RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/AG/R/6
21October 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-4338)
Committee onAgriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OFTHE MEETING HELD ON24-25 SEPTEMBER 1996
Note bytheSecretariat
1. TheCommittee onAgriculture helditssixthregular meeting on24-25 September 1996. In
theabsence oftheChairman, Ambassador Danai Tulalamba, itwasagreed thatMrs.Apiradi Tantraporn
ofThailand would chair themeeting.
2. Theagenda ofthemeeting, contained inWTO/AIR/423, wasadopted withthefollowing
modifications: (i)thedeletion, atitsrequest, ofthematters raised bytheEuropean Communities
withrespect totwonotifications byHungary under PartIAoftheproposed agenda (G/AG/N/HUN/4
andG/AG/N/HUN/5); and(ii)thedeletion, atitsrequest, ofthematter raised byNewZealand with
respect tothenotification byCanada under thesame itemoftheproposed agenda (G/AG/N/CAN/6).
TheCommittee alsoagreed thatitwould meet without thebenefit ofobservers being present from
theinternational intergovernmental organizations from, andincluding, agenda itemPartIIA(iii).
PartI:TheReview Process
3. TheCommittee reviewed thefollowing notifications aslisted ontheagenda:
(i) ontheadministration oftariffandotherquota commitments (Table MA:1): fromBrazil
(G/AG/N/BRA/3), Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/2/Add.1 andG/AG/N/CAN/6), theCzech
Republic (G/AG/N/CZE/1/Rev.1), Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/1), Hungary
(G/AG/N/HUN/5), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/8), Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/3), Morocco
(G/AG/N/MAR/1),thePhilippines(G/AG/N/PHL/3),Poland(G/AG/N/POL/1/Rev.1),
Romania(G/AG/N/ROM/4andCorr.1),theSlovakRepublic(G/AG/N/SVK/1/Rev.1),
South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/2), Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/3) andThailand
(G/AG/N/THA/11, 12,13and17);G/AG/R/6
Page2
(ii) relating toimports under tariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:2): from
Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/2), Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/4), Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/4),
Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/2), theCzech Republic (G/AG/N/CZE/3), Guatemala
(G/AG/N/GTM/2), Hungary (G/AG/N/HUN/4), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/10), Korea
(G/AG/N/KOR/5), Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/4), Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/2), New
Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/5), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/2/Rev.1), thePhilippines
(G/AG/N/PHL/4), Poland (G/AG/N/POL/3), Romania (G/AG/N/ROM/5), theSlovak
Republic(G/AG/N/SVK/3),Slovenia(G/AG/N/SVN/3),SouthAfrica(G/AG/N/ZAF/3),
Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/4) andtheUnited States (G/AG/N/USA/3);
(iii) inthecontext ofthespecial safeguard (Tables MA:3 toMA:5): from Botswana
(G/AG/N/BWA/1),Canada(G/AG/N/CAN/7),Guatemala(G/AG/N/GTM/3),Hungary
(G/AG/N/HUN/3), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/7 and9),Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/4 and6),
Malaysia(G/AG/N/MYS/3),Morocco(G/AG/N/MAR/5),Norway(G/AG/N/NOR/4),
Poland(G/AG/N/POL/5),Romania(G/AG/N/ROM/2),SouthAfrica(G/AG/N/ZAF/4),
Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/2), Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/16), theUnited States
(G/AG/N/USA/4) andUruguay (G/AG/N/URY/4);
(iv) relating todomestic support commitments (Table DS:1): fromChile (G/AG/N/CHL/3),
Cyprus (G/AG/N/CYP/1), theCzech Republic (G/AG/N/CZE/7), Iceland
(G/AG/N/ISL/2), Macau (G/AG/N/MAC/1), Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/3), theSlovak
Republic (G/AG/N/SVK/5), Slovenia (G/AG/N/SVN/4/Rev.1), Switzerland
(G/AG/N/CHE/6), Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/15) andUruguay (G/AG/N/URY/3);
(v) inthecontext ofnewormodified support measures exempt from reduction (Table
DS:2): from Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/5 andG/AG/N/CAN/8) andtheUnited States
(G/AG/N/USA/5);
(vi) relating toexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3): from Argentina
(G/AG/N/ARG/2), Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/4), Botswana (G/AG/N/BWA/2), Brazil
(G/AG/N/BRA/1 and5),Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/1 and2),Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/1),
theCzech Republic (G/AG/N/CZE/4 and5),Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/4), Japan
(G/AG/N/JPN/6), Macau (G/AG/N/MAC/1), Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/5), Morocco
(G/AG/N/MAR/4), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/3), Poland (G/AG/N/POL/4), Romania
(G/AG/N/ROM/3), the Slovak Republic (G/AG/N/SVK/4), SwitzerlandG/AG/R/6
Page3
(G/AG/N/CHE/5), Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/10 and14),Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/1
and2)andUruguay (G/AG/N/URY/2 and5);
(vii) onexport prohibitions andrestrictions (Table ER:1): from theCzech Republic
(G/AG/N/CZE/6) andHungary (G/AG/N/HUN/6).
4. Specific points raised during themeeting withrespect tothenotifications listed inparagraph 3
above aresummarized intheAnnex tothisreport. TheCommittee agreed torevert tothenotifications
ofHungary (G/AG/N/HUN/6), Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/4 and6),thePhilippines (G/AG/N/PHL/4) and
theUnited States (G/AG/N/USA/5) atitsnextmeeting.
5. Thefollowing notifications were subject topreliminary review andaretobereverted toat
thenextmeeting inaccordance withparagraph 9oftheCommittee 'sWorking Procedures:
(i) ontheadministration oftariffandotherquota commitments (Table MA:1): fromIsrael
(G/AG/N/ISR/1) andNicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/1);
(ii) inthecontext ofthespecial safeguard (Tables MA:3 toMA:5): from Israel
(G/AG/N/ISR/2) andNicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/2);
(iii) relating todomestic support commitments (Table DS:1): from Australia
(G/AG/N/AUS/7), Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/6) andNorway (G/AG/N/NOR/5);
(iv) inthecontext ofexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3): fromAustralia
(G/AG/N/AUS/6),Israel(G/AG/N/ISR/3),Nicaragua(G/AG/N/NIC/3)andtheUnited
States (G/AG/N/USA/6).
