RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/R/29
27 February  2002
(02-1029)
Committee on Agriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 6 DECEMBER 2001
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its twenty-ninth regular meeting on 6 December 2001
under the chairmanship of Minister Yoichi Suzuki, of Japan.
2. The agenda of the meeting as contained in WTO/AIR/1681, as modified by the deletion of the
implementation-related matter raised by Thailand regarding Mexico's minimum import price for
milled rice, was adopted.
PART I:  T HE REVIEW PROCESS
A. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6
(a) New Zealand:  Venezuela – Tariff quota administration:  dairy import licensing regime
3. New Zealand appreciated the details Venezuela had provided in its notification
G/AG/N/VEN/17 and at previous meetings on its import licensing scheme for skim milk powder,whole milk powder and cheese.  As New Zealand's dairy products had continued to face significant
difficulties in gaining access to the Venezuelan market, New Zealand sought further clarifications on
the functioning of the tariff quota administration regime, on its continuation beyond the end of 2001,
and on whether any changes were foreseen.  New Zealand also had concerns about the criteria for the
allocation of import licences and asked Venezuela to confirm:
(i) the criteria for allocating import licences among competing firms within the
"traditional" and "new" importers categories, and specifically the role played by"market share", "previous import levels" and "domestic purchases" in the allocation
of import licences;
(ii) whether an "automatic licensing" regime was in operation for skim milk powder and
cheese, or whether the tariff quota administration regime still applied;
(iii) whether there was any intention to extend automatic licensing to whole milk powder;
and
(iv) whether the import licences were issued to the importer or to the "end-user".
4. Furthermore, New Zealand had continued to experience delays in obtaining import licences
through the 2001 quota year and sought information on the timing requirements relating to the tariff
quota administration regime, namely:G/AG/R/29
Page 2
(i) the prescribed timeframes for: each tariff quota licence period; the announcement of
the opening of each period;  the submission of applications for import licences for
each period;  and the notification of the allocation of import licences for each period;
(ii) the actual dates for the 2001 quota year , for skim milk powde r, whole milk powder
and cheese, of the quota licence periods, requests for import licence applications,
closing dates for applications and the dates on which import licences were issued;
and
(iii) the proportion of the total quota allocated in each quota licence period.
5. The representative of Venezuela confirmed that the Ministers of Finance and Production and
Trade had reached an agreement published in the Official Bulletin, 37339 of 21 November 2001
whereby the current tariff quota regime was extended without modifications.  With regard to the
criteria for the allocation of import licences, 90 per cent of the quota was distributed among
competing firms which had imported during the last  two years.  The remaining ten per cent was
shared among firms importing either occasionally or for the first time.  The allocation of the quotaamong traditional importers was carried out on the basis of historic import volumes while in the case
of new importers, it was distributed on a simple pro rata basis.
6. Venezuela currently had an automatic licensing system for skimmed milk and cheese imports.
With regard to whole milk the fully allocated total quota reflected the country's demand for imports.
Lastly, licences were issued to importers, regardless of whether or not they were end-users.  Therewas a 21-day period for receiving applications and following the closing date there was a period of ten
working days provided for notification of the award of licences.  During 2001 official notices
announcing the opening of quotas were published on the following dates:  02/01/2001;  21/04/2001;
and 19/07/2001.  In the case of milk, 30 per cent of the quota had been allocated in the first two
quarters before the allocation of the remaining 40 per cent.  With regard to cheese, the entire 2,212tonnes quota had been allocated in the first semester prior to the introduction of an automatic
licensing system.  So far import licences totalling 7,770 tonnes of cheese had been granted.
(b) New Zealand:  United States – Trial production of casein from skim milk powder:  subsidy
element
7. The representative of New Zealand refered to the United States Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) announcement on 22 October 2001 of the launch of a field trial for converting up
to 120,000 lbs. per company of non-fat dry milk into edible dry casein or edible dry caseinate.New Zealand inquired about the criteria that would be used to judge that "sufficient benefits", as per
the announcement, had resulted from the trial conv ersion for the scheme to become a permanent
programme of the CCC.  New Zealand also sought confirmation of the price at which the non-fat dry
milk that would be used in the trial had been bought-in by the CCC and the current buy-in price and
selling prices to processors for non-fat dry milk.  The United States was additionally asked about thelikely future price and age of non-fat dry milk and the predicted volumes of edible dry casein and
edible dry caseinates that would be related to any permanent programme.  Finally, the United States
was asked to indicate under what agreement and provisions it intended to notify the subsidy that the
scheme would provide to producers of casein/caseinates.
8. The representative of the United States indicated that the Federal Agricultural Improvement
Reform Fair Act of 1996 as amended required the Secretary of Agriculture to support the domestic
milk price through CCC purchases of cheese, butter and non-fat dry milk.  Results of the field tests
would be analyzed to determine whether an ong oing programme would aid the Secretary in her
mandate to support domestic milk prices.  The criteria that would be used to determine sufficient
benefits were currently under internal review.G/AG/R/29
Page 3
9. The United States further indicated that for non-fortified non-fat dry milk, in 25-kg bags
produced before 31 May 2001 and offered by 13 June 2001, the CCC purchase price was
$1.0032/pound, otherwise, the CCC purchase pri ce was $0.9/pound.  CCC holdings of non-fat dry
milk were made available for sale at the domestic market price.
10. The representative of the United States noted that it would be speculative to consider the
possibility of a permanent programme and the details of it since the United States Department of
Agriculture did not have results from the field test , nor had there been an evaluation of any particular
benefits that might be derived from a permanent programme.
11. Canada noted its interest in the issue and requested a copy of the response provided by the
United States.
(c) United States:  India – Recent developments in the wheat sector
12. The United States sought confirmation of the Government of India's 1 December 2001
decision to make wheat available to local millers at Re 4,750 ($99)/tonne and that this was contingent
on movement of wheat products into the export mark et.  The United States also inquired about the
possibility of a percentage target of wheat exports that had to be exported.
13. India was asked to confirm that prevailing Durum Wheat prices were approximately Re 6,500
($133)/tonne and whether additional wheat sales by the State Trading Corporation of India (STC), theMinerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India (MMTC) and the Project and Equipment
Corporation (PEC) had occurred since April 2001.
14. The representative of India informed the Committee that the questions had been sent to the
capital and a written response would be provided to the United States as early as possible.  Canada
noted its continued interest in Indian agricultural policy and requested a copy of the response to beprovided to the United States.
(d) United States:  Venezuela – Suspension of import licences for yellow corn
15. The United States noted that it was awaiting a response to the question submitted to
Venezuela in September regarding an import ban to facilitate local purchases.  One element of the
announcement by Venezuela stated that "the issuance of import licences for yellow corn will besuspended until the domestic production of corn and sorghum is purchased, as agreed with the feed
producers in June 2001".  It seemed that other producer groups were seeking the same kind of
treatment and Venezuela was requested to articulate its position on granting import access during and
following the period of harvest of the domestic crop.   
16. Venezuela explained that the measure referred to above had been adopted in view of
difficulties in marketing maize and sorghum.  Venezuela was currently studying how to process the
import licence applications it had received and hoped to soon be in a position to give importers areply.  Nevertheless, up to November 2001 Venezuela had granted import licences for yellow corn
totalling 908,529 tonnes, hence fulfilling its minimum access commitment of 583,459 tonnes.
17. Canada stated that it had faced continuous problems with respect to Venezuela's import
permit policy for meat, potatoes and onions on the basis of sanitary or phytosanitary reasons or
otherwise and currently Venezuela was not issuing permits for Canadian table stock potatoes andonions.  Canada had been raising the issue bilaterally with Venezuela for several years without
satisfactory results.  In Canada's view, Venezuela appeared to be operating a discretionary import
permit system inconsistent with its WTO obligations.  Canada called upon Venezuela to issue permits
on a transparent automatic and timely basis.  The United States also stated that the suspension it hadG/AG/R/29
Page 4
noted was still in place and called upon Venezuela to renew the issuance of import permits at the
earliest possible opportunity.
18. The representative of Venezuela stated that Canada's concerns had been taken note of.
Venezuela indicated that it lacked the necessary information to comment on SPS measures that might
be affecting imports from Canada and that if this was the case, the matter should be brought before theSPS Committee.
19. Chile pointed out its interest in the matter and asked to receive information as the situation
developed.
(e) Brazil:  United States – Payments to cotton producers
20. Brazil sought information on the amount of support granted to cotton producers in the years
1993 and 1994 with regards to:  direct payments under programmes to limit production;  direct
payments not exempt from reduction commitments and payments derived from market price supportpolicies.  Brazil also wished to know whether th e United States could provide the amount of payments
for the marketing year of 1992.
21. The representative of the United States stated that the questions would be submitted to the
capital and an answer provided as soon as possible.
B. 
REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS
22. 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
Guatemala (GTM/22);
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from
Guatemala (GTM/21), Indonesia (IDN/23), Ja pan (JPN/66), Norway (NOR/35), and
South Africa (ZAF/36);
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Japan (JPN/69
and Corr.1);
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  from Argentina (ARG/17),
Barbados (BRB/7), Indonesia (IDN/26 and Corr.1), Latvia (LVA/6),
Slovenia (SVN/18), United States (USA/36) and South Africa (ZAF/37);
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2):  from Ar gentina (ARG/16), Slovak Republic (SVK/31), Slovenia
(SVN/19) and United States (USA/37).
