have tobeincreased during
theimplementation period, howdidthe
Philippines calculate thetariff quota quantity
for1996?Asindicated intheheadnotes tothePhilippines '
Schedule, thetariff quotas have tobeimplemented in
equal annual instalments (beginning 1July1995 and
ending 1July2004).
European Communities -Why wasthetariff
quota forpigmeat under-utilized?Many reasons accounted forthelowquota fillfor
pigmeat: astrong consumer preference forfresh pork;
thelackofadequate infrastructure; andthetechnical
difficulties encountered intheprocessing, saleand
distribution offrozen pigmeat.
European Communities/Japan -Why were the
tariff quotas forgoats andgoatmeat notfilled?Tariff quotas forgoats andgoatmeat were notfilled
duetothelackofdemand forimports.
European Communities -Clarification sought
astowhether ithadbeen possible togetan
import licence andtoimport under thequota
during theentire period of1996, forthe
following products: livepoultry andgoat,
pigmeat andpoultry meat.Therules governing theadministration oftariff quotas
were issued on1July1996. Licences were only
issued on12October 1996. However provisional
MAV import certificates (MAVICs), which enabled
importers tobring incommodities atin-quota tariff,
were issued starting 16July1996. Thetariff quota
quantities were therefore available during thesecond
halfof1996 anditwould have been possible to
import quota volumes, ifdesired.G/AG/R/13
Page25
United States G/AG/N/USA/9/Add.1 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Understood that
therectification forcheddar stems from
thefactthatonepartofthetariff quota
forcheddar cheese ismanaged by
licences andtheother partbyafirst-
come/first-served system. Does the
United States intend tonotify thefirst-
come/first-served system using Table
MA:1? Arethere other products for
which tariff quotas aremanaged ona
different basis?TheUnited States requires import licences forthe
importation ofcheddar cheese, except fornatural cheese
made from pasteurized milk andaged notlessthan9
months, allocated toCanada. Theimportation ofcheddar
cheese from Canada ismade onafirst-come/first-served
basis. Theallocation dates back to1967, asreferenced by
thePresidential Proclamation Number 3790 dated
30June 1967. There aretwoseparate tariff quotas fordried
buttermilk andwhey. Theglobal tariff quota is
administered onafirst-come/first-served basis andthetariff
quotas allocated toCanada andNew Zealand operate under
animport licence. TheUnited States willsubmit arevised
Table MA:1 toreflect these different types oftariff quota
administration.
Venezuela G/AG/N/VEN/10 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -What arethe
tariffs applied toimports in1995 and
1996?In1995 and1996, imports ofagricultural products arenot
subject toanyquantitative restrictions. In-quota andout-
of-quota imports were subject tothesame tariffs, which
were lower thanthebound in-quota tariffs.G/AG/R/13
Page26
Tables MA:3 toMA:5 Notifications
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/15 UseoftheSpecial Safeguard (Table MA:5)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Could Canada confirm thatno
special safeguard action wastaken in1996?Canada confirmed thatnospecial safeguard
action wastaken in1996.
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/22 UseoftheSpecial Safeguard (Table MA:5)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Were theimports ofinulin
during thecurrent period (18.4 tonnes) partofthetariff
quota?Alltheimports were made within thetariff
quota. Additional dutyisonlyapplied to
out-of-quota imports.
Poland -Clarification sought ontheperiod used to
calculate theimports during thethree preceding years
andthevolume ofimport during thecurrent year.Japan undertook toprovide responses upon
receipt ofwritten questions.
Poland -How didJapan splittheglobal tariff quota
"starches, inulin andother preparations" inorder to
ensure market access forinulin?Japan undertook toprovide responses upon
receipt ofwritten questions.
Poland -Why wasinulin notincluded inthenotification
for1995?Japan undertook toprovide responses upon
receipt ofwritten questions.
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/13 UseoftheSpecial Safeguard (Table MA:5)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Could Korea
confirm thatthe"Special Emergency Tariff
Schedule" for1996 relates tothe
implementation oftheSSGprovision? If
so,have additional duties been applied in
1996 forallproducts included inthe
"Special Emergency Tariff Schedule"?
HastheSSGbeen applied toin-quota
imports in1996?The"Special Emergency Tariff Schedule" relates tothe
implementation oftheSSG. Forreasons oftransparency
forbothimporters andexporters, aPrime Ministerial
Decree proposes annually the"Special Emergency Tariff
Schedule". TheSSGmechanism willbeapplied only
when theconditions ofArticle 5oftheAgreement on
Agriculture aremet. Asnotified inKOR/13, theSSG
wasinvoked for5products in1996, while 61products
areincluded inthe"Special Emergency Tariff Schedule".
Additional duties were applied toout-of-quota imports.G/AG/R/13
Page27
Table DS:1 Notifications
Argentina G/AG/N/ARG/4 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -
Clarification sought regarding the
request ofArgentina torectify its
commitments setoutduring the
baseperiod.When Argentina established theSupporting Tables relating to
domestic support commitments, theprice support provided to
tobacco wascompared tothetotal value ofagricultural
production. Theresulting support wasbelow thedeminimis level
andtherefore wasnotsubject toreduction commitment. In
preparing thenotification for1995/96 Argentina discovered the
mistake andaccordingly requested atechnical rectification ofthe
commitments setoutinitsSchedule (G/AG/AGST/ARG, pages 3
and4refer).
Australia G/AG/N/AUS/14 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Colombia -Clarification sought
regarding the"Sugar Industry
Infrastructure Programme" (SIIP)
referred toinSupporting
Table DS:1 (page 6refers). What
isthescope andtheform ofthe
support provided?Under theSIIP, state andterritory Governments grant support to
thesugar industries located inQueensland andNew South
Wales. These measures arepartofthepackage ofthesugar
industry initiatives announced in1993 andaredesigned toensure
thefuture growth ofthesugar industry. Government spending,
which totalled $A40million ($A20million from thefederal
government and$A20million from thesub-federal government)
areallocated asfollows: $A38million toQueensland and
A$2million toNew South Wales. TheSIIPinvolves
infrastructure projects intheareas oftransport (construction of
newcane tramway systems), irrigation (construction ofweirs,
dams andchannels) anddrainage (construction ofbroad based
drainage facilities). Grants areprovided onlyforprojects which
have been approved byMinisters inaccordance withselected
criteria such asenvironmental considerations. Duetothenature
ofthefacilities, theprogrammes benefit thesugar producers and
notproducers ofother products inthesame neighbourhood.
Philippines -Information requested
asregards the"marketing and
promotion services forhorticultural
products" andthe"marketing and
promotion services" provided to
Tasmania andWestern Australia
referred toinSupporting
Table DS:1 (pages 6and11refer).TheAustralian Horticultural andMarket Research Programme
wasacontribution totheAustralian Horticulture Corporation
(AHC). TheAHC, established in1988, isaimed at(i)assisting
horticultural industries inachieving their fullpotential inthe
overseas market, and(ii)assisting thedevelopment of
horticultural industries through promotional andmarketing
activities. Funding wasprovided bythestate Government and
since 1997/98 theAHC isfunded totally from levies collected
from thefollowing industries: pears andapples, oranges,
nursery, fresh stone fruits, avocados, chestnuts, macadamia and
dried vinefruits.G/AG/R/13
Page28
Australia G/AG/N/AUS/14 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
South Africa/Philippines/New
Zealand -Information requested on
thesupport under item(i)structural
adjustment assistance through
investment aidsprovided bystate
andQueensland Governments
(page 14refers). What arethe
purposes andthenature ofthese
programmes? Who iseligible for
thesubsidy?The"Rural Adjustment Scheme" (RAS) isdesigned tosupport
farmers withprospects oflong-term viability. Thecriteria of
eligibility forRAS areoutlined inthenotification (page 14
refers). TheQueensland Government grants loans toenterprises
withlong-term profitability andincentives toprimary producers
withpoor prospects toleave rural enterprises.