6. TheCommittee noted thatnocounter-notifications werereceived under PartIDoftheagenda.
Matters Relevant totheImplementation ofCommitments under theReform Programme:
Article 18:6
7. Thefollowing matters relating totheimplementation ofcommitments under thereform
programme were raised pursuant toArticle 18:6oftheAgreement onAgriculture:G/AG/R/6
Page4
(a) NewZealand: Overdue Notifications
8. Therepresentative ofNewZealand expressed hisconcern regarding overdue notifications on
domestic support andexport subsidies andurged Members concerned tosubmit theirnotifications for
review bytheCommittee inthecurrent year. He,together withtherepresentatives ofAustralia, Canada
andtheUnited States, alsoexpressed concern regarding latesubmission ofmarket access notifications.
Inthisregard reference wasmade tounfulfilled notification obligations onthepartofBarbados,
ElSalvador andMexico inrespect oftheadministration oftariff andother quota commitments. The
representative ofMexico indicated thattechnical, administrative andpersonnel problems hadbeen
encountered inmeeting therelevant market access notification requirements butassured theCommittee
thatthese notifications would beforthcoming shortly.
9. Asageneral point concerning Table MA:2 notifications, therepresentative ofNewZealand
noted thatthereasons advanced bysome Members forunderfilled tariffquotas, suchaslackofdomestic
demand, were notveryconvincing incases where large gapsbetween internal andexternal prices
existed, andsuggested thattherewasscope forimprovements intheallocation oftariff quota licences
toensure more effective access opportunities forexporters.
(b) NewZealand: Indonesian Import Measures onCertain Dairy Products
10. Inresponse topoints raised bytherepresentatives ofNewZealand andAustralia regarding
thepossible intensification ofrestrictions onimports ofcertain dairy products andtheproduct coverage
ofIndonesia 'stariff quotas, therepresentative ofIndonesia indicated thatthechanges inthemixing
ratios fordairy products would notleadtoanintensification ofimport restrictions. Itwasexplained
thatIndonesia 'snotification (G/AG/N/IDN/3) wasbased onthetariff quotas inPartI,Section I-Bof
itsSchedule andthuscovered three products (HS0402.21.290, 0402.29.190 and0402.10.100).
Nevertheless, Indonesia wasconsidering revising its1995notification toinclude buttermilk andmilk
fatasasteptofurther liberalize imports oftheseproducts. Inresponse toquestions bytherepresentative
ofAustralia, therepresentative ofIndonesia indicated thatfresh cheese andcurdwould notbesubject
totariffquota arrangements andthatconsultations werecontinuing ontherectifications toIndonesia 's
Schedule proposed in1994 (G/RS/21). NewZealand andAustralia noted thattheywould continue
theirbilateral contacts withIndonesia.G/AG/R/6
Page5
(c) NewZealand/United States: NewIndonesian Import Regulations forFruits andVegetables
11. Clarification wassought bytherepresentatives ofAustralia, NewZealand andtheUnited States
regarding newregulations andrequirements, including those related toinspection, certification and
licensing procedures, introduced ortobeintroduced byIndonesia forimports offruits andvegetables.
Therepresentative ofIndonesia stated thatwhile nomeasures hadbeenimplemented sofar,ajoint
decree bytheMinisters ofHealth andAgriculture hadbeen issued ontheapplication ofCodex
Alimentarius standards inrespect ofmaximum levels ofpesticide residues inorder toprotect thehealth
ofIndonesian consumers. Thenewtechnical regulations would comply withrequirements under the
Codex Alimentarius andtheSPSAgreement andwerenotintended tobeatrade restrictive measure.
Indonesia invited those concerned togivespecific comments regarding anyparts oftheMinisterial
decree which wereconsidered maycause problems andundertook toprovide appropriate responses.
Therelated technical regulations would bedulynotified toother Members through theTBTandSPS
Committees. TheMembers raising theissue indicated theirintention tofollow itupbilaterally with
Indonesia.
(d) United States: European Communities 'Import Licensing Requirements inrespect of
Fruits andVegetables
12. Therepresentative oftheUnited States considered thattheEuropean Communities 'newimport
licensing requirements forfruits andvegetables constituted adiscouragement totrade because ofthe
increased administrative burden andcostsinvolved. Therepresentative oftheUnited States along with
those ofArgentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, NewZealand andSouth Africa alsoconsidered
thatthelicensing requirements were more restrictive thannecessary from thestandpoint ofimport
monitoring andmarket stabilization given other alternatives, suchasanon-line reporting system at
points ofentry. Theywereseentobeanadditional burden onexporters which increased thecomplexity
ofanalready complicated fruits andvegetable trade andcould alsohaveadditional restrictive effects
onimports coming fromother latitudes. Therepresentative ofArgentina alsoreferred totheadditional
financial costs involved fortheprivate sector, which itestimated at2.2million ECU inrelation to
aprofit fromthetrade of7.5million ECU. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated
thatthelicensing measures wereinlinewiththeCommunities 'WTO commitments andthatwhatwas
involved wasanautomatic import licensing system, which wasnotunusual intheagricultural sector.
Thesystem wasalready inplace andthere hadbeennoreports ofimpediments totrade asaresult
ofitsapplication. Inthislight, theCommunities considered thatstatements totheeffect thatthe
implementation ofthemeasure wasrestrictive werefalse. Itwasnoted thattheregulations inquestionG/AG/R/6
Page6
provided foranexamination ofother arrangements thatcould beused, butsofar,thelicensing system
wasfound tobequite efficient andnotburdensome.
(e) United States: Administration ofTariff Quotas byKorea
13. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thattheadministration ofKorea 'stariff quotas
washaving theeffect oflimiting United States 'exports of,inparticular, chicken, peanuts, oranges,
whey powder, soyflakes andcorngrits. Specifically: (i)inthecaseofthetariff quota forpoultry,
insufficient information wasprovided tobuyers andrestrictive shipment dates wereimposed; (ii)in
thecaseofpeanuts, theywere required tobeprocessed forre-export; (iii)inthecaseoforanges
andwhey powder, industry controls prevented theimportation ofquality products orrestricted the
useofimports; and(iv)formaize (corn) andsoybeans, imports were restricted tocertain products
within thebroad categories, withtheparticular products ofinterest totheUnited States being refused
entry within thetariff quotas orbeing limited tocertain uses.
