RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/R/35
26 August 2003
(03-4430)
Committee on Agriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE ME ETING HELD ON 30 JUNE 2003
Note by the Secretariat1
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its thirty-fifth regular meeting on 30  June 2003 under the
chairmanship of Dr. Magdi Farahat of Egypt.  The agenda of the meeting as contained in
WTO/AIR/2124 was adopted.
PART I:  T HE REVIEW PROCESS
A. M ATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6
(a) Canada:  Venezuela – Currency restrictions
2. Canada stated that in recent years it had exported approximately Can$200 million annually in
agricultural products, mainly wheat, potatoes and pulses, to Venezuela.  In early 2003, Venezuela hadimposed currency restrictions that made it difficult for importers to obtain the necessary foreign
exchange for payment.  Considering the severe impact on its exports to Venezuela, Canada requested
clarification as to whether Venezuela intended to notify the WTO about this barrier to trade and when
the currency restrictions would be lifted.
3. Venezuela responded that it had notified the exchange regulations in document WT/L/515 of
22 May 2003. Venezuela explained that the exchange controls were a temporary measure which the
Government of Venezuela was forced to adopt as a result of a revenue crisis, a decline in internationalreserves and the depreciation of the national currency.  This situation was due to a general strike
which had lasted two months and paralysed the country's principle source of income - the petroleum
industry.  Since last December the Government ha d been unable to collect US$1.8 billion in revenue
and the national petroleum industry had suffered losses of around US$3 billion.  The decline in
reserves represented an outflow of around US$150 million per day and the most optimistic forecastsindicated that this year's GDP would decrease by 13 per cent.  Considering that this was a temporary
measure, Venezuela envisaged that as the conditions improved the exchange agreement would be
modified accordingly until such time as it was finally dismantled.
(b) New Zealand:  United States – Skimmed milk powder as food aid
4. As a follow-up to the same Article 18.6 matter raised at the March meeting, New Zealand
sought clarification concerning the destination of 42,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder (SMP) and
any other skim milk powder distributed as food aid by the United States since that meeting (see
G/AG/R/34, paragr aphs 16-19).
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.G/AG/R/35
Page 2
5. The United States recalled that it had announced in October 2002 that 200,000 tonnes of SMP
was available for food aid, 77,780 tonnes of which had been awarded as of 11 June 2003.  Requests
for additional tonnage had been denied for a number of reasons, including, for example, proposals that
did not meet the Usual Marketing Requirements.  The United States provided a table showing the
destination, cooperating sponsor and volume of SM P provided as food aid as of 11 June 2003 (see
Attachment 1 on page 31).
6. Pending further review of the information pr ovided by the US, the EC expressed concern
about the awards to the National Dairy Authority.   The EC noted that the issue of food aid was
pursued in the negotiations in terms of food aid being provided in response to specific requests or
needs identified by certain international organizations.  Australia noted that its principal interest lay in
determining whether the food aid in question was a form of export subsidy and noted that there were
other ways of delivering food aid, e.g. through cash payments.  Australia was particularly concernedabout a possible conflict of interest that might exist with Land O'Lakes, a major US agribusiness
company, being involved in a US food aid programme on the one hand, and promoting its business
interests in recipient countries on the other hand.
(c) Thailand:  India – Domestic and export subsidies on rice
7. Thailand considered that in 2002, India had used export subsidies for rice to dispose of the
Government's excessive stocks which had accumulated due to its domestic support policy on rice.
Thailand continued that in 2001, the Government of India had provided domestic subsidies to farmers
through the Food Corporation of India in the amount of Re 167,240 million or US$3,800 million.  In
addition, the Government of India, via the Food Corporation, had sold parboiled rice to exporters at
Re 6,000/tonne and 25 per cent rice at Re 5,650/tonne, whereas these types of rice were domesticallysold by the same agency at Re 8,300/tonne.  Thailand sought clarification with respect to these
measures and inquired whether they would be notified to the WTO.
8. India responded that procurements of paddy by  the Food Corporation of India from farmers
were made at the Minimum Support Price announced by the Government of India every year for
distribution under various poverty alleviation and othe r welfare schemes, as well as for buffer stock
operations.  All domestic support provided in the respective year was duly notified.
9. India added that any surplus stocks available could be purchased by exporters or by domestic
traders and consumers at the Open Market Sale Price, which was higher than the price at which rice
was distributed domestically under the poverty alleviation and other welfare schemes.  The export
subsidies extended under Article 9.1(d) and (e) of the Agreement were also duly notified during the
respective year.
10. With respect to rice distributed under the poverty alleviation and other welfare schemes,
Thailand stated that since subsidized rice was also available to exporters, such subsidization
programme could not be exempt from reduction commitments under Article 9.1(d) and (e) of the
Agreement.  In response, India drew attention to the existence of two prices and rejected Thailand's
assertion that exporters had access to rice available under the poverty alleviation programmes.
(d) United States:  Dominican Republic – Tariff quota administration/import licensing
11. The United States expressed concern about what appeared to be arbitrary granting of import
licences and lack of transparency in the Dominican Republic tariff quota/import licence
administration.  In addition, there appeared to be domestic absorption requirements for importers to
obtain import permits for certain products.  In the view of the United States, restrictions on beef,
poultry and pork imports through restrictive licence issuance, including requiring purchases ofdomestic product in order to receive an import licence, were inconsistent with the DominicanG/AG/R/35
Page 3
Republic's WTO market access commitments.  Moreover, the Dominican Republic had not permitted
full access to its rice tariff quota.  The United States sought information as to when the Dominican
Republic would bring its tariff quota administration and import licence administration into
compliance with its WTO commitments.
12. The Dominican Republic responded that it had applied a tariff quota regime covering eight
sensitive products, consistent with its commitments under the agricultural reform programme.  It
acknowledged that it had faced serious difficulties last year in applying the quotas for certain
products, in particular poultry meat and rice.  In the case of poultry meat, purchases of domestic
product were not required for the granting of an import licence.  Prompted by international press
reports concerning Avian Influenza in various US production centres, the Dominican Republic's
health authorities had suspended imports on a temporary basis and requested the United States to
provide a technical report which they had not yet received.  The Dominican Republic stated thatimports of this product would continue to be allowed once the matter was clarified.
13. Regarding the other products, the Dominican Republic informed that its authorities were
finalizing new regulations aimed at transparent management of import licences and tariff quotas
through a stock exchange for agricultural commodities that was established recently by the President
under an Executive Decree.  The Dominican Republic considered that this would end theadministrative discretion in the licensing regime observed so far in regard to certain products subject
to tariff quotas.
14. The United States recognized the positive steps taken by the Dominican Republic.
(e) United States:  India – Tariffs above commitment levels
15. As a follow-up to the same Article 18.6 matter raised at the March meeting, the United States
stated that on 2 September 2002, India had introduced a base import valuation scheme on imports of
soya-bean oil (see G/AG/R/34, paragraphs 20-21).  Under this scheme, rather than using the actual
import value, India applied the bound rate of 45 per cent to the fixed reference price, resulting in a
tariff for imported crude soya-bean oil consistently above the binding.  The United States soughtinformation in regard to the steps India was taking  to ensure that the applied tariff rates would not
exceed bound commitments.
16. The US noted that the fixed reference price on edible oils was revised when the average
prevailing price was at least 10 per cent above or below the current reference price.  However,
amendments made on 3 December 2002 and on 14 May 2003 indicated that in practice this process
failed to keep up with changes in world market prices. The United States requested an explanation of
this system in writing.  In addition, with respect to  India's efforts to resolve suspected under-invoicing
in the edible oil market, the United States inquired whether the fixed reference price system on edible
oils was a long-term policy and whether India had examined alternative methods to address this
problem.
17. India undertook to provide a response.  In any event, it considered that there was no breach of
bindings, irrespective of the method used.