European Communities -What types
ofmeasures areimplemented under
theenvironmental programme of
Victoria to"ensure thatlandand
water resources aremanaged within
anecologically sustainable
framework" referred toin
Supporting Table DS:1 under
item(i)(page 15refers)?Theenvironmental programmes undertaken bytheState of
Victoria involve thefollowing measures: (i)extension support
forlandcare andsustainable agriculture, (ii)theTree Victoria
Programme forrevegetation activities, landprotection incentives
forsoilerosion, pestplant andanimal management and(iii)
salinity management.
European Communities -What are
themeasures foreseen under the
"Rural andAdjustment Scheme
(Regional)" referred toin
Supporting Table DS:1 under
item(k)(page 16refers)? Arethe
measures linked toproduction or
farms?Theprogrammes seektoachieve thebetterment ofregional areas
through structural adjustment measures such asfacilitating farm
exit, property amalgamation andproductivity improvements in
rural regions faced withsubstantial economic, social and
environmental challenges.G/AG/R/13
Page29
Australia G/AG/N/AUS/14 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by
other MembersResponse byNotifying Member
European
Communities -
Clarification sought
onthecalculation of
theproduct-specific
AMS formilk
referred toin
Supporting
Table DS:7. On
which criteria arethe
levies set? What is
themeaning ofthe
terms "rebates for
downstream
processors" and
"contingent liability
forlevypaidon
stocks designated for
export" referred toin
Annex Table 2
(page 19refers)?Themanufacturing milk andmarket milk levy rates aresetonacent per
kilogram milk fatandprotein basis asfollows: (i)asregards manufacturing
milk, thelevy which ispaid bymanufacturers, issetannually inregulations
made bytheGovernor-General, ontheadvice oftheAustralian Bureau of
Agricultural andResources Economics (ABARE). Inmaking recommendations
theABARE must ensure thatthemanufacturing levyisnotsetataratewhich
would generate greater assistance than themaximum levels ofassistance
specified inthelegislation; (ii)regarding market milk, thelevywhich ispaidby
producers issetinregulations made bytheGovernor-General onthe
recommendation ofthedairy industry. This levy hasremained fixed since
1July1993.
Levy paid onmilk which issubsequently exported generates alevy liability
reduction tomanufacturers orarebate credit todownstream processors. Where
manufacturers export dairy products, their monthly gross manufacturing levy
liability isreduced bythelevy onmilk used inmanufacturing exported dairy
products inthatmonth. There arecases where downstream manufacturers
export dairy products orprocessed products containing dairy produce purchased
onthedomestic market onwhich manufacturing levyhasbeen paid. Asexports
occur atworld prices andwithout anysubsidy, thelegislation provides that
persons whoexport products containing dairy produce onwhich levies have been
paid (i.e. dairy produce purchased onthedomestic market), areentitled to
receive arebate oflevypaidonthatdairy produce toprevent them from being
atadisadvantage inworld markets. Therebate ofthelevypaidisprovided at
themanufacturing milk levyrateatthetimeofexport. Thissituation applies to
around 7percentofmanufacturing milkexported asdairy products orprocessed
products containing dairy products onwhich levyhasbeen paid, butwhich are
subsequently exported. The"contingent liability" arises asaresult ofthetime
lagbetween thecollection ofthemanufacturing levy andthelevy liability
reduction onthemilk contained inexported dairy produce. Levy paidonthe
milk used inthemanufacture ofdairy produce iscollected intherelevant year
butthelevyliability reduction pertaining todairy products being heldasstocks
destined tobeexported willnotoccur until theproduce isexported, usually in
thefollowing year. Once dairy produce isexported, themanufacturer isableto
claim thelevyliability reduction. In1996/97 anegative contingent liability was
reported duetothehigh level ofdomestic support payments inrelation to
expected levyreceipts, duetothehigher thanexpected stocks at30June 1996.
These stocks have been exported with theconsequential manufacturing levy
liability reduction in1996/97. This hasbeen corrected for1997/98 with a
22percentdrop inthepayment ratetogenerate asurplus at30June 1998.G/AG/R/13
Page30
Brazil G/AG/N/BRA/6/Rev.1 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Information requested regarding the
structural adjustment assistance andinvestment
aidsunder theagrarian reform settlement
referred toinSupporting Table DS:1
(item (viii), page 4refers). Arethepayments
linked toproduction? Who iseligible forthe
subsidy?"Structural adjustment assistance andinvestment aids"
are aimed atpromoting the fixation, initial
maintenance and theproductive restructuring of
families that arebeing settled. Credits (US$77
million) areprovided tofamilies whoareincluded in
theSettlement Project oftheNational Institute of
Colonization andAgrarian Reform (INCRA). The
support islinked toagrarian restructuring andnot
linked toanyspecific kindofproduction.
European Communities -Clarification sought
regarding theGreen Boxmeasure entitled
"public stockholding forsecurity purpose"
referred toinSupporting Table DS:1 (page 5
refers). How does themeasure meet the
criteria setoutinAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture?Theformation ofpublic stocks forfood security
purposes hasbeen done through acquisitions bythe
Federal Government. Thecostofthestocks is
composed of(i)acquisition price (minimum price)
plus(ii)thestorage andfinancial costs which depend
oninterest rates inforce. Duetohighinterest rates,
thefinancial costs have increased andwhen thestock
wasdisposed ofbymeans ofauctions, itsbook value
wasabove themarket price. Thedifference between
thecostofthestock anditsvalue onthedomestic
market isreflected under theitem"accumulation and
holding ofstocks" asforeseen infootnote 5of
paragraph 3ofAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture. Itdoes notmean thatallthestocks are
being soldatprices lower thanthose practised inthe
market.
European Communities -How does domestic
food aidreferred toinSupporting Table DS:1
(page 5refers) meet thecriteria inparagraph 4
ofAnnex 2totheAgreement onAgriculture?Most ofthebasic products distributed under the
"Emergency Distribution ofFood Programme"
(PRODEA) come from thepublic stocks constituted
bytheFederal Government. PRODEA isaimed at
(i)meeting thefood requirements ofthepopulation
whosuffer from alongdrought, and(ii)at
supporting thelandless andtheindigenous
communities. Thefood purchases forlowincome
groups carried outbyPRODEA isinconformity with
paragraph 4ofAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture, especially inlight offootnote No.6.
Canada -Noted thattheMPS forwheat had
declined because thereported eligible
production haddropped from 1.524 to402,000
tonnes (Supporting Table DS:5, page 8refers).
How does Brazil explain thisdownward
revision?
Clarification sought astowhyeligible
production differs somuch from total
production figures provided toCanada for
wheat, rice, corn andsoya bean?When Brazil notified itsdomestic support
commitments inSeptember 1996, itchose tousethe
total production ofwheat, astheamount ofwheat
subject toprice policy wasnotavailable atthattime.
