RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/R/24
31 October 2000
(00-4591)
Committee on Agriculture
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27 SEPTEMBER 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its twenty-fourth regular meeting on 27 September 2000
under the chairmanship of Ambassador Mr. Yoichi Suzuki, of Japan.  The agenda of the meeting as
contained in WTO/AIR/1386 was adopted with the following modifications:  the deletion of the
question raised by the United States under 18.6 regarding Egypt - applied tariffs;  the addition, under
18:6, of the question raised by the European Communities on the US export subsidy notifications of
1995/96 - 1998/99; and the deletion of G/AG/N/HUN/22 from the listing of notifications relating toimports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2).
Part I:  The Review Process
Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the Reform Programme:  Article 18.6
(a) New Zealand:  Venezuela – Administration of dairy tariff quotas
2. The representative of New Zealand reverted to an issue previously raised in the Committee
concerning the timeliness of Venezuela's tariff quota administration regime for dairy products.  New
Zealand was concerned with continued problems rega rding delays in the issuing of licences.  The
representative of Venezuela informed the Committee that the remaining 40 per cent of the tariff quota
for milk powder, for the period July to December 2000, had been distributed to competing firms thatmet the necessary requirements.  The licences issued to date represented the total volume of the quota
for the period in question.  Venezuela considered that it was, therefore, fulfilling its minimum access
commitment.
3. The representative of New Zealand appreciated the news that the remaining elements of the
TRQ for dairy products had now been opened and looked forward to continued consultations with
Venezuela in order to ensure that there was no further disruption to dairy trade.
(b) United States:  Panama – Import permit delays
4. The representative of the United States noted that despite previous assurances from the
Government of Panama, importers continued to face extensive delays in obtaining, from the Ministryof Agricultural Development, import permits for pork, beef, and vegetables.  These delays appeared to
be obstructing potential sales of US agricultural  products.  The US therefore requested Panama to
indicate the specific time frame in which import licences were being issued.
5. The representative of Panama recalled that, as had been indicated at the last meeting, the
process of issuing sanitary and phytosanitary licences in question had accelerated after a bottleneckperiod.  Panama was revising its software system to this very aim.  The representative of the United
States encouraged the Government of Panama to continue the process of reforming their import
permit system and looked forward to a resolution of the problems in the coming months.  CanadaG/AG/R/24
Page 2
shared the US concerns and noted that it had also raised the issue previously.  Canada continued to
receive reports from importers regarding the lack of tangible results.  The representative of Canada
hoped that Panama would bring its import administration in line with WTO obligations as soon as
possible.
6. The representative of Panama noted that his Government continued to work on a bilateral
basis with all the governments that had approached it.  Contrary to the statement of the Canadian
delegate, the representative of Panama was of the opinion that his country was not in violation of its
WTO obligations.
(c) EC:  United States – Export Subsidy notifications 1995/96 – 1998/99
7. The representative of the European Communities recalled that during the June 2000 meeting
of the Committee, the European Communities had requested an update of all of the United Statesexport subsidy notifications taking into accoun t Appellate Body findings on US Foreign Sales
Corporations (FSC).  While the US delegation had handed over a report on the use of FSC for the year
1996, the European Communities was of the view that the document did not provide the requested
product-specific information on export subsidies and it showed that some unscheduled products had
received FSC support.  He asked whether the US delegation could indicate when it would submit arevised version of its export subsidy notifications.  The United States took note of the question.
Review of Notifications
8. The Committee reviewed the following notifications as listed in the agenda:
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1): from
Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/23 /Add.1 and JPN/57);
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): from
Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/21), Czech Re public (G/AG/N/CZE/27), the European
Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/27 and EEC /28), Hungary (G/AG/N/HUN/22),
Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/21) a nd Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/58);
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): from Colombia
(G/AG/N/COL/22), Czech Re public (G/AG/N/CZE/28), the European Communities
(G/AG/N/EEC/24), Japan (G/AG/ N/JPN/55 and JPN/56), Malaysia
(G/AG/N/MYS/15), Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/4) and the United States
(G/AG/N/USA/33);
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): from Canada
(G/AG/N/CAN/37), Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/10/Rev.1), Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/20),
Czech Republic (G/AG/N/CZE/25), the European Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/26),
Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/ 8/Rev.1, ISR/12/Rev.1 and ISR/ 16), Latvia (G/AG/N/LVA/3),
Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/13), Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/7), Slovak Republic
(G/AG/N/SVK/24) and Sout h Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/29);
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2): from Canada (G/AG/ N/CAN/36 and CAN/38), Czech Republic
(G/AG/N/CZE/26), Mexi co (G/AG/N/MEX/6) and Slovak Republic
(G/AG/N/SVK/25);G/AG/R/24
Page 3
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Argentina
(G/AG/N/ARG/11 and ARG/12), Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/31), Costa Rica
(G/AG/N/CRI/10), C uba (G/AG/N/CUB/9) , Czech Republic (G/AG/N/CZE/24),
Hungary (G/AG/N/HUN/23), Latvia (G/AG/N/LVA/2 and Corr.1), Malaysia
(G/AG/N/MYS/14), Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/8), Poland (G/AG/N/POL/35) andSlovenia (G/AG/N/SVN/15).
9. Specific points raised in relation to notifications listed in paragraph 8 above are summarized
in Part I of the Annex to this report.
10. The following notifications were subject to prelim inary review and are to be reverted to at the
next meeting in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working Procedures:
(i) on special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): from Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/9) and
Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/21);
(ii) on domestic support commitments (Tables DS:1 and DS:2):  from Mexico
(G/AG/N/MEX/5/Corr.1), Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/19) and Zimbabwe
(G/AG/N/ZWE/2);
(iii) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Ghana
(G/AG/N/GHA/1), Peru (G/AG/N/PER/4) and Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/20).
11. The Committee took note that no counter-notifications had been received under Article 18:7
of the Agreement.
Other matters relating to the Review Process
(a) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process at this stage.
12. Deferred replies to questions raised at previous meetings are summarized in Parts II and III of
the Annex to this report.
(b) Overdue notifications
13. As had been agreed at the March 1997 meeting of the Committee (G/AG/R/10, paragraph 10
refers) the Secretariat made available a Room Document, dated 27 September 2000, showing the
current status of compliance with the notification obligations.
Part II:  Other matters within the Purview of the Committee
Other Business
(a) Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods
14. It was agreed that that Chairman prepare a draft of a short factual report for the CTG on the
Committee's work in 2000 for general consideration at the November meeting and that, as in previous
years, this report would be submitted to the CTG on the Chairman's own responsibility.G/AG/R/24
Page 4
(b) Schedule of meetings for 2001
15. The Committee took note of the following schedule of provisional dates for meetings in 2001,
on the basis that the regular Committee meetings (one or one and a half days in each case as
appropriate) would precede the back-to-back Special Session meetings:
27 to 30 March 2001 (Tuesday to Friday)
26 to 29 June 2001 (Tuesday to Friday)
25 to 28 September 2001 (Tuesday to Friday)
13 to 16 November 2001 (Tuesday to Friday)
(c) Annual monitoring exercise on the follow-up to the Ministerial Decision on measures
concerning the possible negative effects of the reform programme on least-developed and net
food-importing developing countries
16. The Chairman noted that the regular annual monitoring exercise in respect of the
implementation of the NFIDC Decision would be on  the agenda of the upcoming November meeting
under the Committee's Working Procedures (G/AG/1, paragraph 18 refers).  In this regard, he notedthat since the last monitoring exercise eight donor Members had submitted updated notifications in
the Table NF:1 series.  The Chairman urged all donor Members that had not yet done so to submit
their updated NF notifications well in advance of the November meeting to ensure that the annual
review would be comprehensive and productive.   The Chairman also invited the observer
international organizations, in particular the F AO, the World Food Programme, the IMF, the World
Bank, UNCTAD and the International Grains Council, to make a contribution to the annual
monitoring exercise on the NFIDC Decision at the upcoming November meeting of the Committee.
