RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/R/30
17 June 2002
(02-3364)
Committee on Agriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25 MARCH 2002
Note by the Secretariat1
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its thirtieth regular meeting on 25 March 2002 under the
chairmanship of Minister Yoichi Suzuki, of Japan.  The agenda of the meeting as contained inWTO/AIR/1750 was adopted.
P
ART I:  T HE REVIEW PROCESS
A. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6
(a) Canada:  Pakistan – Recent developments in the wheat sector
2. Canada reported that the Government of Pakistan had recently considered putting in place an
incentive to encourage private traders to export wheat from government warehouses, including a
payment of $35-40 for every tonne they shipped.  According to Canada, the Government of Pakistanalso intended to allow wheat exports to be managed and handled by the private sector and had set up a
programme to reimburse exporters the incremental charges arising from cleaning and processing of
wheat.  Canada sought confirmation of that information as well as further details on the operation of
these programmes.
3. Pakistan indicated that Canada's questions had been conveyed to the competent capital
authorities and that a written reply would be submitted to the Committee as soon as received.
(b) Canada:  Venezuela – Issuance of import licences for tablestock potatoes and onions
4. Canada reverted to Venezuela's import permit policies for certain agri-food products,
including  table stock potatoes, meat, and onions  (paragraphs 17-18 of G/AG/R/29 refer).  Since the
last Committee meeting in December 2001, Venezuelan officials had confirmed with Canada's
Embassy in Caracas that Venezuela had no sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues pending withCanada as regards the importation of these products.  Notwithstanding this, Venezuela maintained its
policy of not issuing import permits on an automatic and timely basis.  Canada considered that, as
long as SPS requirements were met, there was no basis for Venezuela not to issue these permits on an
automatic and timely basis, and had come to the conclusion that Venezuela was operating a
discretionary import permit system, inconsistent with its WTO obligations.  Given these facts, Canadawished to know when this issue would be resolved.
5. The representative of Venezuela stated that neither Canada's assertion that Venezuela
maintained a "policy" of not issuing sanitary permits, or the suggestion that the Venezuelan
Government was operating a discretionary import permit system, were correct.  Venezuela explained
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.G/AG/R/30
Page 2
that some difficulties in implementing the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) had been experienced as a result, inter alia , of financial
restrictions, limited trained human resources and, more recently, major structural changes to the
institutional framework for devising and implementin g agricultural policy at national level.  The work
of the Autonomous Agricultural Health Service (SASA) had been disrupted and delayed for both
institutional and administrative reasons.  Therefore the delays which occurred in issuing permits,
attributable to administrative problems and the difficulties in implementing the SPS Agreement,
should not be mistaken for a "policy" on the part of Venezuela of disregarding its obligations at
multilateral level.
(c) Canada, United States:  China – Allocation of tariff rate quotas for calendar year 2002
6. Canada and the United States noted that, as of mid-March 2002, China had yet to allocate its
tariff quotas for the calendar year 2002.  In particular, the United States recalled that China had
agreed, as an integral part of its accession to the WTO, that it would allocate its tariff quotas for the
2002 quota year by 1 January 2002.  The United States expressed the view that, since that deadline
had not been met, China had not adhered to its WTO accession agreement regarding tariff quota
administration.
7. Canada also expressed concern that, in the meantime, trade in products subject to tariff quotas
could not take place, a situation which could adversely affect the level of imports in 2002 that
otherwise could have been expected. While recognizing the great challenges of implementing a
system of tariff quota administration for the first time, Canada encouraged China to undertake timely
measures to ensure that imports of products subject to tariff quotas were not further curtailed.  Bothdelegations asked China to indicate when the tariff quotas for the 2002 calendar year would be
allocated to end-users.
8. Canada sought further clarifications on China's recently published regulations and their
consistency with the goal of full utilization of ta riff quotas. Given that the time between the opening
and the closing of the applications period was very short, Canada inquired whether China wouldcontinue to accept applications throughout the year until such time as the tariff quota was fully
allocated, in cases where the tariff quota quantity available exceeded initial allocations.  Canada also
wondered how access to tariff quota allocations would be ensured for new entrants since the related
provisions appeared to be missing from these regulations.  Finally, Canada requested an explanation
of the reasons why China's implementing regulations divided the tariff quotas into two categories
according to end-use, i.e. domestic consumption and processing for re-export; and the rationale
underlying the granting of direct access to very large processors only.
9. China took note of these concerns and stated that it intended to provide real market access
opportunities and fully implement its commitments while ensuring that the allocation of tariff quotas
was carried out on the basis of fairness, equality, transparency and reflecting the real market situation.
This was the first time that new regulations relating to tariff quota management for agricultural
products were in operation and some unexpected difficulties had been encountered.  In this regard,China appealed on WTO Members to show some understanding.
10. China recalled that the two-tiered system of al location had drawn a lot of attention during the
accession negotiations.  At that time, China had indicated that the State Development Planning
Commission (SDPC) would find it ex tremely burdensome to allocate the tariff quotas directly to end
users, given the vast geographical area and the number of potential applicants involved.  However, theWorking Party had not accepted the two-tiered system.  Major changes to the existing system had
been thus required, and although the necessary human and material resources had been duly devoted
to this process, some delays in implementing the new tariff quota allocation system were being
experienced.G/AG/R/30
Page 3
11. Turning to the specific questions posed by Canada and the United States, China stated that the
tariff quotas for agricultural products would be allocated in early April 2002 and confirmed that it
would continue to accept applications throughout the year until such time as each tariff quota was
fully allocated.   Concerning provisions for new entrants, China indicated that ten per cent of the tariff
quota for vegetable oils would be reserved for new entrants.  As for other agricultural products, nearlyall of the applicants were new entrants.
12. China recalled that the tariff quota quantities had been negotiated on the basis of statistics of
recent imports and domestic consumption. Its tariff quota administration system applied equally to
importation for consumption and importation for processing for re-export, which has always been an
important form of trade in China.  Processing trade requires end-users to promptly react in response to
specific domestic or international market situations.  Taking this factor into consideration, China had
separated the tariff quotas for processing trade from those for domestic consumption. The purpose ofsuch an arrangement was to improve the tariff quota fill rates.  Finally, the regulations provide that the
minimum amount of quota allocation should be commercially viable.  Since a large number of
enterprises were engaged in processing trade (e.g. 50,000 for wheat processing), breaking down the
allocation into small portions would only hinder the effective utilisation of the tariff quotas.
13. In their respective interventions, Argentina,  Brazil, the European Communities and Malaysia
stated that they shared some of the concerns expressed by Canada and the United States. They all
registered their interest in this issue as access to the Chinese market was of great importance to them.
Argentina stressed that the tariff quotas concerned represented commitments made by China during its
accession process to the WTO.  While expressing their appreciation for the efforts made by the
Chinese authorities to overcome the difficulties faced in launching a new tariff quota managementsystem, the intervening delegations urged China to  apply the maximum flexibility in dealing with
such difficulties, and to strive for the optimal, effective, and timely use of the tariff quotas.
(d) New Zealand:  Venezuela – Tariff quota import licensing regime for dairy products
14. Despite notifications, including G/AG/N/VEN/22, as well as previous discussions and
representations over a number of years, New Zealand continued to experience difficulties in gaining
access to the Venezuelan market for dairy products.  For example, as of 13 March 2002, and with 17
days before the end of the first quarter of 2002, some importers still had not received import licences
allowing access for dairy products.  New Zealand found this situation to be unacceptable and sought
an explanation for such delays; how Venezuela intended to rectify this situation; and whether the
import arrangements described in G/AG/N/VEN/22 ha d become redundant in the meantime.   If this
were to be the case, details were sought on the allocation criteria, the licence period and timing ofissuance, as well as the closing date for applications for the next applicable licence period.
15. Venezuela explained that the delays in issuing import licences for products under tariff quota
management were due to a number of legal and administrative difficulties.  In particular, some
institutional changes had been introduced, involving the separation of the Vice-Ministry of
Agriculture and Food from the Ministry of Pro duction and Trade to create a new Ministry of
Agriculture and Land.  The recently-approved regulations of the new Ministry would enter into force
after their publication in the Official Bulletin.  The Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic
also passed a resolution clearing up some confusion as to the areas of responsibility and authority of
the Ministry of Agriculture and Land and providing a clearly defined legal basis for action taken by
this Ministry as regards the issuance of import licences.  Furthermore, the allocation of the tariff quotafor dairy products was already under way.  In this context, Venezuela had decided to extend the tariff
quota volume to 50 per cent of the total with a view to overcoming the difficulties which arose as a
result of the delays experienced to date.  The same procedure had been followed for the other
agricultural items subject to tariff quota management.G/AG/R/30
Page 4
16. Venezuela considered that New Zealand's suggestion that Venezuela had notified an import
licencing system different from the one actually being implemented to be a somewhat sensitive issue.
In this regard, Venezuela confirmed that the system presented in G/AG/N/VEN/22 was indeed that
currently in force and that no modifications had been scheduled so far.  Tariff quotas were allocated
on the basis of historical imports, with a 10 per cent share being reserved for new importers.  WereVenezuela to modify its import licencing system, it would submit the corresponding notification, as
had been the case on other occasions.
17. The United States supported Canada (item (b) above refers) and New Zealand in their request
for clarification of the import licensing system used by Venezuela.  The absence of questions from the
United States on the agenda of the current meeting did not mean that all the market access issues
faced in the Venezuelan market had been overcome by US exporters.  It was rather a sign of
frustration with posing such questions and not registering any improvement in the existing marketaccess conditions.  The United States was presently pondering which steps should be taken in order to
resolve these problems.  Chile noted its interest in the issue and requested a copy of the response
provided by Venezuela.
18. Venezuela indicated that the concerns expressed by its trading partners had been duly
conveyed to capital-based authorities who were fu lly aware of the situation.  An inter-ministerial
commission had been set up in order to review Venezuela's agricultural trade policies in the
multilateral context.
(e) United States:   Bulgaria – Poultry minimum import prices
19. The representative of the United States withdrew this item from the agenda.
(f) United States:  Costa Rica – Import licensing procedures
20. The United States considered that, according to WTO rules and procedures, the process of
granting import permits should be transparent and expe dient so as not to interrupt international trade.
Costa Rica's own domestic law (Decree #7664) require d the issuance of import permits within eight
working days.  Nevertheless, after submitting several separate routine requests to the Ministry of
Agriculture in Costa Rica to import about 100,000 me tric tons of rough and milled rice, US grain
exporters were still facing delays.  As of mid-Ma rch, Costa Rican officials had not issued any import
permits even though some of these requests dated back to early February.  Despite repeated queries by
the United States, no official explanation had been provided to date.  Refusal to grant import permits
over such an extended period of time could be interpreted as a barrier to trade.
21. The United States emphasized that during these delays, importers and exporters had been
exposed to financial risks.  This situation only served to exacerbate the level of frustration in what
was generally a beneficial commercial relationship between Costa Rica and the United States.  The
United States called upon Costa Rica to expedite the issuance of import licences for two shiploads of
US rice that were scheduled to arrive in Costa Rica in March, and to henceforth expedite the issuance
of import permits on a routine basis.
22. Costa Rica replied that the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock had granted the above-
mentioned import licences at the beginning of March 2002.  On 15 March 2002 the Ministry of
Agriculture had sent an official reply to the US Embassy in Costa Rica in relation to concerns raised
by the United States over the issuance of phytosanitary certificates.  Costa Rica further indicated that
some legal complications had emerged with respect to one of the shiploads concerned.   In that case,the issuance of import licences remained subject to a judicial decision to be taken by the competent
court.  The Government of Costa Rica was doing its utmost to resolve this issue within the shortest
possible period of time.G/AG/R/30
Page 5
(g) United States:   India – Wheat export subsidies
23. The United States reiterated the questions posed to India in December 2001 regarding the
potential use of wheat export subsidies (G/AG/R/29, page 3, refers).   A written response was
provided by India and is reflected in Attachment no. 1.
B. REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS
24. 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
Dominican Republic (DOM/6), Hungary (HUN/1/Add.1, 5/Add.1, 8/Add.1, 13/Add.1
and 18/Add.1) and Venezuela (VEN/22);
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from
Barbados (BRB/8), Dominican Republic (DOM/5), European Communities
(EEC/34), Hungary (HUN/26 and Corr.1), Norway (NOR/35) and Tunisia (TUN/22
and Corr.1);
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from the European
Communities (EEC/33) and Japan (JPN/70 and JPN/71);
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  from Barbados (BRB/11),
Cyprus (CYP/11), Czech Republic (CZE /34), Indonesia (IDN/26 and Corr.1), Japan
(JPN/72), Norway (NOR/36), South Af rica (ZAF/37) and Tunisia (TUN/24);
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2):  from Australia (AUS/38), Czech Republic (CZE/35), Estonia (EST/3)
and Slovenia (SVN/19);
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitments (T ables ES:1 to ES:3):  from India (IND/3)
and Tunisia (TUN/25).
25. Specific points raised with respect to the notifications listed above and the responses thereto
are summarized in Part I of the Annex to this report.