However duetobudgetary constraints, onlythe
producers whohadaccess toproduction credit were
entitled tothebenefit oftheminimum price
guarantee. Inorder totakeintoaccount thereal
situation, theeligible production figures were revised
downwards forwheat andforother products.G/AG/R/13
Page31
Brazil G/AG/N/BRA/6/Rev.1 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/Canada/European Communities/New
Zealand -Could Brazil confirm thatthe
product-specific andnon-product-specific AMS
referred toinSupporting Tables DS:7 andDS:9
(pages 9-12 refer) arewithin thedeminimis
level. Could Brazil provide totalvalues of
production forthese products?Product-specific andnon-product-specific AMS did
notexceed thedeminimis level of10percentfor
developing countries (seeattachment).
Canada -Could Brazil explain whythe"EGF
equalization programme" (previously applied to
cotton, maize, riceandsoya bean) was
eliminated intherevised notification?The"EGF equalization programme" hasbeen deleted
from therevised notification inorder toconform
withthestrict interpretation oftheAgreement on
Agriculture inrelation towhat itdefines assupport
toproducers, i.e."domestic support infavour of
agricultural producers". Asthesupport provided
through the"EGF equalization programme" takes
place when theproducer borrows from the
Government having hisproduction priced atthe
minimum price, itdoes notrepresent anexpenditure
directed totheproducers.
European Communities -Wasthe"income tax
foregone" referred toinBrazil 'sSchedule
removed in1995?The"income taxforegone" measure contained in
Brazil 'sSchedule wasremoved attheendofthe
eighties.
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/17 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Clarification sought asto
whether themeasure entitled "other
general services" referred toinSupporting
Table DS:1 (page 3refers) isanewGreen
Boxmeasure. What isthenature ofthe
support provided bytheAgriculture
Service Board inAlberta? Isthesupport
under the"Alberta Farm Income Disaster"
programme stillprovided?Agriculture Service Boards, established throughout the
Province ofAlberta, aredesigned toprovide infrastructure
forthedelivery ofweed control, disease andpestcontrol,
soilandwater conservation programmes andtoenable the
administration ofprogrammes atthemunicipal level. The
expenditures were included under "infrastructural services"
inAGST Tables. Asthemeasures crossed thesub-
categories ofparagraph 2ofAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture, Canada notified them under "other general
services".
Payments under the"Alberta Farm Income Disaster"
programme willbereported inthe1996 domestic support
notification.
Australia -Could Canada confirm that
there wasnomarket price support (MPS)
forwheat anddurum?MPS forwheat anddurum ended 1August 1988. Canada
confirmed thatnoMPS wasprovided forthese products in
1995.G/AG/R/13
Page32
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/17 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Information requested as
regards "freight costpooling assistance
programme" referred toinSupporting
Table DS:6 (page 8refers). Isthisa
modified programme?Thefreight costpooling assistance programme (FCPAP)
hasreplaced theWestern Grain Transportation Act
(WGTA) asof1August 1995. TheWestern Grain
Transportation Adjustment Fund (WGTAF) isdesigned to
helpthePrairie agriculture sector totakeadvantage ofthe
opportunities flowing from thetransportation reform. In
phase Ioftheprogramme, apayment ofCan$45 million
wasprovided towheat andbarley producers inManitoba
andeastern Saskatchewan ofwhich, Can$20 million is
notified in1995. TheFCPAP, which hasbeen removed,
wasdifferent from the"Income Support byPartial Offset
ofFreight Rate Increases" reported intheAGST Tables.
Australia -What isthedifference between
the"Feed Freight Assistance Programme"
andthe"Feed Freight Assistance
Adjustment Fund" referred toin
Supporting Table DS:9 (pages 19and20
refer)?TheFederal Budget terminated the"Feed Freight
Assistance" (FFA) programme" asof31December 1995
andestablished the"Feed Freight Assistance Adjustment
Fund" (FFAAF). TheFFAAF isatransitional measure
designed tofacilitate theadaptation oflivestock farming in
feeddeficit regions toaneweconomic environment
without theFFA subsidy. Support wasprovided toseven
provinces andtwoterritories withprovincial farm
organizations being responsible fordistributing thefunds,
either asdirect payments toproducers orbyestablishing
development funds. Thepayment formulas varied by
province andsometimes byproducer group. Theamount
ofCan$20 million notified inthe1995 domestic support
notification represents payments made inthefiscal year
1995/96.
New Zealand -Could Canada provide
further details oftheindividual
programmes under item (a)(iii)
infrastructural services namely "Prairie
farm rehabilitation" and"irrigation and
drainage projects" referred toin
Supporting Table DS:1 (page 3refers).Willanswer inwriting.
European Communities -Clarification
sought regarding theGross Revenue
Insurance Programme (GRIP) referred to
inSupporting Table DS:6. Isitanew
programme?TheGross Revenue Insurance Programme (GRIP) isnota
newprogramme. TheNational Gross Revenue Insurance
Planwasestablished in1991 andterminated on
31March 1996. Information onthisprogramme is
reported indocument G/SCM/N/25/CAN.G/AG/R/13
Page33
Colombia G/AG/N/COL/6 and7Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/New Zealand/United States -
Information requested regarding the"structural
adjustment assistance provided through
investment aids" referred toinSupporting
Table DS:1 (page 3inCOL/6 andpage 4in
COL/7 refer). How does theprogramme meet
thecriteria inparagraph 11ofAnnex 2tothe
Agreement onAgriculture? Why didthelevel
ofthesupport increase from US$81 million in
1995 toUS$321 million in1996? Who is
administering theprogramme andhowdoes it
work? Could Colombia provide abreakdown
oftheexpenditures foreach measure?These measures arepartoftheagrarian reform
programme andareaimed (i)atrefinancing debts of
small producers whoduetotheliberalization process,
climatic factors andfallofinternational prices could
nothonour their liabilities, and(ii)atgranting direct
subsidies fortheacquisition ofland. Thesupport is
notlinked withthetypeorvolume ofproduction nor
withtheproduction price ofanyproducts and
therefore isinconformity withparagraph 11of
Annex 2totheAgreement onAgriculture. The
increase ofthesupport isduetoagreater support for
therefinancing offarmers 'debts andforthe
acquisition oflandthrough theagrarian reform
programme.
United States -Clarification sought regarding
the"promotion ofthedevelopment ofthe
agriculture andmarketing channels" referred
toinSupporting Table DS:2 (page 5refers).
IstheIDEMA undertaking themarketing
infrastructure programme inremote rural
areas? Isthistheonlyprogramme inplace for
developing rural marketing infrastructure?IDEMA viatheprogramme "Fondo Emprender"
promotes thedevelopment ofmarketing channels. The
Government isdesignating anewbody tocarry out
thisprogramme which istheonlyprogramme inplace
forsupporting therural marketing infrastructure.
Canada -Clarification sought astowhether the
figures forproduction referred toin
Supporting Table DS:5 relate tototal
production ortotheproduction purchased by
theAgricultural Marketing Institute (IDEMA)
(page 6refers).Theproduction figures relate totheproduction
purchased bytheIDEMA.
Canada/European Communities/United States -
Information requested regarding the
programmes entitled "specific tariff discount"
and"compensation" referred toinSupporting
Table DS:6 (COL/6, page 7refers). How is
thissubsidy granted toproducers? Isthe
"specific tariff discount" nolonger provided in
1996?The"specific tariff discount" wasapplied toimports in
order tocover thedifference between thedomestic and
thepurchase prices. Itwasused in1995 forsorghum,
barley andwheat. Itwasnotused in1996. The
"compensation" programme isamechanism used in
cases oflosses duetoadverse conditions. Apayment
isgranted inorder tocompensate forthedifference
between theselling price andtheprice setbythe
Ministry ofAgriculture.
United States -DidColombia provide non-
product-specific support in1995 and1996?
DidColombia utilize thedeminimis provision?