14. Therepresentative ofKorea pointed outsofarastheimplementation oftariff quotas in1995
generally wasconcerned that,forforty-eight outofsixty-seven products orgroups ofproducts subject
totariff quotas, imports wereatorabove therespective tariff quota commitment levels. Foranother
eighttariffquotas, therateoffillwasalmost 80percentandthatonlyinthecaseofeleven tariffquotas
(forrelatively minor products, suchasbirds'eggs, silkworm eggsandfruittrees) were imports nil
orlessthan10percentofthetariffquota commitment levels. Thislattersituation wasdueto,interalia,
shifts inconsumer preferences, lower domestic prices andsharply increased demand forsubstitute
products. Oftheother eleven underfilled tariff quotas, eightwereadministered onafirst-come-first-
served basis andonlytwoonanauction basis, indicating alowcorrelation between quota fillandthe
method ofallocation employed. Withregard tothespecific products mentioned bytheUnited States,
thefollowing points were noted byKorea: (i)thatforchicken therateofquota fill(tariff quota
7,700 tons/ imports 5,755 tons) could beascribed tolowdomestic prices; (ii)thatthetariff quota
forpeanuts wasadministered onthesame basisasduring thebaseperiod andtheadministration would
continue tobeimplemented ascommitted inKorea 'sSchedule; (iii)thatfororanges thetariff quota
quantity wasfilled (tariff quota 15,000 tons/imports 14,986 tons) through thedesignated producers '
association solely onthebasis ofdomestic consumption patterns andthemarket situation, withhigh
quality oranges accounting foraconsiderable proportion oftotalimports; (iv)thatthetariff quota
forwhey powder (tariff quota 23,000 tons/imports 22,250 tons)wasadministered onafirst-come-first-
served basis, withtheKorean Dairy Industries Association (KIDA), which isnotaproducer association,
dealing onlywithprocedural matters; and(v)thatfortariff quotas relating tobroader productG/AG/R/6
Page7
categories (such asmaize andsoyabeans) tariff quotas werenotonlyfilled butimports inexcess of
tariff quota commitments tookplace.
15. Therepresentative ofNewZealand noted thateventhough tariff quotas mayhavebeenfilled,
theactivities ofproducer organizations could significantly influence theparticular products thatwere
imported orthetiming ofimports. Moreover, therentsobtained byproducer organizations through
theiradministration oftariff quotas should beconsidered asaformofdomestic support toproducers.
Several Members considered thattheadministration oftariff quotas by,ortheirallocation to,import
monopolies andproducer organizations should becarefully monitored andtheissues involved kept
under review.
(f) United States: Compliance withExport Subsidy Commitments byHungary -Status of
Consultations
16. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thatthefoundation ofanysolution mustbethe
acceptance byHungary ofitsexisting scheduled export subsidy reduction commitments andeventual
compliance therewith, andthatconsultations onthismatter under WTO provisions werecontinuing.
Anysolution would bebased oneventual compliance withtheSchedule. Therepresentatives of
Argentina, Australia, Canada, NewZealand andThailand noted thattheywere alsoparties tothis
consultation process andthatthebestefforts would bemade toresolve theissue. Therepresentative
ofHungary stated thatHungary wasmaking every effort toensure thattheArticle XXII consultations
wouldleadtoamutuallysatisfactorysolutionwhichwasbasedonfactsandwouldnotweakendisciplines.
(g) United States: Implementation ofTariff Quotas bythePhilippines
17. Information wassought andpoints were raised bytherepresentative oftheUnited States
concerningprogressintheimplementationoftariffquotas,includingdetailsonmethodsofadministration,
theissuance ofprovisional licences andtheissuance oflicences todomestic producer groups. Specific
issues wereraised bytherepresentatives oftheUnited States andtheEuropean Communities inrespect
ofpoultry meatandpigmeat import licences andtheirvalidity; andbytherepresentatives ofAustralia,
NewZealand andtheUnited States inrespect ofbeef,including access volumes forfrozen beef,tariff
quota under-utilization andnotification aspects. Australia andNewZealand alsoquestioned tariffquotas
established inrespect oftariff-only products, especially asregards frozen beefandextracts ofcoffee.G/AG/R/6
Page8
18. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines saidthatprovisional certificates (licences) hadbeenissued
toprevent delays forimporters. These certificates were, however, nowbeing replaced byregular import
certificates. Ingeneral, imports in1995weregreater thantariffquota quantities. Additional volumes
hadbeenallocated for1996forthose products (including pork, poultry andpoultry meat) whose imports
hadbeenbelow thetariffquota volumes in1995. Licences arenotallocated exclusively toanyproducer
organization orprivate sector importer, andlicenses arevalid foroneyear. With regard tofrozen
beef(atariff-only product), thetariffwasbound at60percentwhereas theapplied rateforthetemporary
tariff quota was30percent. Should suchtariff quotas fortariff-only products beremoved, imports
would besubject tothehigher bound rates. Itwasnoted thatthevolumes mentioned inG/AG/N/PHL/4
forfrozen beefreflected onlybone-in imports. When other imports wereincluded (cutsandbone-out
beef), thetotalfrozen beefimports amounted to42,311 tons.
(h) United States: Canadian Dairy Policies
19. Therepresentative oftheUnited States requested information from Canada regarding the
operation ofCanada 'snewsystem ofspecial milkclasses anditsimpact ontrade. Therepresentatives
ofArgentina, Australia, theEuropean Communities, Mexico andNewZealand alsoexpressed their
interest inthematter. Therepresentative ofCanada indicated thattheinformation would beprovided
asrequested. TheUnited States noted itsintention torevert totheissue atthenextmeeting.
(i) Australia: Implementation byColombia ofitsUruguay Round Commitments
20. Therepresentative ofAustralia noted thatinformal consultations hadbeenorganized bythe
Chairman onthesubject ofColombia 'sdomestic absorption requirements andtheirrelationship with
theTRIMS Agreement. Information wasnowavailable thatshowed thatthetariffquotas foranumber
ofproducts thatweresubject tosuchrequirements hadbeenunder-utilized. Heexpressed hisinterest
infurther discussing thesematters andindicated thatspecific concerns andquestions would bepresented
toColombia. Therepresentative ofArgentina alsoconsidered thatthematter wasonethatshould be
taken upinfurther informal consultations.