23. 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.G/AG/R/29
Page 5
C. OTHER NOTIFICATIONS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
(a) Notifications in respect of which no questions have been raised in advance
24. 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
Australia (AUS/1/Add.1), Czech Republic  (CZE/1/Rev.1/Add.1), Indonesia (IDN/24)
and United States (USA/2/Add.3, USA/34/Add.1);
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from
Barbados (BRB/8);
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Barbados
(BRB/9), Czech Republic (CZE/32), Indonesi a (IDN/22) and South Africa (ZAF/40);
(iv) in the context of domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  from Australia
(AUS/36/Corr.1), Barbados  (BRB/11), Canada (CAN/43/Corr.1) and Slovenia
(SVN/4/Rev.3, SVN/5/Rev.2, SVN/8/Rev.2 and SVN/12/Rev.2);
(v) in the context of domestic support commitments (Table DS:2):  from Australia
(AUS/37), Estonia (EST/3) and Paraguay (PRY/8);
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitments  (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Barbados
(BRB/10), Indonesia (IDN/25), Japan (J PN/67) and South Africa (ZAF/38).
(b) Notifications circulated or made available after the notice convening the meeting was issued
(G/AG/1, paragraph 9 refers)
25. 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) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Czech Republic
(CZE/32/Corr.1 and CZE/33);
(ii) on domestic support commitments (Tables DS:1 and DS:2):  from Argentina
(ARG/18) and Australia (AUS/38);
(iii) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Australia (AUS/40) and
Venezuela (VEN/21/Corr.1).
26. The representative of the Czech Republic informed the Committee that the Czech Republic
had submitted on 5 December its notifications on domestic support commitments (Tables DS:1 andDS:2) for the year 2000 to the Central Registry of Notifications and stood ready to answer Members'
questions, once the notifications were circulated, at the next meeting of the Committee.
D. 
POINTS CONCERNING NOTIFICATIONS RAISED AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS (G/AG/R/2,
PARAGRAPH 14 REFERS )
27. There was no discussion under this agenda item.G/AG/R/29
Page 6
E. COUNTER NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 18.7
28. The Committee took note that no counter-notifications had been received under Article 18:7
of the Agreement.
F. OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE REVIEW PROCESS
(a) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process
29. The deferred replies by the European Communities concerning notifications
G/AG/N/EEC/30, EEC/ 31 and EEC/32 and those of the Slovak Republic concerning notification
G/AG/N/SVK/30 are reflected in Part II of the Annex to this report.
(b) Overdue notifications
30. 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 6 December 2001, showing the
current status of compliance with the notification obligations.
(c) Addenda to Table MA:1 notifications concerning tariff rate quota regimes
31. The Vice-Chairman noted that the recent 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 developingcountries (WT/GC/M/62, paragraph 14, refers).
32. 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); European Communities
(G/AG/N/EEC/1/Add.2, 3/Add.1, 14/Add.1, 15/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);  and the Unite d States (G/AG/N/US A/2/Add.3 and 34/Add.1).
Since the last, September, meeting of the Committee an additional MA:1 Addendum had been
received from the Czech Repub lic, G/AG/N/CZ E/1/Rev.1/Add.1.
33. 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
34. The Vice-Chairman noted that in accordance  with the recommendations approved by the
recent WTO Ministerial Conference it had been agreed that work in the regular meetings of the WTO
Committee on Agriculture on the development of disciplines pursuant to Article 10.2 and the related
provisions of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision should  continue in line with the following general
understandings:
(a) that 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
Page 7
(b) that, without prejudice to further work to be undertaken in the regular meetings of the
Committee as provided for in subparagraph (i) above, in the event that a Sector
Understanding on agricultural export cr edits is concluded at the OECD, the
Committee would, as envisaged in the report of the Committee on Agriculture to the
Singapore WTO Ministerial (G/L/131, paragraph 11), consider how any suchunderstanding could be multilateralized within the framework of the Agreement on
Agriculture and how the provisions of pa ragraph 4 of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision
have been taken into account;  and
(c) that the Committee on Agriculture should submit a report to the General Council on
this subject following its regular September 2002 meeting.
35. The representative of Argentina drew the Committee's attention to the paper G/AG/W/50
dated 21 March 2001 submitted by Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), Bolivia,
Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India and Malaysia on export credits for agricultural products.  The
representative of Argentina asked that the paper G/AG/W/50 be on the agenda of future meetings
when referring to the implementation of Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The papercontained a proposal establishing a work programme in connection with export credits for agricultural
products.  Argentina stressed that time was short and export credits could represent a technically
difficult topic which many delegations could have difficulty grasping.  The representative of
Argentina noted that the Committee had to draw up in 2002 a report on export credits, an
implementation matter.  Therefore, Argentina wished  to have a preliminary discussion to see how the
Committee could proceed with the matter.
36. The representative of Brazil noted that this was a matter of great importance and Brazil was
one of the co-sponsors of the paper G/AG/W/50.  This was an implementation matter and by virtue of
the Doha Declaration, implementation issues were also part of the overall package of negotiations.
Brazil had agreed to the terms of document G/AG/11 in which, in paragraph 4(a), it is stated that thefocus of the work in the Regular Committee meetings would be on 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.  However, Brazil wished to record that export credits
had to remain open for consideration as an implementation matter in the Committee.  Brazil would
agree to the convening of information meetings or other informal processes for the purposes of
information gathering and exchange of views on the overall matter of export credits.
37. The representative of Egypt asked whether the proponents of G/AG/W/50 could explain why
the credits that were singled out were those beyond 180 days.  Secondly, concerning special and
differential treatment, Egypt requested clarification on the statement that appropriate minimum
interest rates shall be established to address the inte rests of exporting developing countries.   Finally,
Egypt noted that the implementation of Article 10.2 did not fall within the Doha mandate on
implementation issues and, therefore, it was a regular exercise to be undertaken by the Committee.
38. The representative of Brazil noted that the period of 180 days for the credits had been chosen
as being the most adequate period to cover annual crops but that different periods of time could be
considered for permanent crops and Brazil was open to proposals in that regard.  Concerning special
and differential treatment, the point concerning minimum interest rates attempted to install provisions
whereby government credits could be used to lower interest rates hence addressing the difficultiesfaced in that regard by many developing countries.   The representative of Argentina added that the
timeframe of 180 days refered to the normal timeframe in which agricultural products for
consumption came to the end of their lifecycle.
39. The Vice-Chairman noted that the matter would be on the agenda of the Committee's March
meeting and that there was also the benchmark of the progress report to be made to the GeneralG/AG/R/29
Page 8
Council on work on the issue as well as on other issues on implementation-related matters in
September 2002.  The document G/AG/W/50 was a concrete element tabled as part of the
implementation of Article 10.2 exercise undertaken by the Committee and appropriate opportunity
would be provided to discuss the paper with the aim to further Members' understanding of export
credits.
40. The representative of Argentina stated that a specific meeting on the issue of export credits
could be held before the March meeting of the Committee to start consideration of the issue and help
better inform Members.  The representative of  the European Communities echoed by Argentina and
Brazil suggested that the meeting be held the da y before the Committee meeting in March so as to
take advantage of the presence of delegates from capitals.  The representative of India, supported by
Brazil and Cuba wondered whether some kind of seminar or technical assistance could be built into a
possible future specific meeting on export credits.
41. The representative of the United States referred to paragraph 4(a) of document G/AG/11
wherein the regular Committee meetings would focus on the implementation of Article 10.2 and the
disciplines foreseen therein whereas the Special Sessions would focus on proposals tabled or to be
tabled on export credit practices and requested clarification from Argentina on how it differentiated
those two aspects within its proposal tabled in the Committee and also in the Special Session.  Therepresentative of Argentina noted that the existing disciplines of the Uruguay Round Agreement on
Agriculture required some further specific disciplines.  The process of the Special Session was clearly
one of moving agricultural negotiations forward and the issue of export credits which was an
implementation-related matter, had to remain in the regular meetings of the Committee independently
of the progress made in the Special Sessions.
42. The Vice-Chairman stated that it seemed from the discussions that it would be useful to have
an information meeting on the issue of export credits and the implementation of Article 10.2.  The
informal meeting could possibly be held in conjunction with the next regular meeting of the
Committee on Agriculture.  The informal meeting could also have a sort of technical assistance part in
it to inform those who were not familiar with the issue of export credits or the development ofinternational disciplines on export credit, credit guarantees and insurance programmes.  In view of the
time constraints which existed for 2002, the proposed information meeting could also help clarify
what specifically Members were looking for in the context of the regular session as part of the
implementation of Article 10.2 and in the context of the negotiations.
P
ART II:  O THER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE
A. MARRAKESH NFIDC D ECISION :
(a) Annual monitoring exercise by the Committee, pursuant to Article 16.2 of the Agreement on
Agriculture
43. The Vice-Chairman noted that the annual moni toring exercise was conducted on the basis,
inter alia,  of contributions by Members, including notif ications in the NF series concerning actions
taken within the framework of the Net Food-Importe rs' Decision.  In addition an updated version of
the Secretariat's paper on the implementation of the Decision had been circulated on
27 November 2001 as G/AG/W/42/Rev.4.
44. The European Communities noted from the document prepared by the Secretariat that a lot of
food aid was being given outside the scope of the f ood aid convention.  Furthermore, a lot of food aid
was being granted to countries other than LDCs and NFIDCs, in particular in years of low prices.Hence there was a clear link between the food aid levels provided and problems experienced by
donors rather than by food aid recipients.G/AG/R/29
Page 9
45. The representative of the United States pointed out that with all of the efforts in place to meet
the needs of hungry people around the world, there were still 800 million people who did not have
enough food to eat, and until and unless the needs of those 800 million people were met, all Members
should be encouraged to give more aid.