(f) United States:  India – Grain export subsidies
18. The United States recalled that it had raised concerns at previous Committee meetings with
respect to the procurement of large quantities of domestic wheat and rice by the Government of India
that were made available to exporters at prices that appeared to be below the prevailing world marketprice.  The United States sought confirmation whether India provided domestically procured wheat
and rice to exporters:  (i) at prices below the prevailing world market prices; and (ii) at prices that didG/AG/R/35
Page 4
not allow it to recover all of its procurement costs.  The United States noted that although India did
not have export subsidy reduction commitments for wheat or rice, it appeared that it had subsidized
exports of these products.  Referring to recent recommendations made by the Food Ministry of India
concerning its grain policy, the United States inquired whether India planned to make revisions to its
wheat and rice export programmes.
19. India undertook to provide a response and in the interim invited the United States to consider
its reply to Thailand on a related issue (paragraphs 7-10 above).
B. R EVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised  in advance of the issuance of the
convening airgram
20. 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
China (CHN/1), Israel (ISR/27), Slov ak Republic (SVK/39), Chinese Taipei
(TPKM/5) and Venezuela (VEN/23);
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from
Brazil (BRA/19), Czech Republic (CZE/47), European Communities (EEC/42),Hungary (HUN/30), Japan (JPN/82), Norway (NOR/38), Slovak Republic (SVK/38),
Chinese Taipei (TPKM/6) and Venezuela (VEN/24);
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from European
Communities (EEC/43) and Chinese Taipei (TPKM/7 and TPKM/9);
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  from Australia (AUS/49),
Bulgaria (BGR/7), Canada (CAN/49), Cz ech Republic (CZE/45), Latvia (LVA/7),
Norway (NOR/41) and Trinidad and Tobago (TTO/4);  and
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2):  from Australia (AUS/50), European Communities (EEC/39) and
Slovak Republic (SVK/36).
21. 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.
(b) Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised in advance
22. 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
Japan (JPN/81)
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from
European Communities (EEC/45), Guatemala (GTM/25) and Israel (ISR/31);G/AG/R/35
Page 5
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Bulgaria
(BGR/8), Czech Republic (CZE/48), Isra el (ISR/28), Poland (POL/56), Slovak
Republic (SVK/37), Chinese Taipei (TPKM/8) and Tunisia (TUN/26);
(iv) in the context of domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  from Guyana
(GUY/9), Israel (ISR/30), Jordan (JOR/1/Rev.1 and JOR/3), Oman (OMN/1) andTrinidad and Tobago (TTO/2/Rev.1);
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2):  from Cyprus (CYP/13);  and
(vi) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Argentina (ARG/22),
Brazil (BRA/9/Rev.1, BRA/12/Rev.1, BR A/15/Rev.1 and BRA/21), European
Communities (EEC/44), Guyana (GUY/10), I celand (ISL/22), Isr ael (ISR/29), Slovak
Republic (SVK/40), Trinidad and Tobago (TTO/3 and Corr.1), Tunisia (TUN/27) andUnited States (USA/47).
(c) Notifications circulated or made available after the notice convening the meeting was issued
23. The following notifications were subject to prelim inary review and are to be reverted to at the
next meeting for substantive review in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Committee's WorkingProcedures (G/AG/1):
(i) on imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  United States
(USA/48);
(ii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Uruguay
(URY/25);  and
(iii) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Georgia (GEO/3),
Myanmar (MYN/3) and Uruguay (URY/24).
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings
24. There was no discussion under this agenda item.
(e) Counter notifications under Article 18.7 of the Agreement
25. The Committee took note that no counter-notifications had been received under Article 18.7
of the Agreement.
(f) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process
26. There were no deferred replies to questions previously raised.
(g) Overdue notifications
27. The Committee took note of the room document, dated 27 June 2003, made available by the
Secretariat showing the current status of compliance with the notification obligations.G/AG/R/35
Page 6
(h) Addenda to Table MA:1 notifications
28. The Chairman recalled that the WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha 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).
29. The Committee took note that the following Members administering tariff quotas had
submitted the requisite Table MA:1 Addenda:  Australia (AUS/1/Add.1);  Canada (CAN/2/Add.2,
6/Add.1, 10/Add.1, 19/Add.1 and 45);  Czech Republic (CZE/Rev.1/Add.1);  European Communities
(EEC/1/Add.2, 3/Add.1, 14/Add.1 and 15/Add.1);  Hungary (HUN/1/Add.1, 5/Add.1, 8/Add.1,
13/Add.1 and 18/Add.1);  Japa n (JPN/1/Add.1, 8/Add.1, 23/Add. 2 and 57/Add.1);  Latvia
(LVA/1/Add.1);  New Zealand (NZL/1/Add.1); No rway (NOR/1/Add.1); Sl ovenia (SVN/1/Add.1);
Switzerland (CHE/13/Add.4);  Thailand (THA/38/A dd.1); and the United States (USA/2/Add.3 and
34/Add.1).
30. The Chairman urged those Members administering tariff quotas which had not yet done so to
provide Addenda to their Table MA:1 notifications in accordance with the General Council Decisionin WT/L/384.
P
ART II:  O THER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE
A. I MPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 10.2 OF THE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE , ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONALLY AGREED DISCIPLINES TO GOVERN THE PROVISION OF
EXPORT CREDITS , EXPORT GUARANTEES OR INSURANCE PROGRAMMES
31. There was no discussion under this agenda item.
B. F OLLOW -UP REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE ON IMPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE DECISION BY THE DOHA MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON IMPLEMENTATION -
RELATED ISSUES AND CONCERNS
32. The Chairman recalled that a draft report on the follow-up to the agriculture-related issues
referred to in the Decision by the Doha Ministerial Conference on Implementation-Related Issues and
Concerns (WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 2) had been considered by delegations during informal
consultations held by the Chairman on 16 June and 25 June.  A revised draft had been circulated to
Members on 27 June to facilitate consideration of the report by the Committee.
33. The draft report was adopted, following amendment of paragraph 19 thereof
(recommendations), for submission to  the General Council (G/AG/16).
C. P ROPOSAL BY THE AFRICAN GROUP IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REVIEW BY THE COMMITTEE ON
TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALL SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT PROVISIONS .
34. The Chairman recalled that this matter had been referred to the Committee by the Chairman
of the General Council on the understanding that the Committee would report to the last meeting of
the General Council before the Cancún Ministerial Conference on the status of this proposal and the
progress made in this regard (TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2, paragraph 52).
35. The Committee took note that the Chairman woul d make on his own responsibility a brief and
factual report of the Committee's discussion on this matter which would be submitted to the General
Council (G/AG/17 and Corr.1).G/AG/R/35
Page 7
D. M ATTERS RAISED UNDER "OTHER BUSINESS "
36. The Chairman informed the Committee that he had been asked to provide an update,
concerning developments in 2003, to the Committee's annual report for 2002.  The Committee took
note that he, as Chairman, would write to the Chai rman of the Council for Trade in Goods and draw
attention to some of the issues considered by the Committee.
37. The Chairman announced that the annual Transitional Review under paragraph 18 of China's
Protocol of Accession would take place at the regular meeting of the Committee scheduled for
25 September.  Accordingly, Members were invited to submit questions or comments to China and to
the Secretariat by 1 August and China was invited to respond in advance of that meeting to facilitate
the review.
38. China underlined that the review needed to be carried out in strict accordance with
paragraph 18 of China's Protocol of Accession and that any request that would place additional
obligations or burdens on China beyond what was required in paragraph 18 would be unacceptable.
China questioned the necessity and legality of the Chairman's request to Members to submit questions
and to China to furnish written responses.
39. Taking note of China's comments, the Chairman underlined the organizational character of his
statement which had been intended solely to facilitate the review.