21. IntherelateddiscussiononColombia'snotificationconcerningtariffquotafill(G/AG/N/COL/2),
Colombia noted thattheissueoftherelationship between theAgreement onAgriculture andtheTRIMs
Agreement washorizontal innature andthisshould betaken intoaccount should anyfurther informal
consultations ontheissue takeplace.G/AG/R/6
Page9
(j) Argentina: Special Safeguard Provisions onFruits andVegetables intheEuropean
Communities
22. Therepresentative ofArgentina, having noted thatregulations concerning volume-based special
safeguards oneight products hadrecently beenintroduced bytheEuropean Communities, sought
information onwhen thesemeasures would benotified totheCommittee andonwhether thebaseperiod
adopted for1996/97 would bethemost recent period forwhich statistical datawereavailable. The
representativeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesconfirmedthataframeworkfortheapplicationofadditional
duties oncertain products hadbeenintroduced andthattherelevant information would benotified when
thevolume-based special safeguard wastriggered asrequired bytheAgreement onAgriculture. The
representative indicated thattheprovisions oftheAgreement onAgriculture withregard tothebase
period would berespected although theactual period could notbeverified atthemeeting. Inthegeneral
contextofspecialsafeguards,therepresentativeofNewZealandqueriedtheappropriatenessofautomatic
triggering andspecifically questioned thenecessity ofthespecial safeguard forfruitandvegetables
intheEuropean Communities given thattheCommunities 'entrypricesystem itselfoperated asaspecial
safeguard measure.
(k) Argentina: European Communities 'Exports ofBovine Meat
23. Therepresentative ofArgentina expressed concerns regarding thepossibility, according topress
reports, thattheEuropean Communities might overshoot itscommitment levels forsubsidized exports
ofbovine meat. Therepresentative ofAustralia alsonoted hisinterest inthismatter. Therepresentative
oftheEuropean Communities questioned theappropriateness ofdiscussing suchmatters onthebasis
ofpress reports andstated thatanydiscussion intheCommittee should await theCommunities '
notification onsubsidized exports.
(l) United States: Applied Tariff Rates inTunisia
24. Therepresentative oftheUnited States questioned howTunisia intended tomeetitstariffquota
commitments having regard tothefactthat,from 1July1996, maximum bound rateshadreplaced
thelower applied rates which were setatlevels necessary torespect tariff quota commitments
(G/AG/N/TUN/1 refers). Information wasalsosought onwhen thenecessary changes tothe
arrangements fortheadministration ofthese tariff quotas would benotified totheCommittee. The
representative ofTunisia stated that,asthismatter hadbeenraised atshort notice, hewould provide
thereply atalaterdate.G/AG/R/6
Page10
(m) Australia: Extension ofWTO Concessions toNon-WTO Members
25. Therepresentative ofAustralia raised hisconcerns about thebenefits oftariffquota concessions
being extended tonon-Members. More particularly, heconsidered thatonlegalaswellasmoral and
ethical grounds, nopartoftheminimum access commitments negotiated withMembers under Annex 5
oftheAgreement onAgriculture should begranted tonon-Members. Norshould beneficiaries ofthe
provisions ofthatAnnex interpret theirobligations asnotconstituting import obligations infavour
ofotherMembers. Countries which havenotcommitted themselves tothetreaty andwhich gavenothing
inreturn fortheconcessions byMembers werenotentitled toashare ofthebenefits negotiated and
paidforbyother Members. Healsonoted thatcountries which arebeneficiaries ofAnnex 5were
freetoimport unlimited quantities ofricefrom anycountry overandabove theirminimum access
commitments should theysodesire. Therepresentative ofNewZealand expressed theviewthatas
tariff quotas provided exhaustible benefits, theyshould onlybeavailable toMembers. Details were
alsosought regarding thesource ofthericeimports thathadbeennotified byKorea. Similar views
were expressed bytherepresentatives ofThailand, Uruguay andtheUnited States.
26. Therepresentative ofKorea responded thattherewerenospecific provisions intheAgreement
onAgriculture orother WTO Agreements which linked thescope ofcommitments onlytoMembers,
butnoted thatin1995ricehadbeenimported fromMembers. Therepresentative ofJapan considered
thatAnnex 5provides foraccess opportunities, buttheresult interms ofactual imports wasnot
something thatwasguaranteed. Japan alsonoted thattheWTO dealtwithlegalissues andnotmoral
orethical issues. Inresponse, therepresentative ofArgentina expressed theviewthatlegalissues had
abroad scope andalsoincluded those relating, asinthiscase, totheimpairment ofaconcession that
wasapplicable onlytoMembers.
Other Matters Relating totheReview Process
27. Nomatters relating tothereview process were raised under ItemFoftheagenda.
28. Throughout PartIoftheCommittee 'sagenda several broadly applicable orhorizontal issues
wereraised atvarious stages byanumber ofMembers. Such issues included: (i)those relating to
specific aspects oftariff quota administration including; theuseofauctioning toallocate licences;
theuseofdomestic purchase requirements; theroleofproducers 'organizations andstatetrading entities
inallocating orimplementing tariff quota access; country-specific allocations andthetreatment of
preferential trade within MFN tariff quotas; andthesub-allocation ofbroadly-defined tariff quotasG/AG/R/6
Page11
tospecific products; (ii)appropriate notification requirements inrespect oftariffquota commitments
where administration wassolely carried outthrough alowapplied rateofdutyforallimports; (iii)
theextension ofthebenefits ofminimum access andother tariff quota concessions orcommitments,
including those under Annex 5,tonon-Members; and(iv)therelationship between theAgreement
onAgriculture andtheTRIMs Agreement. Several Members alsoexpressed aninterest inabroader
discussion concerning export restrictions.
29. Concerning export subsidies, itwasevident thatallMembers thatspoke ontheissue stressed
theneed tomaintain theintegrity ofthecommitments andexpressed strong concerns about the
implications ofbudgetary outlay orvolume commitments being exceeded. Theissue ofpossible
recompense insuchcases wasalsoraised bymany Members.