(d) Matters raised under "Other Business"
17. The representative of Chile reiterated his country's concern with the EC canned peaches
regime.  To date, Chile did not consider that it had received a satisfactory answer to repeated
questions made in the proceedings of the Committee. The problem was rooted in the misuse by one of
the EC's member States of agricultural subsidies granted by the EC to the peach processing industry.
The subsidies gave rise to increased production which had a negative effect on the price of peaches on
international markets.  The basic cause lay in the subsidy bestowed on withdrawn production.  This
enabled producers to receive a price for withdrawn product and the processors in turn acquired part of
the raw material at a very low price.  In effect the system operated in such a way that the processor,when acquiring peaches in the formal market, was paying the producer a price which incorporated a
subsidy for which he was later, informally, comp ensated (by getting back the difference).  This
system allowed producers and processors, in the absence of appropriate controls, to secure financial
advantages by manipulating figures for sales and withdrawals.  The existence of abuses and fraud in
the EC subsidies system had caused the EC to re form the regulations in 1997.  These reforms were
designed to overcome these short-comings.  However, the representative of Chile noted that the low
efficiency of the reforms was now clear.  According to information obtained, in June 2000, the Greek
harvest was one of the highest in history, with 21.5 million crates. This had had a serious impact on
the international market and displaced producers in countries such as Chile that had comparative
advantages in the area.  This was the reason the issue had been again included for discussion at theCommittee. Chile wished to pose a series of questions on the issue to the European Communities and
would circulate the copies to all Members of the Committee. The representative of Chile stressed that
he would revert to the issue as it was of major importance to his country.
18. The representative of Australia shared Chile's concerns and expressed disappointment that
despite the fact that the issue had been raised repeatedly and that there had been informal discussionson the matter, it appeared to remain unresolv ed.  He encouraged the European Communities toG/AG/R/24
Page 5
respond to the questions that Chile was providing.  The representatives of both the United States and
Argentina also registered their support for Chile's concern and frustration.
19. The representative of the European Communities resented that the same allegations were
being repeatedly made in the Committee.  He rejected as unfounded the allegation that there existed
any kind of fraud in the EC system.  Independent, competent control authorities in the EuropeanCommunities would be willing to check any basis for any such arguments.  The representative of the
European Communities noted that earlier in the day he had replied to a US question in the context of
domestic support; he felt that this would have been a more appropriate place in the agenda for Chile to
pose its questions on the EC canned peach regime.
Date of Next Meeting
20. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will start on Tuesday,
14 November 2000.  The airgram convening the meeting and containing the draft agenda will be
issued on 2 November 2000.G/AG/R/24
Page 6
ANNEX – Part I
Page
Part I Summary of specific points raised on  notifications and responses thereto -
(27 September 2000 meeting)7
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):
-
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): 7
Czech Republic (CZE/27); European Communities (EEC /27 and EEC/28);
(iii) relating to the use of the speci al safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): 10
European Communities (EEC/24);  Japan (JPN/55 and JPN/56);
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): 11
Chile (CHL/10/Rev.1); Colombia (C OL/20); Czech Republic (CZE/25);
European Communities (EEC/26); Israel (ISR/8/Rev.1, ISR/12/Rev.1 and
ISR/16); Slovak Republic (SVK/24); South Africa (ZAF/29);
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2):21
Canada (CAN/36 and CAN/38); Czech Republic (CZE/26);  Slovak
Republic (SVK/25);
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): 24
Czech Republic (CZE/24); Poland (POL/35).
Part II Deferred replies to questions raised under Article 18.6 at previous
meetings25
Brazil – Export subsidies provided by PROEX - G/AG/R/23, page 1, refers. 25
Part III Deferred replies to questions on notifi cations raised at previous meetings 26
(i) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): 26
Norway (NOR/25) - G/AG/R/23, page 33, refers.
(ii) relating to export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): 28
Cyprus (CYP/8/Rev.1) - G/AG/R/23, page 37, refers.G/AG/R/24
Page 7
ANNEX – Part I
Review of Notifications by the Co mmittee on Agriculture on 27 September 2000
Summary of Specific Points Raised and Responses Thereto
Table MA:2 Notifications
Czech Republic      G/AG/N/CZE/27    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/Australia/New Zealand/Philippines:  Reasons for
continued under-fill, in particular for :
Beverages
Ethyl alcohol; Waters containing sugar
Meat
Bovine animals, live; bovine meat
Meat offal
Sheep, live; meat of sheep
Swine, live; meat of swine
Dairy
Butter; Margarine; Milk and cream
Grapes, fresh
Potatoes
Rape-seeds
Rape oil
StarchesUnder-fill is due to three reasons:
1.  Lack of import demand.
2.  Sufficient domestic supply.3.  Structural adjustment and corresponding changes in
consumer behaviour.
Australia: Noted that low fill has been previously explainedon the basis of market factors: whether the implementation
of an applied tariff-only regime for products where thedomestic industry is competitive has been considered.For the moment, the Czech authorities do not envisage any
changes to the current regime.
New Zealand:  Noted that in previous explanations, reasons
such as falling consumption levels, excessive domestic
production, competitive domestic producer prices havebeen cited.  Confirmation that domestic producers did notreceive any form of pr oducer support payments that could
enhance the market competitiveness of their products;
confirmation that none of the meat and dairy products aresubject to consumer or producer price subsidies; ifconsumer price subsidies do exist, whether imported goodsare subject to the same price subsidies.All forms of support have been notified.G/AG/R/24
Page 8
European Communities      G/AG/N/EEC/27    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Philippines/United States:  Reasons for continued
under-fill, in particular for :
Meat
Bovine meat, frozenThe EC does not agree that the fill rates are persistently
low.  Most beef tariff quotas are usually entirely filledexcept for: (a) frozen boneless buffalo, 2,250 tonnes fromAustralia; (b) part of the tariff quota for frozen thin skirt,1,500 tonnes, of which 700 tonnes from Argentina; and (c)
part of the 37,800 tonnes of high quality beef, of which, as
scheduled, 11,500 tonnes are from the United States andCanada.  Tariff quotas (a) and (b) are not filled b ecause the
product concerned is not available at attractive prices or
with the sufficient quality in supplying countries.  Tariff
quota (c) could not be filled because one of the supplyingcountries, the United States, does not produce, in sufficientquantities, beef that meets EC import requirements.
Chicken carcass
Swine meat; cuts of domestic swine (excl. tenderloins)The relatively low fill rates are a consequence of sufficient
supply at attractive prices on the internal market.  In thecase of swine meat, the low fill rate is accentuated becausethe market is only just recovering from a period of lowprices due to outbreaks of classical swine fever.
Turkey meat This tariff quota does not show persistently low fill rates. It
is usually filled, with the exception of the marketing year
1998/99 .  This was due to oversupply and downward
pressure on prices on the internal market in the firstsemester of 1999.  Furthermore, this tariff quota mainlycovers bone-in products, which are the first to be affectedwhen markets suffer from oversupply. In the second half of
1999, internal markets got firmer and the tariff quota of
2,500 tonnes for the calendar year 1999  w a s ,  a s  b e f o r e ,
filled (EEC/28, page 7, refers).
Cheeses : Emmental cheese and curd; Gruyère There was a lack of economic interest to import these
products.
Malt sprouts and barley screenings; oats
Oranges; Orange juice
Poultry eggs; egg yolks; egg albuminThe relatively low fill rates are a consequence of sufficient
supply at attractive prices on the internal market.
New Zealand: Reason for notifying authorized imports asopposed to actual imports for the majority of productssubject to tariff quota commitments in the presentnotification; request for data on actual imports.This situation arises from the licensing system applying to
the individual tariff quotas.  The tariff quotas for which theactual imports are notified are managed on a first-come,first-served basis: certificates are distributed in adecentralized manner as long as the balance permits and theactual imports are registered.