C. OTHER NOTIFICATIONS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
(a) Notifications in respect of which no questions have been raised in advance
26. The Committee took note of the following notifications, which had been circulated in advance
of the date on which the notice convening the present meeting was issued but in respect of which no
questions had been raised by that date under the Committee's Working Procedures:
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):  from
Thailand (THA/38/Add.1);
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from
Israel (ISR/23) and Thailand (THA/40);
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Canada
(CAN/47), Czech Republic (CZE/32/Corr1. and CZE/33), Israel (ISR/24), PolandG/AG/R/30
Page 6
(POL/39/Corr.1, POL/44, POL/45 and Corr.1), Thailand (THA/41) and Tunisia
(TUN/23);
(iv) in the context of domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  from Argentina
(ARG/18), Hong Kong, China (HKG/13), Es tonia (EST/4), Macao, China (MAC/10),
Myanmar (MYN/1), Norway (NOR/36) and Slovak Republic (SVK/30/Corr.1);
(v) in the context of domestic support commitments (Table DS:2):  from Estonia
(EST/5);
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Australia
(AUS/40), Cuba (CUB/17), Hong Kong, China (HKG/12), Macao, China (MAC/11),
Myanmar (MYN/2), Suriname (SUR/1),  Thailand (THA/42) and Venezuela
(VEN/21/Corr.1).
(b) Notifications circulated or made available after the notice convening the meeting was issued
(G/AG/1, paragraph 9 refers)
27. The following notifications were subject to prelim inary review and are to be reverted to at the
next meeting for substantive review in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working
Procedures:
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):  from
Switzerland (CHE/14/Add.2);
(ii) on imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): from Iceland
(ISL/20) and Switzerland (CHE/26);
(iii) on special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): from Switzerland (CHE/27);
(iv) on domestic support commitments (Tables DS:1 and DS:2):  from Australia (AUS/41
and AUS/42), Iceland (ISL/19) and Poland (POL/46);
(v) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from the European
Communities (EEC/36), Honduras (HND/ 9) and Switzerland (CHE/25).
D. P OINTS CONCERNING NOTIFICATIONS RAISED AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS (G/AG/R/2,
PARAGRAPH 14 REFERS )
28. There was no discussion under this agenda item.
E. C OUNTER NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 18.7
29. The Committee took note that no counter-notifications had been received under Article 18:7
of the Agreement.
F. O THER MATTERS RELATING TO THE REVIEW PROCESS
(a) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process
30. Deferred replies to questions raised at previous meetings have been received from the United
States on support to cotton producers (G/AG/R/ 29, paragraph 20, refers); and by Indonesia withG/AG/R/30
Page 7
respect to its domestic support notification G/AG/ N/IDN/26 (G/ AG/R/29, page 21, refers).   These
replies are summarized in Part II of the Annex to this report.
(b) Overdue notifications
31. 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 25 March 2002, showing the current
status of compliance with the notification obligations.
(c) Addenda to Table MA:1 notifications
32.    The Vice-Chairman recalled that the WTO Ministerial Conference had endorsed the
recommendation that the Committee keep under review the implementation of the December 2000
decision of the General Council on the administration of tariff quotas (WT/L/384, paragraph 1.1,refers).  The understanding was that this decision should not place undue new burdens on developing
countries (WT/GC/M/62, paragraph 14, refers).
33. The Committee noted that the following Members administering tariff rate quotas had
submitted the requisite Table MA:1 Addenda: Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/1/Add.1); Canada
(G/AG/N/CAN/ 2/Add.2, 6/Add.1, 10/Add.1, 19 /Add.1); Czech Republic
(G/AG/N/CZE/ Rev.1/Add.1); European Communities  (G/AG/N/EEC/1/Add.2, 3/Add.1, 14/Add.1,
15/Add.1); Hungary (G/AG/N/HUN/1/Add.1, 5/Add.1, 8/Add.1, 13/Add.1 & 18/Add.1); Japan
(G/AG/N/JPN/1/Add.1, 8/ Add.1,23/Add.2,57/Add.1); Latvia (G/ AG/N/LVA/1/Add.1);  New Zealand
(G/AG/N/NZL/1/Add.1); Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/1/Add.1); Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/38/Add.1); and
the United States (G/AG/ N/USA/2/Add.3 and 34/Add.1).
34. The Vice-Chairman urged those Members admini stering tariff quotas which had not yet done
so to furnish Addenda to their MA:1 notifications in accordance with the General Council Decision in
WT/L/384.
G. I
MPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 10.2 OF THE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE
35. The Vice-Chairman recalled that, in accordance with the WTO Ministerial Conference, the
focus of the work in the regular Committee meetings would be on the implementation of Article 10.2
and the disciplines foreseen therein, whereas the Special Session negotiations would focus on the
proposals tabled or to be tabled on export credit practices (G/AG/R/29, paragraph 34 refers).  In this
connection and in line with the suggestions made by Members, an informal half-day seminar on
export credits had been organized to take place on 26 March 2002.
36. The delegations of Argentina, Brazil and the European Communities expressed satisfaction
with the organization of a specific seminar on this very important and complex issue, which would
contribute to enhance the knowledge of all Members in this area.  The EC stated that the presentations
would be particularly welcome in view of the absence of disciplines on export credits in the current
Agreement on Agriculture.  Argentina clarified that Articles 3.3, 8, 9 and 10.1 already constituted a
set of rules which were relevant to this area.G/AG/R/30
Page 8
H. O THER IMPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES
37. The Vice Chairman indicated that, pursuant to the Committee's recommendations to the WTO
Ministerial Conference, an Inter-Agency Panel had been established to review the implementation of
the Marrakech Ministerial Decision on Net-F ood Importers (G/AG/R/11  and WT/MIN(01)/17,
paragraph 2, refer).  Its detailed terms of reference had been approved by the General Council in
December 2001.
38. Members had elected Minister Yoichi Suzuki to chair the Panel.  The first meeting of the
Panel was scheduled to take place in  April 2002, and the second in late May 2002.  In the meantime,
Members had been invited to submit their inputs to the Inter-Agency Panel and a few contributions
had already been received.  The deadline for submitting the final report to the General Council was 30
June 2002.  However, before the Panel finalized its report, the Vice-Chairman intended to keepMembers informed of the substantive discussions.
P
ART II:  O THER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE
A. R EVIEW OF THE WTO L IST OF NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
39. The Committee noted that paragraph 3 of the Committee's November 1995 decision on the
establishment of a WTO list of Net Food-Importin g Developing Countries for the purposes of the
Marrakesh Ministerial Decision provided that the list shall be reviewed by the Committee at its
regular March meetings (G/AG/3, refers).  In this regard, applications had been received fromDominica and Jordan.  The relevant statistical data, submitted by both countries in line with paragraph
2 of the Committee's decision on the establishment of the List (G/AG/3, refers), was available for
consultation in the Agriculture and Commodities Division.
40. The Committee agreed to include Dominica and Jordan in the WTO List of Net-Food
Importing Developing Count ries (G/AG/5/Rev.5).
B. M ATTERS RAISED UNDER "OTHER BUSINESS "
41.  There was no discussion under this agenda item.
C. E LECTION OF CHAIRPERSON
42. The Committee elected, by acclamation, Dr. Magdi Farahat of Egypt as Chairperson of the
regular Committee on Agriculture.
Date of Next Meeting
43. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be held on  28 June 2002.
The airgram convening the meeting and containing the draft agenda will be issued on Friday,
14 June 2002.G/AG/R/30
Page 9
ANNEX
Page
Part I Review of notifications by the Committee on Agriculture on 25 March 2002
(i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):  Dominican
Republic (DOM/6), Hungary (HUN/1/Add.1, 5/Add.1, 8/Add.1, 13/Add.1 and
18/Add.1) and Venezuela (VEN/22) ;10
(ii) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): Barbados
(BRB/8), Dominican Republic (DOM/5), European Communities (EEC/34),
Hungary (HUN/26 and Corr.1), Norway (NOR/35) and Tunisia (TUN/22 and
Corr.1) ;13
(iii) use of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  the European Communities
(EEC/33) and Japan (JPN/70 and JPN/71) ;16
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  Barbados (BRB/11), Cyprus
(CYP/11), Czech Republic (CZE/34), Indonesia (IDN/26 and Corr.1), Japan
(JPN/72), Norway (NOR/36), South Africa (ZAF/37) and Tunisia (TUN/24) ;18
(v) new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction (Table DS:2):
from Australia (AUS/38), Czech Repub lic (CZE/35), Estonia (EST/3) and
Slovenia (SVN/19) ;33
(vi) export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  India (IND/3) and Tunisia
(TUN/25) ;41
Part II Deferred replies to questions raised at previous meetings
(i) relating to US payments to cotton producers (G/AG/R/29, paragraph 20) 42
(ii) relating to domestic support commitments: IDN/26 ( GAG/R/29, page 21, refers) 43
Attachments
1 Response to the US Questionnaire on India's Wheat Exports 44
2 G/AG/N/HUN/1 A dd.1, 5/Add.1, 8/Add.1, 13/Add.1 and 18/Add.1 - Imports
Under Tariff Quota Commitments45
3 G/AG/N/NOR/35 – Main Beneficiaries of Selected Tariff Quotas 46
4 G/AG/N/JPN/71 – Monthly Imports of Buttermilk Powder 47
5 G/AG/N/CYP/11 – Major Components of Infrastructural Services 48
6 G/AG/N/AUS/36 – The Exceptional Circumstances Declaration Process 49G/AG/R/30
Page 10
ANNEX – PART I
Review of notifications by the Committee on Agriculture on 25 March 2002
Summary of specific points raised and responses thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
Dominican Republic    G/AG/N/DOM/6       Tariff quota administration   (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada: Noted that the notified tariff quotas do not have
the same product coverage as those in Schedule XXIII.Terms of access for the following tariff lines:
Chicken meat – HS 0207.21 and 0207.41 A 25 per cent tariff is applied.
Powdered milk – HS 0402.21 and 0402.29 A 20 per cent tariff is levied.
Method used by the EC to administer the 70 per centshare which is allocated to it.  For example, whetherthe EC issues export certificates which are used as
the basis for imports within this tariff quota.The EC issues export certificates that are allocated
among the EC member States. The Dominican Republicaccepts the EC allocation and simply makes sure thatthe certificates are authentic and correspond to the
volume in the quota.
Dried beans – HS 0713.32 and 0713.33 A 20 per cent tariff is levied.
Whether imports of above products are countedagainst the tariff quotas.Confirmed.
Canada: Eligibility criteria used to qualify as a
traditional importer (chicken meat, powdered milk anddried beans); impact on access to these three tariffquotas.Traditional importers normally have records going back
several years before the introduction of the tariff quotamechanism established by the technical rectification.Traditional importers are taken into account in theallocation of tariff quotas.  A smaller share is reservedfor new importers.
New Zealand: Understands that, by Decree from theCommission for Agricultural Imports in December2001, the quota period for milk powder is from 1September – 30 June, i.e. not the full 12 month period.Consistency with the scheduled terms of access and withthe requirements under GATT and the Agreement onImport Licensing not to impair or restrict market access.The Dominican Republic has not issued any decree or
imposed any restriction, but there is a voluntaryagreement between domestic producers and importersnot to import milk during the school holidays (July andAugust).  The reason is that a large share of domesticmilk production is consumed under the governmentschool breakfast programme, which is suspended duringthat two-month period.  This agreement was concluded
at the request of domestic producers, in order to prevent
price speculation in the event of importation of
powdered milk over the school holiday period.
Canada:  Meaning of "first-in, first-out"; whether this
refers to the granting of import "licences on demand" ona first-come, first-served basis, as per the categories setout in document G/AG/NG/S/8/Rev.1, page 2.The "licences on demand" method is used.  The
importer must apply for the licence before the goodsarrive in port.  Applications must be made sufficientlyahead of time for the goods to enter the country duringthe period established in the schedule published in anational newspaper before the start of the calendar year.
Canada: Administrative body responsible for theprocessing and allocation of import permits; period ofvalidity of import licences.The Commission for the Administration of Technical
Rectifications is responsible for processing applicationsfor tariff quota import licences, with support from theConsultative Committees.  The licences are valid for 60days.G/AG/R/30
Page 11
Dominican Republic    G/AG/N/DOM/6       Tariff quota administration   (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand: Increases in tariff quota allocations;
Circumstances that would make it necessary to decide
increasing the tariff quota allocation;Hurricanes, drought, or the outbreak of pests or a
disease of serious economic consequence could lead to ashortfall in domestic production. No such situationshave occurred since the implementation of the tariffquotas, however.
Factors that both the Consultative Committee for theproduct in question and the Agricultural ImportsCommittee would take into account;A disproportionate increase in domestic consumer prices
or a shortage making it impossible to meet local demandwould be major reasons for the Committee to review thetariff quotas for any of the headings in the technicalrectification.
Method by which the increased tariff quotas would beallocated;The tariff quotas would be allocated on the basis of past
performance and demand from importers.  However,there are the Consultative Committees for the varioustariff items, made up of the different actors involved(producers, importers, processors and the Government),which seek to reach a consensus on the allocation.Specifically, Consultative Committees have been set upto discuss all matters relating to the allocation of tariffquotas for rice, garlic, beans and milk.