30. Inconclusion, theActing Chairperson noted thatforseveral ofthesehorizontal matters, ithad
beensuggested thatplurilateral informal consultations should beorganized attheappropriate stage,
including (i)therelationship between theTRIMS Agreement andtheAgreement onAgriculture;
(ii)theextension oftariff andother quota concessions tonon-Members andother matters related to
theadministration oftariffquotas; and(iii)thefollow-up inthecaseofexport subsidies usedinexcess
ofcommitment levels. TheActing Chairperson indicated thatshewould suggest totheChairman that
hereflect ontheissue offurther informal consultations.
PartII:Other Matters within thePurview oftheCommittee
MarrakeshMinisterialDecisiononMeasuresconcerningthePossibleNegativeEffectsoftheReform
Programme onLeast Developed andNetFood-Importing Developing Countries
31. Under ItemA(i)ofPartIIoftheagenda, theCommittee agreed totheinclusion ofSaint Lucia
intheWTO listofnetfood-importing developing countries, andagreed thatBotswana 'srequest for
inclusion onthelistshould beconsidered atthenextregular meeting oftheCommittee following the
submission byBotswana ofappropriate statistical datainlinewithparagraph 2ofG/AG/3. Itwas
noted thatarevised listofnetfood-importing developing countries would beissued asG/AG/5/Rev.1.
32. Under ItemA(ii)ofPartIIoftheagenda theattention oftheCommittee wasdrawn tothefact
that,inaccordance withtheCommittee 'sWorking Procedures, thenextmonitoring exercise inrespect
oftheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision istotakeplaceattheregular meeting oftheCommittee scheduled
for28-29 November 1996. Thismonitoring process istobeconducted onthebasis, interalia,ofG/AG/R/6
Page12
thenotifications which Members, inparticular developed country donor Members, arerequired to
submit inrespect ofactions taken within theframework oftheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision as
prescribed intheCommittee 'sNotification Requirements (G/AG/2, pages 33and34). TheActing
Chairperson noted that,sofar,fourMembers hadsubmitted notifications intheNFseries (Australia,
Brazil, NewZealand andUruguay), andurged Members which haveyettosubmit theirNFnotifications
todosoassoonaspossible and,inanyevent, wellinadvance oftheNovember 1996 meeting.
33. Therepresentative oftheInternational Monetary Fund presented astatement totheCommittee
outlining howtheexisting facilities oftheIMFcanhelpleast-developed andnetfood-importing
developing countries copewithhigher foodprices, andhowthese facilities havebeenusedbysuch
countries during therecent riseinworld foodprices. Thegeneral conclusion oftheIMFwasthat,
under existing facilities andwithanticipated resources, theIMFwasinaposition tomeetanyadditional
balance-of-payments related needs thatmayarisefromhigher foodprices. Inresponse tothisstatement,
therepresentatives ofEgypt, Morocco, PeruandVenezuela expressed orconcurred intheviewthat,
inaccordance withparagraph 5oftheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision, access totheIMF'sfacilities
should notbeconditional onbalance-of-payments related criteria, butonwhether ornotthecountries
concernedwereexperiencingUruguayRound-relateddifficultiesinfinancingnormallevelsofcommercial
imports. TheMembers concerned indicated thattheywished tostudy theIMFstatement carefully
andrevert torelevant elements asappropriate atalaterstage.
Reporting Requirements fortheSingapore Ministerial Conference
34. Under items A(iii) andBofPartIIoftheagenda theCommittee considered thequestion of
thetworeports which itisrequired tosubmit totheCommittee forTrade inGoods fortheSingapore
Ministerial Conference. Inthisregard itwasindicated bytheActing Chairperson thatinformal
consultations onthesedraftreports werecontinuing andthat,inorder tomeetthedeadline forreporting
tothe1November CTG meeting, aspecial meeting oftheCommittee onAgriculture would needto
beconvened forthepurpose ofadopting thereports intheweek of21October orthereabouts.
35. With regard totheparagraphs inboththedraft report oftheCommittee totheSingapore
Ministerial Conference andthedraftreport ontheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision which relate tothe
development ofinternationally agreed disciplines onexport credits andrelated facilities pursuant to
Article 10:2oftheAgreement onAgriculture, therepresentative ofIndia stated fortherecord that
itwasIndia'sposition thattheCommittee wasproceeding onthebasisthatanyunderstanding reachedG/AG/R/6
Page13
onthismatter would nottakeeffect automatically, butthatthere would beamultilateral opportunity
todiscuss anysuchunderstanding anditsapplication intheWTO attheappropriate time.
36. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland pointed outthathisdelegation stillhadsome problems with
thedraftreport oftheCommittee andthatSwitzerland would beworking withtheChairperson and
other Members inorder toreach aconsensus induetime. Therepresentative ofMorocco sought and
received assurances thatthestatement made bytheIMFatthemeeting would notbetaken asapretext
forre-opening debate onparts ofthereport concerning theMarrakesh Ministerial Decision.
ObserverStatusintheCommitteeonAgricultureforInternationalIntergovernmentalOrganizations
37. TheCommittee agreed todefer consideration ofitemCofPartIIoftheagenda forthetime
being ashorizontal consultations were continuing onthismatter.
Other Business
38. Noitems ofother business were raised under itemDofPartIIoftheagenda.
Date ofNext Meeting
39. Thenextregular meeting oftheCommittee onAgriculture willbeheldon28-29 October 1996.
Theairgram convening thismeeting andthedraftagenda willbeissued onFriday, 18October 1996.
40. TheCommittee alsotooknoteofthefollowing schedule ofregular meetings oftheCommittee
onAgriculture in1997 (namely, meetings inMarch, September andNovember, asprovided forin
theCommittee 'sWorking Procedures, plusallowance foranadditional meeting, ifnecessary, inJune):
13-14March 1997
[26-27June1997]
25-26September 1997
20-21November 1997.G/AG/R/6
Page14
ANNEX
Review ofNotifications bytheCommittee onAgriculture atitsMeeting on24-25 September 1996
Summary ofSpecific Points Raised andResponses Thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/2/Add.1 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Clarification sought
regarding theeligibility ofapplicants other thanthe
Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) forthetariff
quota forbutter.Most ofthetariff quota in1995/96 wasallocated
totheCDC. Nevertheless, each application is
considered andinthelastmarketing yearsome
applicants whoidentified aspecialty need (i.e.
kosher butter) were granted animport permit.