46. The representatives of the FAO, the IMF, the UNCTAD, and the World Food progamme
made statements which have been reprodu ced and circulated in document G/AG/GEN/49.
47. The representative of Sri Lanka thanked the Secretariat for the analytical report provided on
the implementation of the Marrakesh Decision.  Despite the agreement that the food coverage would
be broadened significantly beyond cereals, the Secretariat paper revealed that most of the food aid that
had been granted took the form of cereals.  Furthermore, the percentages of food aid clearly evidenced
that the situation had not improved as anticipated under the 1999 Food Aid Convention.  The
representative of Sri Lanka also noted that food aid levels had increased sharply but basically tocountries other than the least-developed and net food-importing countries.  Sri Lanka also highlighted
that  the recent decision taken by Ministers in Doha indicated that shortcomings in the current system
would be addressed in the eventual negotiation of a new food aid convention.
48. The representative of Sri Lanka stated that despite some significant increases with respect to
the United States food aid grants, a considerable amount was still provided under commercial terms.Concerning technical and financial assistance Sri Lanka noted that the countries encountered certain
problems in notifying exactly how much was directed to the NFIDCs under the Marrakesh Decision
and  wished that a mechanism be designed to identify at least how much of the financial and technical
assistance was directed exclusively for the purposes of the net food-importing countries and LDCs.
Sri Lanka also believed that NFIDCs should be in a position to expect some improvement withrespect to the provision of technical and financial assistance.  Finally, concerning the ability to finance
commercial imports, Sri Lanka believed that some of the valid concerns of the NFIDCs and LDCs
with respect to food price fluctuations had to be taken into account.
49. The representative of Sri Lanka concluded her intervention by thanking the FAO for bringing
to the Committee's attention the fact that there were 31 countries currently facing serious foodshortages and the majority of them were LDCs and NFIDCs.
(b) The recommendations of the Committee as adopted by the Doha Ministerial Conference
regarding means of improving the effectiveness of the implementation of the NFIDC
Decision – Detailed terms of reference for inter-agency panel to be established
50. The Committee considered a draft text of the detailed terms of reference on the establishment
of an inter-agency panel pursuant to paragraph III(b) of Section B of G/AG/11 and agreed that this
text, as amended, be submitted to the General Council for approval on the responsibility of theVice-Chairman (G/AG/12 refers).  A number of Members welcomed the Committee's decision.
Sri Lanka wished to put on record its appreciation to the Vice-Chairman and to the Secretariat for the
efforts made so far on drawing the detailed terms of reference for the Inter Agency Panel to be
established. Concerning the second paragraph which referred to examining the concept and feasibility
of the proposal for the establishment of a revolving fund submitted by a group of NFIDCs and LDCs,it was Sri Lanka's understanding that the examination foreseen related only to further analysis of the
concept and not to the suitability of the concept.
51. With respect to the co-operation of the Inter-Agency panel to be established, Sri Lanka
echoed by Egypt believed that the panel needed to be as inclusive as possible consisting of the
relevant financial and commodity experts from the World Bank, the IMF, the FAO, the InternationalGrains Council and UNCTAD.  In that connection, Sri Lanka recognised the role that the WTO
membership was required to play and the Committee on Agriculture had to be the focal point inG/AG/R/29
Page 10
overseeing the effective implementation of the decisions taken by the Ministers at Doha on the issue
of NFIDCs and LDCs.  Sri Lanka, echoed by Egypt, therefore suggested the nomination of
Mr. Suzuki, the Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture as the Chairman of the Inter-Agency
panel.
52. The United States echoed by the European Communities enquired as to whether it was going
to be the understanding of the Committee that the interpretation that Sri Lanka gave of paragraph 2
would be the interpretation to be used.  The Vice-Chairman, who accepted the nomination to chair the
inter-agency panel, indicated that he would simply convey to the panel the statement made by Sri
Lanka, and it would be up to the panel to accept the terms of reference, taking into consideration the
statement made by Sri Lanka.
B. ANNUAL CONSULTATION UNDER ARTICLE 18.5 OF THE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE WITH
RESPECT TO MEMBERS ' PARTICIPATION IN THE NORMAL GROWTH OF WORLD TRADE IN
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
53. The Chairman noted that Article 18.5 of the Agreement provided for Members to consult
annually in the Committee with respect to their part icipation in the normal growth of world trade in
agricultural products within the framework of the commitments on export subsidies under the
Agreement.  The Committee's Working Procedures stipulated that this annual consultation was to beundertaken at the regular November meetings of the Committee.  As requested at the last Committee
meeting, the Secretariat had prepared and circulated a revision of its background note for the purpose
of this consultation (G/AG/W/32/Rev.4 refers).
C. "
OTHER BUSINESS "
Date of Next Meeting
54. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be tentatively held on
25 March 2002.  The airgram convening the meeting and containing the draft agenda will be issued on
Friday, 15 March 2002.G/AG/R/29
Page 11
ANNEX
Review of Notifications by the Committee on Agriculture on 6 December 2001
Page
Part I Summary of specific points raised on  notifications and responses thereto
(6 December 2001)
(i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):   Guatemala
(GTM/22);12
(ii) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  Guatemala
(GTM/21), Indonesia (IDN/23), Japan (JPN/66), Norway (NOR/35) and South
Africa (ZAF/36);13
(iii) use of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  Japan (JPN/69 and Corr.1); 15
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  Argentina (ARG/17), Barbados
(BRB/7), Indonesia (IDN/26 and Corr.1), Latvia (LVA/6), Slovenia (SVN/18),
United States (USA/36) and South Africa (ZAF/37)16
(v) new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction (Table DS:2):
Argentina (ARG/16), Slovak Republic (SVK/31), Slovenia (SVN/19) and
United States (USA/37)28
Part II Deferred replies to questions on notifi cations raised at previous meetings
(i)relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):
    European Communities (EEC/31) G/AG/R/28, pages 8-9 refer.36
(ii) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):
    European Communities (EEC/30) G/AG/R/28, page 18 refers.
    Slovak Republic (SVK/30) G/AG/R/28, pages 20-21 refer.36
(iii) relating to export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):
    European Communities (EEC/32) G/AG/R/28, page 35 refers.38G/AG/R/29
Page 12
ANNEX
Part I - Summary of Specific Points Raised on Notifications and Responses Thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
Guatemala      G/AG/N/GTM/22   Tariff and other quota administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia – Guatemala did not import any cane sugar
in 2000.  Why did it decide to introduce tariff quota
arrangements for cane sugar in 2001?In 2000 import licences were granted under the cane
sugar quota for the equivalent of 5,000 metric tonnes
to the following enterprises:
(1) Red de Tercera Generación, S.A.: Import
certificate 001(1701)001), Volume  714.28 MT
(2) Depósito La Esperanza: Import certificate
002(1701)002, Volume  714.28 MT
(3) Corporación Sierra Madre, S.A.: Import
certificate  003(1701)003, Volume  714.28 MT
(4) Distribuidora El Paraíso: Import certificate
001(1701)004, Volume  714.29 MT
(5) Transportes San José: Import certificate
001(1701)005, Volume  714.29 MT
(6) Depósito San José: Import certificate
001(1701)006, Volume  714.29 MT
(7) Distribuidora Quality: Import certificate
001(1701)007, Volume  714.29 MT
These imports were not carried out because the
enterprises had shipping problems.  For the year2001, the equivalent of 85 per cent of the quotavolume has already been imported.
With regard to the administration of tariff quotas forwheat and meslin flour and rice, has the method ofissuing import licences changed?Guatemala has not changed the method of issuing
import licences.
G/AG/R/29
Page 13
Table MA:2 Notifications
Guatemala      G/AG/N/GTM/21    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia - Given that there were no imports of cane
sugar during 2000, has Guatemala reconsidered thenecessity of a tariff quota?Guatemala has not reconsidered making changes
either in the volume, or in the import tariff rates(which will remain zero) or in the issuing of importlicences.
Given that fill rates for wheat or meslin flour havealternated between zero and 29 per cent from 1997 to2000, has Guatemala considered removing the tariff
quota arrangements?On 8 May 2001, pursuant to Government Decision
No. 168-2001, the wheat tariff quota was abolishedand imports may be carried out freely subject to a
two-per-cent import tariff.  At the same time the
wheat flour quota was established by GovernmentDecision No. 169-2001, with a volume of 78,000metric tonnes and a tariff rate of four per cent within
quota and ten per cent otherwise.
United States - Explanation sought as to why there
were no imports for wheat or meslin flour (HS 1101)
under the tariff quota for 2000?There were no requests for imports under the tariff
quota.
Indonesia      G/AG/N/IDN/23    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Does Indonesia anticipate continuing
the use of tariff quotas for milk and cream of fat and
its products (HS 0402, 0403, 0405), for milk and
cream of fat and its products, as well as for rice(HS Ex-1006) ?With the enactment of a Joint Ministerial Decree in
1998 between the Ministries of Trade and Industries,
Agriculture and Cooperative, the importation of milk
and its products as well as rice is no longer subject toa TRQ.