Procedures in place to allow for the submissions byinterested parties;There is a Technical Rectification Commission, headed
by the Secretariat of State for Agriculture and also
composed of the Directorate-General of Customs andthe Secretariat of State for Industry and Trade.  TheCommission's Executive Secretariat is run by the Sub-Secretariat for Sectoral Planning of the Secretariat ofState for Agriculture.  Import applications must bechannelled through the Secretariat of State forAgriculture.  In addition to plant and animal healthrequirements, importers must comply with the standards
and procedures applicable to any type of importer.
New Zealand: Clarification of "taking account of the
traditional importers and following up the shareassigned for each product" (page 3).The Commission uses the in-quota import volume as the
point of reference.  There are also records of the volumeimported by each importer over the past few years.These are used as a basis for allocating the largest shareof the quota.  A smaller share is reserved for newimporters.  In the case of powdered milk, the referencepoint is the agreed distribution.
Hungary     G/AG/N/HUN/1/Add.1, 5/Add.1, 8/Add.1, 13/Add.1 and 18/Add.1
Tariff quota administration   (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada:   Bovine animals; swine –
Meaning of "allocations are made proportionately in
time"; details on how this operates in practice.This means that in any quarter of the year, one-fourth of
the yearly quota volume is being allocated. In thesecond, third and fourth quarters portions not utilized inthe previous quarter(s) are added to this quantity.G/AG/R/30
Page 12
Venezuela    G/AG/N/VEN/22       Ta riff quota administration   (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada : Oilseeds - Criteria used by the Interministerial
Commission (IC) in recommending to the Ministry ofAgriculture and Land (MAL) that import licences
should be granted.The IC was established by Decree No. 988 (29 June
1990), published in Official Gazette No. 34,505 (9 July1990).  This Commission comprises the MAL and theMinistry of Finance. The criteria applied by the IC whenassessing import licence applications, not merely foroilseed products, but for all of the agricultural items forwhich Venezuela administers tariff quotas, arestipulated in Official Gazette No. 36,831 (17 November1999). This Gazette establishes the guidelines forVenezuela's licensing system, including allocation onthe basis of historical imports and reservation of apercentage for new importers. These elements have beenclarified by Venezuela in the notifications submitted tothe Committee on Agriculture.  The IC also assesseswhether import licence applications comply with theformalities in the Official Notices, which point to theopening up of the application process and detail thedocumentation requirements and procedures to befulfilled by interested parties.
Follow-up question by Canada:  The criteria describedby Venezuela appear to be essentially of a procedural
nature, i.e. ensuring that the licence applications comply
with the documentation requirements and applicationguidelines. Canada asked Venezuela to confirm theunderstanding that an import licence would beautomatically granted should the corresponding request
be properly documented.Confirmed.  The distribution of the tariff quota volumes
throughout the year is also taken into consideration bythe IC.G/AG/R/30
Page 13
Table MA:2 Notifications
Barbados      G/AG/N/BRB/8    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/United States: Reasons for non-utilization or
under-fill of the following tariff quotas: Aubergines;Eggs; Milk; Okras; Onions; Paw-paws; Pigeon peas;Sausages and similar meat products; Sweet potatoes.Barbados undertook to provide responses at a later
stage.
United States: From the review of previous notificationsit appears that eggs, okras, paw-paws and sweet potatoeshave a history of low fill.  Noting that in-quota dutiesare high for these products, whether Barbados isconsidering changing the administration of these tariff
quotas or reducing their in-quota tariffs.Barbados undertook to provide responses at a later
stage.
Dominican Republic   G/AG/N/DOM/5     Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States:  Chicken meat – Explanation for the
substantial underfill.Domestic production was sufficient to meet domestic
demand at competitive prices. It is interesting to notethat poultry production requir es considerable quantities
of maize, which is also included in the products subjectto tariff quotas. For that same period, maize imports
exceeded the established quota volume.
Canada:  Maize and rice - Whether the higher levels of
imports resulted from a decision taken by theConsultative Committee (DOM/6 refers); whether theseincreases were publicly announced; if so, when;whether the imports in excess of the respective tariffquota quantities were administ ered on the same basis as
those within the tariff quota quantities.In the first year of implementation of the tariff quota
mechanism, a change in government resulted in acertain amount of disruption in quota monitoringprocedures.  Imports were increased by decision of theConsultative Committee, and the customary publicationat the beginning of each calendar year was duly issued,but the new authorities have no record of anypublication of the surpluses.  In the case of maize (corn)and rice, however, volumes in excess of the establishedtariff quotas were allocated by granting licences ondemand.
Powdered milk
Australia: Distribution of this tariff quota for thecurrent year.The allocation for this year is identical to last year's– i.e.
70 per cent for the EC, 15 per cent for New Zealand,and 15 per cent for new should be supplying countries
EC:  Reasons for the underfill; whether it occurred inthe 70 per cent EC share or in the 30 per cent sharefor other suppliers.There were problems in filling the tariff quota during its
first year of application. First, two reference periodswere established, with the year set for the EC runningfrom 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, while New Zealandand the other supplying countries used the calendar yearas the reference point. Second, the shares for the othersupplying countries and the EC were filled but NewZealand had difficulty filling its share because of ashortage or a significant reduction in initial exportvolumes.G/AG/R/30
Page 14
European Communities      G/AG/N/EEC/34       Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Bovine meat – Noted that, in the previous
year 1998/99, the EC had cited as reasons for under-fillthe lack of demand for the specific quality of product onoffer and a failure to meet EC health standards.  In thiscontext, what steps that can be taken by the EC to
enable its quota holders to meet EC standards.Imports in 2000/01 are about the same level as in
1999/00. The EC had provided adequate opportunities toimport according to its schedule and according to its
health standards, thereby fulfilling its commitments.
Argentina: Reasons for lack of imports or underfill.
Durum wheat The applicable out-of-quota duty was zero throughout
the marketing year.  For information, imports of durumwheat largely exceeded the volume of the quota.
Eggs; meat of swine; poultry; sausages There was sufficient supply at competitive prices on the
EC domestic markets.
Cheese There was a lack of interest from traders to import.
Oats This tariff quota is no longer implemented. As from
1 July 2000, the import duty applicable on oats is thesame as the in-quota duty.
Hungary      G/AG/N/HUN/26 and Corr.1       Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand: Follow-up on Hungary's previous reply
(G/AG/R/27, page 16 refers) - New Zealand believesthat Hungary is still obliged to notify imports of allscheduled products. To improve transparency, New
Zealand suggests that a footnote should be added to the
Table MA:2 notification stating that, for the itemizedproducts, "Hungary does not administer tariff quotaaccess for these products as the applied rate of duty forall imports is below the in-quota tariff rate listed in
Section I-B of Hungary's schedule".The reason for not notifying fill rates for these tariff
quotas is that the bound  MFN duty rates have fallen
below or to the bound  level of the in-quota tariff rates.
Therefore these tariff quotas have not been opened.
Hungary will consider the possibility to include import
statistics concerning the products where tariff quotashave been disactivated into future Table MA:2notifications. (For imports of such  products during
2001 see Attachment no. 2)
Norway      G/AG/N/NOR/35       Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina:  Tariff quotas with overfill:  horses, reind eer, sheep meat, pig fat/poultry fat, whey, butter, cheese,
honey, potatoes, onions, lettuce, cucumber, leguminous vegetables, other vegetables (fresh, chilled), sorghum,
wheat flour, malt, tomatoes (prepared/preserved), peas, fruit juices and ethyl alcohol.
Whether there has been a tariff quota expansion; if so,
in which conditions; reason why this was not notified.The ordinary tariff rates for these products are now
equal to the in-quota-tariffs, which implies that a tariffonly regime applies to these commodities. In order toascertain that Norway has fulfilled its tariff quotacommitments, the notification of imports under thecurrent access commitments has been maintainedthroughout the implementation period. From 2001onwards only the minimum access tariff quotas will benotified.
Details on the main beneficiaries. Attachment no. 3 refers.G/AG/R/30
Page 15
Tunisia      G/AG/N/TUN/22 and Corr.1       Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina:
Tariff quotas with overfill - Whether there been a
tariff quota expansion; if so, in which conditions wasit carried out; reason why was this not notified;Details on the main beneficiaries.As reflected in column 3 of the notification, there has
been no tariff quota expansion.  The notified importstake into account the expansion of the scheduled tariffquotas in line with commitments.  During 2000, therewas an increase of imports in certain product categorieswhich slightly exceeded the tariff quota volumes. Theimports realized result from a normal fluctuation ofimport demand.
Tariff quotas with underfill - Reasons for underfill:Bovine meat, sheep meat, calves, beans, almonds,tomato concentrate, butter.These tariff quotas were opened and administered
according to the modalities which were notified to theCommittee on Agriculture.  The level of imports is areflection of market demand and the little interest shownby importers.G/AG/R/30
Page 16
Tables MA:3 to MA:5 Notifications
European Communities    G/AG/N/EEC/33     Summary of Special Safeguard Actions (Table MA:5)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia : Cane and beet sugars – Noted that the price-
based SSG was made operational in 1999/2000
Tariff item number Non-weighted average duties
EURO/tonne
1701 11 10 86.8
1701 11 90 148.8
1701 12 10 84.6
1701 12 90 143.6
1701 91 00 180.8
1701 99 10 126.5Duties applied
1701 99 90 126.5
Duration of safeguard action The price-based safeguard was operational during the
whole year 1999/2000.
Japan     G/AG/N/JPN/70     Volume-Based Special Safeguard (Table MA:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Milk and cream -
Additional rate of duty 7.1 % + 38 Yen/kg.
Volume of trade that has been affected so far 0 tonne.
Noted that the trigger volume was zero.  The SSG was
created to assist countries in protecting against importsurges.  Zero imports could hardly be regarded animport surge. New Zealand hoped to address thisanomaly in the rules during the current negotiations.What is being discussed during this review mechanism
is whether or not the measures taken by Membersconform to the rules prescribed in the currentAgreement on Agriculture.G/AG/R/30
Page 17
Japan     G/AG/N/JPN/71    Volume-Based Special Safeguard (Table MA:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Buttermilk powder -
Additional rate of duty
-  fat ≤ 1.5 % (0403.90-113, 118) 9.9 % + 132 Yen/kg.
-  1.5 % < fat ≤ 26 % (0403.90-123, 128) 9.9 % + 194 Yen/kg.
-  26 % < fat (0403.90-133, 138) 9.9 % + 341 Yen/kg.
Volume of trade that has been affected so far Since the relevant import statistics have not been
published yet, the data on the volume of importsaffected by the SSG are not available at the moment.
Monthly import figures since April 2000 Attachment no. 4 refers.
Noted that last year the SSG was applied to thisproduct also. Japan had commented that no trade hadbeen affected (G/AG/R/26, page 20).  Confirmationthat this was the case last year; if so, whether it islikely that this will occur again this year.Since the relevant import statistics have not been
published yet, the effects on trade are unknown.  Thedecision whether to import or not rests on the importersand the government does not interfere with suchdecisions.G/AG/R/30
Page 18
Table DS:1 Notifications
Barbados   G/AG/N/BRB/11      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
General services
Indication of type of policies, with reference to Annex 2
para 2, to which the following programmes relate:
Argentina: "Scotland District Development andProtection";
Argentina/United States: "Support for the out-of-cropactivities of the sugar industry"; Compliance withAnnex 2 criteria.
The United States indicated that a response to this
question in connection to the review of BRB/7 had notbeen received (G/AG/R/29, page 20 refers.)Barbados undertook to provide responses at a later
stage.
S&D programmes
Argentina: "Incentives and other subsidies" -  Eligibilitycriteria for poor farmers.Barbados undertook to provide responses at a later
stage.
Cyprus   G/AG/N/CYP/11      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Infrastructural services
Argentina: Description of measures taken under the
following programmes:
"Rural development"; The total expenditure under item a-viii infrastructural
services is reflected in Attachment no. 5.  Ruraldevelopment services comprise capital assistance torural municipalities and community boards for anti-flood, sewerage and other minor works, improvement ofvillage streets and rural roads, construction of publicbuildings and implementation of integrated regionalrural development projects.
"Land consolidation works"; This expenditure covers part of the cost of implementing
land consolidation schemes by government andbasically comprises engineering and design work and
construction of rural roads.G/AG/R/30
Page 19
Cyprus   G/AG/N/CYP/11      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Payments for relief from natural disasters
Argentina: "Compensation through the Agricultural
Insurance Organization" (AIO) – Compliance withcriteria para 8 (a) to (e) of Annex 2Conditions (a) to (e) of para 8 of Annex 2 were fully
observed as regards the compensation paid in the year2000 through the AIO.  Average rainfall in 2000 wasonly 72% of normal and production losses of rainfedcrops, especially cereals, exceeded by far the limit of
30% mentioned in item (a) of para 8.  Payments made
directly and by way of government financialparticipation in the crop insurance scheme run by AIOnever replaced more than the losses incurred and wereusually much lower.  There was no connection with the
type or quantity of future production.