United States -CanCanada provide information on
howthebutter tariff quota willbeallocated inthe
1996/97 dairy year? CanCanada explain howthe
decision toallocate shares ofthetariff quota is
made? Didanyentity other thantheCDC apply
forallocations in1996/97?Adecision regarding theallocation ofthetariff
quota forthecurrent dairy yearispending and
willbenotified totheCommittee onAgriculture
assoon aspossible. Thedecision toallocate the
tariff quota inthe1995/96 marketing yearwas
made bytheMinister ofForeign Affairs.
New Zealand -Instead ofraising theissue under
agenda item PartIE(ii),concerns raised with
regard totheimport monopoly status oftheCDC.
Noted thatthebutter imported under thetariff
quota waspurchased attheworld market price but
soldbytheCDC atsome 60percentmark-up.
Sought anexplanation forthismark-up inlight of
Canada 'sobligations under GATT 1994 Art.II:4.
How istheutilization ofbutter through theSpecial
Milk Class system, withthepotential ofbeing re-
exported, compatible withthenotion ofmarket
access opportunities? Concerns raised regarding
thepossibility thatsome butter imported under the
tariff quota could beincorporated intoproducts for
export tointernational markets which would
constitute anindirect export subsidy forCanada 's
exporters ofprocessed products.Butter isimported attheworld market price for
further processing, notre-export. TheCDC
conducts audits toensure thatbutter isused for
further processing. While Canada isaware ofits
mark-up obligations, most butter hasnotyetbeen
soldoutofstock hence information concerning
mark-ups islargely unavailable. TheSpecial Milk
Class system wasestablished forthepurpose of
domestic dairy pricing. Thesales ofimported
butter while subject tothesame criteria asthe
Special Milk Class system, isnotinitself partof
thissystem. Canada does notimpose restrictions
onprocessors withregard todomestic orexport
use.G/AG/R/6
Page15
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/6 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Sought clarification
regarding thebasis forthecountry-specific
allocations ofbeef. Asfollow-up theECnoted
thatifthere arenocountry-specific allocations in
theCanadian Schedule, Art.XIIIoftheGATT
1994 wasapplicable withthereference period for
country allocations being amore recent period
thanthebaseperiod of1986-88.Thecountry allocations areconsistent withthe
import shares inthe1986-88 baseperiod.
European Communities/Australia -What arethe
reasons behind changes intheadministration of
certain tariff quotas?Thebasis oftariff quota allocation iskeptunder
constant review. Thebasis fortheallocation of
thetariff quota for"other products ofmilk
constituents" waschanged based onmanufacturing
need. Asregards thetariff quota for"other
dairy", theallocation in1996 wasrefined to
ensure thatindustrial inputs aredirectly available
forimportation byindustrial users. Inresponse to
demand foreggpowder imports exceeding the
tariff quota volume in1995, theallocation ofthe
tariff quota for"powdered eggs" waschanged
from afirst-come-first-served system in1995 toa
system ofallocation tofurther processors to
ensure thateggpowder isavailable tothem.
European Communities -Sought clarification
concerning therelationship between NAFTA
provisions andtheglobal tariff quota foreggs and
eggproducts.Thetariff quota for"eggs andeggproducts" isa
global quota, there arenocountry allocations.
There isalsoanaccess commitment under
NAFTA. Theapplicable NAFTA tariff isnot
necessarily thesame astheMFN tariff.
Hungary G/AG/N/HUN/5 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Clarification sought concerning the
allocation tosupplying countries forsunflower-
seedoil.Isthisaglobal tariff quota?Thetariff quota continues tobeaglobal tariff
quota, aspreviously indicated innotification
G/AG/N/HUN/1. Thisnotification reflects only
thechanges introduced since thelastnotification.
Japan -Isitcorrect thatallcountry-specific
allocations have been replaced byglobal tariff
quotas?There arenocountry-specific allocations inplace
atpresent.
Argentina -There arecertain tariff quotas with
allocation limits (e.g. maize andmeat). Why are
tariff quotas "atomized" inthismanner, taking into
account thatthisresults inhigher transport costs
foroverseas suppliers?Theallocation limits oncertain tariff quotas
which aresubject toafirst-come-first-served
system, have been setforthepurpose of
forestalling monopolization ofthetariff quotas and
improving access conditions totheHungarian
market. TodateHungary hasnotreceived any
indication from importers orexporters withregard
toanyproblems faced bydistant suppliers.G/AG/R/6
Page16
Hungary G/AG/N/HUN/5 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Notariff quotas arelisted forpepper,
oranimal orvegetable fatsandoils. Does
Hungary notintend toopen tariff quotas onthese
products oraretheapplied rates lower thanthe
respective in-quota tariffs? There appear tobe
changes concerning theallocation limits (matter to
bepursued bilaterally).Thenon-notification ofthese tariff quotas isdueto
thefactthatthein-quota tariffs were notraised to
theMFN levels andremain unchanged.
Morocco G/AG/N/MAR/1 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Sought clarification
concerning certain tariff quotas missing from the
notification (e.g. sugar, oilcake ofsunflower
seeds, oilcake ofcolza seeds andoilcake ofcotton
seeds). Have theabove tariff quotas been opened
in1995?Thenotification indicates thatthetariff quotas
were opened. G/AG/N/MAR/2 shows thetariff
quota fillfortheproducts concerned.
Poland G/AG/N/POL/1/Rev.1 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Aretheapplied MFN
tariff rates forproducts forwhich notariff quotas
were opened bound?Only tariff quotas contained inthisnotification
have been opened. Forother products, the
applied tariffs areequal to,orlower than, the
respective bound in-quota tariffs.
Australia -Poland 'sSchedule liststhetariff quota
commitments atthefour-digit level whereas the
notification isatthesix-digit level. Notalltariff
lines atthesix-digit level falling intothefour-digit
category arelisted inthenotification. For"other
vegetables prepared orpreserved" (HS2005)
Poland 'snotification listsonlypotatoes. Does this
mean thatthetariff quota wasavailable onlyfor
potatoes? Does Poland intend toopen tariff quotas
contained initsSchedule which have notyetbeen
notified?Response above refers -other issues tobereverted
to.G/AG/R/6
Page17
Romania G/AG/N/ROM/4 andCorr.1 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Clarification sought regarding the
limitation onshares perallocation forcertain
products ranging from 1to5percentofthetariff
quotas. Does thismean thatanimporter cannot
import more than5percentofthetariff quota
volume?