(c) Date of Next Meeting
40. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be held on 25 September
2003.  The airgram convening the meeting and containing the draft agenda will be issued on
Monday, 15 September 2003.G/AG/R/35
Page 8
ANNEX
Page
Part I Review of notifications by the Comm ittee on Agriculture on 30 June 2003
(i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1): China
(CHN/1), Israel (ISR/27), Slovak Republic (SVK/39), Chinese Taipei
(TPKM/5) and Venezuela (VEN/23);9
(ii) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): Brazil
(BRA/19), Czech Republic (CZE/47), European Communities (EEC/42),
Hungary (HUN/30), Japan (JPN/82), Norway (NOR/38), Slovak Republic
(SVK/38), Chinese Taipei (TPKM/6) and Venezuela (VEN/24);12
(iii) use of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3–MA:5):  European Communities
(EEC/43) and Chinese Taipei (TPKM/7 and TPKM/9);19
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): Australia (AUS/49), Bulgaria
(BGR/7), Canada (CAN/49), Czech Republic (CZE/45), Latvia (LVA/7),
Norway (NOR/41) and Trinidad and Tobago (TTO/4);  and21
(v) new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2): Australia (AUS/50), European Communities (EEC/39) and
Slovak Republic (SVK/36).27
Part II Questions raised between meetings under Article 18.6 of the Agreement in
accordance with paragraph 12 of the Committee's Working Procedures
(G/AG/1)
Questions under Article 18.6 of the Agreement from Australia to the EC
concerning its sugar policy30
Attachments
1 Data provided by the United States under Article 18.6 of the Agreement
concerning the matter of "New Zealand:  United States – Skimmed milkpowder as food aid"31
2 Data provided by Venezuela to questions from Argentina concerning
notification G/AG/N/VEN/2433G/AG/R/35
Page 9
ANNEX – PART I
Review of notifications by the Committee on Agriculture on 30 June 2003
Summary of specific points raised and responses thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
China     G/AG/N/CHN/1 Tariff Quota Administration   (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
EC – Recalled that at the November 2002 CoA
meeting, the EC had asked China to provide therelevant legislation concerning the administrationmethods notified for each TQ.  As a follow-up to thereply that China had no legislation per individual TQ,
and in the spirit of WT/L/384, the EC requested
whether any other legislation could be notified toenhance the transparency and better understanding ofChina's quota management.
Follow-up comment by the EC:  Considered that
China was also required to notify this type ofinformation to the CoA and hoped to see it submittedin due course.China has already notified the legislation regarding
agricultural TQs in documentsG/LIC/N/1/CHN/1/Add.1 and G/MA/W/41 in
September 2002.
Israel     G/AG/N/ISR/27  Tariff Quota Administration   (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada – Reason for changing the sweet corn TQ
allocation from a pro rata system to a lottery system
and information requested on how the lottery system
is conducted.Undertook to provide a response.
Slovak Republic     G/AG/N/SVK/39  Tariff Quota Administration   (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Request for clarification of the
reference to allocations being made "based on thestandpoint of the Ministry of Agriculture" given thatthe allocation mechanism is also described as "first-
come, first-served".Confirmed that the allocation method was first-come,
first-served, the whole process is operated by theMinistry of Economy.  The Ministry of Agricultureonly becomes involved in the case of non-automaticlicence allocations.  The action of the Ministry ofAgriculture is not relevant in the case of preferential
trade.G/AG/R/35
Page 10
Chinese Taipei     G/AG/N/TPKM/5  Tari ff Quota Administration   (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
US – Confirmation sought that there is no intention
of providing access to the rice TQ to non-Member
countries.Chinese Taipei's understanding of WTO rules and
provisions is that there is no limitation of TQ accessto Members only.  Chinese Taipei pointed out that
some Members also opened their TQs to imports
from non-Members.  Hence, Chinese Taipeiconsidered that its rice quota could be filled byimports from Members as well as non-Members.
Follow-up comment by the EC:   This is a systemicissue and the EC questions whether the answer
implied in the US question is correct.
Venezuela     G/AG/N/VEN/23  Tariff Quota Administration   (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
EC – With respect to the TQ for dairy products,
information sought as to the eligibility criteria forcompeting firms (traditional importers and new
importers) according to which allocations are made
and how these criteria are operated.Firstly, for a firm to be eligible to participate in the
distribution of 90 per cent of the quota (traditionalimporters' share), it must meet all the requirements
mentioned in the notification and then this 90 per
cent is distributed based on imports effectedconsecutively during the last 2 years.  The remaining10 per cent is distributed proportionally among newimporters taking into account the volume requestedand whether the amounts are of economic interest.
Reason why a long list of documents needs to beprovided by interested import licence applicants.With respect to the documents, Venezuela provides
the following information:- import licence application form: the importer is
requested to specify the goods and the volume to be
imported;- copy of the importer's Trade Register entry:  toensure that the licence is granted to the firm that isthe final recipient of the goods, to prevent the quotabeing granted to intermediaries and not being filled;
- copy of the Tax Information Registry (RIF)
certificate and the tax information number (NIT).Both are means of exercising fiscal control overnatural or legal persons who may be subject to, orresponsible for, income tax, together with tax
receiving agents.  These requirements are necessary
to ensure that the firm is legally constituted andfulfilling its tax obligations;- written authorization from the legal representativeof the firm stating the name of the person empoweredto collect the licence:  requested in order to ensure
that the firm obtains a licence and to ensure that it
receives the product;G/AG/R/35
Page 11
Venezuela     G/AG/N/VEN/23  Tariff Quota Administration   (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
EC (cont'd) - monthly list of imports effected over the last 2 years
indicating their volume and value:  necessary to showeligibility to be considered for a share of the quota
reserved for traditional importers and to be granted a
licence in conformity with historical import volumes;- sworn income tax declaration (last 2 years):required in order to contribute to the NationalExecutive's tax collection objective;- revenue stamp equivalent to fifteen (15) tax units:
fundamental requirement.
Where import licence application forms can be
obtained and whether there is an information-point
for interested potential importers.The General Agricultural Marketing Directorate of
the Ministry of Agriculture and Land is the
information-point used by importers to obtain the
form and submit applications, as well as to seekinformation concerning the status of their application.
Whether foreign and domestic applicants in thecourse of the procedures are treated in a non-discriminatory manner and whether there are anyregulatory safeguards to guarantee this.
Follow-up comment by the EC:  The EC considers
the long list of documents required from importlicence applicants to be very onerous and invitesVenezuela to reconsider whether all of them are
necessary.All importers must meet the above-mentioned
requirements and in the pr ocedures are treated in a
non-discriminatory way.G/AG/R/35
Page 12
Table MA:2 Notifications
Brazil    G/AG/N/BRA/19     Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
EC – Information sought regarding progress of the
negotiations on the elimination of the tariff quota forwheat.In 1996, the Brazilian government announced its
intention to eliminate the TQ for wheat.  This quotawas established at a volume of 750,000 tonnes andwith an in-quota tariff rate of zero. Negotiations wereconducted under Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994with the US (Initial Negotiating Rights) and Canada
(main supplier).
During these negotiations, concerns over possible
losses arising from the elimination of the quota weredispelled in view of the total liberalization of wheattrade in Brazil during the 1990s. This process led tothe elimination of all governmental intervention overproduction and trade of wheat. In this new internal
scenario, Brazil has become one of the largest
importers of wheat, with total imports averaging6 million tonnes/year, rendering the quotameaningless.
Brazilian total imports of wheat amounted to
6,890,988 tonnes in 1999; 7,522,694  tonnes in 2000;
and 7,014,798 tonnes in 2001.
Period Applied rate (%)
1996 10
01/1997 to 10/1997 10
11/1997 to 12/1997 13
1998 13
1999 13
2000 13
2001 12.5
2002 11.5
2003 10Information sought regarding the applied rates for
wheat since 1996.
Follow-up question by the EC:  What is the document
reference where the results of the negotiations have
been reflected.
Czech Republic     G/AG/N/CZE/47     Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Explanation sought for underfill of 13
of 24 TQs, including bovine meat (3.9%), sheepmeat(22.2%), and milk and cream (2.3%).  Reason for notmoving to a tariff-only regime at or below the in-
quota tariff rate for these products.No measures are applied which might constitute trade
barriers against in-quota imports.  Underfill is relatedto market conditions (low import demand, sufficientdomestic supply, lower domestic prices and changes
in consumer habits).G/AG/R/35
Page 13
European Communities     G/AG/N/EEC/42      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
US – Explanation sought regarding the requirements
for importing meat of swine through the TQ.Referred to Commission Regulation 1486/1995,
amended by CR 1006/2001 (see EEC/1/Add.2 for anunconsolidated version) which stipulates theadministration methods for TQs in the pigmeat
sector.