Ifso,what were theproducts concerned?Colombia didnotprovide anynon-product-specific
AMS support in1995 and1996.
European Communities/United States -What
does "credit (CR)" referred toinSupporting
Table DS:7 mean (pages 8-10 refer)? Isthere
anyrelation between thismeasure andthe
Green Boxexpenditures provided under
"agricultural credit forsmall producers"
referred toinSupporting Table DS:1 (page 3
refers)?Green Boxexpenditures under "agricultural credit for
small producers" areprovided forstructural
adjustment andtherefore aretemporary designed for
theperiod oftime necessary foradjustment, while
"credit" referred toinSupporting Table DS:7 is
product-specific credit.G/AG/R/13
Page34
Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/9 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Information requested
asregards thenature andthescope of
thesupport under item(a)General
services inSupporting Table DS:1
(page 3refers). How does each
measure meet thecriteria ofAnnex 2
totheAgreement onAgriculture?These measures aredesigned toprovide services orbenefits to
agriculture ortotherural community anddonotinvolve
transfers from consumers ordirect payments toproducers or
processors. They comply withAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture, paragraphs 1and2asfollows: (i)the"research,
advisory andtraining" measures involve payments tothe
Agricultural Research Institutes andtotheAgricultural
Society (paragraph 2,items (a),(c)and(d)); (ii)"Veterinary
pestanddisease control" measures arepayments granted to
theChief veterinary officer (paragraph 2,items (b)and(e));
(iii)"Marketing andpromotion services" arepayments inter
aliainfavour oforganic production (paragraph 2,item(f));
(iv)under the"relief service programme" theGovernment
provides relief services todairy farmers which arenotrelated
toproduction; and(v)payments under the"cultivation and
animal breeding programmes" aredesigned toimprove
breeding (paragraph 2,items (a)and(d)).
New Zealand -Information requested
regarding thedirect payments to
sheepfarmers referred tounder item (d)
"decoupled income support" in
Supporting Table DS:1 (page 3refers).
How does thissupport meet thecriteria
inparagraph 6ofAnnex 2tothe
Agreement onAgriculture?Direct payments tosheep farmers areinconformity with
paragraphs 1,5and6ofAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture. Thesupport isdecoupled from production and
eligible farms aregranted fixed andnon-transferable direct
payments. Sheepfarmers areentitled tofulldirect payments
whether theyproduce sheepmeat ornot.
New Zealand/United States -How does
themeasure under item(h)"instalment
forpayment ofbought-up sheepmeat
quota" referred toinSupporting
Table DS:1 (page 3refers) meet the
criteria inparagraph 10ofAnnex 2to
theAgreement onAgriculture?TheGovernment bought upsheepmeat quotas in1992-93 to
remove farms, landandlivestock from agricultural
production. Payments have been made inequal instalments
andtheprogramme willsoon come toclose. Thepayments
areinconformity withthecriteria inparagraph 10,items (a)
through (d)ofAnnex 2totheAgreement onAgriculture.
United States -Clarification sought
regarding theprogramme under
item(l)"accumulation ofholding of
stocks ofsheepmeat between slaughter
period" referred toinSupporting
Table DS:1 (page 4refers). How does
thisprogramme meet thecriteria of
Annex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture?Iceland referred totheanswer provided attheOctober 1996
meeting (G/AG/R/7, page 17refers) andstated thatthe
programme wasinconformity withparagraph 3ofAnnex 2to
theAgreement onAgriculture.G/AG/R/13
Page35
Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/9 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Why didIceland use
another setofexternal reference prices
ascompared toits1995 DS:1
notification?Asmentioned attheSeptember 1997 meeting (G/AG/R/12,
page 33refers) theexternal reference prices used in1996 are
based ondocument G/AG/AGST/ISL, adjusted inorder to
takeaccount oftheexchange rateevolution since thebase
period. Iceland considered thattheCommittee on
Agriculture should beprovided withaclear basis onwhich to
weigh thecurrent total AMS against itscommitment level.
Such abasis wasnotprovided when external reference prices
were taken directly from AGST without adjustment for
inflation orexchange rateevolution. Theexchange rateofthe
SDR against theISKhaschanged roughly 200percentsince
thebaseperiod (1986-1996). Accumulated inflation overthe
same period was252percent. Thisunfavourable evolution
hasnotbeen taken intoaccount intheDS:1 notification for
1995 byerror. Thecurrent total AMS totalled SDR 107.69
million (thenotification contains anerror). Hadtheexternal
reference prices from AGST been used without adjustment,
thisfigure would have been SDR 121.10 million which isstill
below theAMS commitment level (SDR 151.8 million).
New Zealand -Why diddirect
payments formilk referred toin
Supporting Table DS:6 (page 7refers)
increase from ISK462million in1995
toISK2,579.4 million in1996?Itseemed thatNew Zealand didnottakeintoaccount the
corrigendum tothenotification (G/AG/N/ISL/2/Corr.1).
Direct payments todairy farmers totalled ISK2,485.6 million
in1995 andISK2,579.4 million in1996, i.e.adifference of
onlyISK93.8 million.
United States -Could Iceland confirm
thatitdidnotprovide anysupport
under theBlue Boxmeasures?Iceland didnotprovide anyBlue Boxmeasures in1996.
However itremains anoption forthefuture.
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/14 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/United States -Clarification sought
regarding item (a)"infrastructural services"
referred toinSupporting Table DS:1 (page 3
refers). Arethemeasures inconformity with
thecriteria ofAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture?Thisprogramme supports partofconstruction costs of
irrigation, drainage, landreclamation, roads, wholesale
agricultural market andsewage system inrural areas.
On-farm expenditure andinput subsidy arenotcovered
bytheprogramme andtherefore themeasures comply
withcriteria ofAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture.
United States -Information requested as
regards item (b)public stockholding forfood
security purposes referred toinSupporting
Table DS:1 (page 3refers). Does this
measure cover other grains thanriceand
barley? Onwhat basis isacommodity
selected forthisprogramme?Only riceandbarley arecovered under thisprogramme
andnopreferential treatment exists between riceand
barley. Thecommodity isselected according tothe
Emergency Resources Management Law.G/AG/R/13
Page36
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/14 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -How isthe"financial
assistance todebt-ridden farmers" under item
(d)decoupled income support referred toin
Supporting Table DS:1 provided (page 3
refers)?Thisprogramme wasinitiated toalleviate farmers 'debt
burden in1989. TheGovernment hasextended the
debtredemption period andlowered interest rates for
farmers whose farm sizeislessthan2hectares.
Financial assistance isprovided tocover thedifference
between theoriginal interest rateandthereduced rate.
Noagricultural production isrequired tobeeligible for
thesubsidy andthesupport isnotrelated tomarket
prices. Thisprogramme willbeterminated in1999.
United States -Information requested onthe
support provided under item(f)payments for
relief from natural disaster referred toin
Supporting Table DS:1 (page 3refers). What
arethecriteria tobemettoreceive payments?Payments areprovided forfarmers whohave lostmore
than30percentoftheir production asaresult of
disasters. Thebeneficiaries aredetermined byscale
andtypeofdisasters asstipulated intheAgricultural
andFisheries Disaster Lawandother relevant laws.