Japan      G/AG/N/JPN/66    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Has Japan considered changing its
administration for several products falling quite shortof their quota levels such as skimmed milk powderfor school lunch, skimmed milk powder for otherpurposes, whey and modified whey for feeding
purposes, prepared whey for infant formula, butter
and butteroil, mineral concentrated whey, and groundnuts?The primary reason for the under-fill of TRQ for the
products in question is low levels of domesticdemand . Therefore, the TRQ system itself should nottake the blame for the low fill-rates.
Furthermore, under the TRQ system, Members are
committed to provide access opportunities fortariffied products, but they are not committed to fillthe quotas.
In order to increase the fill-rates of the quotas, it is
necessary for the private sectors in exporting
countries to make commercial efforts to expand theirmarkets.  Japan, therefore, is not consideringchanging its TRQ system due to low fill-rates.G/AG/R/29
Page 14
Norway      G/AG/N/NOR/35    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia –  Has Norway considered the removal of
tariff quota arrangements for products which haveshown negligible or very low fill rates since 1997?Price and market conditions in 2000 did not favour
quota use of the products in question. The ordinarytariff rates for these products are now equal to the in-quota-tariff, and the tariff-quota is thus no real
limitation to imports.
Can Norway explain the significant decline in fill
rates for meat of bovine animal, frozen from 79% in
1997 to 28% in 2000?The main reason for low fill rate of the TRQ in 2000
is low domestic prices due to the domestic market
conditions of bovine meat. Additionally imports of
bovine meat originating in LDCs enjoy tariff freeaccess to the Norwegian market. Imports from LDCswere 1,344 tons in 2000. The total amount of meatimported from LDCs and within the TRQ was 1,651
tons (152 percent of the TRQ).
Follow-up comment by Argentina :
Wondered whether "domestic market conditions"
referred to by Norway could be influenced by levelsof domestic support for certain products and lead to
unfilled quotas.Follow-up response by Norway :
Norway's domestic support is within its commitments
as per the Agreement on Agriculture.
South Africa      G/AG/N/ZAF/36    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia – Fill rates for fresh milk and cream, eggs
and potatoes, have all been under 10% for calendaryears 1998, 1999 and 2000.  Given that the applied
rate of duty for those products is zero or lower than
the in-quota tariff rate has the Republic of SouthAfrica considered the removal of tariff quotas?Fresh milk and cream:  No quota is being
administered for these products as the applied tariff
for these products is zero.
Potatoes:  The applied tariff for potatoes is lower than
the in-quota rate and a tariff quota is therefore not
administered for potatoes.
Eggs:  The tariff for eggs (0407) is zero and no quota
is applied.  A tariff is, however, applicable for "eggs
not in shells" (0408) and quota arrangements havebeen implemented.  All applicants for import quotasreceived the full quantity that was applied for in theyear 2000.
Given that the applied rate of duty for tapioca is zero,has South Africa considered removing tariff quota
arrangements?Tapioca:  No tariff quota is being administered as the
applied tariff for tapioca is zero.
G/AG/R/29
Page 15
Tables MA:3 to MA:5 Notifications
Japan     G/AG/N/JPN/69 and Corr.1    Volume-based safeguard (Table MA:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/ New Zealand – What was the applied tariff
rate prior to the safeguard action, what is the rate of
additional duty being levied as a result of the
safeguard action, and what volume of imports hasbeen affected?(1) Tariff rate applied prior to the SSG:
- Milk and cream of which fat content is no more
than 45%:  21.3% + 635 Yen/kg
- Milk and cream of which fat content is more than
45%:  21.3% + 1,199 Yen/kg
(2) Tariff rate as a result of the SSG:- Milk and cream of which fat content is no more
than 45%:  28.4% + 846.67 Yen/kg
- Milk and cream of which fat content is more than
45%:  28.4% + 1,598.67 Yen/kg
(3) Volume of imports affected by the SSG:The SSG action in question was applied as of1 November.  However, the trade statistics of
November have not been published yet.
Data on imports of milk and cream, not concentratednor containing added sugar or other sweetening
matter between May 2001 and 1 November 2001?The volume of imports of the particular tariff lines,
subject to the SSG application, was 6.19 tonnes.  The
total volume of imports of milk and cream, notconcentrated nor containing added sugar or othersweetening matter, between May and October thisyear, was 8.65 tonnes, because this figure includesthe data on the tariff lines other than that which is
subject to the SSG.
New Zealand –   Could Japan please explain the need
to impose SSG duties on such a small quantity ofimported product?Japan determines the trigger levels of the volume-
based SSG based on Article 5.4 of the Agreement onAgriculture.  It is a right that is granted to Membersunder the Agreement on Agriculture to levyadditional duty when the accumulated volume of
imports exceeds the trigger level, no matter how high
or low the trigger level is.G/AG/R/29
Page 16
Table DS:1 Notifications
Argentina    G/AG/N/ARG/17      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia – Consistency of the "Assistance to rebuild
structures for self consumption of grain and
vegetables" with Annex 2, paragraph 6?The only criterion applied in granting assistance is
that the farms of the small producers
("minifundistas") are less than 25 hectares.  Theprogramme does not exclude any producers as longas they are smallholders.  In no case are conditionsimposed on the producer with regard to  the type orvolume of production required in order to be entitled
to assistance under the programme.  In addition, the
limited volume of seeds delivered by variety to the15,000 beneficiary producers ensures that they cannotbe used for purposes of commercial production, butmust be used for self-consumption.  The volume ofseed delivered allows each producer to sow one
hectare of maize and 0.25 hectare of black beans.
Confirmation that this programme complies with
Annex 2, paragraph 2(g), and that these storage
facilities are not subsidized on-farm storage
facilities?Please specify which programme is being referred to.
"Food aid programme": details on how this
programme complies with Annex 2, paragraph 4
under the AoA?  Would this programme better meetthe criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 8?Under this programme resources were granted to
producers in need in the province of Chaco who were
unable to cover their minimum subsistence needs.The objective of this measure is not to providecompensation for the damage caused to the factors ofproduction, but to grant food aid to those persons
having serious difficulties subsisting by their own
means.
The figure of 150 pesos that appears in the
notification is an estimate of the price of the food
delivered by the Government to each producer.
"Government financial participation in incomeinsurance and income safety net programs":   Details
on how this programme complies with Annex 2,paragraph 7, and in particular with reference toincome loss exceeding 30% of income in thepreceding 3 year period, and that payments will notbe related to the type of production?  Would this
programme better meet the criteria of Annex 2,
paragraph 8?The only purpose of the measures included in
paragraph 7 was to provide compensation for the
serious damage suffered as a result of serious weatherconditions in the provinces of Misiones, Salta andJujuy.  Hail, rain and strong winds caused a loss inthe means of production and income far in excess of30%.  While it is true that by their nature and purpose
these measures could have been included under
paragraph 8, which specifically covers damagecaused by serious weather conditions, in theprovinces mentioned there was no formal recognitionof the various natural disasters that affected them, asstipulated in paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2 of the
Agreement on Agriculture.
Further information is also provided in the reply to
Canada.
G/AG/R/29
Page 17
Argentina    G/AG/N/ARG/17      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
(cont'd)
"Emergency support programme for Patagonian
agricultural production":  Details of how thisprogramme complies with Annex 2, paragraph 8,particularly the criteria for a production loss whichexceeds 30% of the average of production, and that
payments shall be applied only in respect of losses of
factors of production due to the natural disaster?In 1998 and 1999 unusual weather conditions
(droughts, snowfalls, fl oods etc.) affected various
areas of Patagonia causing heavy losses in the factorsof production.  The purpose of the emergencyprogramme is to provide partial compensation for the
damage suffered by the Patagonian producers as a
result of severe weather conditions.  It operates alongthe following lines:
- When a natural disaster occurs, the province
suffering damage declares, through a decree, an
"emergency" in the department, zone, county or
region affected.
- Once an emergency has been declared at the
provincial level, the National AgriculturalEmergency Commission decides whether it
should be declared at the national level.
- An emergency is declared at the national level by
means of a joint resolution of the Ministry of theEconomy and the Ministry of the Interior.
- A producer who has suffered damage submits a
sworn statement to the respective provincialgovernment indicating his losses.
- The provincial government checks whether the
statement is true and issues a certificate of
emergency to those producers who have suffered
at least 50% losses of their production orproductive capacity.
Under this programme loans are granted at rates of
between 4 and 5% to those persons who can
demonstrate that they have suffered over 50% of
damage to the factors of production, caused bynatural disasters recognized by the competentauthority.  In no event does compensation exceed
50% of the losses.
"Structural adjustment assistance provided through
investment aids":  Are all programs listed under this
title in compliance with each of the criteria of
Annex 2, paragraph 11?This was answered in the replies to the questions on
notifications G/AG/N/ARG/4 and G/AG/N/ARG/9 in
Secretariat documents G/AG/R/14 and R/22.
G/AG/R/29
Page 18
Argentina    G/AG/N/ARG/17      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada – Three new initiatives under the Special
Fund for Tobacco are claimed under paragraph 7,Income Insurance Programmes.  Two new initiativesare also claimed in 1999 under paragraph 8, Relief
from Natural Disasters.With regard to the programmes under which anti-hail
rockets are acquired and seeds are distributed , the
compensation is paid in kind.  Instead of giving them
money, the government programme provides seeds
directly to the producers who have suffered an
income loss exceeding 30%, ensuring the subsistenceof small farmers.  Owing to budgetary restrictions theArgentinian Government cannot envisageprogrammes that provide full compensation to theproducers.  These programmes have a strong social
basis and seek to provide subsistence for the
producer's family.