Argentina -Isthe"atomization" ofthetariff quota
related tolowutilization levels insome cases?There isnolimitation ofthetotalimports per
importer. However, Romania applies amaximum
share perallocation foroneshipment between 1
and5percentofthetariff quota inorder toavoid
monopolization ofthequota. Themaximum share
varies from onequota toanother depending onthe
totalvolume oftheinitial quota, e.g.1percent
forbeer(4,000 hl)and5percentforcheese
(80tons).
United States -Sought confirmation withregard to
tariff-only protection forproducts covered byNote
1ofPartBofG/AG/N/ROM/4.Theitems inPartBaresubject totariff-only
treatment.
Australia -Ispreferential trade excluded from the
MFN tariff quotas?Preferential trade isexcluded from thetariff
quotas.
Slovak Republic G/AG/N/SVK/1/Rev. 1Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Arecountry-specific allocations
currently being applied andwhat istheir status?
Australia -What arethereasons formaintaining
country-specific allocations oncertain MFN tariff
quotas?On1January 1996, theSlovak Republic
introduced changes toitstariff quota
administration. Country-specific allocations were
removed andreplaced byglobal tariff quotas in
thecaseofthefollowing tariff quotas: liveswine
andmeat ofswine, livesheep andmeat ofsheep,
meat offal, yoghurt, rapeseed, pasta, waters
containing added sweetening matters, wine of
grapes andundenatured ethyl alcohol (less than80
percentvol.). Onecountry allocation forthe
potato tariff quota hasbeen removed. Certain
country allocations thatwere negotiated under
Art.XXIV before 15December 1993 were
maintained. Country-specific allocations apply to
fourtariff quotas only.
Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/3 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities/United States -Assessment
sought regarding theuseofmarket demand and
domestic purchases intheallocation process for
certain tariff quotas.Theprise-en-charge system applies totariff quotas
17to19inthenotification. Thedomestic purchase
requirement isfixed according tothetotal
estimated demand oftheproduct concerned. The
system hasbeen well-functioning andimports
substantially overfilled thetariff quotas in1995.G/AG/R/6
Page18
Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/3 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities/United States/Australia -
What isthemethod ofallocation toimporters for
white wine (tariff quotas 23to25inthe
notification)? Isthetariff quota allocated intwo
six-month tranches? Indicated topursue thematter
bilaterally.Thetariff quota forwhite wine in1996 was
opened onafirst-come-first-served basis forthe
yearasawhole. Thesystem for1997 isunder
review withdifferent options being under
consideration.
European Communities -Clarification sought
regarding allocation oftariff quotas byauctioning.Auctions areconsidered tobethebestmethod to
transfer system-inherent quota rents tothe
government (Swiss statement inG/AG/R/5, p.17,
refers). Currently, there arethree products
subject toauctioning: afewmeat products (eg.
salami), fruitforcider andseedfruitproducts.
Auction bidssofarhave never reached the
respective out-of-quota tariffs andtherefore
Switzerland does notconsider ittobeinbreach of
bindings.
Australia -Clarification sought withrespect tothe
tariff quota fordairy products. Why have the
restrictions oncertain tariff lines been raised?Tobereverted to.
Thailand G/AG/N/THA/11 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Clarification sought
regarding thelimitation ontheperiod for
importation ofmaize (i.e.15February to30June
1996).Most tariff quotas referred tointhisnotification
were opened fortheperiod January toDecember.
Themaize tariff quota wasopened fortheperiod
15February to14June inorder toprevent an
oversupply situation. In1996, 300,000 tonshave
been imported compared tothecommitment of
52,000 tons.
United States -Clarification sought regarding
seasonal restrictions forriceimports. Why isthe
tariff quota notleftopen forthewhole year?Thetariff quota wasopened inthree tranches in
1996; import opportunities arestillavailable until
theendofthisyear.
New Zealand -Noted thatrestrictions within tariff
quotas (e.g. limitations ontheshare ofgreen tea
vis-à-vis black tea)could have theeffect of
restraining access under thecommitment.These sub-allocations were made onthebasis of
historical consumption patterns forthepurpose of
avoiding market disorder. There iscurrently no
plantore-allocate thesub-allocations within tariff
quotas which does notpreclude thepossibility of
reviewing thematter.G/AG/R/6
Page19
Thailand G/AG/N/THA/12, 13and17 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities/New Zealand/United
States/Australia -Concerns raised regarding the
allocation ofcertain tariff quotas todomestic
producer organizations. Why wasthissystem
chosen, inparticular asregards onions, milk and
cream andpotatoes?Asregards onions, theproducer organization is
stillinalearning process toadapt to,andcomply
with, thenewcommitments. Asregards potatoes,
theallocation tothePublic Warehouse
Organization serves toensure asmooth
importation process under thetariff quota. Asof
6September 1996, 1,700 tonswere imported
compared toacommitment of290tonswhich
demonstrates thattheallocation system does not
constitute animport restriction.
United States -Clarification sought regarding the
allocation oftheresidual quantity ofthe
concentrated milk andcream tariff quota.Thailand hastheintention ofimporting 88,000
tonsofthese products in1996 (compared toa
commitment of46,000 tons) divided intothree
tranches: 29,500 tonsinJanuary-April, 29,300
tonsinJune -October andtheresidual inthethird
period.
Australia -Sought clarification withregard tothe
definition ofunprocessed milk.Tobepursued bilaterally.
United States -Clarification sought regarding
seasonal restrictions forsoybean imports. Why is
thetariff quota notleftopen forthewhole year?Thetariff quota wasfilled inFebruary 1996.
Tariff quota imports sofarexceeded the
commitment butThailand hastheintention to
import further quantities thisyear.
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding
seasonal restrictions foronion imports. New
Zealand noted thatcommitments were understood
tobemarket access opportunities forthecourse of
theyearwhich includes thechoice astowhen the
product isexported.Tobereverted to.