Reason for underfill of this TQ. In general terms the regulation ensures that the quota
is opened and filled under the best conditions.  There
are requirements for the importing capabilities of
traders and the establishment of economically viablequantities.  Import requirements other than thoselinked to health precautions do not affect fill rates.Therefore, sufficient quality supply at attractiveprices on the internal market explains the low fill rate
for the range of products concerned.
Hungary      G/AG/N/HUN/30      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Explanation sought for underfill of
many TQs, including bovine meat (31.4%), milk and
cream (1.4%), and honey (0%).Low fill rates in many of the products subject to TQs
are a reflection of the competitiveness of Hungarian
producers in a broad range of temperate zone
agricultural products as well as the fact that muchimporting takes place in the framework of free trade
agreements.
Hungarian acacia honey is well known
internationally for its exceptional quality. Consumers
in many places in the world already enjoy it,
sometimes unknowingly, since it is often mixed with
honey produced in the export market to improve thequality of the latter. Hungarian customers areattached to the quality domestically-produced honey
offers.
Bovine meat: following near-100% fill rates in the
first years of implementation, the BSE crisis
prompted the food industry to switch to theprocessing of pork and poultry meat as a reaction toconsumer concerns in Hungary and to safeguardexport markets. This explains the low fill rates since
1999. It is worth noting that the fill rate in 2002 is
showing a significant improvement as compared tothe previous years.
Milk and cream: this quota was established as a
minimum access commitment, that is on the basis ofthe domestic consumption in the 1986-1988 base
period.  Since then, domestic consumption of this
product has decreased by at least 30% and has not yetrecovered.  In addition the food industry has switchedto whey powder as a lower-priced input.G/AG/R/35
Page 14
Hungary      G/AG/N/HUN/30      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
EC (cont'd)
Reason for not moving to a tariff-only regime at or
below the in-quota tariff rate for these products.In the trade policy context nothing is given for free
unless necessitated by domestic reasons.
Japan     G/AG/N/JPN/82      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia – Noted 100% fill rates for many quotas
and requested explanation for low fill rates (less thanor equal to 10%), including butter and butter oil, as
well as mineral concentrated whey.The fill rates for these products in fact varied from
10.5% to around 40%.  The situation on the demandside is the major reason for low fill rates of the
products in question.
Butter and butter oil:  low fill rates are explained by
the decline in domestic demand for reconstituted
milk, as a consequence of increased demand for'drinking milk'. Consumers have shown a preferencefor 'drinking milk' products rather than products
made from reconstituted milk.
Mineral concentrated whey:  low fill rates largely
explained by unstable quality of imported products
(i.e. tendency to precipitate), making it difficult to beused as an ingredient in beverages for which there ismarket demand.
Has Japan considered whether it is necessary to retain
a tariff quota on these items.Having agreed and established these TQs in the
Uruguay Round to provide current accessopportunities as a tariffication package, Japan
believes that it is appropriate to continue to provide
access opportunities under the agreed TQ scheme.
Follow-up comment by Australia:  Requestedclarification with respect to the claim that drinking
milk was a direct substitute for butter or butter oil.
Follow-up comment by New Zealand:  Noted an
interest in examining the linkage between the lowquota fill and TQ administration for a variety of dairyproducts and flagged that New Zealand would
continue to discuss this issue bilaterally.In Japan, butter and butter oil are melted and used for
the purpose of reconstituted milk; therefore, there is alink between the demand for butter/butter oil and
reconstituted milk.G/AG/R/35
Page 15
Norway     G/AG/N/NOR/38      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina – Explanation sought for the reasons of
significant under-utilization of TQs.The import figures reflect commercial interest in the
products. Market conditions in 2001 did not favourquota usage for these products.  Initially, a number ofprivate importers showed interest in buying quotas,but due to changes in domestic market conditions,
including the demand situation, the importers did not
find it commercially interesting to utilize their quotashares.
Where applicable, justification sought regarding theneed to retain such TQs.The quotas are in line with the Agreement on
Agriculture and the Norwegian Schedule and willtherefore be maintained.
US – Noted Norway's intention to lower the in-quotaduty rates for its TQs.  However, there has been apattern over a number of years of full allocation butlow imports.  Inquired whether some TQs arepurchased at auctions and intentionally not used.What steps does Norway take to ensure that allocated
TQs are used.With a few exceptions, TQs have been fully allocated
via auctioning.  Import variations are accounted for inthe above answer on market conditions.
A single quota buyer cannot buy more than 50% of
the total TQ (with the exception of the game quotafor which the limit is 20%).  Any quota holder unable
to import is allowed to sell his quota share to other
importers but this has not been, and is still not,mandatory although introducing redistribution ofunused quota shares is being considered from 2004
onwards.
In 2001, all TQs except those for white and red
cabbage were allocated to 5 or more quota buyerstherefore the pattern observed by the US is unlikelyto be the explanation for quota underfill.
Slovak Republic     G/AG/N/SVK/38      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Explanation sought for underfill of
the TQ for meat of sheep.This is an export-oriented commodity.  Decreased
domestic demand has lowered import interest.
Explanation sought for underfill of the TQs for milk
and cream, yoghurt and butter.These are traditionally significant export products.
Large volumes are imported from the Czech Republic
– partner within the Customs Union – but these
imports are not included in the figures related toquota-fill.
Reason for not moving to a tariff-only regime at or
below the in-quota tariff rate for these products.Response to be provided.G/AG/R/35
Page 16
Chinese Taipei     G/AG/N/TPKM/6      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Australia/New Zealand - Explanation sought for zero
or low fill rates of certain products, i.e. bananas,mangoes and shaddocks and deer velvet (for whichdomestic consumption levels are much higher than
domestic production).For SPS reasons, such as Moko disease and fruit
flies, certain TQ products, especially fruits, could notbe imported into Taiwan.  Moreover, the decreases inthe consumption of imported TQ products due to agood domestic harvest also resulted in low fill rates.
Regarding deer velvet, this is an ingredient of a
specialty alcoholic beverage.  In 2002, ChineseTaipei increased the domestic tax for alcohol,therefore the consumption of alcohol decreased, thus
affecting the demand for deer velvet.
Australia - Whether Chinese Taipei considers itnecessary to retain a TQ on these items.Chinese Taipei considers that the TQ system should
be retained for the purpose of developing these
important industries.
New Zealand - Information sought on the reallocationmechanism.According to the Chinese Taipei's Working Party
Report of Accession, with respect to products for
which allocations are distributed once a year, if theholder of a quota allocation certificate has notcontracted for import of the holder's total allocationby 1 September, the unused portion of the allocationwill be reallocated. The date of re-issue is no later
than 15 September. The re-issued allocation
certificates are valid for products arriving on orbefore 31 December. With respect to products forwhich allocations are distributed in one to foursegments a year, the Ministry of Finance re-allocates
the allocation of those failing to pay the premium.
Such a re-allocation process commences immediatelyafter a notification period of 21 days.
Some TQs involve several tariff lines ("basketquotas", eg., chicken, pork offals, and liquid milk).Confirmation sought that in practice, volumes are notspecified for individual tariff lines within such basketquotas, so that importers are free to import the entire
quantity of a single tariff line if they choose.Response to be provided.
Inquired whether consideration was given to
adjusting the timing of seasonal TQ import periods totake account of specific TQ product markets.Whether feedback from importers and exporters
would be taken into account for next year's
allocation.According to Chinese Taipei's accession
commitments, oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruit, etc.are subject to seasonal tariffs.  Oranges importedfrom 1 March to 30 September are subject to a 20%
tariff rate; at any other time the tariff rate is 30%.
Lemons, limes and grapefruit imported from1 January to 30 September are subject to a 15% tariffrate; at any other time the tariff rate is 30%.