Other forms of licensing apply to the remaining tariff
quotas.  Management requires central decisions that aretaken by the Commission.  For example, with regard to
reduction coefficients in cases where licences are attributed
on a pro rata basis.  The information available then relatesto applications and authorizations rather than actualimports.  But as importers ma y lose the guarantee deposit
for unused licences,  actual imports almost equal authorized
imports.G/AG/R/24
Page 9
European Communities      G/AG/N/EEC/28    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Philippines/United States:  Reasons for continued
under-fill, or decline in the fill rates, in particular for :
Cereals
Grain sorghum
MaizeAs indicated in the notification, the quota quantity is
reduced by imports of maize gluten feed, brewers' grainsand citrus pulp, as stipulated in the EC Schedule.  Withouttaking into account this reduction, the fill should be 100 percent.
Manioc (cassava) Major manioc producing countries are increasingly
becoming major users themselves.  In other countries,demand for manioc is also increasing.  Furthermore, other
raw material for animal feed are abundantly available on
the EC market at competitive prices.
Rice, broken
Apricots
Oranges and other citrus fruit hybrids
Orange juiceThere was sufficient supply in the internal market.
Sheep, live and meat of sheep and goat Low fill is due to sufficient supply in the internal market.
In addition, de-stocking has taken place in certain suppliercountries.
Swine meat There was sufficient supply in the internal market.
G/AG/R/24
Page 10
Tables MA:3 to MA:5 Notifications
European Communities      G/AG/N/EEC/24        Summary of Special Safeguard Actions (Table MA:5)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States:  Fruit and vegetables  - Absence of MA:3
notifications; confirmation that no volume-based dutieswere collected for these products in 1998/99.All the fruit and vegetable products listed in the notification
were subject to a volume-based safeguard.  A Table MA:3notification will be submitted showing current volumetriggers.
Japan     G/AG/N/JPN/55       Price-Based Special Safeguard (Table MA:4)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/New Zealand:  Butter (fat <= 85%) –
Tariff rate applied prior to the application of the SSG; The out-of-quota tariff rate applied prior to the application
of the SSG was 29.8% plus 179 Yen per kg.
Rate of additional duty being levied; volume of tradeaffected;The provision of price-based SSG is invoked against each
individual cargo.  To avoid the publication of information
concerning individual traders' imports, Japan has notpublished the amount of extra duty imposed as a result ofSSG nor the volume of imports that has been affected.
Reason why butter is being imported at the out-of-quotarate and is subject to an SSG duty when the tariff quotafor butter and butteroil continues to be under-filled.As notified in JPN/8, this tariff quota is allocated to
specific uses, such as international airlines for flights to andfrom Japan, and sales at international exhibitions.  Thecargo in question seems to have been imported for purposes
other than those defined in JPN/8.  This is the reason why it
was imported at the out-of-quota tariff rate.  Since theimport price of the cargo in question was lower than thetrigger price, the additional duty was applied in conformitywith Article 5.1(b).
Japan     G/AG/N/JPN/56       Price-Based Special Safeguard (Table MA:4)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/New Zealand: Wheat flour  –
Whether this notification is the same as JPN/53 dated 15
May 2000;The notified SSG action is different from the one notified
in JPN/53.
Tariff rate applied prior to the application of the SSG; The out-of-quota tariff rate that was applied prior to the
application of the SSG was 27.4 Yen per kg.
Rate of additional duty being levied. Same answer as for JPN/55 above.
G/AG/R/24
Page 11
Table DS:1 Notifications
Chile   G/AG/N/CHL/10/Rev.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada/Japan: Submission of Table DS:2 notifications
relating to new programmes.The ODEPA programme is not a new programme. This is a
technological validation programme based on agricultural
research. It is designed to (a) facilitate farmers' adjustmentof their farming techniques and cultivation of products tothe use of irrigation systems, and (b) transfer the results
from research projects (mainly irrigation projects) to
producers.  It complies with Annex 2 criteria.
Japan: "Infrastructure services: Law No. 18,450" -
Operation details.The Law is in existence since 1985. It encourages the
construction of irrigation works by the private sector in
order to facilitate the expansion of irrigation systems insemi-arid regions. It complies with Annex 2 criteria.
Colombia   G/AG/N/COL/20      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada: Submission of Table DS:2 notifications relating to
new programmes (G/AG/R/16 refers).Colombia undertook to submit the related Table DS:2
notifications.
Australia: Missing calculation details; submission of relatedST/DS:5 and ST/DS:7 notifications.The AMS consists in the sum of: (a) measures reported in
ST/DS:6 which are non-exempt direct payments funded by
the National General Budget, and (b) product-specificcredit programmes (listed in ST/DS:7) which, through the
granting of preferential interest rates to small producers, are
designed to assist them in financing the purchase of seeds
or animals, the sustainability of cultivated land and soilrehabilitation.
Japan: "Storage incentive for rice" – Reason for increased
expenditures in 1998 and 1999, compared to 1997.This scheme was designed: (a) to finance part of the storage
costs resulting from seasona l excess surpluses which
particularly hit remote rural areas or areas with difficultaccess to local markets; and (b) to keep a certain level of
inventories in order to offset the decline of domestic
producers' prices.  In 1998 and 1999, due to the currencyinstability in certain countries that export agricultural goodsto Colombia, massive rice imports have put downwardpressure on domestic prices and rendered the absorption of
domestic rice production more difficult.  In order to
mitigate such internal market  imbalances as well as the
deterioration of producers' incomes, higher levels offinancing became necessary and were channelled tostorage.
Japan: ST/DS:7 – Reason for the sharp decrease ofexpenditures under "total other product-specific support"between 1997 and 1999.This is due to the crisis whic h hit the agricultural sector,
which is reflected in the decline of agricultural GDP; the
contraction of cultivated areas; deteriorating producers'
incomes; increasing imports and rising ruralunemployment.  Furthermore, a difficult fiscal situation didnot permit the allocation of greater financial resources tothe strengthening of agricultural credit schemes.G/AG/R/24
Page 12
Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/25      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Japan: "Farmer programme addressing the settlement of
restitution" – Whether this pr ogramme has been abolished;
if so, why.This programme has been abolished as the Ministry of
Agriculture considered that its objectives had beenachieved. However, another programme, called"FARMER" has been operating with the objectives (a) to
create pre-conditions for the development of prospective
farmers involved in basic production and (b) to facilitateinvestments in the rehabilitation of forests.  It includes the
purchase of machinery, building investments,
manufacturing of farming products, afforestation,
purchases of intangible assets such as licences andsoftware.
New Zealand: "Sheep walk" – Compliance with Annex 2
para 11(b).This programme complies with Annex 2 criteria as support
is not related to the volume of production.  The headagepayment is an administrative tool which is not intended tosupport production but rather to ensure equity in payments.
As stated in previous years, the less favoured mountainous
regions have suffered from the transformation of theagricultural sector.  The sheep breeding in this area helps tomaintain grassland lots for environmental purposes, such as
soil and landscape formation or reduction of the share of
eroded arable land, and to restructure the land fund destinedto the intensification of agriculture.
Australia/New Zealand:    "Landscape conservation in
cultural state"
Operation details; The programme was set forth by Government Regulation
no. 24/1999 of 20 January 1999 on the basis of which it
operates.
Nature of environment and conservation goals; The two main types of support are: (a) support to activities
connected to landscape maintenance (b) support to lessfavoured areas.
Whether payments are on a per unit basis; Expenditures under the programme do not involve direct
payments to producers or processors.
Consistency with fundamental Annex 2 criteria; Answer not available.
Consistency with Annex 2 para 12(a). The policy-specific criteria under the various sub-
components of paras 12 and 13 of Annex 2 are met.
New Zealand: "Support for ecological agriculture" -
Consistency with Annex 2 criteria since any policy thatseeks to encourage the production of bio-food is bydefinition linked to production.This measure is based on a government environment and
conservation programme. It is in compliance with Annex 2criteria as previously explained.  As to bio-food, Annex 2para 12(a) contains a clear reference to " conditions related
to production methods or input s".