Structural adjustment assistance
New Zealand:  Whether the outlays notified in ST/DS:4
and ST/DS:6 are included in ST/DS:1; if so, reasons forincluding these expenditures into ST/DS:1.Cyprus has been notifying the edam cheese subsidy as a
non-exempt measure included in the country's totalAMS since 1997.  The meaning of this question isunclear.  The outlays to stabilize edam cheese appearingin ST/DS:4 and ST/DS:6 are not included in item d)Structural Adjustment Assistance of ST/DS:1.
Regional assistance programmes
Argentina: - Confirmation that the per hectare subsidy isnot conceded only to farmers with vineyards.Cyprus confirms that regional assistance for cultivated
land in disadvantaged regions was not restricted tofarmers with vineyards, although vine growing is almosta monoculture in this region and there is hardly a farmernot involved in grape production.  Land dedicated toalmond and olive tree growing received assistanceequivalent to the one given to farmers with vineyards.
Australia: Whether the 20 % increase in funding in 2000
is due to an increase in the number of disadvantaged
regions eligible for the payment (i.e., an increase in thevine growing area); an increase in the payment per area
(if so, details on the basis for this increase) ; or both.There was neither an increase in the number of
disadvantaged regions nor an increase in the farmed area
in disadvantaged regions.  The additional budgetaryoutlays represent a direct payment made by governmentto relieve farmers from the effects of a heavy droughtwhich reduced production considerably.  Rainfall in theyear 2000 was only 72% of that in a normal year andfarmers in the disadvantaged regions were hit most.  Forreasons of simplicity this supplementary aid was not
declared separately.
New Zealand: Compliance with Annex 2 para 13, in
particular para 13 (b). New Zealand urged Cyprus toreconsider the notification of this programme.Cyprus has given answers to similar questions by New
Zealand on more than one occasion.  Cyprus firmlybelieves that this programme conforms with para 13 ofAnnex 2 including para 13(b). As stated above,assistance to cultivated land is not restricted only tofarmers with vineyards.G/AG/R/30
Page 20
Czech Republic     G/AG/N/CZE/34      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Domestic food aid – School milk
New Zealand: Operation details; outstanding Table
DS:2 notification.The purpose of this programme is to respond to adverse
development of milk consumption by basic-schoolpupils and is aimed to achieve optimal consumption ofmilk by this category of the population.  The CzechRepublic undertook to review and clarify the situationwith regard to possible outstanding Table DS:2notifications and submit the relevant information shouldit be necessary.
Structural adjustment assistance provided through retirement programmes
Australia:  Consistency with:
para 10 (a): Confirmation that land will be removedfrom marketable agricultural production;Confirmed.
para 10 (b): Confirmation that land will be retired
from production for a minimum of three years;Land will be retired for a period largely exceeding the
three-year period mentioned in para 10(b).
"Crop production restructuring through the planting offast growing trees" – Explanation of how theprogramme is not aimed at commercial timberproduction, consistent with paras 10 (a) and (c);The purpose of the programme is to encourage the use
of self-produced wood mass to cover the heating needsof farmers in areas which suffer from a shortage offorests and it is not aimed at commercial production.
"Crop production restructuring through grassing" –Explanation of how the newly grassed area will be
used.Newly-grassed area will be preserved in culture state
and removed from marketable agricultural production.
Australia/New Zealand: "Crop production restructuring
through afforestation" – Operation details; outstandingTable DS:2 notification; explanation of how thismeasure is not aimed at commercial timber production,
consistent with paras 10 (a) and (c).This programme meets all policy-specific criteria and
conditions set forth in para. 10.  It is based on clearly-defined criteria and is designed to remove land frommarketable agricultural production for the periodexceeding three years, with no alternative use of landinvolving production. The Czech Republic undertook toreview and clarify the situation with regard to possibleoutstanding Table DS:2 notifications and submit therelevant information should it be necessary.
Structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids
Australia: Method used to measure the structural
disadvantage of affected producers' operations;
consistency with para 11(b).Please refer to replies given on previous occasions when
these programmes were notified for the first time.
These programmes comply with Annex 2, para 11.
Environmental programmes
Australia: (1) "Support for bee-keeping";
(2) "Fertilization of agricultural parcels with arable landby organic fertilizer"; (3) "Support for cattl e, sheep, goat
and horse farming on permanent grasslands"-References and details of relevant provisions withindomestic regulations indicating the " clearly-defined
government environmental or conservationprogrammes "; Specific conditions that must be met in
order to fulfil the government conditions relating to theprogrammesAct No 252/1997 Coll., Act on Agriculture as elaborated
by the Ministry of Agriculture.  Support for bee-keepingis focussed on ensuring the production of entomophilousplants, but not that of honey. It aims at preserving asufficient number of bee colonies which are vital for thepollination of a large variety of plants.  Eligibility forpayments under programmes (2) and (3) is conditionalupon preservation of soil fertility, maintenance ofhumus levels in arable land and the utilization ofpermanent grasslands.G/AG/R/30
Page 21
Czech Republic     G/AG/N/CZE/34      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand: "Maintenance of agricultural land" –
Operation details; outstanding Table DS:2 notification.The progamme has the same policy objectives as the
measure notified previously under heading "Landscapeconservation in culture state".  It partly compensates theextra costs incurred as a result of keeping agriculturalland from weeds, non-permitted waste grounds andother defects.  With regard to possible outstanding TableDS:2 notifications, the Czech Republic undertook toreview and clarify the situation and submit the relevantinformation should it be necessary.
Other
Canada: Reasons for classifying the followingprogrammes in this category, in view of the descriptionprovided in CZE/35:
"Monitoring of milk production" The applicability of this measure was timely limited to
the year 2000 and its objective was to obtain accurateand reliable information on production of milk fromindividual domestic producers.
"Support for suckler cow and sheep farming" This programme is part of a government-approved
sectoral policy of the Ministry of Agriculture.  Theobjective is not to support production but to reduce it bymeans of extensive cow and sheep farming andpromoting landscape maintenance.
Amber Box
Canada: Bread wheat; milk; sugar; sugar beets -Reasons why no market price support has been notifiedin 1999 and 2000.
Canada indicated that a previous answer relating to
CZE/25 which covered the year 1999 was not complete
(G/AG/R/24, pp. 12 refers).  Moreover, the OECD has
reported intervention purchases of bread wheat,minimum prices for milk, a nd administered prices for
sugar and sugar beets, which would seem to constitutemarket price support in 2000. ("Agricultural Policies inOECD Countries - Monitoring and Evaluation", OECD,
Paris, 2001, pp. 74-75).Regarding inconsistency between notifications
submitted to the WTO and data provided to some otherinternational organizations, the situation needs to befurther clarified.  All supports that qualify underrespective notification obligations resulting from theAgreement on Agriculture have been notified..
Canada: Input subsidies – Explanation of how debtwrite-offs effected in November 2000 have beenreported in CZE/34.The Czech Republic undertook to provide an adequate
answer at the next meeting.
Indonesia   G/AG/N/IDN/26 and Corr.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
General Services
Argentina: "Livestock development programmes" –
Specific reference to the relevant sub-paragraph ofAnnex 2 para 2 is missing; type of measures covered.The types of general services programmes are animal
diseases eradication and control, quality control andstandardization, and financial aids through creditschemes.G/AG/R/30
Page 22
Indonesia   G/AG/N/IDN/26 and Corr.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Domestic food aid
Argentina: "OKP (Special Market Operation) –
Eligibility criteria being applied for poor families to
qualify for this support.OKP is a new emergency programme which is targeted
to the food insecure populations affected by economiccrises. The eligibility for domestic food aid is subject toclearly defined criteria related to nutritional objectivesconsistent with para 4 of Annex 2. See also DeferredReplies, for additional details.
Payments for relief from natural disasters
Argentina: Assistance for "food insufficiency" –Whether this programme w ould be better placed under
"domestic food aid".As notified, assistance for relief from natural disasters is
provided to improve food sufficiency and social welfarefor people who have suffered from natural calamitiessuch as earthquakes and floods, or conflicts. This is notconsidered domestic food aid due to the specific andtemporary nature of the programme. The programme isintended for internally displaced persons who areparticularly vulnerable and in need of assistance forreasons of food insufficiency, due to the conflicts whicharose in some areas, namely Maluku and Kalimantan.Moreover, the total monetary value of measures issignificantly different.
Amber Box
United States: Total value of agricultural production for
calendar year 2000 (G/AG/R/29, pp. 22 refers).For calendar year 2000: 66,430 billion Rupiah (based on
constant price, year 1993).
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/72      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Payments for relief from natural disasters
Argentina: "Agricultural insurance scheme" –
Conformity with Annex 2 para 8 (a) to (e)This government programme is an insurance scheme
designed to give relief to producers from naturaldisasters.  It bears the share of the premium which ischarged to producers. The support is given through apublicly-funded programme not involving transfersfrom consumers.  Since the objective is to lighten theburden of the insurance premiums imposed onproducers, it does not have the effect of providing pricesupport. The programme meets each of the criteria setout in Annex 2 para 8 as reflected below:
para 8 (a) - in particular, type of natural disaster thattriggered the measure;The natural disasters that triggered the measure are: a
drought in July 1999; localized heavy rain in July-September 1999; typhoons no. 16 and no. 18 inSeptember 1999. Eligibility fo r the insura nce payments
is determined by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestryand Fisheries, under the condition that a production losswhich exceeds 30% of the average production occurs.
para 8 (b) Payments are made only in respect of losses of income,
livestock, facilities for horticulture or fruit trees, due tothe natural disaster in question.G/AG/R/30
Page 23
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/72      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
para 8 (c) - in particular, mechanism in place to
ensure that the support is less than the damage causedby the natural disaster;The Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
(MAFF) grants approval for each insurance programmeis ultimately responsible for ensuring that the payment is
to be carried out in conformity with the programme.
Since the ceiling of the insurance payment level is set at70% of the average production, payments compensatefor not more than the cost necessary to cover a loss.The programme conditions do not require or specify the
type or quantity of future production.
para 8 (d) Payments are only made after the settlement of a
disaster (no payments are made during the outbreak of a
disaster).
para 8 (e) Payments under "Natural disaster relief loans", another
programme under Annex 2, para 8, are not applicable tothe losses which can be covered by the insuranceschemes in question.  In addition, there is no programmeclassified under para 7 of Annex 2.
Structural adjustment through investment aids
Argentina: "Agricultural loans" – Conformity withcriteria of Annex 2 para 11(a) to (f)The objective of this programme is to provide interest
concessions for long-term, low-interest loans which aimto support producers in investing in production factorsin order to improve business operation. The support isprovided through a publicly-funded governmentprogramme not involving transfers from consumers.Since the programme aims to provide interest subsidiesto loans to support producers in investing to productionfactors, it does not have the effect of providing pricesupport to producers.  Each of the criteria set out inAnnex 2 para 11 is met:
para 11 (a) The interest concessions for loans are provided only for
those farmers who fulfil certain requirements set out bythe government, including obtaining an approval of thefarm management improvement plan drawn up by therecipient farmer in order to overcome such structuraldisadvantages as the fragmentation of farmland.
para 11 (b) The payments aim to provide interest concessions for
loans necessary to carry out activities under the farmmanagement improvement plan (which is voluntarilydrawn up by the farmer to overcome structuraldisadvantages he/she is facing). Therefore the amount ofpayments in any given year is not related to, or basedon, the type or volume of production undertaken by thefarmer in any year after the base period.
para 11 (c) The amount of payments in any given year is not related
to, or based on, the prices, domestic or international,applying to any production undertaken in any year afterthe base period.
para 11 (d) The term of redemption of a loan is set taking into
account the period sufficient to materialise the effect ofthe investment.G/AG/R/30
Page 24
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/72      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
para 11 (e) Similarly to the comments on items (b) and (c), the
payments do not mandate or designate the agriculturalproducts to be produced by the recipients.
para 11 (f) The interest concessions are provided only for the
amount necessary for carrying out the farm managementimprovement plan which is designed to overcome thestructural disadvantages the farmer is facing andapproved by the relevant authorities.
Blue Box
Rice Farming Income Stabilization Programme (JRIS)
Australia/New Zealand : Japan abolished the comprehensive government control
over rice distribution and the application of anadministered price for rice in order to promote domesticagricultural policy reform. Moreover, the JRIS wasintroduced in 1998.
Reasons for the large increase in expenditures in 1999compared with 1998.Rice is harvested from summer to autumn. The
government is then to disburse a part of the total JRIScontribution to the harvest of that year within the samefiscal year, i.e. by the end of March of the followingyear.  The remainder is disbursed in the next fiscal year,i.e., after the month of April of the following year.Accordingly, in JPN/61, only the JRIS expendituredisbursed within the FY 1998 (until the end of March
1999) was notified, out of the total government
contribution to the programme targeted to the productsharvested in 1998. In JPN/72, in addition to thegovernment contribution targeted to rice harvested in1998 and disbursed after April 1999, the contributiondisbursed within the FY 1999 (until the end of March2000) for the products harvested in 1999 is alsoincluded.  Therefore, the expenditure on JRIS notifiedfor FY 1999 has increased significantly compared tothat for FY 1998, when JRIS was introduced for the firsttime.
Australia:
Share of government's contribution to JRIS payments; 6% of the compensation standard price multiplied by the
volume subject to JRIS.