Canada/United States -Could Korea specify
the"clearly defined structural disadvantages"
foreach measure under item(i)structural
adjustment assistance through investment aids
referred toinSupporting Table DS:1 (page 4
refers)?Three major projects areincluded under thisitemand
areaimed at(i)modernizing machinery forsmall scale
family farms, (ii)improving on-farm marketing
facilities forresource-poor farms orfarmers '
cooperatives, and(iii)enlarging farm scale. The
beneficiaries areclearly farmers orfarm cooperatives
withstructural disadvantages. Thesupport provided is
intheform ofloans atlowinterest rates. These
projects metthecriteria ofparagraph 11ofAnnex 2to
theAgreement onAgriculture asfollows: thesupport is
notproduct-specific, notrelated totypeofproduction,
notrelated tointernational ordomestic prices, does not
force farmers toproduce aparticular product, andonly
theamount required tocompensate thestructural
disadvantages isprovided.
Australia/United States -Clarification
regarding themeasure under item(l)
"operation ofabuffer stock management
fund" inSupporting Table DS:1 (page 4
refers). How does thissupport meet the
criteria inparagraph 11ofAnnex 2tothe
Agreement onAgriculture?Thebuffer stock management fund isaimed at
stabilizing agricultural prices andatmaintaining order
indomestic markets. Itpurchases products atmarket
prices when prices areextremely lowduring the
harvest season andreleases them when their prices soar
during theoff-season. Thissupport isnotdirected to
farmers.
New Zealand -Why didtheGreen Box
support level increase by30percentin1996
ascompared to1995?Korea launched the"Comprehensive Rural
Development Plan" in1994 inorder toovercome the
disadvantages andaccelerate thestructural adjustment
inagriculture. Asaresult theGreen Boxexpenditures
have increased.
Australia/New Zealand/Canada/United States
-Could Korea provide totalvalue of
production tosupport thedeminimis claim
referred toinSupporting Table DS:4
(pages 6-7refer)?Seeattachment.G/AG/R/13
Page37
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/14 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/New Zealand -Could Korea
confirm thatanewMPS hasbeen introduced
forbeef(page 8refers)? What istheperiod
used tocalculate theexternal reference price?Korea introduced amarket price support programme
forbeefin1996. Theexternal reference price isbased
ontheaverage import price during thebaseperiod
1989-91 which isthebaseperiod used inAGST
Tables.
Unit 1989 1990 1991 Average
Average
import priceUS$/kg. 2.65 2.58 2.53
Exchange
rateW/US$ 671.48 707.75 733.35
External
reference
priceW/kg. 1,784 1,828 1,858 1,823
Canada -Noted thatseveral subsidies
provided in1996 arenotreported inthe
notification, including support forpigmeat
production (W760million), asericulture
development programme (W1,000 million)
andamarketing improvement programme for
fruitandflowers (W2,400 million). Could
Korea explain this?Ingeneral, support forpigmeat production, the
sericulture development programme andthemarketing
improvement programme forfruitandflowers are
included ineither Supporting Table DS:7 orSupporting
Table DS:1 under "General services".
Canada -Clarification sought asregards the
"Rural andFisheries Restructuring Fund"
which isdescribed intheOECD report and
involved W42billion over 7years (source:
OECD, "Agricultural Policies inOECD
Countries -Monitoring andEvaluation,
1997", page 58).The"Rural andFisheries Restructuring Fund" is
designed toaccelerate thestructural adjustment of
agriculture. Thisprogramme provides direct payments
tofarmers andloans atlowinterest rateover theperiod
1992-1998 (W42trillion). Thesupport isincluded in
theGreen Boxmeasures under item (a)"General
services" (research, inspection services and
infrastructural services) andunder item(i)"structural
adjustment assistance provided through investment
aids" (Supporting Table DS:1, pages 3-4refer).
European Communities -Arethesupport
measures forgrapes, silkworms andmilk as
mentioned inAGST removed?Thesupport granted tograpes, silkworms andmilk
during thebaseperiod wasremoved. However Korea
reserves theright afforded toMembers bythe
Agreement onAgriculture.G/AG/R/13
Page38
New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/12 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Does theprogramme entitled
"administration ofbiosecurity standards
andpestmanagement strategies" referred
toinSupporting Table DS:1 under item
(a)constitute anewGreen Box
measure? Does New Zealand intend to
notify it?Thisprogramme isnotanewGreen Boxmeasure. The
programme previously entitled "administration of
agricultural security, quality assurance andpestmanagement
strategies" inboth1995 and1996 notifications hasbeen
divided, infiscal year1996/97, intotwoseparate
expenditure categories: (i)administration ofquality
assurance standards fortheagricultural sector, and(ii)
administration ofbiosecurity standards andpestmanagement
strategies.
United States -Clarification sought
regarding thenature, thescope andthe
criteria required inorder toparticipate in
the"East Coast Forestry Programme"
referred toinSupporting Table DS:1
(page 4refers). What does theterm
"commercial forestry" mean?Thisprogramme wasestablished in1992 toencourage
commercial forestry onseverely erodible landlocated inthe
EastCoast region oftheNorth Island. Grants areprovided
toprivate growers forplanting non-forested areas and
tending trees. Thesubsidy isallocated under atender
mechanism. People whoeither ownorhave aninterest in
thelandorwhoareacquiring theright tousethelandare
eligible. Applications must contain aforest management
planwhich covers theareatobeplanted each yearforupto
three years andthetending regime tobefollowed.
Theterm "commercial forestry" means thatanapplicant
intends toharvest thetrees being planted. Todatesome
36,285 hectares have been approved bytheproject to
receive subsidy andactual plantings have been justover
12,000 hectares, mainly withRadiata Pine.G/AG/R/13
Page39
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/11 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Information requested
regarding item (2)"advice andpromotion
forsmall animals" programme referred to
inSupporting Table DS:1 (page 3refers).
How does theprogramme work andwho
iseligible forthesubsidy? How does it
meet thecriteria inparagraph 8ofAnnex
2totheAgreement onAgriculture?Thisprogramme isdesigned tosupport (i)advice and
promotion activities, and(ii)activities relating to
pasturing. Itprovides advice andsupport tobreeders of
sheep, poultry andother animals inorder toimprove the
performances oftheanimals. Thefund mayalso
compensate forlosses ofanimals duetoaccidents during
thepasturing season andisalsoaimed atpreventing such
losses. Farmers whoarepartofagroup which co-
operates inactivities likesupervision during pasturing,
collection ofanimals after thepasturing season and
improvements ofthepasturing areas areeligible for
support.
New Zealand/United States/Philippines -
Could Norway clarify thedistinction
between item(2)"grain price support"
referred tounder food security purposes in
Supporting Table DS:1 (page 3refers) and
the"market price support" forwheat,
barley andoatsnotified inSupporting
Table DS:5 (page 7refers)? How did
Norway measure thesupport forfood
security purpose? How does this
programme meet thecriteria inparagraph
3ofAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture?
Does thefigure ofNkr690.3 million
reflect thecalculated price support for
grain orbudgetary outlays?MPS forgrain iscalculated using thedifference between
theadministered andtheexternal reference prices
multiplied bytheeligible production. TheGreen Box
measure iscalculated asthesumofthebudgetary
payments made tomaintain thisprice gap(according to
paragraph 8ofAnnex 3totheAgreement onAgriculture)
andvarious payments forfood security purposes andsome
Amber Boxsupport. Norway isaware oftheoverlap
resulting from theinclusion ofAmber Boxsupport inthe
Green Boxmeasure. Nevertheless thismethod didnot
reduce thesizeoftheAmber Boxmeasure.
Thefigure ofNkr690.3 million reflects theactual
budgetary outlay.
United States -How dothemeasures
under "payments forrelief from natural
disasters" referred toinSupporting
Table DS:1 (page 3refers) meet the
criteria inparagraph 8ofAnnex 2tothe
Agreement onAgriculture?Thisprogramme isdesigned tocompensate thelossof
yields duetoclimatic orclimatic related circumstances.