Amber Box
Canada: Whether support to milk and wheat (as reported by
OECD sources) is reflected in the present notification; andhow.
Canada reiterated its interest in knowing how such support
is recorded in the notification.  The Czech Republic
undertook to supply written answers to interested
delegations.All the subsidies provided by the Czech Republic in
calendar year 1999 are reflected in this notification.G/AG/R/24
Page 13
Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/25      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Non-product-specific support
Canada/Korea: "Support to production of potato starch";
"KLADRUBY horse breeding"; "Donation of milk for
basic schools"
Operation details; method used to measure support
Old Kladruby horse breeding The purpose of this support is keeping the herd of Old
Kladruby horses, maintaining its genetical reserves andpreservation of historical buildings of Kladruby stud farm
as a national cultural monument.  The breeding of this kind
of horses dates from 17
th century.  Today, the herd accounts
about 30 head and these horses are used as coachers forparades, as gifts to VIP visitors and as a genetic source forother herds all around Europe.
Production of potato starch The purpose of this programme was to maintain andstabilize cultivation of potatoes usable for production ofpotato starch.
Donation of milk to basic schools Donation of milk to basic schools was a programme whichwas in force from 1 September to 31 December 1999.  Itspurpose was to promote drinking of milk by basic-schoolpupils as a measure aiming to achieve optimal weekly
consumption of milk by this category of the population.
The product supported was packed pasteurized milk.
Rationale for reporting these measures as non-product-
specific.These programmes are indeed other product-specific
support and provide financial support to producers of the
respective commodities (milk, potato starch, horses).
However, the current total AMS as set in Table DS:4 wouldremain unchanged.
Japan/New Zealand: Whether the following programmesare new; operation details:
"Support and guarantee farmer and forestry fund" The objectives of the Fund are (a) to create pre-conditionsfor the development of prospective farmers involved in
basic production, and (b) to facilitate investment  for the
regeneration of forests. The programme consists of severalschemes and sub-schemes, e.g. OPERATION,INVESTMENTS, FARMER, SALES ORGANIZATION,
YOUTH, which include mainly: purchase of machinery,
building investments, manufacturing of farming products,afforestation, purchase of intangible investment (licences,software, etc.), construction of field roads, investment inagri-tourism, etc.
"Support of sales of diesel for farmers' green diesel" This refers to tax reductions applied on fuel.
"Support to forest and water management" This programme aims at the conservation, regeneration andsustainable management of forests and water sourcesdamaged by air and water pollution.
G/AG/R/24
Page 14
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/26      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
United States: "Marketing and promotion services" –
Whether the reported figure includes all funds granted to
producer organizations (POs); reporting of marketwithdrawals effected under Regulation 2200/96.No, withdrawal expenditures are notified in ST/DS:6.
Whether funds granted to the POs recognized under
Regulation 1035/72 are included.Confirmed.
Whether horticultural POs, groups or individuals are
granted any EC or member State funds under theguidance and/or guarantee sections of the EC budgetwhich are not notified.No.
Examples of the kinds of PO activities that are supported
by EC and member State funds.POs are established around issues of common interest, i.e.,
marketing, logistics and promotion in relation to productionand environmental issues.
Breakdown of expenditure by type of activity andbeneficiary commodity.No detailed information is available.
Australia: "Infrastructural services" - Conditions under
which electricity and water are supplied.These are laid down in Regulations 1260/99 and 1257/99.
In all cases, the expenditures are directed to the provision
or construction of capital works only (i.e., small
purification plants for villages).
Australia: "Other farm services" – Details on "mutual aid"
and "farm reliefs"; confirmation that producers do notreceive direct payments.
Additional comment:  Australia
 pointed out that the
requirements of Annex 2 para 2 do not provide for the
granting of direct payments to producers, not even during a
"setting-up period". The EC clarified that support is
actually given to farmers' gro ups so, in their view, there is
no direct payment to producers.The measures which fall under this category aim at giving
incentives for the creation of three kinds of services,
thereby contributing to more rational production and toimproved living conditions. These services are:
• creation of farmers' groups  whose objectives are: (a)
mutual aid between holdings, including the use of newtechnologies and produces for safeguarding the
environment; preserving the countryside; improving the
introduction of alternative farming practices; (b) themore rational joint use of agricultural means ofproduction; (c) the operation of a group holding;
• creation of farm relief services that foresee
replacement, e.g. in the case of disease, death, etc., offarmers, spouses and workers;
• creation and stepping-up of farm management
services to provide individual assistance to farmers in the
technical, economic and financial and administrative
management of agricultural holdings .
Support is only given as a contribution to the operating
costs in the setting-up period of the service.  It is thereforein consistency with the requirements of Annex 2 para 2.
Korea/New Zealand: "Income insurance and income safety
net" - Operation details in view of EEC/16/Rev.1; measures
included under this category.This is a classification error.  The reported amount is an
agri-monetary aid which should be notified under"decoupled income support".
Australia/United States: "Relief from natural disasters" -
Conditions of payment; whether there has been formalrecognition of a natural disaster;The payments mainly concern compensation for the losses
incurred during an earthquake in Italy.  They were made
after formal recognition of the national disaster by thecompetent authorities. The payments are also a componentof the relevant structural programmes.
G/AG/R/24
Page 15
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/26      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Compliance with loss thresholds and production base
defined in Annex 2 para 8(a).The payments meet the criteria of Annex 2 para 8.
Korea: "Structural adjustment assistance: producer
retirement" – Background for the increased level of
support.
Korea: "Structural adjustment assistance: resource
retirement" - Background for the increased level of support.There is a misunderstanding.  Comparing the figures of
EEC/16/Rev.1 with those in EEC/26, support levels have
actually decreased.
Australia/Korea/United States: "Structural adjustment
assistance: investment aids" – Consistency with Annex 2
para 11(b) since aid is destined to the purchase of animals;
background for the increased level of support.This question refers to the investment aid to adjust
agricultural holdings.  Minimum eligibility conditions for
applicants are established at EU level.  Only full-time
farmers with adequate occupational skills and competencemay apply for this type of aid.  They must submit aMaterial Improvement Plan  in order to show the structural
disadvantages they face.  Payments are not related to the
type or volume of production but to the type and volume ofinvestment undertaken.  The payments are only granted forthe realisation of the investment.  Payments for thepurchase of pigs, poultry and calves are excluded.  For
other animals, purchases are eligible only in the case of
first acquisition.  From the year 2000 onwards, thepurchase of any animal is no longer eligible under thisscheme.
New Zealand: "Protection of organic production" –
Consistency with Annex 2 para 12(b). Previousdescriptions appear to imply a voluntary aspect of this
programme since payments are made in return for the
environmental services provided by farmers which gobeyond minimum standards of environmental care.Farmers wishing to apply organic farming methods may
participate in a transitional programme which enables themto convert from normal to organic farming.  Under the
scheme, farmers must comply with higher standards of
environmental care than under "commercial" farming.Payments are only granted to cover income foregone andadditional costs, which is in conformity with Annex 2para 12(b).
United States: Clarification of reporting of payments tosupport the conversion to organic agriculture, at EC andmember State level.Such payments are notified under the category of
environmental payments.  Both Community and memberStates payments have been notified.
Blue Box
Argentina:  Level of support established during marketingyear 1992 for the products listed in ST/DS:3.This information is availabl e in EEC/12/Rev.1, ST/DS:3.
Japan/Korea/New Zealand:  Rice
The measure appears to be a new one; related Table DS:2; This hectare-based scheme is reported for the first time.
