text: Defence, Australian Civil Defence did not fall within the terms of the United Vations definition in that it was more oriented to nakional disaster than conflicts. The Federal Republic of Gernany stated that "the task of civil defence is to protect the civilian population, homes and places of work. . . . Due to its intrinsic non-military character, it Trould be the preferente of the Federal German Government not to include these data in a military expenditure framework although they have been reproduced in the current matrix for reasons of transparency". Indonesia stated that its civil defence was organized by the Department of Interior, while technical guidance and support was given by the amea services. The Netherlands stressed that the figures reported on civil defence originated from the budget of the Mnistry of the Interior and only represented estimates. The Dutch Government also expressed the opinion that if a reporting State considered it to be unsuitable to report on civil defence expenditures, such a view should be expressed by that State in its reply. Norwav stated that civil defence expenditures Irere not covered by the Defence Budaet and therefore not included in the matrix, Sweden argued that the main purpose of a country's civil de'fence is ti protect the civilian population and not to contribute to the military strength of the country. It was therefore doubtful whether such expenditures should be treated 1ik.e militan expenditures. In view of this, the Saedish Government said it would prefer tú have the column for civil defence removed from the rnatrix. The United States inncluded al1 outlays of the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, since reorganized into the Peaeral 3Wergency Management Agency. / . . . -1g- (b) Panel's assessment 55. In view of this, the Panel suggests that the rep0rtin.g of civil defence is a 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the reporting of civil defence expenditures, which are related to national disaster preparedness and response. The countries mentioned are providing their perspectives on how to categorize and report these expenditures, with some arguing that they should not be included in a military expenditure framework.