Eligibility criteria for the payments?  Calculation ofthe amount of payments, and steps taken to ensurethat the payments received under paragraphs 7 and 8total less than 100% of the producer's total loss?The Government covers part of the cost of planting
tobacco for smallholders who suffered an income
loss exceeding 30% as a result of the hail-storms and
gales which lashed Jujuy and Salta in 1998.  In thatcase the Government carried out a survey of
establishments, identifying the farms that suffered
damage, and the corresponding plans, tables andannexes were issued to each producer.  Claims forhail damage stating each date it occurred werereceived, the farm damage in each claim assessedand, after calculation of the costs paid on the basis of
the percentage of damage, the supporting documents
were issued.  In all cases, the damage exceeded30 per cent, priority being given in the allocation ofresources to those producers who had suffered thetotal loss of their plantations. In the provinces ofJujuy and Salta, 8,485 ha. out of 41,740 ha. had been
seriously affected.
With regard to the assistance provided for water-
related emergencies, help was granted under the
Agricultural Emergency Law 22913.  Its inclusion
under paragraph 8, together with the criteria ofeligibility, were explained in relation to notificationG/AG/N/ARG/4 in the Secretariat report
G/AG/R/14.
G/AG/R/29
Page 19
Argentina    G/AG/N/ARG/17      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
(cont'd)
How do the Support Programme for Patagonia
Agricultural Production, the Emergency SupportProgramme for Patagonian Agricultural Productionand the Agricultural Emergency Programme and theImport duty exemption for utility vehicles and
equipment meet the respective criteria?The Support Programme for Patagonian Agricultural
Production (Res. 716/97) is a programme that
extends the Emergency Support Programme for
Patagonian Agricultural Production (Res. 613/96) byestablishing two new lines of credit for the purchase
of forage and breeding sheep for those producers in
an emergency situation.
The requirements and criteria on the basis of which
both programmes are included in paragraphs 7 and 8of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture are the
same as those explained in detail in the reply to
question 5 from Australia on the "Emergency supportprogramme for Patagonian agricultural production".
With regard to the import duty exemption for utility
vehicles, in 1998 three vehicles were imported onthis basis in order to assist the integration ofsmallholders located in disadvantaged areas of
Patagonia.
The Emergency Support Programme for Patagonian
Agricultural Production (Res.613/96) has alreadybeen notified on a prio r occasion (G/AG/N/ARG/9).
Argentina considers that the Support Programme for
Patagonian Agricultural Production (Res.716/97)cannot be regarded as a new measure since itconstitutes only a small extension of the measuresalready established by Resolution 613/96, bringingwithin a single measure all the conditions and
requirements established in the first programme.
DS:2 notifications for new and modified measuresclaimed as exempt under Annex 2, paragraphs 7, 8
and 11, in 1998 and 1999?The notification of the new measure DS:2 under the
programme for import duty exemption for utility
vehicles and equipment – amounting to $25,344 –will be submitted shortly by Argentina.
EC – "Structural adjustment assistance provided
through investment aids", "Special Fund for
Tobacco": Specific measures contained under
"production and storage" for 1998 and 1999?The measures correspond to those notified by
Argentina for the period 1996/1997 (ARG/9).
Do the amounts paid under these headings mandateor in any way designate the agricultural products to
be produced by the recipients?The purpose of such measures is to provide
assistance so that farms that are structurally
disadvantaged, both financially and technically,receive help so as to improve their conditions ofproduction.  In no case are conditions imposed on theproducer with regard to the type or volume of
production required in order to be entitled to
assistance under the programme.
G/AG/R/29
Page 20
Argentina    G/AG/N/ARG/17      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
(cont'd)
"Decoupled income support", Special Fund for
Tobacco": In what way the amounts of $559,250 paid
in 1998 and $262,500 in 1999 for "Assistance torebuild structures for self-consumption of grain andvegetables" are not related to factors of production inany year after the base period?The only criterion applied in granting assistance is
that the farms of the small producers
("minifundistas") are less than 25 hectares.  In no
case are conditions imposed on the producer withregard to  the type or volume of production requiredin order to be entitled to assistance under theprogramme.  In addition, the limited volume of seeds
delivered by variety to the 15,000 beneficiary
producers ensures that they cannot be used forpurposes of commercial production, but must be usedfor self-consumption.  The volume of seed deliveredallows each producer to sow one hectare of maizeand 0.25 hectare of black beans.
Are the activities funded by the "Special Fund for
Tobacco" generally available in the whole of
Argentina's territory ?They are available for all producers in the north,
north-east and north-west of Argentina since these
are the regions of the Argentine Republic with thegreatest social and economic structuraldisadvantages.  See full description in the replies to
notifications G/AG/N/ARG/4 and ARG/9.
Reason why expenditure involving the use of anti-
hail rockets was notified in 1998 under
"Infrastructure Services" and in 1999 under
"Government financial Participation in incomeinsurance and safety net programs"?In 1998 the anti-hail system using rockets was
implemented as an infrastructure project intended to
mitigate the devastating damage that the hail was
causing.  In 1999, only the purchase of the rocketswas funded, so as to benefit those producers wholived in the hail affected areas and who had generallysuffered significant losses (largely in excess of 30%
of income).
How do purchases of hail-rockets and seed
distribution  compensate for producers' income lossesexceeding 30% of average gross income?The only purpose of the measures included in
paragraph 7 was to provide compensation for theserious damage suffered as a result of serious weatherconditions in the provinces of Misiones, Salta andJujuy.  Hail, rain and strong winds caused a loss inthe means of production and income far in excess of
30%.  While it is true that by their nature and purpose
these measures could have been included underparagraph 8, in the provinces mentioned there was noformal recognition of the various natural disastersthat affected them, as stipulated in paragraph 8(a) ofAnnex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
Further information is also provided in the reply to
Canada.
Barbados    G/AG/N/BRB/7      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – How does support for the out-of-crop
activities of the sugar industry, given by way of sugarbonds guaranteed by the Government, meet the
criteria for Annex 2, paragraph 2.Question transmitted to the competent authorities and
a written reply will be submitted shortly.G/AG/R/29
Page 21
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 – Details sought of programmes undertaken
as "Development of resources, facilities and
infrastructure for livestock development", andconfirmation that projects do not include subsidisedon-farm facilities?Response to this question is still being finalized and a
written answer will be provided in due course.
Details of "Estate crop development programmes"
and confirmation that these programmes do notinvolve direct payments to producers or processors?Indonesia's Estate Crop development programmes do
not involve payments to producers or processors.They are programmes to develop infrastructure,increase productivity through improvement of
research and extension, develop product quality and
diversification of products, implement bio-technology, develop institutions and partnerships, anddevelop post-harvest, processing and marketinginfrastructure
Confirmation that "Food crops and developmentprogrammes" do not involve direct payments toproducers or processors, and that infrastructure doesnot include subsidised on-farm facilities ?Food crops development programmes do not involve
direct payment to producers or processors.  Theseprogrammes include seed development, constructionand rehabilitation of irrigation facilities, the
development of farm road, farmer empowerment for
increasing productivity, extension programmes, pestand disease control, standardization andaccreditation, and quality control.
"Domestic food aid": Information on the OPK(special market operation) programme in relation tothe provision of food accessibility to poor families.Please further clarify the information requested.
How long is the OPK programme expected to
continue?The programme is aimed at reducing the number of
transient poor as well as the chronic poor to a level
before the economic crisis or 1997 level.
Canada –  Request for the submission of Table DS:1,
indicating Current Total AMS against Total AMS
Commitment Level?The data stated in Table DS:4 and DS:5 in document
G/AG/N/IDN/26 were not correct. A corrigendum
has been requested from the Secretariat.
Request for Indonesia to notify that support for ricein Supporting Table DS:4 is de minimis , and also
indicate the value of production?Please refer to G/AG/N/IDN/26/Corr.1 dated
27 November 2001 for both questions.
Japan – Market price support for rice
Explanation sought as to why the price support forrice is notified for the first time in 2000?In G/AG/N/IDN/18 dated 25 February 2000, the
procurement of rice by the National Logistic Agency(BULOG) was notified for 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998
and 1999.G/AG/R/29
Page 22
New Zealand – Data on the total value of rice
production and how is the eligible productioncalculated?The total value of rice production was 84,745 billion
Rupiah.
Eligible production is based on:
Total production = area harvested x yield per
hectare
Where:
(i) Area harvested is calculated based on reports
submitted by regional Agriculture Offices.
(ii) Yield per hectare is calculated based on Crop
Cutting Statistical Survey Methodology.
United States - Total value of Indonesian agricultural
production, in billions of Rupiahs, for calendar year
2000?Currently re-sorting the total value of Indonesia's
agricultural production and written reply will be
provided in due course.
Latvia    G/AG/N/LVA/6      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina -
1. Type, date and areas affected by the naturaldisaster(s) of item (b)?This programme is implemented in accordance with
the Regulation of the Ministry of Agriculture"Utilisation of State Grant for Losses due to Agro-Climatic Conditions in 2000".
Payments are made due to frost in early May 2000,
for destroyed sowings of summer crops and fruit andberry plantations, if the yield was less than 85% ofaverage yield. Area affected is 11,015 ha.