Share of producers' contribution to JRIS payments; 2% of the compensation standard price multiplied by the
volume subject to JRIS.
Average level of payments to farmers in 1998 and1999 at similar levels; average payment in both years;The unit price of compensation in FY 1999 increased
significantly from the previous year, because theaverage price of voluntarily-marketed rice for the 1999crop fell considerably below the 1998 level, thuswidening the gap between the average price ofvoluntarily-marketed rice for the 1999 crop and the
compensation standard price. The unit price of
compensation was: 340 Yen/60 kg. for the 1998 crop
and 1,430 Yen/60 kg. for the 1999 crop.
Value of production to which payments were applied. 3,770 thousand tonnes.G/AG/R/30
Page 25
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/72      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Canada/New Zealand: Voluntarily-marketed
rice
Explanation of what is meant by "voluntarily-
marketed rice";Voluntarily-marketed rice is the rice which is marketed
by the private sector, such as producers' organizationsand wholesale companies, registered to the relevantgovernment authorities.  For example, the amount ofvoluntarily-marketed rice in 1998 was around 4.35million tonnes.  In the same year, the amount of ricepurchased by the government for public stockholdingpurposes was around 0.3 million tonnes.  In addition tothese amounts, around 2.68 million tonnes of rice wasmarketed freely by whatever person concerned.
Price data for the last four years; Prices of voluntarily-marketed rice (Yen/60 kg.):
(a) 1997:  17,625; (b) 1998:  18,508;  (c) 1999:  16,904;(d) 2000:  16,084. These prices are established through arice tender scheme in which the registered producers'organizations and wholesale companies and retailersparticipate.
Average price; 16,934 Yen/kg.
"Standard compensation price"; In FY 1999: 18,720 Yen/60 kg.
Percentage of the gap between the average price ofvoluntarily marketed price and the "standardcompensation price" funded by the JRIS;80 %.
Reason why the subsidies decreased to zero in 1999;
confirmation that such subsidies have been abolishedin 1999 (G/AG/R/26, pp. 36 refers).The subsidy for the distribution of voluntarily-marketed
rice was abolished by the end of FY 1998.
Australia/New Zealand: Production-limiting criteria
Criteria used to assess whether producers haveactually limited production;Whether or not a participating producer actually limited
production is verified by the head of municipalities, inaccordance with the Cabinet Order for Staple Food Law.
Information on the set aside programme; e.g., nature
of regulatory mechanism used to reduce theproduction;The target of production limitation area is determined by
MAFF under "the Basic Plan for Stabilisation of Supply,Demand and Prices of Stable Food", which isestablished every year on the basis of Article 4 of theStaple Food Law, taking account of such factors as theharvest of rice and trend of supply-demand relations.The national target is then allocated to prefectures, thento municipalities, and finally to individual producers, onthe basis of the consultations and decisions made by therelevant bodies composed of relevant governmentauthorities and producers' organisations.  Whether or nota participating producer actually achieves the productionlimitation target is verified by the head ofmunicipalities, through on-the-spot examinations, inaccordance with the Cabinet Order for Staple Food Law.
Size of land which is currently set aside from
production.The national target of production limitation area in the
2001 crop year was 1,010 thousand hectares. The
fulfilment rate of the programme against the target area
was estimated as 100%. This size of productionlimitation area is almost equivalent to the cut of rice
production by 38%.G/AG/R/30
Page 26
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/72      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Canada/New Zealand: Base period
Confirmation that the base period in 1999 remained
the same as in 1998, i.e. 1995-97; whether thequantity of production to which the payments wereapplied was less than 85 % of the base production
level;The base level of production is as in the previous year,
i.e. the three-year average (1995 to 1997) of the sum of"the actual volume of production" and "the volume ofproduction estimated by the average yield multiplied bythe set aside area". This amounted to 14,137 thousandtonnes. The quantity of production to which paymentswere applied was 3,770 thousand tonnes. Thisaccounted for less than 85% of the base level ofproduction.
New Zealand is not convinced that this is a Blue Boxprogramme.Japan has a production-li miting programme under the
Staple Food Law, which is separate from JRIS.Payments under JRIS are provided on condition that aproducer participates in and duly implements theproduction-limiting programme. In addition, thepayments are made on less than 85% of the base level ofproduction.  JRIS is therefore classified as a directpayment under production-limiting programme, inaccordance with Article 6.5(ii).
In order for programmes to be production-limitingand in conformity with Article 6.5(ii), they must belinked to a level of production in a base period. JRIS
payments appear to be made on the basis of theaverage production of the preceding three-year period,which explicitly links payments to production
performance in the previous year, rather than to
production in a static period. Therefore, despite theaggregate 85% limit on payments, farmers will still beencouraged to produce rice so that the level ofproduction on which subsequent payments are basedincreases, thus improving the payout for the followingyear. The OECD Monitoring and Evaluation Report,
2000,  accurately describes the programme: "[t]he
[JRIS] provides direct payments based on output to
farmers to compensate for part of the loss of income ifmarket prices fall in comparison with the averageprice of the three preceding years. "  Comments by
Japan are solicited.Payments under JRIS are provided for producers when
the average price of voluntarily-marketed rice producedin the current year falls short of compensation standardprice, which is equal to the average price of voluntarily-marketed rice in the preceding three-year period.  Theamount of payments is calculated by multiplying the
amount of voluntarily-marketed rice sold by a producer
by the unit price of compensation (80% of the price gapbetween the average price of voluntarily-marketed riceand the compensation standard price).  Therefore, theyare not based on the average production of the precedingthree-year period, as pointed out by New Zealand. Theproduction of rice is not encouraged by JRIS.  First,because the recipient producers must participate in theproduction-limiting programme to be eligible for thepayments.  Second, this scheme is triggered only whenthe rice price of the current year falls below that of thepreceding three-year average.  Third, it compensatesonly 80% of the price gap.
AMS
Argentina/Australia:  Rice -
Confirmation that the only trade- and production-distortive support (i.e. de minimis , AMS, Article 6.5)
is that reported in ST/DS:3.The subsidy for the distribution of voluntarily-marketed
rice, which was notified as a product-specificde minimis  measure in FY 1998, was abolished by the
end of FY 1998. Consequently, as far as rice isconcerned, there are no measures that can be classifiedunder the de minimis  or under the AMS categories of
support.  The only existing measure is reported underArticle 6.5.G/AG/R/30
Page 27
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/72      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Noted the explanation given in G/AG/R/26, page 29,
to the effect that the government purchase price forpublic stockholding is set at a market price and is not
an "administered price". Whether Japan could
therefore clearly explain why the market price for ricein Japan is several times the world price; gven thewide gap between the market and world price,whether Japan can provide an applied administeredprice in order to calculate an equivalent measure ofsupport.  (Noted that other Members were able to
make such calculations).In general, gaps between international price and
domestic price of agricultural products reflect variousfactors such as differences in the natural and economic
conditions among countries, and differences in the
quality of the products.  Tariff is the only legitimate toolunder the WTO rules to adjust differences in the naturaland economic conditions of countries.  The domesticprice of rice in Japan is merely a result of the supply anddemand situations under the border measures which arefully in conformity with the commitments under theWTO rules.  There exists no administered price of rice
in Japan.
Total
productionEligible
productionCommodity
('000 tonnes)
Wheat 583.1 583.1
Barley 205.3 205.3
Sugar beet 3,787.1 3,787.1
Sugar cane 1,569.6 1,569.6
Potato starch 2,916 1,088
Sweet potato starch 1,008 206
Milk 8,513 2,309
Beef and veal 545 545
Meat of swine 1,275 1,275Argentina: ST/DS:5 – Details on total production
eligible for support.
Silk-worm cocoons 1.5 1.5
Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/36      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
General services
Argentina: "Advice and promotion" – Explanation of
how compensating losses of  small animals during the
pasture season is consistent with the requirements ofAnnex 2, para 2, in particular, not being direct paymentsto producers.The measure comes under the Small Animal Fund
(SAF).  In addition to covering advice and promotionactivities, SAF covers suppor t to organized activities
aimed at preventing loss of animals during the pasturingseason.  Only organized groups of farmers who co-operate in such activities or projects are eligible forsupport. Accidents must be of extraordinary characterand covered by animal insurance. A substantial part ofthe stock must be lost. Out of a total SAF payment of38.1 millions NOK in 2000, this scheme amounted to0.8 millions. It might be argued that this minorprogramme component should be notified under Annex2, para 8.  Norway has chosen to include it as part of themain programme in line with its Schedule. It is clearthough that it is a Green box measure.G/AG/R/30
Page 28
Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/36      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Public stockholding for food security purposes
New Zealand: "Grain price support"
This programme should not be notified under
ST/DS:1;The grain price support is already accounted for in the
calculations of product specific market price supportand total current AMS.  In accordance with Annex 3,para 8, budgetary payments made to maintain the gapbetween fixed ERPs and applied administered prices arenot included in the AMS.  These payments are indirectlyincluded in the market price calculations as thedifference between the internal and external pricesmultiplied by the quantity eligible to receive the appliedadministered price in ST/DS:5. For transparency reasonsthe total expenditures of the budgetary item wereincluded in the Green box of the Norwegian Schedulealthough the price support was covered in ST/DS:5.
Monetary value of the actual Green Box component. Budgetary payments to maintain administered prices
amount to 677.8 million NOK. Payments related tostockholding for food security purposes amount to 16.6
million NOK. An amount of 14.3 million NOK to
research, advice and promotion is by mistake includedin the notified amount of 708.7 million NOK. As the14.3 million is already notified under advice andpromotion, it should not be notified under publicstockholding. A corrigendum for this item will be
submitted.
Payments for relief from natural disasters
Argentina:
Nature of disasters involved; The natural disasters triggering payments in 2000 were
serious hail storms destroying strawberry fields andunusually extreme weather conditions hampering or
delaying harvesting of grain, which lead toextraordinary reductions in yield for the year inquestion.
Explanation of conformity with Annex 2 para 8 (a) to
(e):See also the comprehensive responses given on
27 September 2000.
para 8 (a) The required level of production loss is dependent not
only on losses in one type of production or crop but iscalculated on the basis of total losses in all productionson the farm.  A substantial loss in one crop may not becompensated if other crops grown on the farm do notexperience reduced yields. In marginal agriculturalareas, yields may vary considerably from one year to theother. A five-year average has therefore been chosen forthe part of the scheme that covers crop losses, in orderto adequately reflect these circumstances. Thisaveraging method does not systematically lead to higherpayments than under a three-year average mentioned inpara 8(a), particularly given the climatic conditions inNorway.
para 8 (b) Payments are only made with respect to losses due to
the natural disaster in question.G/AG/R/30
Page 29
Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/36      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
para 8 (c) Compensation does not exceed the total costs of
replacing losses. There are no requirements of futureproduction.
paras 8 (d), (e) Losses are not fully compensated.  The farmer has to
bear 27% (22% in Northern Norway) of the loss (thefarmer's own risk).  This means that if the loss equals oris less than 27% the farmer is not compensated.  If theloss is 30%, the level of compensation will only be 3%.These constraints lead to considerably lower paymentsthan a scheme compensating 100% for a 30% loss,which is possible according to Annex 2.
Canada:  Explanations in G/AG/R/24 and G/AG/R/27confirm that the criteria of Annex 2, para 8 (a) are notmet (i.e., the 30 % production loss criterion, and thethree-year averaging of production). Request that thismeasure be reported as AMS support in the notification.Taking all of the above into account, Norway considers
that the scheme is consistent with Annex 2.
Follow-up comments:  Canada indicated that, in its response under para 8(a), Norway actually agreed that itsprogramme did not conform to the specific criteria laid out in the Agreement on Agriculture.  The argument
presented by Norway that the programme resulted in lower payments than it would if it did comply with the criteria
did not exempt it from complying with the current rules.  As long as the relevant Annex 2 criteria have not beenmodified, for example through negotiations, Norway should comply with the current rules.  Canada therefore
reiterated its request that the measure be reported as AMS support.  Norway took note of these comments.
Structural adjustment through resource retirement
Australia:
Background of programmes designed to remove
resources from marketable agricultural production;type of resources that are removed from production;duration of the withdrawal;This scheme is a publicly funded government
programme for permanent withdrawal of milk quotas.Producers who are currently producing milk may offertheir milk quota for sale to the programme. Quotaholders have to sell their entire quota. As the scheme is
designed to reduce milk production, producers selling
their quota are not allowed to restart milk production.Payments under this scheme are not related in any way
to resources remaining in production.
Number of beneficiaries; average payment; In 2000, a total number of 1,642 producers received an
estimated average of 400,000 NOK for their quotas.
Explanation of the large increase in payments. Payments totalled 720.7 million NOK in 2000 including
administration costs. The increase in payments from1999 to 2000 is a consequence of increasing surplus ofdomestic milk production due to declining consumptionof milk products.  A total of 96 millions litres, whichwas approximately 6% of the total production before thequota sale, was purchased and the production surpluswas substantially reduced.G/AG/R/30
Page 30
Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/36      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand: Noted that this programme was notified
in NOR/31 as "Scheme for purchase and resale of milkquotas, including resource retirement"; and that
expenditures have increased nearly five fold between
1999 and 2000. Since milk quotas may be re-sold,whether the notified amount is a net figure or whether itincludes expenditures for quotas which have been re-sold in the meantime; in the latter case, quantity of
quota that has been resold under this programme.In some cases parts of the milk quotas may be re-sold to
other producers. If the purchased milk quotas arere-sold, the scheme only operates as a redistribution
system for milk quotas, and not as a support scheme.