In addition, the allocations are distributed in one to
four segments a year.  Chinese Taipei has established
a certain time period to import in consideration of the
domestic harvest period. The unused portion of theallocation is re-allocated according to th e reallocation
mechanism.G/AG/R/35
Page 17
Chinese Taipei     G/AG/N/TPKM/6      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand (cont'd)
Noted that the SSG was initiated for many products
in 2002 (TPKM/1 and TPKM/4 refer), including onpersimmons with a zero trigger volume.  The TableMA:2 notification for 2002 shows that these TQs
were underfilled.  Under Article 5.2 of the
Agreement, additional duties through the SSGmechanism may not be applied to trade entering atthe in-quota rate. Confirmation sought that this wasthe case. Information sought regarding any additionalcharges applied under the SSG for either of these
TQs.The initiation of the SSG was in accordance with
Article 5 of the Agreement.
Follow-up questions by New Zealand:  Clarification
sought as to how these rules had worked in practice
considering that the system had been in place for ayear.  With respect to the SSG, sought assurances thatno additional duties were applied to trade entering at
the in-quota rate.
Follow-up comment by the Philippines:  Noted thatthe Philippines was currently pursuing this issue
bilaterally with Chinese Taipei.
Venezuela     G/AG/N/VEN/24      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina – Explanation sought for the underfill of
TQs for meat and meat offal, meat of poultry not cut
in pieces, milk and cream (not concentrated), soyabeans, sunflower-seed oil, animal or vegetable fatsand oils, pasta and soya-bean cake and justification of
the need to maintain them.Meat of poultry not cut in pieces:  The quota under
this heading is not being administered.  The domestic
industry is able to satisfy the demand.
Meat and meat offal:  There is little demand for
imports of these products because of Venezuelan
consumer habits.  As indicated in the notification,
there is no TQ in place for this product.
Milk and cream not concentrated:  The quota for this
product has been administered since January 2000.
When the import volumes are compared with those
for 1999 it is clear that all licence applications wereapproved.  The weak demand for imports of thisproduct may be associated with its particular nature(liquid state), which makes it difficult andunattractive to trade internationally since
approximately 80 per cent of its volume is water.
The preferred way of importing this product is inpowdered form as reflected in the import datareproduced in the notification.G/AG/R/35
Page 18
Venezuela     G/AG/N/VEN/24      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina (cont'd) Soya beans, sunflower-seed oil:  The explanation for
the under-utilization of the tariff quotas for these
products lies in the respective levels of domesticconsumption, according to the Food Balance Sheet ofthe National Nutrition Institute of Venezuela.  In all
cases consumption is lower than the amount of the
corresponding quota (see Table 1 in Attachment 2 tothis report).
Animal or vegetable fats and oils:  In 2000, imports
of yellow fat began to be classified in tariff heading
1518, as prescribed by the General Secretariat of the
Andean Community.  This explains the low volume
for imports in 1999.  In that year, imports of thisproduct entered under the heading 1522.00 (Residuesresulting from the treatment of fatty substances oranimal or vegetable waxes) and totalled21,112.29 tonnes.  This product is primarily used for
preparing animal feed and the demand depends on
the formulation used by each enterprise. This inputhas been replaced by others, e.g. soya-bean oil.
Pasta:  This quota is not administered and the main
reason for its under-utilization is the lack of import
demand for the finished product, principally due to
the existence of the very competitive domestic
milling industry which imports the grain andprocesses it domestically.  This industry supplies98.5 per cent of domestic pasta consumption.Table 2 in Attachment 2 to this report shows the
volume of wheat imported in 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Confirmation sought whether the imports of meat ofswine, soya-bean oil, margarine, cane sugar, hulled
grains, maize, and sorghum were made within theirrespective quotas.Relevant statistical information is provided in Table 3
of Attachment 2 to this report.  The in-quota imports
were as indicated in the notification by an asterisk(*), namely, during 1999 yellow maize and sorghumtogether with, in 2000 and 2001, soya-bean oil and
cane sugar.
Details sought for date of the notification of the quota
expansion, and benefiting countries.In none of these cases was the quota expanded but
the countries which benefited from this treatment areindicated in Table 4 of Attachment 2 to this report.
Follow-up comment by Argentina: Argentineexporters had experienced market access problems
which Argentina intended to pursue bilaterally.G/AG/R/35
Page 19
Tables MA:3 to MA:5 Notifications
European Communities    G/AG/N/EEC/43
Annual Summary of Special Safeguard Actions (Table MA:5)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia – Inquired whether price-based SSGs were
actually invoked for the specified products.  Wherevolume-based SSGs were invoked, informationsought on the volumes of imports and the
corresponding duty levied.During 2000/2001, the price-based SSG was actually
invoked for all products listed on page 2 ofnotification EEC/43.
On the contrary, although the EC put in place the
necessary mechanism to apply the volume-basedSSG, the EC did not have recourse to it for any of the
products listed on pages 3 and 4 of notification
EEC/43.
New Zealand – Expressed disappointment that withrespect to the price-based SSG, column 4 ofnotification EEC/43 was left blank rather thancontaining an indication whether special safeguardaction was taken during the period when the
mechanism was operational.
Requested that the notification be revised to ensure
transparency, with an indication whether price-basedaction was taken in each category of products duringthe periods mentioned, including information, whereaction was taken, on the volumes of affected imports
in each category and the additional duty applied.The EC undertook to study the suggestions and
provide a response.
Chinese Taipei     G/AG/N/TPKM/7     Volume-Based Special Safeguard (Table MA: 3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Noted that the volume of chicken legs
and wings imported under the TQ for chicken had
exceeded the calculated trigger level.  Noted that asper Art. 5.2 of the Agreement, additional duties maynot be applied to minimum and current accessopportunities. Noted that the Table MA:2 notification(TPKM/6) for the year 2002 shows that the TQ for
chicken has not been filled.  Requested confirmation
that no additional duties were applied to theseproducts in 2002 under the SSG mechanism.Inquired what mechanism was in place to ensure thatno additional duties would be applied to this product
in 2003 until the TQ had been filled.The calculation of the SSG trigger volume for
chicken legs and wings (12,492 tonnes) is based on
the provisions of Art. 5 of the Agreement. The entireSSG mechanism complies with Art. 5 of theAgreement.
Follow-up comment by New Zealand:  Soughtclarification as to how Chinese Taipei ensurescompliance with Article 5 of the Agreement.Undertook to provide a response.G/AG/R/35
Page 20
Chinese Taipei     G/AG/N/TPKM/9     Volume-Based Special Safeguard (Table MA: 3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Noted that the volume of oriental
pears, peanuts and rice imported under tariff quotasfor the respective products had exceeded thecalculated trigger level.  Noted that as per Art. 5.2 ofthe Agreement, additional duties may not be applied
to minimum and current access opportunities.
Confirmation sought that no additional duties wouldbe applied to these products until the respective TQhad been filled. Confirmation sought that the importquantity used to calculate the trigger level was thetotal import volume for each of the 3 preceding years.
Noted that Article 5 was established to help facilitate
the reform process against the background of anypossible negative impacts should the level of importsrise suddenly.  How can Chinese Taipei justifyinvoking the provisions of Article 5 for a product
with a trigger volume of just one tonne.The calculation of the trigger level for oriental pears,
peanuts, and rice is based on the provisions of Art. 5of the Agreement. The trigger volume for orientalpears is 448 tonnes, for peanuts 1 tonne, and
7,412 tonnes for rice.
Follow-up comment by New Zealand:  Soughtclarification as to how Chinese Taipei ensures
compliance with Article 5 of the AoA.G/AG/R/35
Page 21
Table DS:1 Notifications
Australia   G/AG/N/AUS/49      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Amber Box
Japan –  Support for milk
Noted the large increase in product-specific AMS for
milk.  Sought comments regarding the futureprospect for these measures. Inquired about possiblefurther increases in payments and whether Australiahad the intention of making them permanent or long-
lasting.Attention was drawn to the replies to Japan's previous
questions given during June 2002 meeting(G/AG/R/31, page 28 refers) indicating that DairyIndustry Adjustment Package (DIAP) paymentswould be made over 8 years and continue at aroundthe level set out in ST/DS:7, and foreshadowing a
one-off supplementary dairy assistance payment in
2001-02.  There are no plans for further additionalassistance under the DIAP.  Further financialinformation about the supplementary payment can be
found at footnote 18 of AUS/49.