Payments refer to income loss only. Amount of
payments is not related to domestic or internationalprices.
The programme complies with Annex 2, paragraph 8
criteria.
2. How the structural assistance of item (d) meets
the criteria set out in paragraph 11 of Annex 2?This programme is implemented in accordance with
the Regulation of MoA "Utilisation of State Grant for
Development of Agricultural Production andTechnical Modernization in 2000".  It is designed tosupport farmers through reimbursement of paymentsfor investments in physical restructuring of
agricultural production due to the re-privatization of
land.
The volume of aid is less than the additional
expenses, necessary to overcome structuralimperfections.
This investment aid is in no case related to the type or
volume of production, domestic or international
prices and it is not linked to the production of acertain type of agricultural product.
G/AG/R/29
Page 23
Latvia    G/AG/N/LVA/6      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Details sought on the "Hectare
payments" programmeThis programme is implemented in accordance with
the Regulation of the Ministry of Agriculture"Compensatory Payments for Sowing Area in 2000".
Producers eligible to receive hectare payments:
- must have at least 5 hectares sowing area of
arable crops;
- have to use certified seed material;- have to produce yield which meet certain quality
standards.
Payment is 10.03 SDR per hectare.
Slovenia    G/AG/N/SVN/18      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina - Table DS:2 to describe the conformity of
the new programmes under items (d) and (e) of TableDS:1.Slovenia will provide the table DS:2 for direct
payments to producers;  and decoupled incomesupport.
Both measures were not included in the last table
DS:2 because of the very small amount allocated forthese measures (i.e. 40,000 EUR and 44,800 EUR
respectively).
Details of the operation of the "income insurance and
income safety-net programmes"?Support  is in the form of compensation for damage
done by wild animals and of providing public worksfor the unemployed in the fields like afforestation,
seasonal works in orchards and hops plantations.
Australia - Basis for designating a region as
disadvantaged relating to "Payments under regionalassistance programmes" ?Less favoured areas payments scheme is based on the
calculations to compensate the additional costs ofproduction or loss of income for the farmers whoproduce under unfavourable production conditions(like steep slopes, altitude, vegetation period, strong
wind, soil characteristics etc.).  The support is
available to all producers which meet the criteria ofthe less favoured areas set out in the Decree oncriteria for determining areas with restrictedagricultural possibilities (OJ RS 62/2000).Payments are for:
-mountainous regions and farms on steep slopes
(1 6  000 SIT/ha)-hilly, karst and other regions with limitingproduction factors (11.000 SIT/ha).
On what basis is the payment calculated? Payments are paid out on a hectare basis regardless of
the type or volume of production.
G/AG/R/29
Page 24
Slovenia    G/AG/N/SVN/18      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada – Explanation of how various support
measures meet the specific criteria of the relevantparagraphs of Annex 2?"Direct Payments for Producers":  financial support
for the market organisations of producers in the formof financing different leaflets and brochures aboutmarketing possibilities of particular producer
organisations.
"Decoupled Income Support":  very limited form of
support provided by some local communities whichis not based on the type or volume of production.However the minimum 2 hectares criterion had to be
complied with.
(cont'd) "Income Insurance and Income-Safety-Net
Programmes":  support  in the form of compensationfor damage done by the wild animals and providing
public works for the unemployed in the fields like
afforestation, seasonal works in orchards and hopsplantations.
"Payments for Relief from Natural Disasters":
eligibility for these payments arise only following aformal recognition  by governmental authorities that
a natural disaster has occurred.  The production loss
has to exceed 30% of the average production in thepreceding three-year period.  In our case there wassupport for the earthquake-stricken area in Poso čje
and some financial support for the drought-stricken
areas in north-eastern part of the country.
Quantities of the 1991 "base level of production" ofthe crops, and  details of the 1993 "fixed number of
head" of the livestock, referred to in Slovenia's claimfor Blue Box exemption in 2000?
Corresponding quantities and numbers on which
payments were made in 2000?The corresponding figures can be seen from the
following table:
Area-based 1991
Cereals used for bread 45,449 ha
Other cereals 109,097 haHops 2,457 ha
Area-based 2000
Cereals used for bread 32,017 ha
Other cereals 70,449 ha
Hops 1,900 ha
G/AG/R/29
Page 25
Slovenia    G/AG/N/SVN/18      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Area-based 2000/1991 in %
Cereals used for bread 70.4
Other cereals 64.6
Hops 77.3
Headage-based 1993
Bulls and steers 125,078
Other cereals 218,969
Hops 10,097
Headage-based 2000
Cereals used for bread 8,048
Other cereals 61,094
Hops 4,506
Headage-based 2000/1993 in %
Cereals used for bread 6.7
Other cereals 27.9
Hops 44.6
In case of headage based payments there was an
additional condition to be complied with namely thatthe livestock density was not more than 2 livestock
units per hectare (cross-compliance).
United States    G/AG/N/USA/36      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
EC – Information sought about the current
notification status of Market Promotion and
Development Programs.
- Is it correct that the Market Access Program, the
Co-operator Program and the Emerging MarketsProgram allocate federal funds for overseas
marketing and promotion of US agricultural
products?Yes.
- Are the Market Access, Co-operator and
Emerging Markets programmes notified in thedomestic support notification?  If yes, where arethey notified?  If no, why are they not notified?No, they are not notified.  These programmes are not
considered domestic support.
- How much is the federal funding in 1998 for the
three programmes?  Has supplementary publicfunding at the sub-national level been madeavailable for these programmes?In fiscal year 1998 (October 1997-September 1998),
the Market Access Programme was funded at$90 million;  the Foreign Market Development(Cooperator) Programme was funded at
$33.5 million;  and the Emerging Markets
Programme was funded at $9.8 million.  Informationon supplementary funding at the state level forwidely available export promotion and advisoryservices is not available.
G/AG/R/29
Page 26
- How does the US assure that beneficiaries of the
programs do not receive funding contingent uponexport performance or that they use it to directlyreduce export prices?These programmes are widely available export
promotion and advisory services.  The fundsprovided under the programmes are prohibited frombeing used to directly reduce export prices.  The USDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) has a rigorous
compliance system to ensure that funds are consistent
with programme requirements.  USDA also monitorsthe implementation of these programmes through a
network of industry contacts.
EC - At the meeting in September of the Committee
on Agriculture, in its reply to our first questionconcerning crop insurance, the US mentioned
3 categories of beneficiaries:
• Uninsured producers who suffered crop losses
due to natural disasters of at least 35 per cent in 1998;
• Producers who had any crop losses in three or
more years between 1994 and 1998;
• And those producers who purchased a federal
crop insurance, including CAT.Our earlier response implied that 1998 single-year
emergency crop disaster payments were limited touninsured producers.  However, the single-year
payments were made available to all "producers on a
farm who have incurred losses in the 1998 crop dueto disasters".  This covered three groups of crops:(i) insured crops;  (ii) uninsured crops (whereinsurance was available, but not taken);  and (iii)
non-insurable crops (crops for which insurance was
not available).  The multi-year programme, however,covered insured crops and non-insurable crops.Under either single-year or multiple-year disasterprovisions, beneficiaries had to agree by contract topurchase crop insurance for 1999 and 2000 crops if
they did not purchase insurance for the 1998 crop.
Concerning in particular category (1) and (2) the EC
would like to be further informed about thefollowing:
From the reply the EC note that producers in category
(1) did not use regular insurance products, butreceived disaster payments for losses occurred in1998 without having paid premiums.  The EC alsonote the condition for eligibility contained in PL 105-277 to take out an insurance policy in 1999 and 2000.
Do the same conditions apply to the beneficiaries in
category (2)?  Did a beneficiary need to be uninsured
for any losses incurred in the period 1994-1998 to beeligible for the disaster payments?  Is he or she alsoobliged to take out an insurance policy in 1999 and2000?
What has been the level of reimbursement for thelosses of the beneficiaries under the category (1) and(2) above, and how was the amount of individuallosses established?
Have any potential beneficiaries for category (1) and
(2) declined to purchase crop insurance for 1999 and2000, and have they been excluded from the benefit
of the disaster payments?G/AG/R/29
Page 27
Follow-up comment by the EC :
Rationale for not notifying the Market Access, Co-
operator and Emerging Markets programmes.Follow-up response by the United States :
The US believes that the Market Access, Co-operator
and Emerging Markets programmes are consideredunder Article 9, paragraph 1(d) of the AoA as"widely available export promotion and advisory
services".
South Africa    G/AG/N/ZAF/37      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia - General Services
Details regarding the construction of approved
waterworks, and confirmation that such projects do
not include subsidised on-farm irrigation facilities?The projects under the programme "construction of
waterworks" (infrastructure) are for the supply ofdrinking water for animals in communal grazingcamps as well as irrigation water for communal
vegetable gardens in rural areas.  The projects
involve sinking of bore holes, construction of earthdams as well as drinking pans.  The projects fallwithin the criteria of Annex 2, General Services,
paragraph (g).G/AG/R/29
Page 28
Table DS:2 Notifications
Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/16      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia - Verification that the exemption from
certain taxes is received by livestock producers ?The measures entail compensation for the losses
suffered by the producers as part of their involvement
in sustaining the whole marketing system.
Explanation sought on  how the requirements are met
under Annex 2, paragraph 7(a) to (d) of the AoA?The criteria that must be fulfilled in order to obtain
the exemptions envisaged in the decree are:
- To be a natural or legal person owning
establishments which export meat and/or offal of
animal species liable to contract foot-and-mouth
disease;  and
- that 30% or more of the turnover of the chilled or
frozen meat and offal was destined for foreignmarkets.