Reason why this new programme was introduced. The rice sector was reformed in 1995.  The basic principles
are laid down in Council Regulation 3072/95.  They aresimilar to those underlying the 1992 reform of the arablecrop sector and consist of: (a) a price reduction in three
steps from marketing year 1997/98 to 1999/00
compensated by a fixed payment per hectare, and (b) theestablishment of a base area per member State. In case thenational base area is exceeded, a reduction of the payments
is applied.  The budgetary outlays involved are, after full
implementation, 120 Mio EURO.  This scheme complieswith Article 6.5 (a).
G/AG/R/24
Page 16
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/26      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Amber Box
Australia/Canada/New Zealand: de minimis  support –
Value of production figures for :
Common wheat, maize, barley, rye, triticale, grain
sorghum  (Aid for Portuguese producers)Portuguese producers can apply for direct aid for each ton
sold on the market.  However, it is not possible to allocate
this aid to the different cereals.  The total production forcereals in the EC-15 was 25,000 Million ECU.
Cotton There was no de minimis  claim.
Potatoes for processing to starch 392 Million ECU.
Canada:  Status of non-exempt direct payments to potatoes
for processing to starch  in 1997/1998.An amount of 204.4 Million ECU is reported in ST/DS:6,
page 10.
Korea: Details on the operation of compensatory paymentsand AMS calculation.Starch potatoes: the EC applies the system of operation of
compensatory payments.  Growers receive a payment based
on the starch content of the potatoes delivered to the
processor.  Aubergines and cauliflower: the notified
amounts reflect withdrawal payments.
EMS
United States:  Fruit and vegetables  - Clarification of the
place of reporting of withdrawal aids, either in ST/DS:8 or
elsewhere in this notification.Withdrawal aids are not included in the EMS. The existing
price support for fruit and vege tables is listed in ST/DS:8.
To avoid double calculations, the budgetary outlays forsuch products were not added to the calculated pricesupport, except for cauliflowers and aubergines, where noprice support exists.  These pa yments are listed in ST/DS:6.
United States: Cotton  – The amount of eligible production
exceeds the "actual production" reported for 1997/98.In this notification, only total eligible production, which
corresponds to the actual production, is reported.
United States: Peaches for processing  –
Whether the notified figure reflects the minimum price
aid provided to growers only; whether processing aid
paid to processors is also included; if not, clarificationneeded;Under the current arrangements, growers receive a
minimum price for their produce which must be paid by the
processors. No aid is paid by public authorities to peachgrowers under this scheme.
Whether processors receive processing aid when the
prices they pay to growers exceed the minimum price;
whether Greek processors received processing aid in1997;Processors receive an aid equal to the difference between
the world market price and the minimum price which they
have to pay to the producers.  There is no processing aid, inthe sense implied by the question, paid to processors.  Thecircumstances described in the question do not arise in
practice.  However, if a processor were to pay a higher
price, he would be compensated, but only up to thedifference between the minimum price and the worldmarket price.  He would have to bear the costs of anyhigher price himself.
Average price paid by processors to growers in Greece in1997.No information is available on the average price paid by
processors to growers.
Non-product-specific AMS
United States:  Method used to derive the budgetary outlaysfor fertilizers and insurance subsidies; clarification of"interest concession"; data sources.The fertilizer subsid y consists of a VAT reduction, so the
figure must be deleted from this notification. The insurancesubsidy represents a subsid y for hail insurance. The
concessions concern reductions in interest rates offered to
the agricultural sector.  Information is provided by the EC
member States.G/AG/R/24
Page 17
Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/8/Rev.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Australia/Philippines: "Autonomy agreement" –
Reason why vegetable producers are targeted; factors
behind the doubling of payments to retire vegetableproducers;Under the Paris Agreement, which provides for one
customs envelope, Israel committed itself to allow free
access to all agricultural products produced in the
Palestinian Authority area. Certain vegetables were initiallysubject to a quota system.  The vegetable quota has beenincreasing on a yearly basis during four years and expired
in 1999.  Import access for all agricultural products is now
free. The notified assistance programme was established bythe government of Israel with a view to correct the marketimbalance created by the Paris Agreement in the vegetablesector.
Operation details; The support is based on a fixed payment to the producers in
line with the historic surface of cultivation fields.
Confirmation that producers are moving to non-
agriculture related activities;No, producers are not moving to non-agriculture related
activities.
Consistency with Annex 2. This support should be regarded as decoupled income
support.
Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/12/Rev.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
AMS
Philippines: Poultry meat  - Explanation for the marked
increase in AMS and market price support in 1997
compared to 1996.In 1997, the "minimum guaranteed price" system was
discontinued.  As a result, the price of poultry meat
increased from US$2,066 to US$2,250  per metric tonne  .
Since then, prices went down to US$2,016 in 1998 and
US$1,776 in 1999.
Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/16      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
New Zealand: "Natural disaster compensation" -  Reasons
for the large increase in expenditure.This is due to the disbursement of the final instalment to
farmers hit by officially-declared natural disasters in the
years 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1997.  In previous years,only advance payments to producers have been notified.By 1998, the final payments have been granted to most ofthem.
Argentina:  "Measures for Kibbutzim, Moshavim and New
Kibbutzim" -  Operation details; compatibility with Annex
2 criteria.This is a debt restructuring programme agreed between the
government of Israel, private banks, Kibbutzim and theMoshavim.  Support is not linked to production.  The
beneficiaries are those farmers who could not repay loans
or were unable to meet other financial obligations duringthe 1980s hyper-inflation period.  Under this scheme, thegovernment is to cover most of the debts and private banks
agreed to write off part of the bad debts.  Restructuring of
the Moshavim and Kibbutzim is also foreseen.G/AG/R/24
Page 18
Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/16      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Canada/Japan: "Clean Arava project" –
Whether the measure is new; if so, related Table DS:2
notification;In response to requests by Members, Israel split previously
notified programmes in order to provide more detailed
explanations of support meas ures falling in the Green Box
category.  The Med-fly eradication programme has severalcomponents: (a) the general service organizationresponsible for the administration and negotiation with
neighbour countries; (b) the Clean Arava project.  Should
the Med-Fly programme become a national programme,Israel would submit a Table DS:2 notification.
Compliance with Annex 2 para 13, including criteria for"disadvantaged" region;The Arava area is a disadvantaged zone in the Southern
region.
Details of delivery mechanism. No answer available.
AMS
Canada: Wheat , sunflowers  - Reporting of market price
support consistently with document WT/TPR/S/58 (para 15
refers); functioning and levels of price support schemes.The "local grain aid" reported in ST/DS:6 is the only
support measure applying to wheat.  This is the so-called
market price support reported in WT/TPR/S/58 althoughthe measure relates more to income support.
There is no support to sunflower.  Support to sunflower
was reported in WT/TPR/S/58 by mistake.
Canada: "Local grain aid, wheat " – Functioning of the
measure; relationship with support described in
WT/TPR/S/58 para 15.The calculation of support levels is based on the division of
Israel into four zones according to rain levels.  When the
level of income in a given zone is less than 82 per cent of
the normative zone cost of production, producers areentitled to receive support up to the 82 per cent level of thenormative zone cost of production.  This support has been
notified in ISR/8/Rev.1 (1995 and 1996); ISR/12/Rev.1
(1997); and ISR/16 (1998).
Canada: "Water supply support" – Functioning of this
measure;  calculation details.This support is based on an agreement between the
Government of Israel and water suppliers.  The rate of
support is calculated on the basis of the difference betweenthe normative cost of production and transport anddistribution, including financial costs and the income
received from selling the water.  The normative costs are
reduced by an annual efficiency coefficient.
Japan: "Specific aid" - Details of support schemes for :
Fruit other than citrus Specific support was granted for the replanting of
plantations in the northern region (especially plums).
Flowers This refers to the government 's share in a loan to flower
growers.
Meat of poultry This is a new assistance programme, introduced in
replacement of the Galilee Law in 1998.  In future, it willbe notified under the Green Box.  As the programme
started in 1998 and was not available to all producers,
Israel did not notify it as a new Green Box measure.During the year 2000, most of the poultry meat producersin disadvantaged areas, who were previously entitled to
Galilee Law payments, were transferred to the new
programme.  Israel will s hortly submit a Table DS:2
notification.