Quotas sold in 2000 were permanently withdrawn fromthe market, i.e. no parts of the quotas were re-sold in
2000, nor will they be in the future.
Environmental programmes
New Zealand: Remains unconvinced of the compliance
of the following programmes with the fundamentalrequirement of Annex 2 and urges Norway to reconsidertheir notification:
"Summer Dairy Operations" The programme aims to conserve traditional
mountainous agricultural landscape, safeguard thebiodiversity as well as traditional milk production inmountain areas.  The allowance is paid as an lump sumper year to compensate for the extra costs of keepingdairy cows on summer pasture in mountain areas, whichis in accordance with para 12 (b).  The requirements ofmilk delivery ensure that the payments are made inaccordance with the intention of the programme.  Theapplicants also have to fulfil a number of conditionssuch as general entitlement to agricultural support andspecial requirements for summer dairy operations, inaccordance with para 12 (a). Furthermore, milkproduction is subject to quota regulations. Theprogramme has thus no or minimal influence on thetotal amount of milk produced annually.
"Production on steep areas" The aim is to safeguard the agricultural landscape in
these areas.  The production requirements are set inorder to ensure that the payments are made inaccordance with the intention of this programme.  Thesupport is only eligible for farms with an elevation equalto or higher than 1:5 on at least 50% of the totalproduction area. Payments compensate for the difficulttopographical production conditions in steep areas,which is in accordance with para 12 (b) of Annex 2.Areas entitled to such payments represent barely 2.5%
of the total agricultural area in Norway (less than 25,000
hectares). Crops that are eligible for support are coarsefodder (including grasslands and pasture), grain,potatoes, berries, fruit and vegetables. These
requirements are in accordance with para 12 (a).G/AG/R/30
Page 31
Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/36      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Other direct payments
"Social welfare"
Argentina:  Categories of farmers who benefit from
these payments; number of beneficiaries.Two schemes are notified under this programme,
namely the "vacation and replacement scheme" and the"refund for alleviation of financial difficulties due toillness". Both are in line with national regulationsrelated to work environment:
-  "Vacation and replacement sche me" The main objective is to  enable livestock producers to
hire workers for replacement during vacations and timeoff. During calendar year 2000 a total of 44,722livestock producers out of a total of 45,927 made use ofthis scheme.
- "Refund for alleviation of financial difficulties dueto illness"The objective is to alleviate producers from financial
difficulties due to illness and pregnancy. Farmers whoare entitled to this scheme  are livestock  farmers, round-
the-year producers of vegetables under controlledenvironment, all kinds of plant producers and producersof honey.  The two latter categories of producers are
only entitled to such refunds during the growing season,
which is from 15 April to 1 October.  In 2000, a total of
16,774 applications were approved.
New Zealand: Remains unconvinced of the
compliance of this programme with the fundamentalrequirement of Annex 2 that measures shall have noor at most minimal trade distorting effects or effectson production. Urges Norway to reconsider the
notification of this programme.The production factors employed are not influenced.
The maximum amount, calculated for each farm, is notobtained unless the expenses are legitimized. Thescheme has thus no or at most minimal trade distortingeffects on production, in accordance with the
fundamental requirements of Annex 2.
Argentina: "Promotion and storage" – Whether the
payments relate to "market regulation, promotion andsale"; conformity with conditions of Annex 2.The payments for market regulation, promotion and sale
cover several measures, which are partly: (a) paymentsto "obtain administered prices", which are included inthe AMS market price support calculations, inconformity with Annex 3 para 8; and (b) payments forpromotion services, which are given in accordance withthe requirements of Annex 2, para 2 (f), for examplepayments to information and generic marketingactivities of fruit and vegetables in order to facilitate thesale of these products. Payments to facilitate the demandfor organic products are also included. The paymentsare allocated according to application.
South Africa   G/AG/N/ZAF/37      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States: Justification for adjusting the external
reference prices (ERP) in ST/DS5.South Africa made use of a stable currency (US Dollar)
to calculate market price support.  This is in line with aright explicitly provided for in a footnote in its UruguayRound Schedule XVIII, Part IV, Section 1, pp. 851.The exchange rates used to calculate ERPs are indicatedin ST/DS:5.  South Africa submitted an AIE paper (No.33) " Effects of inflation on reduction commitments " on
this subject.G/AG/R/30
Page 32
Tunisia    G/AG/N/TUN/24      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Structural adjustment through investment aids
Australia: The programme was first notified in 1996 but
no Table DS:2 notification appears to have beensubmitted (G/AG/R/26, pp. 32 refers).The delegation of Tunisia transmitted this question to
the relevant authorities.
AMS
Adjustment of external reference prices (ERPs)
New Zealand/United States: Whether ERPs have beenadjusted for inflation in the current notification; if so,reasons for such an adjustment.The rate of inflation and the depreciation of the national
currency between 1998 and 2000 were excessive.  Thisjustified the adjustment ERPs.
Australia/United States: "excessive inflation"
Whether ERPs continue to be adjusted for bothinflation and exchange rates. Australia noted thatwhile Article 18.4 does provide scope for Members togive due consideration to the influence of excessiveinflation on the ability of any Member to abide by itsdomestic support commitments, there is no provision
to adjustment for exchange rate movements.In 2000, Tunisia adjusted the ERPs taking into account
the 10 % depreciation of the Tunisian Dinar against theUS Dollar (between 1999 and 2000) only.  The 1.9%
rate of inflation was not factored into the adjustment.
Justification for using the exemption for "excessive"
inflation in Article 18.4;  Australia noted that, basedon its previous responses, Tunisia's inflation rates donot appear to be excessive (quoted in the 2001response as 3% in the previous three years).Australia's own inflation rate is currently 4.4%.  Inaddition, the intent of Annex 3 para 9 is that a fixedand unchanged reference price should apply to thebase period.The delegation of Tunisia has forwarded this question to
the relevant authorities.
Australia/New Zealand/United States:  In both 2000 and
2001, Tunisia undertook to provide unadjusted data forthe period 1995 – 1998.  Expectation that a notificationfor 2000 be submitted based on unadjusted ERPs, fortransparency reasons.  Whether Tunisia could providethis information.The unadjusted AMS figure in 2000 is: 200 million
Dinars. Taking into account the depreciation factorbetween the base period and the year 2000, the adjustedAMS figure is 63.4 million Dinars, as notified.  Duringthat period, the exchange rate changed from 0.88 to 1.4.G/AG/R/30
Page 33
Table DS:2 Notifications
Australia    G/AG/N/AUS/38    New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Riverland Rural Partnership (RRP)
Argentina/Japan/Philippines: Compliance with Annex 2,
paras (a) to (f):
para 13(a) - in particular, description of criteria andconditions to qualify as " disadvantaged region "
eligible for support; explanation of how the region's
difficulties go beyond " temporary circumstances ".The RRP is open to all landholders in the Riverland
region of South Australia located around 200 kilometresnorth east of Adelaide along both sides of the MurrayRiver, which encompasses irrigated areas producingprimarily citrus fruit and some other horticulturalproducts. The region was identified as suffering fromstructural impediments to productivity improvement,competitiveness and the viability of farm businesses.These adverse factors are associated with watermanagement issues and small property size.
para 13(b) - confirmation that the related criteria ismet, in view of the cited objective (" encouraging the
preparation of business plans and increased farmproductivity and re-development ");Payments are unrelated to the type or volume of
production. They are targeted to specific projectsassociated with overcoming a specific disadvantage, forexample lack of technical and managerial skills, and areaddressed by, amongst other things, the development ofbusiness plans.
para 13(c) Payments are not related to prices for agricultural
products.
para 13(d) Payments are only available to the landholders defined
under para (a) criteria described above.
para 13(e) Payments are not related to production factors.
para 13(f) - in particular, steps taken to limit thepayments to " the extra costs or loss of income
involved in undertaking agricultural production in theprescribed area ".The producer is required to make a financial
contribution to the project.  Payments are thereforelimited to meeting part of the extra costs involved inundertaking viable agricultural production and meet thecriteria under para 13(f).
Japan:  From the web site of the Ministry of Agriculture,Fisheries and Forestry of Australia, it appears that theprogramme is co-financed by the CommonwealthGovernment and the state government amounting to acontribution of 2.5 million AU dollars each.  Since onlythe expenditure by the state government is notified inAUS/36 for FY 99/00, confirmation sought whether theCommonwealth Government actually provides a
financial contribution.The Commonwealth and State/Territory governments
provide matching contributions to the Rural PartnershipProgrammes.  Australia has generally notified theProgram in aggregate.  The RRP is within the overallexpenditure for the Rural Partnership Programmenotified in ST/DS:1 (AUS/36) under para 13 "regional
assistance programmes".
Philippines:  Description of the activity related to the
development of export markets under this programme.Activities include market research and development,
and identification of marketing and distributionnetworks.
Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment (ECRP) - (G/AG/R/23, pp. 23, and G/AG/R/28, pp. 15, refer)
Japan:  Reason why the average annual cost over theperiod 94/95 to 00/01 was notified, since Australiastated that the programme started in December 1997;whether the programme already existed in 94/95 – 96/97ECRP commenced on 1 December 1997.  There was
therefore no expenditure prior to that date.G/AG/R/30
Page 34
Australia    G/AG/N/AUS/38    New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/Canada/Japan: Compliance with Annex 2,
paras (a) to (e):
para 8(a), in particular :
-   government recognition of natural disaster An affected region must be identified as an Exceptional
Circumstances (EC) area by the Minister of Agriculture,Fisheries and Forestry.  The event must cause a rare andsevere downturn in income (such as over 12 months fora single-crop production area) that cannot be managedby farmers as part of normal risk management.  Thenature of the assessment process imposes rigorous teststo determine that the impact of the event is rare, severeand prolonged.  See also previous replies.
-    eligibility criteria Applicants must be: 1. farmers (defined as persons
having a right or interest in the land used for thepurposes of a farm enterprise, contribute a significantpart of their labour and capital to the farm enterprise andderive a significant part of their income from the farm);2. At least 18 years old; 3; Australian residents andliving in Australia for the period.  Farmers also have todemonstrate need as a result of the EC event and hold acurrent EC certificate. Attachment no. 6 provides detailson the declaration process.
-  determination of production loss (parameters used,
e.g. length of reference period; percentage of lossrequired, etc.).Production losses significantly higher than 30% would
be required before the impact of an event would beconsidered severe.  Production losses of this magnitude
are also required to occur less than once in 20-25 years
for the area.  Between March 1999 and September 2001,only 7 areas out of 23 that had applied had been found
to meet the related criteria.
para 8(b) Payments, based on need as a result of the EC event,
must not be part of a process of structural adjustmentand are not intended to underwrite producers' incomeand declines in farm income caused by changingcommodity prices. The EC event triggering the
payments must not be of a predictable nature.
para 8(c) - in particular, method used to calculate the
level of compensation;ECRP is a welfare payment linked to the Newstart
allowance (the Australian unemployment benefit) and ismade on the basis of family welfare need, i.e. it allows afamily affected by the EC to put food on the table.There are strict income and assets tests in accordancewith the welfare nature of this payment (these aredescribed under para 8(e) below).
para 8(e) The applicants must not be in receipt of Newstart
Allowance, as social security benefit or pension, or aservice pension from the Department of Veterans'Affairs. They undergo strict income and non-farm assettests (i.e. excluding the assets that are considered to beessential to the long-run viability of the farm) on anautomatic six-monthly basi s. Such tests exclude the
bona fide  life insurance and superannuation policies as
well as proceeds from the forced sale of livestock(provided that these are invested in approved depositsfor the required length of time).G/AG/R/30
Page 35
Australia    G/AG/N/AUS/38    New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Rural Adjustment Scheme Exceptional Circumstances Provisions (RAS-EC)
Argentina/Canada/Japan:  Compliance with the specific
criteria of Annex 2:See also previous replies.
para 8(a), (b); in particular, eligibility criteria used;
percentage of production loss required; length of thereference period used to determine the productionloss; steps taken to ensure the specific criteria are met;Same description as ECRP above.
para 8(c) - calculation of the level of compensation;
steps taken to ensure that producers do not receivemore than the 100% of the loss incurred;RAS EC are business related payments assessed on an
overall needs basis for farmers who are assessed asbeing financially viable in the longer term.  Paymentscover only up to half the interest cost on outstandingdebt.  This would preclude farmers receiving support inexcess of their total loss.
para 8(e) Receipt of interest subsidy assistance is not automatic
upon EC declaration of an area.  The actual period forwhich farmers can receive the subsidy and the actuallevel of support they are entitled to are determined on anindividual basis by the relevant State/Territory
organisation that administer the interest rate subsidies.