Four categories ofsupport areinvolved: (i)compensation
forlosses incrops duetoclimatic circumstances, (ii)
support forpurchase ofcoarse fodder ifthegrassland has
been destroyed, (iii)support ifthegrassland isdestroyed
during winter, and(iv)support torenewing fruittrees
destroyed during wintertime. Only producers experiencing
extraordinary circumstances areeligible forsupport and
theschemes cover onlythedestruction ofcrops forfood
orfeeding, including seedandseedpotatoes. The
compensation ispaidaccording toanindividual assessment
ofthelossandcalculated according toanoverall
evaluation ofthedestruction. Payments compensated
78percentofthetotallossinNorthern Norway and
73percentintherestofthecountry.G/AG/R/13
Page40
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/11 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States/Philippines -Clarification
sought ontheprogrammes under "social
welfare" referred toinSupporting
Table DS:1 (page 4refers). How dothese
programmes work andwhoiseligible for
thesupport?The"vacation andreplacement scheme" isdesigned to
facilitate thehiring bylivestock producers ofworkers for
replacement during vacations andtime-off, orforrelief
during harvesting. Farmers getarefund ofexpenses upto
amaximum amount calculated foreach farm. Refunds are
calculated onthebasis ofarateperanimal, within a
maximum amount ofNkr40,000 perfarm peryear. The
"promotion andstorage formarket regulation promotion
andsale" programme isaimed atfacilitating thesaleof
fruitandvegetables, securing supply inallparts of
Norway andimproving thedemand forecological
products. Payments areallocated according toapplications.
United States -How dotheprogrammes
referred toinSupporting DS:3 under
items (a),(b)and(c)(page 5refers),
comply withArticle 6.5oftheAgreement
onAgriculture?Allthefourprogrammes areoperating within thesystem
ofmarketing feesandaccordingly meet thegeneral criteria
ofArticle 6.5oftheAgreement onAgriculture. All
agricultural products aresubject tofeesaccording tothe
Agricultural Market Regulation Act. Thelevies arefixed
according tothemarket situation andareincreased inthe
caseofover-production. Thelevies areused toregulate
themarket andtosubsidize exports ofproducts. Detailed
information onthese fourprogrammes isavailable from
theSecretariat.
United States -Why didNorway include
support provided toprocessed agricultural
products inthecalculation ofthenon-
product-specific AMS (Supporting
Table DS:9, page 11refers)?Duetoanerror the"price compensation" support wasnot
included inthecalculation oftheAMS during thebase
period.
Philippines G/AG/N/PHL/10 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Could thePhilippines
confirm thatriceistheonlycommodity for
which there isprice support? Does the
Philippines apply anyother product-specific
ornon-product-specific support measures?ThePhilippines confirmed thatricewastheonly
commodity forwhich price support wasprovided during
1995. ThePhilippines didnotapply product-specific or
non-product-specific measures other thanthose already
notified inSupporting Table DS:1.G/AG/R/13
Page41
Poland G/AG/N/POL/12/Rev.1 andPOL/13/Rev.1 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -What does "chemicalization of
agricultural andplant protection" referred to
inSupporting Table DS:1 (page 3refers)
mean?Theterm "chemicalization ofagricultural andplant
protection" denotes supervision andadvice activities
runbytherelevant agricultural services withregards to
theuseoffertilizers andplant protection.
United States -Does product-specific support
provided forcommon wheat cover feedwheat
(Supporting Table DS:4, page 4refers)?TheAgricultural Market Agency (AMA) does not
intervene onthecoarse grain market andfocuses its
activities solely ongrain forhuman consumption.
Australia -Why didPoland notusethe
external reference prices included initsAGST
document formilk andpork (POL/13/Rev.1,
Supporting Table DS:5, page 5refers)?Thenotification contains anerror. Theproducts
included incolumn 1ofSupporting Tables DS:4 and
DS:5 arecommon wheat, ryeandmilk asnotified in
corrigendum G/AG/N/POL/13/Rev.1/Corr.1.
United States -Does MPS formilk cover all
dairy products (Supporting Table DS:5,
page 5refers)? Ifso,could Poland provide
thelistofproducts included? Could Poland
confirm thatitdidnotprovide support torye,
butter, sugar, honey, wool andprocessed
potato products?MPS formilk covers skimmed milk powder andbutter.
Support wasprovided forryein1996 andforbutter in
1995. In1995 and1996 theAgricultural Market
Agency purchased small quantities ofhoney, wool,
potato starch andhops atmarket prices. Intervention
price wasnotestablished andminimum price wasnot
calculated.
United States -Information requested
regarding "subsidized interest rates oncredits
foragriculture" referred toinSupporting
Table DS:9 (page 6refers). Who iseligible
forthesubsidy andwhat isthenature ofthe
support provided?Thisprogramme granted subsidies ontheinterest tobe
paidonloans used topurchase realworking capital for
agricultural production andfororganic food production
aswellastoadapt thefarms toorganic food
production. Therecipients have tomeet thefollowing
requirements: toprove thatatleast 80percentofthe
loanhasbeen used 2months after thefunds have been
released from theBank; topresent ataxpayment
statement which specifies theacreage ofthefarm; to
declare thatthefarm hasnotbeen andwillnotbe
rented out; toprovide atenancy agreement foratleast
10months ifthefarm isrented; andtoprovide the
total amount ofloans received inother banks.G/AG/R/13
Page42
South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/13 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Noted thatinSupporting
Table DS:5 (page 7refers) South Africa
calculates market price support (MPS) for
sugar whereas theG/AG/W/30/Rev.1
shows anequivalent measurement of
support (EMS). Didthenature ofthe
support change? Why didSouth Africa not
usetheexternal reference price included in
document G/AG/W/30/Rev.1?Thenature ofthesupport provided forsugar didnot
change in1996. Thepresentation isdifferent i.e.South
Africa used thestandard format instead ofanequivalent
measurement ofsupport.
New Zealand -Clarification sought
regarding anewsupport measure formaize
referred toinSupporting Table DS:6
(page 8refers).Thismeasure corresponds todirect aidprovided tothe
maize industry (redemption ofloans) asnotified during
thebaseperiod inSupporting Table DS:7. Thepayments
represent aredemption ofloans taken overbythe
Government duetoexport losses inthe1980/81 to
1986/87 period. Payments aremade directly tothe
Maize Board.
Australia/New Zealand -Why didSouth
Africa notusetheexternal reference prices
included inG/AG/W/30 inorder to
calculate thetotalAMS forcotton, wheat,
tobacco, maize andtea(Supporting
Table DS:7, page 9refers)?South Africa made useofUS$tocalculate market price
support in1995 and1996 asprovided initsSchedule
(Schedule XVIII, PartIV,Section 1,page 851refers).
External reference prices expressed inUS$used in
G/AG/N/ZAF/13 arethesame asthose indicated inthe
baseperiod (G/AG/W/30) andinthe1995 notification
(G/AG/N/ZAF/5). Thedifferences between 1995 and
1996 notifications isoneofpresentation. In1995, South
Africa used theformat ofequivalent measurement of
support withanexplanatory annex, while thestandard
format wasused in1996.