The measure is meant to provide partial
compensation for the income loss of meat processing
plants that have ceased exporting and to help themfind alternative domestic marketing channels.Accordingly, the meat processing plants that soldover 70% in the domestic market did not receivesupport.  Finally, it should be emphasized that this
decree compensates less than 70% of the income loss
and there is currently no programme to compensatesuch losses.
Canada - How the tax exemption for meat exportersmeets all the specific criteria of Annex 2, paragraph7?  How are the income trigger thresholds for
eligibility for a tax exemption established?  How
does Argentina ensure that the revenue foregonecompensates for less than 70% of the loss?See the above reply to question No. 2 from Australia.
EC – Why tax exemptions for natural and legal
persons owning establishments which export meatand/or offal of animal species liable to contract foot-and-mouth disease are considered to be a domestic
support measure?Argentina considers that the decree providing
exemption from certain taxes for those natural orlegal persons owning establishments which haveexported at least 30% of their turnover of meat and/or
offal properly fulfils the fundamental requirement
that there should be no distorting effect on trade andproduction, since it is not linked to exportperformance, volume or future prices.  Furthermore,this regulation meets the two basic criteria whichstate that the support in question shall be provided
through a publicly-funded government programme
not involving transfers from consumers and that itshall not have the effect of providing price support toproducers.
With regard to the criteria and conditions relating to
specific policies, refer to the above reply to questionNo. 2 from AustraliaG/AG/R/29
Page 29
Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/16      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Japan – How this programme meets the requirements
of Annex 2, paragraph 7, concerning governmentfinancial participation in income insurance and inincome safety-net programmes, which both target
producers.Refer to the above replies to questions 1 and 2 from
Australia.
Specific requirements exporters have to meet in order
to be eligible for the tax exemptions.Refer to the above reply to question No. 2 from
Australia.
New Zealand  -  What taxes are covered by the
exemption?  Does this constitute a full or partialexemption?  For how long will the exemptionscontinue?  What mechanisms have been establishedto review the necessity of the support mechanism?What is meant by the measures "voluntary nature"?For replies to all these questions, please refer to
Article 1 of Decree 732/01.  (The regulations may bedownloaded from the website of the Ministry of theEconomyInfoleg (http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/orwww.mecon.gov.ar).
The exemption includes the tax on presumed
minimum profit (part V, Law 25063), the tax on theinterest paid, and the financial cost of the companydebt (part IV, Law 25063).  The value added tax on
the amount of the contributions made to the Single
Retirement and Pensions System counts as a taxcredit (Law 24241).
The exemptions mentioned above are partial since the
more burdensome taxes for the taxpayer continue in
force (e.g. value added tax and the profits tax).
The exemptions will last, as specifically stated in
Article 5, paragraph 4, until the markets reopen.  TheMinistry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries andFood (SAGPyA) and the Federal Administration of
Public Revenue (AFIP) are the bodies responsible for
checking that the beneficiaries fulfil the requirementslaid down in the decree in order to enjoy the above-mentioned exemptions.
Adherence to the decree is voluntary since, in order
to enjoy the benefits in question, the producers must
meet the requirements laid down in the decree.  Theforeign market must represent over 30% of theturnover.
Estimate of the likely cost of the measure if it were tocontinue for a year?It has been estimated that, in the event of the markets
not reopening, the fiscal cost of maintaining thebenefits established under Decree 732/01 during2002 for the meat-processing plants entitled to such
benefits could amount to US$7 million.  This
calculation is based on the fact that the meat-processing plants that have so far submitted requestsfor the benefits number about 20, employing in allabout 10,500 workers.
G/AG/R/29
Page 30
Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/16      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – What criteria recipients must meet to
receive the tax exemption described in thisnotification?  Explanation of how this programme is
consistent with paragraph 7(c) of Annex 2.Refer to the above reply to question No. 2 from
Australia.
Slovak Republic G/AG/N/SVK/31      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/Australia - Under what kind of domestic
support is the measure being notified. ?
What happens with the milk production not directed
to the market?  Are there figures of its amount?
What happens to beef production resulting from these
milk cows?The subsidy programme comes from the National
Rural Development Programme which is oriented toconservation as well as restoration of rural sub-regions for small- and medium-scale farmers.  It isthe case, as well, of support for farmers who started
their farming activities on land not yet utilised.  In
this connection, the basic condition for granting thesubsidy is submission of a development programmefor breeding of cows without market milk productionby farmer in cooperation with the respective regionalbreeders' union.
Is the measure related to measure notified under item(1) – other measures of Annex 2, "cows withoutmarket milk production" of Supporting Table DS:1 of
notification G/AG/N/SVK/30?There is no milk output (therefore no data are
available), the milk is direct ly utilised for the feeding
of calves. Cows are bred only for reproduction
purposes.  The volume of beef production is
consumed directly within farmers' families, sincethese are only small farming sizes.
How does the subsidy – for breeding purposes –fulfils the conditions of paragraph 1 of Annex 2 ofthe AoA, considering that the subsidy takes intoaccount production factors such as the value of land?The subsidy is related to production in worse climatic
and soil conditions, which is a pre-condition for theallocation of financial resources
Canada/New Zealand/United States – Under whatparagraph of Annex 2 exemption is claimed  for themeasure "Subsidies for cow breeding without market
milk production" and how does the measure meet the
relevant specific criteria?The aim of this subsidy programme comes from the
National Rural Development Programme which isoriented to conservation as well as restoration of rural
sub-regions for small- and medium-scale farmers.  It
is the case, as well, of support for farmers whostarted their farming activities on land not yetutilised.  In this connection, the basic condition forgranting the subsidy is submission of development
programme for breeding of cows without market milk
production by farmer in cooperation with respectiveregional breeders' union. The way of granting theseresources under respective subsidy programme isbased on several criteria;  one of these is headcriterion, which is used only for the purpose of
objective allocation of these financial resources to
individual farmers.
Follow-up comment by Argentina :
Confirmation that measure notified in SVK/31 falls
under Annex 2.
G/AG/R/29
Page 31
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 – Comment requested on the new measure
which "compensates income loss of farmers resultingfrom price decrease" and which is notified as anArticle 6.5 direct payment but does not seem to be a
"production-limiting programme".Producers and producer organizations were informed
about the production limiting programmes inquestion in the Decree on the implementation offinancial interventions for the preservation and
development of agriculture and food production
(OJ RS 27/2000).
Requirement that payments are made on 85% of the
base level of production are ensured by producerorganizations, paying agency and inspectorate that
carries out the so called on the spot control as to the
actual state of play of the data provided in theapplications.
Base level of production is determined on the basis
of the available statistical data on the arable crops
production and usage of the land in hectares for the
area based payments.  The respective year was 1991.
As to the animal headage premium, the available
statistical data come from the year 1993.
Australia – Basis for the calculation of the direct areaand headage payments, to demonstrate how theymeet Article 6.5(a)(ii) and (iii), and confirmation ofthe basis of the assessment of the "price decrease ofmajor crops"?The corresponding figures can be seen from the
following table.
Area-based 1991
Cereals used for bread 45,449 ha
Other cereals 109,097 haHops 2,457 ha
Area-based 2000
Cereals used for bread 32,017 ha
Other cereals 70,449 haHops 1,900 ha
Area-based 2000/1991 in %
Cereals used for bread 70.4
Other cereals 64.6Hops 77.3
Headage-based 1993
Bulls and steers 125,078
Other cereals 218,969
Hops 10,097
Headage-based 2000
Cereals used for bread 8,048
Other cereals 61,094
Hops 4,506
Headage-based 2000/1993 in %
Cereals used for bread 6.7
Other cereals 27.9
Hops 44.6G/AG/R/29
Page 32
(cont'd) In case of headage based payments the livestock
density had also to be not more than 2 livestock unitsper hectare (cross-compliance).
Confirmation of the price decrease of major crops as
we have done away with the system ofadministrative fixed prices.
Are payments based on fixed area and fixed headagefor the period of the programme?Yes.
Japan – Reform of Agriculture Policy – National
Development Programme for Agriculture, Food,
Forestry and Fisheries
Kind of production-limiting programmes which have
been enforced with regard to the direct area payments
under Article 6.5(a)(ii) and the direct headagepayments under Article 6.5(a)(iii), respectively. Usage of the land is registered on the basis of orto-
photo system. Agricultural land register and Animalregister have been established.  There is a 100%
administrative control of all applications as well as
10% on spot control in case of animal premium and5% on spot control in case of area based directpayments.  Additional criterion in case of headagebased payments, namely that the livestock density of
not more than 2 livestock units per hectare (cross-
compliance), is to be observed. Payments andadministrative control are carried out by a payingagency that operates a special integratedadministrative control system (IACS).  On the spotcontrol is delegated to the Inspectorate for
agriculture, forestry, hunting and fisheries.
How is ensured the requirement that payments aremade on 85 per cent of the base level of production?Producers and producer organizations were informed
about the production limiting programmes in
question in the Decree on the implementation offinancial interventions for the preservation anddevelopment of agriculture and food production(OJ RS 27/2000).
Requirement that payments are made on 85% of the
base level of production are ensured by producerorganizations, paying agency and inspectorate thatcarries out the so called on the spot control as to theactual state of play of the data provided in the
applications.