They must not only be satisfied that the applicants' farmenterprises are in financial difficulty due to the ECevent, but also that the enterprises have prospects oflong-term profitability and sustainability.  These Stateand Territory organisations also require that other
eligibility requirements, such as the asset tests, be met.
Emergency Management of Animal Disease Incursions
Canada/Japan:  Compliance with the specific criteria of
Annex 2 paras 8(a) to (e):
para 8(a) - in particular :
-   government recognition of natural disaster Payments are made only after the government has
officially recognized a significant disease outbreakwhich has had a considerable and adverse impact onproduction in a region.
-  determination of production loss (parameters used,
e.g. length of reference period; percentage of lossrequired, etc.).Compensation payments are made for losses normally
significantly exceeding 30%. In response to Canada's
questions, Australia undertook to clarify further the
nature of the production loss at a later stage.
para 8(b) - steps taken to ensure that the specificcriteria are met.Compensation payments are only made for losses of
livestock and building and equipment.
para 8(c) -  details on the method used to calculate thelevel of compensation;The natural disaster relief programmes are clearly
decoupled, i.e. production or prices are not linked topayments.  The level of support provided in all cases is
less than the producers' total loss.
Japan: Whether the expenditures for animal
depopulation, disinfection and disease surveillance arealso provided in the form of direct payments toproducers; whether any programme components shouldrather be notified under Annex 2 para 2(b).All compensation payments under this programme are
made directly to producers and would therefore not beeligible under Annex 2 para 2 (b).G/AG/R/30
Page 36
Australia    G/AG/N/AUS/38    New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Queensland Tobacco Adjustment Package
Japan/Philippines: There appear to be three options for
payments to producers who: (i) exit from the industryimmediately; (ii) exit from the industry within 5 years;or (iii) remain in the industry. In light of Annex 2para 9(b), confirmation that only expenditures for
options (i) and (ii) above are classified as exempt;  if so,
indication of where the expenditure for option (iii)
above has been notified.The breakdown of available options is correct.  Under
(i), payment is conditional on leaving the industry for 5years.  Payments made to producers under options (ii)and (iii) of this programme have been notified inAUS/41 (Table DS:1 for 2000/2001) as non-exemptdirect payments.
Pork Producer Exit Programme
Japan: According to the web site of the Ministry ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of Australia, therecipients are only required to exit production during thenext five years.  Consistency with Annex 2 para 9(b),i.e. " total and permanent retirement of recipients from
marketable agricultural production ".This programme was introduced as a short-term
measure (12 months) in response to the need to adjust tocompetition from imports and low world prices.  Theprogramme ceased on 30 June 2000.  The objective wasto provide an environment that emphasised self-relianceand market responsiveness, facilitating, rather thanhindering, market adjustment. It provided an incentiveto those pork producers who did not have a future in theindustry to exit. The delegated legislation provided forthe grant to be made conditional on the recipientundertaking not to re-enter pork production for 5 years.
Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/35      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
"Aid to alleviate damage caused by the drought of Spring 2000"
Canada/Japan/New Zealand:
Operation of the programme; request of information
necessary to show that this measure meets all thepolicy-specific criteria of the Annex 2 para 8 underwhich exemption is claimed;This programme is consistent with Annex 2.  The
Hydro-meteorological Authority and the ResearchInstitute for Amelioration and Soil Protection set forththree zones based on drought indices, calculated foreach cadastre, as follows: above 1.05; in the range of0.7-1.05; index in the range of 0.35 - 0.7.  Areas with adrought index of less than 0.35 were not eligible for thesupport.  Irrigated parcels were excluded as well.
para 8 (a); in particular, production loss thresholdbefore a producer becomes eligible to receive apayment; length of the reference period;Before payments were effected, the Government
recognized the occurrence of a national disaster(Decision No. 420/2000 Coll). Eligibility for paymentswas determined on the basis of a three-year averageproduction based on the preceding five-year period,excluding the highest and lowest entries.
para 8 (b) and (c); in particular, method used to
calculate compensation;Payments were meant to partly compensate losses from
the drought.
para 8 (d) Payments were made on the basis of the calculation of
losses caused by the drought.
para 8 (e) Producers did no receive any payment under Annex 2
para 7 in the same year.
Reason why it is stated that expenditures do notinvolve direct payments to producers or processors.This statement is incorrect.  Expenditures do involve
direct payments to producers.G/AG/R/30
Page 37
Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/35      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
"Support for cattle, sheep, goat and horse farming on permanent grasslands"
Australia/Canada/Japan/New Zealand/United States:
Request of information necessary to show that this
measure meets all the policy-specific criteria of the
Annex 2 para 12 under which exemption is claimed;The Czech Republic has a large area of wet meadows
that must be farmed in order to prevent their
deterioration.
Explanation of the " clearly defined government
environmental or conservation programme " that this
policy relates to; manner in which this policy willachieve the desired environmental outcomes;This programme is part of the governmental policy
aimed at the landscape maintenance.
Explanation of how restructuring the livestock
industry (notified under point 3. as being the purposeof this measure) aiding the environment (notifiedclassification); consistency with para 12 (a);Ruminants are the only animals that can consume the
fodder products on the wet meadows.
Type of additional costs to be borne by producers as aresult of this environmental programme;Additional costs borne by the producers are for
example, those incurred in establishing permanentgrasslands, construction of electric wire fences, wateringplaces, shelters.
Steps taken to limit payments to the extra cost or lossof income of fulfilling the environmental objectives;Payments made under this programme were limited only
to a part of the extra costs associated with the use ofpermanent grasslands as a feeding base.
Confirmation that this programme involves directpayments to producers; whether payments are relatedto the level of production.This programme involves direct payments to producers.
Such payments are not related to the level of production.
"Monitoring of milk production (compensatory payment)"
Argentina/Australia/Canada/Japan/New Zealand/UnitedStates:
Rationale and justification showing that this measuremeets all the policy-specific criteria of the Annex 2para 12; whether the programme would rather meetthe qualifications of Annex 2 para 2, General
Services.The classification of this programme is inaccurate.
Direct payments were other than those specified in paras6 through 13 of Annex 2, and meet the criteria set forthin Annex 2. The objective of this programme, whichwas of a timely and limited duration (i.e. April 2000 -31 October 2002), was to obtain accurate and reliable
information from individual milk producers.
Explanation of how this policy can be classified as a
payment under an environmental programme; natureof the " clearly defined government environmental or
conservation programme " that this policy relates to;See above reply.
Nature of " specific conditions under the government
programme, including conditions related toproduction methods or inputs "; reason for the
compensation payments; targeted beneficiaries;See above reply.
Steps taken to limit payments to the extra cost or loss
of income of fulfilling the environmental objectives;See above reply.
Confirmation that this programme involves direct
payments to producers; given the objective notifiedunder point 3, how does the programme guaranteethat such payments are not trade- or production-distortive.Payments were not related to the level of production and
were exclusively meant to motivate farmers to supplythe requested data and compensate for the costs incurredas a result of the collection, processing and transmissionof information.G/AG/R/30
Page 38
Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/35      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
"Fertilization of agricultural parcels with arable land by organic fertilizers"
Canada/New Zealand:
Request of information necessary to show that this
measure meets all the policy-specific criteria of the
Annex 2 para 12 under which exemption is claimed.The programme is consistent with Annex 2 para 12
because it is part of a clearly defined governmentprogramme aimed to enrich soil by organic substances
and minimize the use of mineral fertilizers.
Nature of environmental objectives; See above reply.
Manner in which compensation is provided; The level of compensation is based on the tax certificate
delivered in connection with the purchase of registeredfertilizers.
Whether payments are limited to the extra cost or lossof income of fulfilling the environmental objectives.Payments are limited only to the extra costs or loss of
income.
"Crop production restructuring through grassing"
Argentina/Australia/Canada/Japan/New Zealand:
Request of information necessary to show that thismeasure meets all the policy-specific criteria of theAnnex 2 para 10 under which exemption is claimed;The threat of further erosion of arable parcels places
Czech agriculture under severe conditions.  Intensivefarming must cease and land must be converted to theless intensive forms of farming, i.e. permanentgrassland.  This better meets the requirement to preservesoil fertility, and thus fulfils environment conservationobjectives.
para 10 (a); nature of the " clearly defined criteria …
production " which was used to determine eligibility;The long-term impact and three-year criterion is ensured
by an obligation to report the conversion from arable
land to grassland in the land register. In the event of
grassing on only part of a parcel , there is an obligation
that the parcel needs to be surveyed.
para 10 (b) - Confirmation that land will be removedfrom production;Confirmed.
Explanation of how the objective of supporting the
extensification of farm production is achieved; andhow it is consistent the removal of land from
"marketable agricultural production ".See above replies.
"Crop production restructuring through the planting of fast-growing trees"
Australia/Canada/Japan/New Zealand: Request of
information necessary to show that all policy-specificcriteria under which exemption is claimed are met:
para 10 (a); nature of the " clearly-defined criteria …
production " used to determine eligibility to receive
the payments;Producers must undertake a commitment to plant fast-
growing trees for a period of at least 10 years, includingthe year of the stand establishment.
para 10 (b) - Confirmation that land will be removedfrom marketable agricultural production, i.e. trees willnot be harvested for timber production;The programme is not aimed at commercial production.
para 10 (c); explanation of consistency. The objective is to encourage the use of self-produced
wood mass to cover the heating needs of farmers inareas which suffer from a shortage of forests. Theprogramme supports the establishment of stands of fastgrowing tree species designed for these purposes.G/AG/R/30
Page 39
Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/35      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
"Territorial systems of landscape ecological stability"
Argentina/Canada/Japan/New Zealand:
Justification that this measure meets all the policy-
specific criteria of the Annex 2 para 12 under whichexemption is claimed; nature of environmental
objectives;The policy objective is to support the establishment of
nature-like vegetation on farmland where there is ashortage of such vegetation.  It involves primarily theplanting of trees and shrubs.  The planting of enables toincrease the numbers of wild animals whichsubsequently contribute to the control of pests, e.g.rodents.
Explanation of how this payment encourages farmersto reduce the use of pesticides;The element which relates to pesticides reduction was
incorrectly included in this notification.
Manner in which compensation is provided; Two forms of compensation are applied: productivity of
nature; and farming in landscape areas.
Steps taken to limit payments to the extra cost or lossof income of fulfilling the environmental objectives.Payments are limited only to the extra cost or loss of
income incurred.
"Silt removal and renewal of pond functions"
Canada/New Zealand: Request of information necessaryto show that this measure meets all the policy-specificcriteria of the Annex 2 paragraph under whichexemption is claimed.This programme meets all the policy-specific criteria of
paragraph 1 of Annex 2.
"Suckler cow and sheep farming"
Argentina/Australia/Canada/Japan/New Zealand/UnitedStates: Request of information necessary to show that
this measure meets all the policy-specific criteria of the
Annex 2 para 11 under which exemption is claimed;This programme complements the programme "support
for cattle, sheep, goat and horse farming on permanent
grasslands". The objective is to support ruminant
farming in areas with lower soil fertility and with a
higher share of permanent grassland.
para 11 (a);  explanation of how reduced sheepproduction constitutes a structural disadvantage;The preservation of ruminant numbers in the areas
concerned is important for landscape maintenance.
para 11 (b); explanation of consistency since the
described measure refers to maintaining a certainlevel of production.  The measure is thus linked toproduction. Therefore it should be included in theAMS.This programme reduces production by means of
extensive farming of cow and sheep.
para 11 (e); There appears to be a direct conflict withthis provision as the notified objective is to stimulateproduction and as payment is dependent onmaintaining a minimum level of production;explanation of consistency; reason why the measure isconsidered a Green Box programme;See above reply.
Reason why milk production continues to be
subsidized, particularly when this production issubsequently exported with the use of exportsubsidies.Milk produced under this programme is not supplied to
the market.G/AG/R/30
Page 40
Estonia   G/AG/N/EST/3      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
"Payments made on mutton and lamb meat production";  "on cereal production";  "on milk production"
Argentina/Canada/Japan:  These measures seem to
guarantee the growth of production and to impede theincrease in land that is not used for production.
Explanation of the production-limiting nature; A built-in mechanism ensures that any increase in
production automatically results in a diminution of theamount of support being paid to the producer.  Thesystem guarantees that the production level does notincrease.
Explanation of how the requirement, " payments are
made on 85 per cent of the base level of production ",
is ensured;The amount of supported production is determined
annually for the next calendar year during negotiationsbetween the government and agricultural producers.According to paragraph 2 of the Rural Life andAgricultural Market Regulation Act, the internationalagreements, notably Article 6.5 of the WTO Agreementon Agriculture, have to be complied with while adoptingthe support schemes, thus ensuring that the paymentsare made on 85% of the base level of production.
Definition of base level of production. The year 1993 was chosen as the base period.  This was
the first full calendar year after the introduction of thenational currency, in June 1992.  By that time, the priceshad adjusted to the world market levels.