Australia -Information requested asregards
anewnon-product-specific measure entitled
"resource allocation" referred toin
Supporting Table DS:9 (page 10refers)Thismeasure stems from theitem"agricultural financing
(general services)" referred toinG/AG/W/30/Rev.1
(Supporting Table DS:10, page 17refers) andrepresents
expenditures onfinancial assistance which cannot be
allocated more specifically under Amber orGreen Box
measures.G/AG/R/13
Page43
Thailand G/AG/N/THA/23 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Wastheproduct-specific
support formilk, garlic, soya bean andsugar within
thedeminimis level? Ifso,could Thailand provide
figures tosupport thedeminimis claim?Product-specific support provided formilk and
garlic waswithin thedeminimis level (see
attachment). Sugar andsoya bean didnot
receive support.
Venezuela G/AG/N/VEN/4/Rev.1 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Why have external reference
prices been amended forcertified seeds,
rice, coffee andtomatoes referred toin
Supporting Table DS:5 (page 7refers)?Asregards certified seeds, theexternal reference price of
US$210 pertonne refers tocertified corn/maize from the
FAO yearbook whereas theUS$96 pertonne reflects the
external reference price ofcertified potato seeds. External
reference prices forrice, coffee andtomatoes come from the
FAO yearbook of1986-88.
Venezuela G/AG/N/VEN/8 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Uruguay -How do"special anddifferential
treatment" measures referred toinSupporting
Table DS:2 (page 5refers) meet thecriteria of
Article 6oftheAgreement onAgriculture?These measures comply withArticle 6.2ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture. Since theendofthefirst
semester of1997 these measures have notbeen in
force.
Australia -Didthe"diesel fuel" subsidy benefit
theagricultural sector andproducers referred to
inSupporting Table DS:4 (page 6refers)?In1996 theGovernment decided tosubsidize diesel
fuelpurchased byallagricultural producers during the
sowing period (May andJune). Thebeneficiaries
have tomeet therequirements setoutintheofficial
regulation.G/AG/R/13
Page44
Tables ES:1 toES:3 Notifications
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/16 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response provided byNotifying Member
Australia/New Zealand -Could Korea provide
totalexport values forapples, pears andflowers?
When didKorea introduce these export subsidies?Korea exported inmillion US$: apples 9.5,
pears 3.5andflowers 4.5. Theprogramme was
introduced in1991.
United States -Information requested asregards
thenature ofthe"cost reduction measures"
referred toinSupporting Table ES:2 (page 2
refers). How dothemeasures support exports of
fruits andflowers?Direct subsidies areprovided toexporters inorder
tosupport sorting, packaging anddomestic
transportation. Asfruits andflower areproduced
bysmall farmers scattered allover thecountry,
support isnecessary tofacilitate exportation.
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/12 and13Export Subsidies (Table ES:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Noted thattotal exports ofbovine meat, swine meat,
sheep andlamb meat, butter andcheese exceeded in1996
subsidized export commitments levels. Could Norway confirm
thatexports above theannual quantity commitment levels were
notsubsidized?Norway confirmed thatexports
above theannual quantity
commitment level were not
subsidized.
Poland G/AG/N/POL/14 Export Subsidies (Table ES:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Noted thattotal exports ofsugar (160,432 tonnes)
exceeded theannual quantity commitment level
(143,000 tonnes). Could Poland confirm thatexports above
theannual quantity commitment level were notsubsidized?Poland confirmed thattheexports of
143,000 tonnes ofsugar were
subsidized, whereas total exports of
sugar amounted to160,432 tonnes.G/AG/R/13
Page45
Turkey G/AG/N/TUR/5/Rev.1 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Why arethenotified revised total
export figures different from theprevious
notification inparticular fortomatoes and
apples?Asstated attheSeptember 1997 meeting thecustoms
union withtheEuropean Union tookeffect on
1January 1996 which hasledtotherestructuring of
Turkey 'sstatistical system.
Australia -Why didtotalexports ofpotatoes
exceed thesubsidized export commitment
level? Could Turkey confirm thatnoexport
subsidies have been granted forthequantity
exported above theannual commitment level.Exports above theannual quantity commitment level
were notsubsidized. Turkey willnotify theexport
subsidy programme initsnotification tothe
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing
Measures.
Brazil -Information requested regarding the
subsidized export oftomatoes.Turkey willnotify theexport subsidy programme in
theagricultural notification totheCommittee on
Subsidies andCountervailing Measures.
Venezuela G/AG/N/VEN/5/Rev.1 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Could Venezuela confirm thatthequantity
exported above theannual commitment levels were not
subsidized?Venezuela confirmed thatthequantities
exported above itscommitment levels
were notsubsidized.
Australia/New Zealand/United States -Noted thatVenezuela
exported 22tonnes ofother leguminous vegetables in1995
i.e.10.37 tonnes above itsannual quantity commitment level
(11.63 tonnes) andconsidered thatVenezuela hadbreached its
commitment. How does Venezuela intend toremedy tothis
situation?Thenotification contains anerror.
Thequantity ofsubsidized exports
amounted to7tonnes instead of
22tonnes.
Colombia -Areagricultural exports from Venezuela to
Colombia subsidized?Venezuela confirmed thatitsexports to
Colombia were notsubsidized.
United States -Noted atypographical error withrespect tothe
quantity export commitment forlettuce. Thenotified quantity
is1,161,595 tonnes whereas theSchedule indicates 114.97.Thenotification contains anerror.
Theannual quantity commitment level
is116.15 tonnes.
United States -Could Venezuela provide theHarmonized
system codes forallproducts listed inthenotification?Theanswer hasbeen provided tothe
United States.G/AG/R/13
Page46
ATTACHMENT
Table ofdeminimis calculation reported inG/AG/N/BRA/6/Rev.1
Product-specific AMS
Product description Total product-
specific AMS
US$1,000Production value AMS/Production
value
% R$1,000 (a) US$1,000 (b)
Barley
Brazil Wax
Cashew-nuts
Cassava
Castor-oil plant
Coffee
Cotton
Edible beans
Garlic
Grape (andby-products)
Jute
Maize
Oats
Peanuts
Ramie
Rice
Rye
Sisal
Sorghum
Soya bean
Sugar cane
Wheat316.1
29.3
152.6
809.7
0.7
2102.3
46446.5
2977.8
141.6
1012.0
1.8
26914.5
194.0
433.4
15.1
109919.9
0.0
0.2
32.2
40159.0
26226.4
18706.315874
n.a.
66258
2468004
7052
2392816
578412
1312398
72232
444314
962
3616583
23669
49606
3105
1968685
420
26241
21320
3538796
4127664
23171217328
n.a.
72326
2694033
7698
2611959
631385
1432593
78847
485006
1050
3947804
25837
54149
3389
2148985
458
28644
23273
3862893
4505692
2529331.82
n.a.