Bulgaria     G/AG/N/BGR/7      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
New Zealand - General Services
Inquired whether the programme "Assistance in
maintaining breeding herds and flocks" is new andhow it complies with the fundamental requirement ofAnnex 2 of the Agreement that measures have no, orat most minimal, trade-distorting effects or effects onproduction.
Inquired  when a Table DS:2 notification would be
submitted.The programme is not new and consists of various
programmes operated by the Academy onAgriculture and the Animal Breeding Institute. The
programmes do not involve direct payments to
producers but are related explicitly to researchactivities.
Australia - Environmental Programmes
An explanation sought as to how payments toproducers for the use of "hail prevention missiles"relate to a clearly-defined  government environmental
or conservation programme, a specified requirement
under Annex 2, para. 12.The budgetary expenses related to hail prevention
missiles do not involve direct support to producers as
they are incurred by the Executive Agency for HailProtection at the Ministry of Agriculture andForestry.  They include payments for rocket testing ofnew technology missiles, that have negligiblenegative effects on the environment under a general
programme for environmental protection.
Follow-up comment by Australia:  Based on thereply, it seems that this programme would be more
appropriately notified under the general services andnot under para. 12 which are direct payments to
producers for environmental reasons.G/AG/R/35
Page 22
Bulgaria     G/AG/N/BGR/7      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia (cont'd)
Direct Payments – Other
Noted that the administrative costs associated with
support to tobacco producers have been notifiedunder Annex 2, para.5.  Clarification sought as to
whether these costs are met by producers or whether
they refer to government administrative costsincurred in operating the support programme.  If theformer is the case, explanation sought as to why theyhave not been included in calculation of the current
total AMS – ST/DS:4.Payments concerning the maintenance of a register of
tobacco producers and expenses related to payingcash premiums for produced quantities of tobacco arenot met by producers as they cover the government
administrative costs incurred in operating the support
programme. These expenses include transport costsfor delivering tobacco seeds to the different regions
of Bulgaria, storage costs for tobacco seeds beforedelivery, salaries for the Fund Tobacco officials
involved in the programme, etc.
Follow-up comment by Australia: Requested
clarification regarding the composition of
administrative costs and what appeared to be input
subsidies, e.g. the cost of storage of tobacco,  hencethe latter should be notified under the AMS.The storage costs for tobacco seeds are not incurred
by producers but by the Fund Tobacco as they are for
storage of seeds before delivery to producers.
Amber Box
New Zealand - Non-product-specific support
Noted that the storage subsidies for grains do not
appear to be non-product-specific and should be
moved into product-specific support.The storage subsidies for grains include storage
subsidies for any type of grains – wheat, barley,maize, sunflower, etc. and are available to anyproducer who has been registered as an agricultural
producer. It is very difficult to determine the support
on a product-specific basis and therefore thesubsidies are notified as non-product-specific.
Canada     G/AG/N/CAN/49      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina – Clarification sought regarding the
headnote on page 1.  Does this mean that the AmberBox programmes notified might be incorporated into
the Green Box at a later stage.Some programmes, such as "Grants and
Contributions under the Canadian Adaptation andRural Development (CARD)" provide payments for awide variety and number of projects for theagriculture and agri-food sector and rural
communities across Canada.  Some of the payments
would meet Annex 2 criteria (e.g. research, training),but where it was not administratively feasible toseparate the payments, the programme was reportedas non-product-specific AMS.  The statement wasincluded so that in any potential countervailing duty
investigation Canada would not be prejudiced in
defending certain payments under programmesclassified as AMS support as non-countervailable onthe grounds that they are Green.
Requested total farming production value for 1999. The total value of production in 1999 was
Can$28,629.5 million.  This information wasprovided in ST/DS:4 to substantiate the de minimis
claim for non-product-specific support.G/AG/R/35
Page 23
Czech Republic     G/AG/N/CZE/45      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Argentina – Renewal of vineyards, hop gardens and
orchards
Explanation sought as to which objectively
demonstrated structural disadvantages encouragedthe renewal of vineyards, hop gardens and orchardsand the consistency of the measure with the
provisions of para. 11(e) of Annex 2.This programme is part of the restructuring which the
agricultural sector in the Czech Republic has toundergo within the transformation process. The mainpurpose of this programme is to renew the over-mature vineyards, hop gardens and orchards, not toincrease the areas. Payments cover about 20% of total
costs. The Czech Republic considers as a structural
disadvantage the high age of perennial crops becausean over-mature crop does not produce the necessaryquality and quantity. The payments do not mandateor designate the agricultural products to be producedby the recipients.  Payment can be used, for instance,
for renewal of technical instruments indispensable for
growing of perennial crops. As such, the programmeis consistent with the provisions of para. 11 of
Annex 2, including para. 11(e).
Support for dairy cows
Explanation sought as to which objectivelydemonstrated structural disadvantages encouraged
support for dairy cow producers and the extent ofconsistency with the provisions of para. 11(e) ofAnnex 2.The scheme was terminated in 2001.
It was not aimed to support production, but to
enhance genetic resources. The granting of payments
was strictly restricted to the given criteria. Thesecriteria were tightened every year of applicationwhile the amount paid remained unchanged. In viewof the tightened criteria, the payments were receivedby a diminishing number of farmers, whose dairy
cows met the set criteria.
Regarding structural disadvantages, further
reductions of dairy cow numbers with an ensuingdecline in the number of born and reared calvesjustified this programme.  The Czech Republic has
undergone substantial restructuring of cattle farming
aimed at using specialized breeds. During therestructuring, cattle numbers decreased substantially.For cows, this drop amounted to 54%, from theoriginal 1,250,000 cows in 1989 down to 580,000cows in 2001. Similarly, total cattle numbers
decreased from 3.5 million to 1.5 million head. At the
same time there was a significant decline of milkproduction, from 4.9 billion litres in 1989 to2.7 billion litres in 2001.
The programme was implemented in accordance with
Annex 2, para. 11.G/AG/R/35
Page 24
Latvia     G/AG/N/LVA/7      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Australia - Infrastructural Services
Explanation sought for using the heading "culture-
technical" for para. 2(g) programmes rather thanadhering to the Annex 2 nomenclature of"infrastructure services".  Inquired whether theprogrammes listed under this heading provide
services to producers other than those relating to
infrastructure.In Supporting Table DS:1, programmes listed under
heading 2(g) called "cultural-technical" provideinfrastructure services listed in Annex 2, para. 2(g)related to construction, renovation and maintenanceof drainage systems.  The scheme provides watermanagement services for farming and rural areas in
general, therefore, Latvia believes this programme
qualifies under the "infrastructural services".  Therespective correction will be provided.
Australia – The programme "Usage of biologicalmethods in agriculture" was not notified by Latvia inits previous notification and requested a Table DS:2
notification.
New Zealand – Noted several new programmes
established since Latvia's accession (not mentioned inWT/ACC/SPEC/LVA/2), including, under headinga), "2f marketing and promotion services", and theprogrammes mentioned under headings b), d), and e).Inquired whether Latvia would be providing Table
DS:2 notifications in order for the Committee to
consider compliance with Green Box criteria.Programmes such as environmental programmes,
structural adjustment assistance or relief from naturaldisasters were introduced after 1994-96, the time-period which was used as the base period during
Latvia's accession to the WTO.  Latvia is considering
whether Table DS:2 notifications should be issued.
Amber Box
Australia - Non-product-specific AMS
Noted that 2001 hectare payments had almostdoubled since 2000.  Explanation sought for thislarge increase, and confirmation sought that thesepayments do not benefit any one producer group or
product.This programme is implemented in accordance with
regulation "Compensatory Payments for SowingAreas in 2001".  Producers of different types ofarable crops are eligible to  receive hectare payments.
There are also certain criteria for receiving this
support, e.g. minimum sowing areas and
requirements for certain farming practices.   Themain aim of this scheme is to secure a certain level offarmers' income. The decision on the increase inhectare payments was adopted by the Governmenttaking into account the overall growth in income
level in the national economy, as well as the stable
growth of the GDP witnessed during the recent yearsin Latvia, which contributed to the growth in the statebudget resources.