Slovenia   G/AG/N/SVN/19      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina: Follow-up question (G/AG/R/29, page 31
refers) - Confirmation that the Decree OJ RS 27/2000has no mention of "compensation of price decrease" orthat the payments of this Decree have no relation toprices.This Decree does include provisions relating to the
decrease of prices and consequently the introduction ofdirect payments in order to compensate the loss ofincome.  As can be seen from ST/DS:5 for the year2000, no administratively fixed prices exist anymore.Prices dropped in some cases by one third (e.g. wheatetc.) and the Blue box measures were introduced tooffset  the  fall in farm incomes.G/AG/R/30
Page 41
Tables ES:1 to ES:3 Notifications
India   G/AG/N/IND/3    Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada:  International freight subsidies - Details These subsidies are provided in accordance with Article
9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  This assistance isprovided on international freight and transport forexport shipments of certain fruits, vegetables,floriculture and poultry products.
Details on how the subsidy is paid; The Agricultural and Processed Foods Export
Development Authority receives the applications on a
fortnightly basis in a prescribed format.  Applications
are considered on a first-come, first-served, basis.
Given the changes in commodities receiving the
assistance from year to year, what determines their
eligibility to receive the subsidy?Due to limited resources, the products benefiting from
assistance are prioritized according to the followingcriteria:  (a) products destined to new markets(b) perishable products, subject to high handling and
packaging costs (c) products from backward regions.
As the per tonne freight subsidy is highly variable for
each commodity from year to year, on what basis is
the subsidy paid?The calculation of airfreight assistance is based on the
applicable airfreight rate or, alternatively, on the f.o.b.value of the exported product.  The quantum ofassistance is equivalent to the lesser of the two amountsderived on this basis.  The products, destinations, andthe rates on which calculations are based, are howeversubject to periodic review.
Tunisia   G/AG/N/TUN/25   Export Subsidies    (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada: Cost reduction measures
Confirmation that the nature of the payments in this
notification is the same as previously noted inprevious responses, i.e. marketing and preparation
costs for exportation;Confirmed.
Explanation of how the support is provided in each
case (e.g., per unit freight subsidy?);Tunisia undertook to provide a response at a later stage.
How is the direct payment determined; Tunisia undertook to provide a response at a later stage.
Eligibility conditions. Any export enterprise is eligible to receive such
assistance.G/AG/R/30
Page 42
ANNEX – Part II
Deferred Replies to Questions Raised at Previous Meetings
(i) relating to US payments to cotton producers (G/AG/R/29, paragraph 20, refers)
Further to the queries raised by Brazil at the December 2001 meeting of the Committee on
Agriculture, the United States provided the following information.
Direct payments made under programmes to limit production for 1993 (fiscal year 1994) were
$827 million; and $21 million for 1994 (fiscal year 1995).
Direct payments not exempt from reduction commitments included user marketing payments
of $149 million and $88 million and loan deficiency payments of $290 million and $55 million in
1993 (fiscal year 1994) and 1994 (fiscal year 1995), respectively.
There were no payments derived from market-price support activity.During the period October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993, net budgetary outlays through the
Commodity Credit Corporation for cotton amounted to $2,311 million.G/AG/R/30
Page 43
(ii) relating to domestic support commitm ents:  IDN/26 (G/AG/R/29, page 21, refers)
Indonesia    G/AG/N/IDN/26 and Corr.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:
"Development of resources, facilities and
infrastructure for livestock development": details;confirmation that projects do not includesubsidized on-farm facilities.The related programmes/projects are for animal
breeding and animal health services. The governmentsubsidized these programmes/projects becausefarmers were not able to cover the costs.  Subsidiesare limited to providing public goods, externalservices and moral hazard.  During fiscal year 2000,
the activities were the following:
(i) Establishment of slaughter houses;
(ii) Rural rearing multiplication centres (RRMCs);(iii)Diagnostic laboratories;(iv) Provision of laboratory tool kits;(v) Bulls' recipient and donor cows for artificial
insemination centres and embryo transfer centres
"Domestic food aid":
 -  food accessibility to poor families;In August 1998, Indonesia introduced a targeted rice
subsidy programme called, Special Market Operation(OPK), to protect food-insecure households.  Eligiblehouseholds were allowed to purchase up to 20
kilograms of rice per family per month at a
subsidized price of Rp. 1,000 per kilogram (roughlyone third of the market price). In 2000, the OPKcovered around 10. 9 million poor households, with a
monthly rice distribution of 155,200 tonnes.  Around62% of the poor households served by the
programme lived both in rural and urban areas of
Java, while the rest outside Java.  The OPK has beenconsidered to generate significant economic and
nutritional benefits, thus the government has decidedto continue it in order to provide social protection forIndonesia's food insecure households.
   -   eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria used is based on the welfare
cadastre of the NFPC (National Family Planning
Coordinating) Agency.  Families entitled to receive
assistance must fall under one of the followingcriteria.  They must be unable to: (a) have access tofood as a source of energy at least twice a day perperson. (b) have access to pr otein-rich food at least
once a week. (c) pay the required school tuition fees
for primary school education, for their children. (d)afford basic medical treatment prescribed by a publichealth centre.G/AG/R/30
Page 44
Attachment no. 1
Response to the US Questionnaire on India's Wheat Exports
Question 1:  Could the Government of India confirm that as of 1 December 2001, the Government of
India has decided to make wheat available to local millers at rs 4750 ($99)/ton.
The Food Corporation of India offers wheat for sale from the Central Pool at the open market sales
price, which varies from region to region as shown below:
ZONEPRICE
(Indian Rupees/tonne )
North 6,500
East and North East 7,050
South 7,200
West 6,950
Question 2:  Please confirm our understanding that making wheat available to Indian millers at this
price is contingent on movement of wheat products into the export market?
The wheat made available to Indian millers at the open market sales price is not contingent upon
movement of wheat products into the export market.
Question 3:  Of the wheat made available to millers under this initiative, is there a percentage target
of wheat products that must be exported?  Plea se describe how this target was established.
While there is no compulsion for millers who have obtained wheat at open market sales price to
export wheat, those desirous of exporting are required to export 65 per cent in the form of wheatproducts.  This percentage was arrived at after taking into consideration the normative out-turn ratio.
Question 4:  Given the substantial stocks of wheat and the possibility of an excellent crop, is the
Government of India seeking to increase this percentage target to further intensify export efforts?
There is no proposal to increase this existing percentage of normative out-turn.
Question 5:  In light of the Government of India' s response in June, could the Government of India
please inform of additional wheat sales by the Stat e Trading Corporation of India (STC), the Minerals
and Metals Trading Corporation of India (MMT C) and the Project and Equipment Corporation
(PEC) since April?
According to the information available with the Government since April 2001, STC, MMTC and PEC
have shipped a total of 2.21 million tons of wheat till 28 February 2002.G/AG/R/30
Page 45
Attachment no. 2
G/AG/N/HUN/1 A dd.1, 5/Add.1, 8/Add.1, 13/Add.1 and 18/Add.1
Imports under Tariff Quota Commitments
HS codeQuantity
(tonnes)
0709 4,456
0801 1,942
0803 76,075
0804 1,671
0805 98,373
0904 1,362
1104 326
1107 7,266
121291/92 295
1516 16,129
1704 8,425
2101 7,564G/AG/R/30
Page 46
Attachment no. 3
G/AG/N/NOR/35 – Main Beneficiaries of Selected Tariff Quotas (2000)
Product Tariff number Main beneficiaries
Horses 0101.1100
0101.19110101.19190101.1990Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden,
Iceland, USA
Reindeer 0106.0010 Finland
Sheep meat 0204 Iceland
Pig fat/ poultry fat 0209.0000 Sweden, Denmark
Whey 0404.1000
0404.9000France, Switzerland
Butter 0405.1000
0405.20000405.9000Sweden
Cheese 0406 The European Union, Switzerland
Honey 0409.0000 Argentina, Nepal
Potatoes 0701.1000
0701.9011
0701.9014
0701.90180701.90210701.9029Cyprus, Belgium, Great Britain, Israel,
Denmark
Onions 0703.1012
0703.1019
0703.1022
070310290703.10310703.1032
0703.9001
0703.90020703.9009Netherlands, Australia, Spain, France,
Italy
Lettuce 0705.1111
0705.11210705.1990Spain
Cucumber 0707.0090 Denmark, Spain
Leguminous vegetables
(fresh, chilled)0708.1000
0708.20010708.2009Guatemala
KenyaEgypt
Sorghum 1007.0010 Argentina, France, Netherlands
Wheat flour 1101.0000 Sweden, Great Britain
Malt 1107.1010
1107.1090Sweden, Great Britain, Germany,
Denmark, Finland
Tomatoes(prepared/preserved)2002.1010 (2002.1001) Italy, USA, China
Peas 0710.2100 China
Fruit juices 2009.7000
2009.8090
2009.9000Germany, Austria, Denmark, USA,
Sweden
Ethyl alcohol 2207.1010
2207.1090Sweden, DenmarkG/AG/R/30
Page 47
Attachment no. 4
G/AG/N/JPN/71 – Monthly Imports of Buttermilk Powder (April 2000-end of January 2002)
(tonnes)
Month 2000 2001 2002
January - 0 0
February - 2.3 -
March - 2.3 -
April 1.96 1.85 -
May 0 6.055 -
June 3.05 2.426 -
July 2.3 0 -
August 0 0 -
September 2.3 0 -
October 2.3 0 -
November 3.101 0 -
December 1.866 5.66 -G/AG/R/30
Page 48
Attachment no. 5
G/AG/N/CYP/11 – Major Components of Infrastructural Services (Supporting Table DS:1, 2000)
1. Rural Development Expenditure:  £12,667,339
-    Assistance to New Municipalities and Community Boards
-    Anti-flood and sewerage works in villages
-    Resiting of villages-    Integrated – Rural Development Projects: Limassol/Paphos, Krasochoria Integrated Rural
Development Project, Akamas Integrated Development Project
-    Regional Rural Development Projects: Tyllyria Rural Development Project, Northern and
Southern  Marathasa Rural Development Project , Orini (Larnaca District) Rural Development
Projects, Hill and other villages Rural Development Project
-    Other Rural Development Projects:  Improvement of Village Streets, Village Public Buildings,
Improvement and Construction of Farm Roads
2. Water Development
a) Irrigation, Drainage and Dams:  Expenditure:  £16,936,926
-    Major Waterworks, Southern Conveyor: Installation of Irrigation Networks, Installation of
Telemetry System
-    Other major waterworks: Major waterworks Vizakia, Paphos, Vasilikos-Pentashinos,
Khrysokhou, Solea/Marathasa, etc.; Major Waterworks Dhiarizos and Ezousas Valleys and
Paphos Water Supply
b) Town and other Municipalities Water Supplies Expenditure:  £17,684,351
-   Construction of Water Treatment Plants
-   Water Desalination Units (Constructional Works)
-   Purchase of Materials and Equipment, etc.
3. Land Consolidation Works Expenditure:  £541,877
Implementation of Land Consolidation Schemes (including construction of farm roads)
4. Development of Livestock Areas and Zones and
other Infrastructural Works for Livestock Expenditure:  £499,444
- Water Supply
- Electricity Supply to Livestock Areas
- Establishment of Livestock Areas and Zones (access road, etc.)
- Treatment of Waste
Total Expenditure (as in Table DS:1notification) £48,329,937G/AG/R/30
Page 49
Attachment no. 6
G/AG/N/AUS/38 - The Exceptional Circumstances Declaration Process
It is the responsibility of the State/Territory Governments to apply for EC assistance for
defined regions and/or industries from the Commonwealth Government. Applications for EC
assistance are assessed against three criteria, which are outlined in the EC criteria of March 1999.
Under the criteria, a case for EC assistance must demonstrate that:
1) The event was rare and severe .  A rare event is one that occurs on average once in every 20 to
25 years.  A rare event is severe  if its impact lasts for a prolonged period and is of a significant
scale. It must also affect a significantly high proportion of farm businesses in a region to warrant
government intervention.  This is measured by assessing the impact on the sector, proportion of
producers, size of area overall and overall value of production.
2) The effects of the event had a severe impact on farm production and resulted (or will result) in a
severe downturn in farm income over a prolonged period.  Eligibility for EC support arises when a
rare and severe event is linked to a rare and severe income downturn that cannot be managed by
farmers as part of normal risk management, and which occurs over a prolonged period (eg more
than 12 months).
3) The event was not predictable or part of a process of structural adjustment.  The philosophy
underpinning the provision of EC assistance to  otherwise viable farmers suggests EC support
should not be available to farmers whose problems have arisen from the fundamental need for
structural adjustment.  The rural sector has evolved considerably over time and it will continue toexperience change in the future.  Structural adjustment is about managing these changes, and the
evolution of Australian agricultural practices.  As such, the provision of EC assistance is not
intended to interfere with, or impede, ongoing a nd necessary structural adjustment.  EC support is
also not provided for foreseeable change.
Should an application area be found to m eet the criteria, the Commonwealth formally
announces that the area will be EC declared.
Potential recipients within declared areas must contact their State/Territory Rural Adjustment
Authority to obtain an Exceptional Circumstances Certificate.  An ECRP application form is then
completed and lodged with Centrelink (the Commonwealth agency responsible for delivering
services, programs and payments for government departments), who delivers the payment of behalf ofthe Commonwealth (Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Australia).  Centrelink
assesses the applications for ECRP income suppo rt and consequently makes ECRP payments to
eligible farmers.
__________