Base level of production is determined on the basis of
the available statistical data on the arable cropsproduction and usage of the land in hectares for thearea based payments.  The respective year was 1991.
As to the animal headage premium  the available
statistical data come from the year 1993.
G/AG/R/29
Page 33
Direct payments within national agri-environmental
programme
How is it is ensured that the amount of payment shall
be limited to the extra costs or loss of incomeinvolved in complying with the governmentprogramme?Direct payments within national agri-environmental
programme comply with the Annex 2, paragraph12 (b) on the basis of the criteria set out in theprovisions of the Decree on the implementation offinancial interventions for the preservation and
development of agriculture and food production
(OJ RS 27/2000).  Payments for the agri-environmental programme are limited in scope andvalue in order to cover the extra costs or loss ofincome because of smaller yields and additional
work. Basic calculations related to the eligibility of
extra costs or loss of income have been done on thebasis of the Guideline to the Good ManagementPraxis (OJ SRS 29/86).
Payments for the agri-environmental programme aresubject to the conclusion of the 5-year obligation forfarming according to the provisions of the Decree onthe implementation of financial interventions for thepreservation and development of agriculture and food
production (OJ RS 27/2000).  Contract stipulates the
fulfilment of the special conditions (like GoodAgricultural Practice Code) in order to qualify for theagri-environmental programme set out in the quoted
decree.
United States - Steps taken to limit the amount of thepayment to the extra costs or loss of income involved
in complying with the programme.Eligibility for the agri-environmental payments is
determined on the basis of the Decree on the
implementation of financial interventions for thepreservation and development of agriculture and foodproduction (OJ RS 27/2000).  Payments for the agri-environmental programme are limited in scope andvalue in order to cover the extra costs or loss of
income because of smaller yields and additional
work.  Basic calculations related to the eligibility ofextra costs or loss of income have been done on thebasis of the Guideline to the Good Management
Praxis (OJ SRS 29/86).
Portion of the payments provided for preservation of
cultural landscapes with traditional farming methods?Preservation of cultural landscapes with traditional
farming methods comprises measures of the agri-
environmental programme that was implemented in
the year 2001.  In the year 2000 only the followingmeasures of the agri-environmental programme wereintroduced: organic farming, prevention of erosion ofvineyards, mountain pastures and integrated fruitsproduction as measure for decreasing of chemical
inputs.
G/AG/R/29
Page 34
Under the programme for direct payments for less-
favoured areas, what steps are taken to limit theamount of the payment to the extra costs or loss of
income involved in complying with the programme?
How is the requirement that payments must be made
at a degressive rate above a threshold level of the
factor concerned met?Less favoured areas payments scheme is also based
on the calculations to compensate the additionalcosts of production or loss of income for the farmers
who produce under the unfavourable production
conditions like steep slopes, altitude, vegetationperiod, strong wind, soil characteristics etc.  Thesupport is available to all producers which meet thecriteria of the less favoured areas set out in the
Decree on criteria for determining areas with
restricted agricultural possibilities (OJ RS 62/2000).According to the above me ntioned decree there are
2 different kinds of payments for:
- mountainous regions and farms on steep slopes
(16.000 SIT/ha),
- hilly, karst and other regions with limitingproduction factors (11.000 SIT/ha).
Less favoured areas payments are area based
payments, paid out on a hectare basis regardless whatis produced there.  In this respect they are completelydecoupled payments and not related to any type or
volume of production.
Follow-up comment by Argentina :
Notification is an example of the distortive effects
that a Blue Box measure can have.
United States G/AG/N/USA/37      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina - Item 4 of the notification states that " …
80 per cent of the funds being used to share the costsof habitat improvements".   How are the remaining20% used?Technical assistance.
Japan – Specific examples of the measures to carry
out "habitat improvement" based on the cost-sharing
agreements.Practices installed on upland habitat include:  various
types of seeding and plantings, fencing, livestockmanagement, prescribed burning, shrub thickets with
shelterbelts.  Additional practices were installed for
the benefit of forest land management, includingcreation of forest openings, various types of diskingor mowing including meander disking throughwoodlands, woody cover control, bush management,upland wildlife management, aspen stand
regeneration, and exclusion of feral animals.
Practices to enhance or create wetland wildlife
habitat include:  installation of culverts or watercontrol structures, invasive plant control, fencing,creation of greentree reservoirs, moist soil unit
management, and creation of shallow water areas.G/AG/R/29
Page 35
(cont'd) Practices to improve aquatic and riparian wildlife
habitat include:  tree plantings, fencing with livestockmanagement and off-stream watering, in-streamstructures, seeding, streambank protection andstabilization, stream deflectors, creation of small
pools, installation of buffers, removal of dams,
fencing, creation of fish passages past structures,alternative watering facilities, and establishment of
in-stream structures such as logs or rocks.G/AG/R/29
Page 36
ANNEX
Part II – Deferred Replies to Questions on Notifications Raised at Previous Meetings
Table MA:2 Notifications
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/31   Tariff Quota Fill   (Table MA:2)
(G/AG/R/28, pages 8-9 refer)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Questions raised by Brazil concerning:
TRQ for frozen orange juice.  Clarification sought
regarding frozen orange juice (total value of importlicences issued;  mechanism for issuance;  reasons for
low fill rate);  and
TRQ for poultry cuts and pork.  Clarification sought
why TRQ for poultry cuts was filled while pork TRQ
was only 30 per cent filled.For the detailed arrangements of the quota
management, refer to Commission Regulation1831/96.  This regulation is contained on page 121 inthe Addendum of 14 June 2001 to notifications
G/AG/N/EEC/1, EEC/3, EEC/14 and EEC/15
following the General Council Decision WT/L/384.The underfill can only be explained by marketfactors.
The quantity imported adequately supplemented the
offer on the internal market.  On the contrary, thepork quota was underfilled because there wassufficient supply at competitive prices on the internal
market.
Table DS:1 Notifications
European Communities    G/AG/N/EEC/30   Domestic Support   (Table DS:1)
(G/AG/R/28, page 18 refers)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Questions raised by Brazil concerning:
Green Box.  Brazil requested further details on the
Green Box programmes of "aid for young farmers"
and "support and protection of organic production
…";  andThe support covers each of the elements mentioned
in column 2 and is not limited to aid for young
farmers and support to organic production.  The EC
legislation referred to in column 5 gives ampleinformation on the conditions under which all typesof support mentioned are provided.
The conditions for the allocation of an aid to young
farmers can be found in Article 10 of Council
Regulation 950/97.  In Article 2 of CouncilRegulation 2078/92, a comprehensive list is given ofactivities making up the agri-environmental aidscheme.G/AG/R/29
Page 37
European Communities    G/AG/N/EEC/30   Domestic Support   (Table DS:1)
(G/AG/R/28, page 18 refers)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Questions raised by Brazil concerning:
Blue Box.  Clarification sought regarding "per
hectare compensatory payments for producers ofcereals …", including a breakdown per type ofcereals benefiting from such support.These cereals are listed in Annex II of Council
Regulation 1765/92.  Apart from maize, they are:
1001 10 durum wheat
1001 90 other wheat and meslin other than
durum wheat
1002 00 00 rye1003 00 barley
1004 00 oats
1007 00 grain sorghum1008 buckwheat, millet and canary sees;
other cereals
Slovak Republic    G/AG/N/SVK/30    Domestic Support    (Table DS:1)   (G/AG/R/28, page 21refers)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Questions raised by Australia concerning:
Supporting Table DS:7The payments for milk powder production are aimed
at developing feeding mixtures and substitutes only
for domestic consumption.  Therefore, this payment
is not determined for subsidizing of milk powderproduction itself.
The total value of production of liquid milk is
332 mil. l. (332,000 t) and value of milk powder
production represents 11,900 t.
In our notification SVK/30, on page 7 near the figure
"6", the abbreviation "mil." should be deleted.  Thiscorrigendum will be submitted to the WTO
Secretariat as soon as possible.
Supporting Table DS:9 The subsidy programme related to livestock breeding
promotion as well as that concerning cow breeding
for milk production are aimed at promoting thequality of livestock breeding and motivating theextension of herds with genetic potential of a highquality.  Both programmes have been used to
promote creation of the landscape, unemployment
reduction and farming conditions.
Total value of agricultural production With respect to the question related to total
agricultural production, we kindly ask thedistinguished delegate of Australia to clarify which
kind of production is in question.
G/AG/R/29
Page 38
Table ES:1 Notifications
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/32   Export Subsidies   (Table ES:1to ES:3)
(G/AG/R/28, pages 35 refers)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Questions raised by Brazil concerning:
Wheat and wheat flour, coarse grains, butter andbutteroil, and other milk products.  The subsidized
exports exceeded the level of notified total exports
for these products.  Can the EC provide anexplanation for this?Data on total exports are from EC export statistics
(i.e. they represent actual exports) for the periodJuly 1999-June 2000, and are expressed in product
weight.  The figures on subsidized exports are in
equivalent weight and are based on export certificatesissued during the marketing year in question,irrespective of the actual date of export.  Moreover,not all certificates will be effectively used.  Givencertain economic circumstances, it may be
advantageous for traders to apply for new certificates
instead of using the certificates previously granted.
Details requested (value and volume) regardingdestination of subsidized exports to Mercosurcountries for wheat, rice, secondary grains, powdered
milk and wine.There is no aggregate data on the share (value and
volume) of our export destinations
__________