Follow-up comment by Australia: Soughtclarification whether the hectare payments under thenon-product-specific AMS were for arable producers
only.  If this was the case, then the payments should
be product-specific AMS.The issue of classification was debated internally and
since it was very difficult to point out whichparticular crops received these payments, they have
been notified as non-product-specific.  Latvia
confirmed that these payments were related to arablecrops only and was of the opinion that theclassification as non-product-specific support should
not be changed.G/AG/R/35
Page 25
Norway      G/AG/N/NOR/41      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
United States – Vacation and Replacement Schemes
Clarification sought that the only costs reimbursed
were the costs of hiring replacements.  Inquiredwhether all farmers qualify for such social welfare
and if not, what the criteria are.Two schemes are notified under "social welfare",
namely the vacation and replacement scheme and therefund for alleviation of financial difficulties due toillness. Both schemes are in line with national
regulations related to the work environment.
The main objective of the vacation and replacement
scheme is to enable farmers to hire workers for
replacement during vacation and time off. Farmerseligible under this programme are livestockproducers and round-the-year producers of vegetables
in greenhouses.
The objective of the second scheme is to alleviate
financial difficulties of producers due to illness and
pregnancy. Farmers entitled to this scheme arelivestock farmers, round-the-year producers ofvegetables in greenhouses, producers of all kinds ofplant production, and producers of honey. The two
latter categories of producers are only entitled to such
refunds during the growing season, from 15 April to1 October.
For both schemes eligible farmers receive payments
based on documented expenses for hiring
replacements during vacation or illness.
Trinidad and Tobago      G/AG/N/TTO/4      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Australia - General Services
Noted two new programmes "Integrated Pest
Management - Hibiscus Mealy Bug" and
"Agricultural access roads" previously  not notified,
and requested Table DS:2 notifications.These programmes have always been part of the
Government of Trinidad and Tobago's Agriculture
Development Programme and are therefore not new.
Prior to 1997 the Integrated Pest Management
Programme was subsumed under General CropResearch.  However, with the outbreak of theHibiscus Mealy Bug Infestation which had alreadycaused severe damage in other CARICOM MemberStates and which threatened a large number of crops
in Trinidad and Tobago, research work to control this
particular pest infestation was intensified and thusbecame a sub-programme.
Regarding  "Agricultural access roads", this had not
been notified during the period 1995 to 1997 becauseduring that time support was provided by an
externally-funded programme for rural roads and
bridges.  The accounting procedures employed forthe programme did not allow for the expenditure on
access roads to be separately identified.G/AG/R/35
Page 26
Trinidad and Tobago      G/AG/N/TTO/4      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia (cont'd) Trinidad and Tobago was willing to submit the
relevant Table DS:2 notifications should this beconsidered necessary.G/AG/R/35
Page 27
Table DS:2 Notifications
Australia     G/AG/N/AUS/50    New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
EC - Safe and Ethical Food and Fibre Systems
Regarding the Queensland State government animal
welfare services on page 2, requested examples of the
implementation of the "compliance systems relating
to animal care and protection".The Queensland government finances inspectors to
ensure compliance with its animal welfare laws.
Producers are not subsidized to comply with these
regulations but it is expected that they will take into
account animal care issues as part of theircommercial agricultural act ivities, with inspection
services ensuring that producers fulfil thisresponsibility.  As such, this programmedemonstrates how non-trade concerns, such as animal
welfare, may be taken into account by governments
in ways that are targeted, fully-transparent and non-trade-distorting.  This approach makes clear thatthere is no need to cr eate trade- and production-
distorting provisions in the AoA when non-tradeconcerns can already be accommodated within
existing Green Box provisions.
Japan – Safe and Ethical Food and Fibre Systems
Noted the inclusion of the development or
implementation of policies and compliance systemsfor animal care and protection and food safety, otherthan analysis of agri-chemical impacts.  Detailedexplanation sought on how these measures
specifically relate to inspection services stipulated in
Annex 2, para. 2(e).Under the animal welfare and animal ethics
component of the programme, the Queensland Stategovernment trains inspectors whose role is to ensurecompliance with state government animal welfare
legislation.
The chemical and contaminant component of the
programme monitors the distribution and use of
agricultural and veterinary chemicals.  As part of thismonitoring process, officers investigate significantdetections of residues in animal and plant products.
The food safety policy component of the programme
develops and implements policies to reduce chemical
residues in food, and monitors and inspects food
products for such residues.
These activities comply with Annex 2, para. 2(e) with
relation to inspection of food, plant and animalproducts for health, safety, grading or standardization
purposes.
Follow-up comment by the EC:  Noted that Australianotified its programme as an inspection services issue
and that this was not necessarily the issue that the ECwas addressing in terms of its proposal in theagriculture negotiations regarding animal welfare.With respect to the reply that producers are expectedto take into account animal welfare issues as part of
their commercial agricultural activities, the EC wants
to ensure that they do.  This may require othermeasures and on this basis the EC has made
proposals in the context of agriculture negotiations.G/AG/R/35
Page 28
European Communities     G/AG/N/EEC/39    New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Vineyard restructuring and
conversion programme
Recalled that through previous questions in the
March 2003, September 2002 and November 2002
Commitee meetings, it had been established that the
EC did have a "positive list" of acceptable vine-grapevarieties from which a producer must choose to beeligible for payment under this programme.Reiterated its view that the programme was outsideAnnex 2:11(e) which  states that the payments "shall
not mandate or in any way designate the agricultural
products to be produced by the recipients."Notwithstanding this explicit production requirement,the EC continued to believe that the programme was
rightly notified in the Green Box.
US legal experts have repeated that the use of a
"positive list" clearly qualifies the programme outside
the scope of the Green Box.
Reiterated its request for a precise explanation as to
how this programme meets Annex 2:11(e) criteria.As explained before, the vineyard restructuring
measure is designed to offer the producer the freechoice from a list of economically-viable grapevarieties to help producers turn away from surplus
production to production of varieties for which there
is market demand.
Recalled the title of para. 11 of Annex 2 and
reiterated that the restructuring measure achievesexactly what the title states. The restructuringmeasure, and its compliance with Annex 2:11(e),
cannot be seen as totally isolated from its context of
the new common organisation of the wine sector. Theregulation comprises not only the restructuring andconversion measures (Chapter III of R 1493/1999)but also presents the possibility of receivingpremiums to abandon wine production (Chapter II of
R 1493/1999).
Follow-up comment by the US: Noted the importance
of this issue for the Green Box in light of therequirement to grow grapes in order to benefit from
the programme.  Noted that the EC provided aid for
chick-peas, lentils and vetches and irrespective ofwhich one was grown, this support was notified inthe Amber Box.  Similarly, support for growingdifferent varieties of hemp was notified in the Amber
Box.
Follow-up comments by Australia, Canada and
Argentina: Underlined the systemic nature of thisissue and the need to maintain the non-trade-distorting character of the Green Box.Underlined that the measure was fully compatible
with the Green Box criteria and reiterated that it hadto be seen in the context of restructuring and
conversion of the sector, including the possibility of
receiving premiums to abandon wine production.
Slovak Republic     G/AG/N/SVK/36    New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Countervailing payments in crop
production
Explanation sought of the specific mechanism for
making payments, including the reason for different
payment levels and whether any production isrequired to receive a payment.Eleven different crop species are included in the
programme, all of which were supported in 2001, andsome of which are very specific such as asparagus,
herbs, soy beans, flax, chicory, etc.