0.21
0.03
0.01
0.08
7.36
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.17
0.68
0.75
0.80
0.44
5.11
0.00
0.00
0.14
1.04
0.58
7.40
Non-product-specific AMS
Product description Total non-product-
specific AMS
US$1,000Production value AMS/Production
value
% R$1,000 (c) US$1,000 (b)
Total ofagricultural
production value18441.9 50860897 55518936 0.03
Notes:
(a) Source: IBGE -Instituto Brasileiro deGeografia eEstatística (Brazilian Institute ofGeography andStatistics)
(b) Exchange rateapplied (annual average): 0.9161 US$/R$
(c) Final datanotavailable. Estimates based onpreliminary IBGE data.
n.a.-Notavailable.G/AG/R/13
Page47
ATTACHMENT
Table ofdeminimis calculations reported inG/AG/N/KOR/14
Description ofproducts AMS 1996 (a)
million WonProduction value 1995 (b)
million WonPercentage AMS (a)/(b)
%
Soya bean 2,270 274,377 0.83
Red-bean 105 56,780 0.19
Malting barley 664 138,839 0.48
Redpepper 938 1,199,619 0.08
Garlic 507 1,218,980 0.04
Apple 845 896,175 0.09
Pear 331 286,550 0.12
Citrus fruit 133 709,316 0.02
Chestnut 2,394 193,012 1.24
Ginseng roots 4,411 283,902 1.55
Beef 23,592 1,775,610 1.33
Pigmeat 8,886 1,406,605 0.63
Silk-worm 55 1,703 3.24
Potatoes 220 430,408 0.05
Other vegetables 5,963 6,767,986 0.09
Other fruits 185 1,133,645 0.02
Medicinal crops 244 313,036 0.08
Flowering plants 61 510,597 0.01
Mushrooms 1,497 405,536 0.37
Other vegetable oilcrops 3 44,336 0.01
Other agricultural products 5 3,674 0.01
Non-product-specific 290,445 26,645,354 1.09
Data source: 1995 Agricultural andFishery Statistics Yearbook, MAF, Korea.G/AG/R/13
Page48
ATTACHMENT
Table ofdeminimis calculations reported inG/AG/N/THA/23
Description ofbasic
products (including non-
product-specific AMS)Product-specific AMS
(from Supporting
Tables DS:5 toDS:7
below)
(million baht)Product-specific
equivalent measurements
ofsupport (from
Supporting Table DS:8
below)%oftotalvalue of
production
Garlic 240.30 - 6.90
Shallot 50.00 - 1.40
Chicken eggs 26.00 - 0.14
Duck eggs 0.60 - 0.02
Rawmilk 11.08 - 0.31
Durian 134.00 - 0.87
Longang 245.00 - 4.67
Lychee 30.00 - 1.46
Rambutan 10.00 - 0.13
Pineapple 58.00 - 0.97
Lemon 47.00 - 0.67
Palm oil 300.00 - 6.52G/AG/R/13
Page49
ANNEX -PartII
Deferred replies toquestions onnotifications raised atprevious meetings
Table DS:1 Notifications
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/21 andCorr.1 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members atthe
September 1997 meetingResponse byNotifying Member
Canada -Information requested asregards the
measure entitled "structural adjustment"
referred toinSupporting Table DS:1 under
item(g)(page 5refers). Isthepayment subject
tothecondition thatthefarmer leaves totally
andpermanently marketable agricultural
production?Thestructural adjustment programme under item(g)
isdesigned topromote full-time agriculture.
Payments aregranted tofarmers whoretire from
farming either byselling orleasing their farm tofull-
time farmers.
Canada -Clarification sought regarding the
measure entitled "structural adjustment provided
through investments aids" referred toin
Supporting Table DS:1 under item (i)(page 6
refers). How does Japan claim thatthis
measure meets thecriteria setoutin
paragraph 11ofAnnex 2oftheAgreement on
Agriculture?Thestructural adjustment programme under item(i)
provides long-term loans atlowinterest rates in
order tocompensate fornatural andland
disadvantages. Thepayments arebased onfarm
management plans andfarm revenues and
expenditures. They comply withthecriteria in
paragraph 11ofAnnex 2totheAgreement on
Agriculture.
Canada -Clarification sought astowhytotal
production differs somuch from eligible
production asreferred toinSupporting
Table DS:5 forsweet potatoes andmilk
(pages 10-11 refer)?Ofthetotalproduction ofsweet potatoes
(1.18 million tonnes) 295,000 tonnes isused forthe
production ofstarch, forwhich themarket price
support isapplied.
European Communities -Information requested
on"payments related tothevolume of
production" referred toinSupporting
Table DS:6 forbarley, rice, milk, beefandveal
(pages 13-14 refer).Payments related tothevolume ofproduction are
made onthefollowing basis: (i)barley- payment is
based ontheamount ofbarley shipped forfeedunder
contracts between farmers andprocessors;
(ii)voluntarily marketed rice-payment isrelated to
thequantity shipped under annual programme andto
thepromoting premium rice; (iii)milk-payment is
based onthequantity produced inorder topromote
production andtoreinforce management bydairy
farmers; (iv)beefandveal-payment ismade
according tothenumber ofheads ofbeefcattle.
European Communities -Could Japan provide
more information regarding thenewdeficiency
payments introduced formilk, beefandvealand
pigmeat, aswellasfornewpolicies ondried
leguminous vegetables, groundnuts andtubers
ofkonnyadu?Thedeficiency payments arecalculated asfollows:
formilk used forprocessing andcalves destined for
beefonthedifference between average trading and
guaranteed standard prices; regarding meat ofswine,
theGovernment supports theproducers 'fund if
necessary. Asregards dried leguminous vegetables,
groundnuts andtubers ofkonnyadu, thesupport is
aimed atregulating thesupply andthedemand
through participation inthecosts ofstockholding.G/AG/R/13
Page50
Poland G/AG/N/POL/12 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members atthe
September 1997 meetingResponse byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding the
lowlevel ofproduction used in
order tocalculate market price support formilk
andcommon wheat referred toinSupporting
Table DS:5 (page 5refers).Theagricultural market agency purchases
agricultural produce andprocessed products onthe
basis ofthefollowing criteria: (i)when theaverage
market price forthese commodities remains atthe
level of90percentoftheaverage intervention
purchase price forsubsequent twoweeks; and
(ii)during specific periods: 15July-15 October for
wheat andrye;1May-30 October forbutter;
1June-30 September forskimmed milk powder and
periodically asthemarket surpluses occur forother
produce andprocessed products.G/AG/R/13
Page51
Tables ES:1 toES:3 Notifications
New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/11 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:2)
Points raised byother Members atthe
September 1997 meetingResponse byNotifying Member
Switzerland -Itappears that, inNew
Zealand, aircraft fuelissubject toaValue-
Added Taxof12.5 percentfordomestic
flights, butthatsuch fuelisVAT-exempt
when used oninternational flights. How
does New Zealand view thisdifference in
taxation inthelight ofArticle 9.1(e)ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture? Inparticular,
would notsuch adifference qualify asan
export subsidy subject tonotification and
reduction, notwithstanding footnote 1inthe
Agreement onSubsidies andCountervailing
Measures (given thatArticle 21ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture alsoapplies).New Zealand considered thatthequestion isbased ona
misinterpretation ofArticle 9.1(e) oftheAgreement on
Agriculture andoftherelevance ofNew Zealand 's
practise ofzero-rating exports forthepurposes ofthe
goods andservices tax(GST). According to
Article 9.1(e), export subsidies thataresubject to
reduction commitments include "internal transport and
freight charges onexport shipments, provided or
mandated byGovernments, onterms more favourable
thanfordomestic shipments". InNew Zealand 'sview
exports subsidies include thesubsidized costs of
international transport andfreight andthesubsidized
costs ofinternal transport andfreight forexported
products. New Zealand 'sgoods andservices taxisa
broadly based consumption tax,orvalue-added tax
(VAT), imposed onconsumption ofgoods andservices
byeither residents orvisitors inNew Zealand. There is
nodifferential inthetaxing ofaircraft fuelforfreight
within New Zealand. AGST of12.5 percentis
applied onthefuelused fordomestic flight andfuelfor
international flight istax-free. New Zealand considered
thatitspractice isnotasubsidy according tofootnote 1
oftheAgreement onSubsidies andCountervailing
Measures andonArticle XVIofGATT 94which states
that"theexemption ofanexported product from duties
ortaxes borne bythelikeproduct when destined for
domestic consumption, ortheremission ofsuch duties
ortaxes inamounts donotexcess ofthose which have
accrued, shall notbedeemed tobeasubsidy".