G/AG/R/24
Page 19
Slovak Republic   G/AG/N/SVK/24      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
United States:  Request that a description of each measure
be supplied along with an explanation of how the measuremeets Annex 2 criteria for exemption, as outlined inG/AG/2.Information relating to the following programmes is
recorded in G/AG/R/20 dated 22 October 1999:"Ecological procedures", "Agri-tourism and ruraldevelopment", "Conservation of riding horse breeding".
Australia/United States:  "Product sale promotion" -
Operation details; whether the scheme is related toparticular products.The purpose of this measure is to promote activities of
newly-established farmers' associations in order to realizeproduct sales.  In their first year of operation, associations
can receive s upport up to 40 per cent of their operating
costs.  Support can also be provided to cover 70 per cent ofthe costs of international or domestic exhibitions withforeign participation and edition of advertising booklets
and advertising services.  There is no linkage to any
particular product.  Support is not used to reduce the sellingprices or to bring a direct economic benefit to producers.The measure is therefore notified under Annex 2 para 2(vi).
New Zealand/United States: "Bee breeding" – New
Zealand recognizes the importance of such a programmebut maintains that it should be notified as part of the
product-specific total AMS as the product is linked to
factors of production. New Zealand encourages the SlovakRepublic to supply a revised notification accordingly.As previously stated, this programme is not linked to
agricultural production since the amount of payments doesnot relate to the number of bees or to the volume of any by-
product from bee-keeping.  The subsidy, which amounted
to 2 million Sk in 1999 (approximately US$40,000), has noreal impact on trade.  It is exclusively oriented towardsenvironmental objectives and the preservation of bee
colonies for pollination.  As such, this programme should
be maintained in the Green Box.
United States: "Relief from natural disasters" – Specific
programme details; compatibility of partial damagereimbursement with Annex 2 criteria.This measure complies with Annex 2 para 8 criteria. The
subsidy is not linked to any individual product.  It is aimed
at the partial coverage of the negative impacts caused bynatural disasters (wind storms, hail storms, veterinary andphytosanitary disease outbreaks).  Reimbursement isgranted for up to 20 per cent of total damages.
AMS
Canada:  Confirmation that a Ministerial decree in April1999 declared less favourable cadaster areas eligible forarea payments; clarification of reporting method.The subsidy is granted to farm ers whose land is situated in
less favourable or mountainous regions with a certain
number of head of livestock (e.g. cattle, sheep, horses or
goats).  Headage is limited to a certain number of liveanimals per 100 hectares.  As per the Decree of theMinistry of Agriculture No. 812/1999 of 16 April 1999,
individual areas with worse natural conditions are divided
into 15 categories according to the price of agricultural landand taking into account the value of soils.  This subsidy isgranted in order to preserve agricultural production in theless favourable regions in th e country.  This subsidy is
notified as non-product specific support and is subject to
reduction commitments.G/AG/R/24
Page 20
South Africa   G/AG/N/ZAF/29      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Canada/Japan/New Zealand: "Agricultural engineering
services" -
Confirmation that the programme is new; if so, related
Table DS:2;This is not a new, or modified, programme. However, it
was originally included in the budgets of the former
homelands and self-governing states and reported asdevelopment assistance under the category regionalassistance programmes.  In the process of implementation
and notification, more detailed information has now
become available from the provincial departmentsconcerned, which has enabled South Africa to moreappropriately notify this expenditure.  A Table DS:2
notification is being prepared for submission to the
Committee.
Operation details; consistency with Annex 2. The expenditure is directed at the construction of basic
infrastructure for water supply, communal dipping tanks in
rural areas and planning and design of animal housing
structures.  The measure meets Annex 2 para 2(g) criteria.
Australia: "Regional assistance"  -  Basis for designating a
region as being disadvantaged; basis for calculating
payments.The figure for regional assistance programmes represents
expenditures in the nine provinces.  South Africa is not at
present in a position to provide an adequate reply.  The
National Department of Agriculture has requested therelevant authorities to provide information at the level ofdetail this enquiry demands.
AMS
Japan: Wheat , tobacco  – Confirmation that no market
price support has been provided in 1999; status ofpreviously implemented support schemes.South Africa's total AMS decreased from 2,198.3 million
Rand in 1997 to 830.13 million Rand in 1998.  SouthAfrica confirms that no price support was given to wheat
and tobacco in the latter marketing year.  Market price
support for both products has been discontinued.
Argentina: Sugar  – Confirmation that the notified
expenditure is the total price support given to both millers
and cane growers.The notified support to the sugar industry of 805.67 million
Rand is the price support to cane growers.  As indicated in
the footnote on page 7, the support is the portion (60 percent) of the total support to the sugar industry that benefitscane growers, thus at farm gate.  This method is consistentwith the base year calculations.G/AG/R/24
Page 21
Table DS:2 Notifications
Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/36      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
"Canada-Saskatchewan and Canada-Manitoba adjustment programs"
Australia/EC/Japan/United States :
Reason for introducing these programmes in 2000; These programmes are to help farmers most affected by
transportation policy changes to adjust to highertransportation costs as they face continuing low farmincomes.
Conformity with Annex 2 para 6, in particular 6(b), giventhe eligibility of specific crops;These programmes meet Annex 2 para 6 criteria. Eligibility
is determined by clearly-defined criteria in a defined andfixed base period as per sub-para 6(a).  In this case, it is the
status as a producer in the provinces of Manitoba and
Saskatchewan in 1999. The amount of payment is notrelated to, or based on the type or volume of production,prices applying to any production, or factors of production
undertaken, in any year after the base period (in this case
1999), as per sub-paras 6(b), (c) and (d).
Difference between "current production" (CAN/29 refers)
and "production" (CAN/36); interpretation of Annex 2
para 6(e); clarification of decoupled nature sincepayments are based on a percentage of qualifying sales(thus on production and price);No current production was required in order to receive a
payment.  This also means that eligible producers who
leave the industry after the base period r eceive a payment.
Canada's interpretation of para 6(e) is that production in thecurrent year is not required to receive a payment.  This
interpretation took into consideration criteria in the other
paragraphs that establish eligibility by clearly-definedcriteria, including production, in a defined and fixed baseperiod, as well as the requirements already mentioned inthe last sentence of the section above.
Method used to establish the total eligible sales figure . The total eligible or qualifying sales is the sum of
producers' qualifying sales in the respective provinces.Qualifying sales are based on revenues of the eligible
crops.  Revenues from crops under crop share arrangements
or bought for resale are excluded from qualifying sales.
G/AG/R/24
Page 22
Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/38      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
"Programme d'appui à la concertation"
EC :
Concrete examples of projects financed under each
component of the programme;Example under Component 1: funding of the operating
activities of the Conseil de développement bio-alimentaire
de Lanaudière and of the Conseil de développement bio-
alimentaire de la Montérégie.
Example under Component 2: funding of the preparation of
an agri-food directory for the Lanaudière area, the
development of a training programme in the meat sector for
the Montérégie area, and the achievement of an agri-foodproducts and services inventory for the Portneuf area.
Component 3:  No projects were funded.
Example under Component 4.1: The establishment of a
tracing system for a veal slaughterhouse and the
implementation of a ratite meat cutting centre.
Example under Component 4.2: The implementation of a
certification programme for the maple syrup packaging and
processing companies.
Example under Component 4.3: The implementation of an
information centre for new health food products.
Details of allocation made under Component 4.1; type of
investment involved;Funds were not allocated by component.  Expenditures
were for capital investments in processing plants with theexception of one project for product and marketdevelopment.
Amount of total final expenditure on 1 April 2000 afterthe three-year application period; final allocation toComponent 4.1.Total expenditures for all three years, for all components, is
about $5.8 million with $1.2 million for Component 4.1.
Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/26      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
"Support to the foundation and activity of producer marketing organizations"
Australia/New Zealand/United States :
Description of programme operations; mode of delivery
of support; types of activities funded;
Meaning of " joint marketing " of agricultural products;This programme assists farmers in improving marketing
activities and conducting these activities by themselves,
mainly through the establishment of agricultural
organizations (joint marketing).  The activities are similarto those mentioned in Annex 2 para 2(f).
Compliance with Annex 2 para 2(f) which requirespayments not to be made for " unspecified purposes ";
confirmation that funds (1) are not used by sellers to
reduce their selling price or  (2) do not confer a directeconomic benefit to producers; existence of relatedsafeguard mechanisms;No answer available.
Identification of specific products benefitting from the
programme.No specific products are benefitting from the programme.
G/AG/R/24
Page 23
Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/26      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
"Calcification with the help of limestone powder"
Australia/Canada/United States:
Details of payment modalities; indication of how farmers
are compensated for the extra costs or loss of income incomplying with the programme;
Demonstration of how para 12 criteria are met since thisappears to be an input subsidy; in particular, consistencywith para 12(b);The programme partially compensates for extra charges
incurred by farmers when using limestone powder in order
to improve the quality of arable land. This programme is
consistent with Annex 2 criteria.
Details of specific government environmental programmeunder which payments are made.The requirements set by government Regulation 24/1999 of
20 January 1999 apply.
Confirmation that no direct payments are made to
producers, as stated; if so, whether the Czech Republic
would like to reconsider the basis for exemption, sinceAnnex 2 para 12 relate specifically to direct payments.No direct payments are made to producers of limestone
powder.   Payments are only made to farmers who commit
themselves to participate in the programme.  In that case,they should not be considered as producers.  For thatreason, there is no need to change the basis for exemption,as the criteria of Annex 2 para 12 apply.
Slovak Republic   G/AG/N/SVK/25      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
"Procurement of generally usable and publicly available research and advisory services"
Canada :
Indication of specific Annex 2 criteria under which the
exemption is being claimed.These subsidies are granted as partial reimbursement of
farmers' expenses on advisory services, consulting and
implementation of extraordinary scientific and researchresults (in the fields of biological, bio-technical, technicaland economic sciences).  As this measure is not linked toany particular product, it meets Annex 2 para 2 criteria,
"Promotion of milk consumption by pupils who attend compulsory basic schools"
Australia/Canada :
Indication of Annex 2 category which is supposed tocover this programme;In view of the decline of milk consumption below the
appropriate nutrition level in recent years, this measure was
designed to encourage children's consumption of milk andmilk products.  Taking into account that the respectivesubsidy has no real impact on trade but corresponds to
medical recommendations with regard to milk
consumption, this subsidy meets the criteria of Annex 2,"Other measures" of the Agreement on Agriculture.
Basis for subsidy payments; explanation of how these
subsidies are applied; clarification of the way milk and
milk products benefit from the programme; details onproduct acquisition an d acquisition price.A subsidy of 4.0 Sk per litre of processed milk (daily
dosage up to 0.25 litre per pupil) is granted on the basis of
the deliveries of milk or milk products realized byproducers or wholesale operators.  Applicants must submitevidence showing (a) a price decrease corresponding to the
subsidy amount and (b) the concrete schools which
purchased the goods.  The acquisition price, i.e. theprocessing price at which the milk is sold, reaches 17.60 Skper litre of full fat milk and 12.50 Sk per litre of low fatmilk.
G/AG/R/24
Page 24
Tables ES:1 to ES:3 Notifications
Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/24    Export Subsidies (Table ES:1 to ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/New Zealand:  Dairy -
Confirmation that exports of milk powder; butter;
cheeses; and other dairy products in excess of annualcommitments did not receive any subsidies;Confirmed.
Reasons why direct export subsidies continue to be
applied for milk powder; butter; cheeses; and other dairyproducts, if domestic producer prices are generally lowerthan world prices.Domestic prices were not lower than world prices. Export
subsidies reflect differences between internal and externalprices.
Australia: Cereal flour  – Reasons behind the sharp rise in
volumes exported in 1999 compared to 1998.This is mainly due to the over-supply of cereals in the
domestic market, resulting from both increased domesticproduction and increased imports.
Poland   G/AG/N/POL/35    Expo rt Subsidies    (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/Australia: Milk powder  and swine carcasses  –
Reasons behind the carry over of unused export subsidies; The decision to use the provisions of Article 9.2 was taken
by the Polish authorities after reviewing the situation on thedomestic market and trends in international markets.  Thisallowed Poland to react in a flexible manner to thedifficulties faced.
Reasons for introducing export subsidies at this late stageof implementation of Uruguay Round commitments.Export subsidies were not automatically activated for all
scheduled agricultural products. In the early stages ofimplementation, Poland did not subsidize the exports of
most agricultural products. This practice did not exclude
the possibility for Poland to use its rights at later stages ofthe implementation period to react to differing marketconditions.
Australia:  Confirmation that export subsidy commitmentswill be complied with in the last year of the implementationperiod; measures being taken to bring export subsidieswithin scheduled limits.Poland remains committed to the fulfilment of its
obligations and undertakes all the necessary measures tomeet this objective.
Australia:  Rape , potatoes  – Reasons behind the sharp rise
in total export volumes in 1999.Poland is a major and competitive producer of these
commodities. Under favourable market conditions, theexports of rape seeds and potatoes have increased.
Australia: Confirmation that for all notified products,exports in excess of annual commitments did not r eceive
any form of subsidies in 1999.Confirmed.G/AG/R/24
Page 25
ANNEX – Part II
Deferred replies to questions raised under Article 18.6 at previous meetings
Brazil – Export subsidies provided by PROEX - G/AG/R/23, page 1, refers
The representative of Brazil disagreed with Canada's implicit assumption that PROEX
equalization payments are a subsidy or that the PROEX programme contains a subsidy element.  As
far as export subsidies for agricultural products were concerned, Brazil confirmed that it had noamendments to make to its notifications G/AG/N /BRA/5, 9, 12 and 15, where it is indicated that no
export subsidy has been granted for the scheduled products.
In addition, the representative of Brazil stated that the programme fell squarely under
Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Current PROEX regulations were similar tointernational practice and had many points in co mmon with the Berne Union General Understanding.
The conditions observed by PROEX regulations were even stricter than those being contemplated in
the framework of the OECD for the purpose of developing disciplines for export credits for
agricultural products.   Brazil's view was that PROEX was not nearly as generous as those
programmes in place by governmental agencies or state trading enterprises in countries that are majorplayers in international agricultural trade.   In th is sense, Brazil shared Canada's concerns with the
way export credits were being operated by some exporting countries and hoped that, by the end of this
year, concrete progress on the implementation of Article 10.2 would be achieved, as committed under
the Agreement on Agriculture.  In this regard, Brazil believed that the current mandated negotiations
provided an important opportunity to develop, in the WTO, international disciplines on officially-
supported agricultural export credits.   Brazil looked forward to addressing this issue with its Cairns
Group partners.G/AG/R/24
Page 26
ANNEX – Part III
Deferred replies to questions on notifications raised at previous meetings
G/AG/N/NOR/ 25 – Domestic support : "Compensation for natural disaster" -
G/AG/R/23, page 33, refers
The scheme "compensation for natural disaster" aims at supporting farmers and horticultural
producers which have substantial losses in yields due to climatic or climatic-related circumstances
which the producers have no possibility of preventing. Normal fluctuations of yields or destruction
due to weeds, plant diseases or vermin do not qualify for compensation under this scheme.
The farmer is required to reduce the losses as far as possible. Documentation of losses is
required.  Support may be reduced or denied if the farm is not run in a professional way or if the farm
has a high-risk production.
Crop losses
The level of production loss required is dependent not only on losses in one type of
production or crop but is calculated on the basis of total losses in all productions on the farm. A
substantial loss in one crop may not be compensated if other crops grown on the farm do notexperience reduced yields. Furthermore, losses are not fully compensated. The farmer has to bear 27%
(22% in Northern Norway) of the loss (the farmer’s own risk).