However, the aim of the policy is to preserve crop
variety and relatively low amounts of support areprovided to a large number of crops.  Amounts ofsupport differ from crop to crop depending on the
level of demand.G/AG/R/35
Page 29
Slovak Republic     G/AG/N/SVK/36    New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States (cont'd)
Noted that payments are listed as "other" and not
under any specific Annex 2 paragraph. Inquiredunder which Green Box paragraph this programme
fits and requested explanation of how it meets the
relevant criteria.Despite its character of a direct payment, the purpose
of the programme is to countervail increasing inputcosts, such as fertilizers, seeds, power, etc. and it is
therefore listed as "other".G/AG/R/35
Page 30
ANNEX – PART II
Questions raised between meetings under Article 18.6 of the Agreement in accordance with
paragraph 12 of the Committee's working procedures (G/AG/1)
Questions from Australia to the EC concerning its sugar policy
1. Pursuant to paragraph 12 of G/AG/1 and furt her to the questions concerning sugar policy
posed to the EC at the March 2003 Committee meeting under Article 18.6 (see G/AG/R/34,
paragraphs 5-8), Australia forwarded, through the Ch airman, the following additional questions to the
EC:
a) to clarify question 12 by re-submitting the question as follows:
"Advice whether the notifications in Supporting Tables DS:4, 5, 6 and 7 include support
for sugar equivalent to the amount of imports from the ACP and India for the reportingperiods 1995/96 to 2001/02".
b) to provide responses to questions 1-10 on which the EC had not responded to the
specifics of those questions.  Australia had requested advice of actual (not average)
annual monetary outlays and quantities for each of the reporting periods in respect of each
notification identified in submitting the questions.
2. In its written response, the EC stated that with respect to item a), the EC had anticipated the
question to take this form and had provided an answer at the March Committee meeting.  The current
clarification did not change the answer which had been given.
3. Regarding item b) and concerning Australia
's questions 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 of the March
Committee meeting concerning this matter, the EC regretted not to be in a position to be more specific
than it had already been in its earlier replies.  The EC recalled that in conformity with its notification
obligations for export subsidies, the EC had over  the years provided the relevant information, and
referred Australia to the notifications in question.  Concerning question 6, the EC informed Australia
that the quantities of sugar imported from ACP countries and India (in tonnes) had been as follows:
1995/96 1,752,433
1996/97 1,641,584
1997/98 1,692,929
1998/99 1,677,722
1999/00 1,600,536
2000/01 1,699,9982001/02 1,646,450G/AG/R/35
Page 31
Attachment 1
Data provided by the United States under Article 18.6 of the Agreement
concerning the matter of
"New Zealand:  United States – Skimmed milk powder as food aid"
FY 2003 Section 416(b) Non-fat Dry Milk Donation Program
Country Cooperating Sponsor Tonnes
Afghanistan, Tadjikistan  &
KazakhstanAga Khan Foundation 6,800
Algeria World Food Programme 560
Angola Jesus Alive Ministries 200
Armenia United Methodist Committee on Relief 430
Azerbaijan Relief International 600
Azerbaijan Vishnevskaya-Rostropovich Foundation 1,000
Bangladesh World Food Programme 30
Central America Regional World Food Programme 360
Congo, Rep. World Food Programme 150
Dominican Republic Salesian Missions 1,000
El Salvador Catholic Relief Services 1,780
Eritrea World Food Programme 200
Guatemala Project Concern International 1,000
Honduras Project Concern International 500
Indonesia International Relief and Development 1,800
Indonesia Land O'Lakes 4,000
Indonesia Save the Children 1,700
Iraq World Food Programme 10,400
Korea, Dem. Rep. World Food Programme 9,170
Mozambique Jesus Alive Ministries 300
Mozambique TechnoServe 450
Nicaragua Salesian Missions 500
Nigeria HOPE Worldwide 1,700
Philippines National Dairy Authority 2,000
Philippines HOPE Worldwide 2,000
Sudan World Food Programme 30
Uzbekistan Government of Uzbekistan 5,000
Latin American Regional Food for the Poor 24,120
Specific destinations for Latin Am erican Regional:  Food for the Poor
Belize (320)
Dominica (80)
Dominican Republic (1,260)
El Salvador (1,000)
Grenada (360)G/AG/R/35
Page 32
Country Cooperating Sponsor Tonnes
Guatemala (5,800)
Guyana (2,400)
Haiti (4,500)
Honduras (1,200)
Jamaica (4,600)
Nicaragua (2,000)
St. Lucia (240)
St. Vincent (120)
Trinidad (240)
Grand Total 77,780G/AG/R/35
Page 33
Attachment 2
Data provided by Venezuela to questions from Argentina concerning notification
G/AG/N/VEN/24
Table 1 – Data concerning imports and domestic consumption for selected products
Description of product Tariff
headingFinal
amountImports for period (MT) Average domestic
consumption for
period
Section (I-B) Section
(I-B)(MT) 1999 2000 2001 (1998, 1999, 2000)
Meat of poultry not in
pieces0207 3,426 222.80 776.32 26.16 586,965.67
Meat and meat offal 0210 9,154 98.32 105.07 177.40  -
Milk and cream, not
concentrated*0401 11,005 2,177.04 2,770.09 2,749.46 221,754.67
Soya beans* 1201 168,963 33,185.34 194,128.70 128,100.95 131,884.33
Sunflower-seed or
sunflower oil*1512 151,612 25,669.67 27,966.19 18,491.00 32,971.00
Animal or vegetable fats
and oils*1518 50,595 649.13 64,682.66 33,526.50 -
Pasta 1902 7,585 2,244.13 3,022.71 4,104.48 265,760.00
Soya-bean cake* 2304 696,880 563,800.30 556,347.06 634,967.12 611,525.33
Table 2 – Imports of wheat in the period 1999-2001
Tariff Heading Description 1999 (MT) 2000 (MT) 2001 (MT)
1001.10.90 Other (than durum) 471,669.80 517,792.43 493,950.56
1001.90.20 Other 759,402.15 718,432.68 808,351.87
1,231,071.95 1,236,225.11 1,302,302.00
Table 3 – Data concerning imports and domestic consumption for selected products
Description of
productsTariff
headingFinal
amountImports for period
(MT)Average
domestic
consumption for
period
Section (I-B) Section (I-B) (MT) 1999 2000 2001 (1998, 1999,
2000)
Meat of Swine 0203 877 1,167.30 271.37 167.25 108,262.33
Soya-bean oil* 1507 130,040 242,596.80 209,422.10 171,055.95 223,844.67
Margarine 1517 1,474 10,103.92 37,221.50 29,095.79 61,166.67
Cane sugar* 1701 132,013 330,248.96 179,292.65 342,735.76 1,106,948.33
Hulled grains 1104 3,083 13,504.00 46,835,38 43,753.68 214,371.00
Yellow maize* 1005.90.11 583,459 1,044,554.55 1,318,601.17 898,850.45 814,087.00
Sorghum* 1007 1,114,290 1,120.98 1,440.79 539.02 413,000.00G/AG/R/35
Page 34
Table 4 – Percentage share of the principal supplier countries in total imports, 1999-2001
Description of products Tariff
headingFinal
amountImports for period (MT)
Section (I-B) Section (I-B) (MT) 1999 2000 2001
Soya-bean oil* 1507 130,040 243,241.16 209,422.10 171,055.95
Argentina 83.60 64.83 28.66
Barbados 0.22 - -
Belgium 0 0.00 0.41
Brazil 0.58 - -
Bolivia 2.15 12.94 46.49
Colombia -0 . 0 1 -
Chile 0.48 0.36 0.04
Ecuador 0.07 - -
Spain -0 . 0 2 -
United States 1.89 0.56 4.63
Mexico 0.56 0.00 -
Paraguay 10.37 17.93 13.39
Netherlands - 0.10 0.09
Uruguay 0 3.63 6.26
Cane sugar* 1701 132,013 330,535.90 179,292.65 342,735.76
Bolivia 0.32
Brazil 1.09 1.46 0.60
Canada -
Columbia 67.27 77.05 85.98
Child -
Ecuador 4.30 1.78 0.92
United States 0.01 0.00 3.45
France 0.58
Guatemala 27.01 18.85 2.36
Mexico -0 . 6 7 -
Nicaragua 0.58
Spain -4 . 3 8
Uruguay 1.14
Denmark -0 . 3 2 -
Yellow maize (corn)* 1005.90.11 583,459 1,044,554.55 1,318,601.17 898,850.45
Germany 0.19 - -
Argentina 6.82 11.11 5.04
Canada 01 . 1 4 -
Costa Rica 0 0 0.81
United States 92.99 87.75 94.71
Source:  National Institute of Statistics.
__________