Production loss of animal feed is calculated on the basis of the feed required for the farm’s
average herd compared to the yield in the year in question. Correction is made for normal buying and
selling of feed crops. The average herd is calculated on the basis of the preceding three-year period. If
one of the three years also has been a year defined as  eligible for natural disaster payment, calculation
is made on the basis of the preceding five-year period. Sales-crops average is calculated on the basis
of the preceding five years. In marginal agricultural areas such as Norway yields may vary
considerably from year to year. In order to reflect an adequate average under these circumstances a
five-year average has been chosen. A five-year average may result in both higher and lower figures
compared to a three-year period and it represents a more correct average in a country experiencing
substantial variations in yields from one year to another. Moreover, this method does not lead to
systematic higher payments to farmers than under a three-year average.
Regardless of the extent of the loss the farmer has to bear 27% (22%) of it. This means that if
the loss is 27%, the farmer will receive no compensa tion. If the loss is e.g. 31% the farmer will get
4% compensated while the remaining 27% has to be borne by the farmer. According to Paragraph 8(c)
of Annex 2 payments shall compensate for not more than the total cost of replacing such losses. Thepayment thus lies well below this requirement.
Payment to compensate for higher prices of coarse fodder in years of disaster
Animal husbandry farms eligible for crop loss compensation may also be eligible for support
to buy additional coarse fodder (grass) in years with production losses and general lack of coarse
fodder in the region to safeguard a good balance between grass and grain in the animal feed. The
support may only be triggered on very rare occasions and always as result of severe problems in a
region, not on single farms. The payment shall comp ensate for the income loss related to the higher
prices of coarse fodder in the region in the actual year. Only up to 73% (78%) compensation isG/AG/R/24
Page 27
provided.  This part of the scheme is being triggered very rarely. Last time was in northern Norway in
1995 and at that time it had not been used for several years. The compensation given is not more than
the total cost of replacing the loss.
Payment to compensate for extraordinary damages on grassland through the wintertime
Farmers may be eligible for compensation for extraordinary sowing of grassland in order to
prevent or reduce production losses in cases where extraordinary damages have occurred during
wintertime. Only 80% (85% in Northern Norway) co mpensation of the cost is provided. The payment
in general reduces the payments under the crop loss scheme described above and does not imply any
production requirements beyond the actual year of disaster.
Compensation for fruit trees destroyed during wintertime.
Also this part of the scheme only applies when extraordinary damages have occurred. Only
regions determined by the Ministry of Agriculture on a case by case basis are eligible for support.
Only a maximum of 80% compensation is granted. The payment does not imply any productionrequirements beyond the actual year of disaster. There have been no payments under this part of the
scheme during the past 15 years.
Conclusion
Norway considers that the scheme "Compensation for natural disaster" operates in conformity
with Annex 2.G/AG/R/24
Page 28
G/AG/N/CYP/8/Rev.1 – Export subsidies to wine grapes - G/AG/R/23, page 37, refers
Wine grapes constitute a major crop in Cyprus, with vineyards occupying more than 13 per
cent of total cultivated agricultural land, mainly mountainous regions, and production accounting for
slightly over 7 per cent of total crop production.  The area planted with wine grapes and theproduction itself have seen a major decline (about 50 per cent) in the last 20 years, from 31,572
hectares and 178,816 tonnes in 1980 to 18,060 hectares and 95,000 tonnes in 1998 respectively.  This
is due to limited rainfall and its uneven distribution over the year, old age of both wine-grape growers
and vines, high production cost due mainly to the small and fragmented viticulture holdings (area
belongs to 21,888 holders and is highly parcelled out to 63,091 plots) a factor that has not allowed
high degree of mechanization, and a grubbing-up scheme applied during the 1989-93 period.
Wine grapes are processed mainly into table, aromatized and fortified wines, with an annual
production between 530,000 and 710,000 hectolitres, as well as concentrated grape must and grape
juice.  Quality wines produced in specified regions, such as Commandaria, represent less than 1 per
cent of annual wine production.
More than 80 per cent of wine production is exported, of which around 95 per cent in bulk
and 5 per cent bottled.  Exports have seen a decrease of 60 per cent in the period 1990-1998, from
62,630 tonnes to 24,949 tonnes respectively, following the reduction in wine-grape production and the
problems faced in main export markets due to rising costs/prices and intense competition from high
quality cheaper wines.  Exports in bulk decreased from 61,538 tonnes in 1990 down to 23,594 tonnesin 1998, while bottled exports remained around 1,300 tonnes.  Aromatized wines account for the bulk
of wine exports, followed by table and fortified wines.  In fact, exports of aromatized wines as a
percentage of total exports in bulk increased from 33 per cent in 1991 to 80 per cent in 1998, with
Germany and France representing traditionally the main export markets.  Other markets for bulk
wines are the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Sweden, Russia, Japan and Kenya.  Bottled wines arealso directed towards European markets, and more specifically the United Kingdom, Denmark,
Russia, Germany and Greece.
Exports of concentrated grape must have also reported a decrease in recent years from
10,510 tonnes in 1990 to 801 tonnes in 1998, thus intensifying the problem of surplus wine grapes.
The fall in exports is attributed mainly to th e loss in traditional export markets share (United
Kingdom, Austria, CEECs), due to price competition from similar products.  Exports of grape juicehave followed suit.  Due mainly to the collapse of the Russian market, exports have reported a decline
of 73 per cent between 1994 and 1998, from 1,460 tonnes to 391 t onnes.
In its effort to maintain and upgrade vine cultivation and wine making, preserve the
environment, reverse the countryside depopulation, improve competitiveness and increase theproduction of quality wines, the Cyprus government  has been applying various measures in recent
years, including:
- the importation of new better quality wine-grape varieties;
- the application of special schemes, offering loans and grants, for the setting-up of regional
wineries producing high quality wines;  and
- the provision of a subsidy to cover part of the handling, upgrading and processing costs as
well as the cost of transport and freight which is especially high due to the remoteness ofCyprus from main export markets, traditionally being the European markets.G/AG/R/24
Page 29
Subsidies provided by the Cyprus government for "wine, alcohol and other grape products",
are subsidies "contingent on export performance" and represent, according to Article 9.1(d) and (e) of
the Agreement, cost reduction measures, i.e. upgrading , processing and handling costs as well as costs
of international transport and freight.
In addition to its effort to reduce wine-grape production and increase the competitiveness of
its exports, which have seen a steady decrease in recent years, the government, using the provision of
Article 9.4 of the Agreement, exceeded for the years 1997 and 1998, its commitment with respect to
subsidised quantities.  This subsidy was again provided in order to reduce the cost of marketing of
these exports and was part of an annual programme approved by the Council of Ministers.
According to this programme, the subsidy is pa id to all exporters of wine, grape must and
grape juice in the form of a per litre anhydrous subsidy for bulk and bottled wines and a per tonne
subsidy for grape must and grape juice.
The subsidy is paid after the exporter submits its claim, supported by all necessary export
documents, to the Vine Products Commission, which checks its validity and prepares/forwardspayment vouchers to the Government Treasury Department for payment.
In a more decisive effort to promote the produc tion of high quality wines, the government has
decided that, as from 2000, no subsidy is paid for bulk wines, and an aid is given instead for the
technological upgrading of wineries.
1
__________
                                                     
1 Tables on 'Cost Analysis for Wine Products', 'Production of Wine Grapes, 1980-1998', 'Exports of
wine alcohol and other wine products, 1990-1999', 'Exports of wines in bulk by country of destination, 1991-1998', 'Exports of bottled wines by country of destination, 1991-1998', 'Exports of concentrated grape must by
country of destination, 1991-1998', and 'Exports of grape juice by country of destination, 1991-1998' are
available on request.