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/8 Tariff andOther Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina -Sought clarification oftheconcepts of
"business plans" and"depending onthecategories
ofapplicants" inthetariff quota of"other dairy
products forgeneral use"andwithregard tothe
terms "competitive bidding system" and"owned
capital" inthericequota.Tobepursued bilaterally.G/AG/R/6
Page20
Table MA:2 Notifications
Australia G/AG/N/AUS/2 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Does Australia consider
thezerodutyontobacco imports tobebound?Theapplied rateofdutyonimports of
unmanufactured tobacco under thetariff quota
commitment andimports beyond thiscommitment
iszerowhich isnotthebound rate. Australia has,
however, nointention ofchanging theregime.
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/4 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -What arethereasons for
in-quota imports exceeding tariff quota
commitments. Does thismean thatsupplementary
autonomous tariff quotas were opened. What
mechanism does Canada apply forthese imports?
TheECconsiders thatonlyWTO tariff quota
imports should benotified, notimports under
preferential arrangements.In-quota imports represent imports atthelow
MFN rateofduty. Overfilling isdueto,amongst
other factors, NAFTA access commitments with
theUnited States administered without acountry
reserve onanMFN basis (e.g. chicken, hatching
eggs andchicks, turkey). Supplementary access
permits were granted inthecases ofbeefandveal
andpowdered butter milk.
United States -Could Canada provide information
onthetariff quota fillforbutter inthe1995/96
marketing year? Explanation sought forthelow
quota fillformargarine.Thequota fillforthebutter tariff quota in1995/96
was100percent. Thereason fortheunfilled
margarine tariff quota wasthatCanadian prices
were lower thanUSprices. Import permits were
onlysought forkosher margarine.
Colombia G/AG/N/COL/2 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Could Colombia clarify whether allofits
access commitments areadministered ona
calendar yearbasis orwhether other marketing
years apply tosome products? Could Colombia
explain thediscrepancies between scheduled
commitments andtariff quota quantities inthis
notification (e.g. meat ofbovine animals, meat of
swine, meat ofpoultry, rice, other oilseeds, cane
orbeetsugar andcotton). Doimports inexcess
oftariff commitments benefit from thesame
conditions asin-quota imports, inparticular for
wheat?Thecommitments arebased ontheagricultural
semesters, i.e.1December to30May and1June
to30November. Information inthisnotification
isbased onthecalendar year. There aresome
inconsistencies inColombia 'snotification andthe
matter willbepursued. Imports within aswellas
beyond tariff quotas commitments aresubject to
thesame conditions. Asconcerns wheat, the
90percentminimum import price waseliminated.G/AG/R/6
Page21
Colombia G/AG/N/COL/2 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Considered thatColombia 's
absorption agreements andtheuseofdiscretionary
import licensing toenforce theabsorption
agreements undermined itsminimum access
commitments anddonotqualify forexemption
under theTRIMS Agreement. Sought an
explanation forunfilled tariff quotas. Can
Colombia explain therelationship between
absorption agreements andthefailure tofillthe
respective tariff quotas?Considers thattheabsorption policy iscovered by
theTRIMS Agreement. Thepolicy isa
mechanism according towhich theMinister of
Agriculture grants import permits once the
purchase ofthenational harvest hasbeen
confirmed. Importation atthelower dutyisthus
conditional onthepurchase ofdomestic
production. Asregards theunder-utilized tariff
quotas forbutter anddried beans, none ofthese
products aresubject tonational absorption. All
requests forimport licences forthese products
were approved. Forother products, under-
utilization oftariff quotas cannot beattributed to
theabsorption policy. Asregards under-utilized
tariff quotas inthe"oils complex", such asthose
forsoybean orrapeseed oils,related tariff quotas
were substantially overfilled, e.g.forseeds and
certain oilcakes.
Czech Republic G/AG/N/CZE/3 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/United States -Why were many ofthe
tariff quotas under-utilized. Arecountry-specific
allocations afactor?Thetariff quotas areopened onafirst-come-first-
served andannual basis. Keyfactors forunder-
utilization oftariff quotas include theliberalization
ofthetrade regime andstructural adjustment in
theeconomy which triggered animport surge
which, inturn, isreflected inUruguay Round base
period levels; decline inconsumption; structural
changes related toforeign direct investment (e.g.
intheproduction ofyoghurt andother milk
products) andincreased domestic capacity to
produce bio-fuel from rapeseed.
Australia -Dotheimport levels for1995 reflect
preferential trade, e.g.forpotatoes? Where there
areaggregated tariff quotas covering different
tariff chapters, e.g.forlivebovine animals and
meat, what isthelevel ofbeefimports compared
tototalimports? IstheCzech Republic applying
thebound in-quota tariff rates?Theimport statistics confirm thatthetrend in
tariff quota utilization ispreserved ifpreferential
trade isremoved from thedata. Asregards the
tariff quota fillfor"live bovine animals andmeat
ofbovine animals", 1,198 tonswere imported as
beefandtheremaining aslivecattle. Thebound
in-quota tariffs areapplied onanMFN basis.
Argentina -Incases where in-quota imports
correspond exactly tocommitment levels, were
theyidentical orwere additional in-quota imports
notnotified?Imports inexcess oftariff quota commitments
have notbeen notified. Forpotatoes andwine,
additional tariff quota access wasopened,
independent ofWTO commitments.G/AG/R/6
Page22
Hungary G/AG/N/HUN/4 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/United States/Australia -Why were many
ofthetariff quotas under-utilized. What steps, if
any,areenvisaged toimprove thequota fill. Are
therestrictions onthesizeoftariff quota shares a
contributing factor?Reasons forunder- ornon-utilization oftariff
quotas include: restrictive monetary policy leading
togeneral decline indemand, relatively small
differences between in-quota andout-of-quota
tariff rates inmany cases andalternative
possibilities fortheimportation atlower than
MFN tariff rates (i.e.under autonomous MFN
based tariff quotas andpreferential agreements).
Forcereals, Hungary isamajor exporter thus
there islittle demand forimports. Hungary
considers thatallnecessary steps were taken to
enable importers totakeadvantage oftheimport
possibilities under tariff quotas. There areno
burdensome administrative procedures inexistence
which could have theeffect ofhindering
utilization. In1996, Hungary hasmoved towards
widespread useofthefirst-come-first-served
system withaview toimproving tariff quota
utilization rates.
Argentina -Incases where in-quota imports
correspond tocommitment levels, were they
identical orwere additional in-quota imports not
notified?Noimport licences were issued beyond thetariff
quota commitment levels. Insome cases, e.g.for
beef, thetotal available import licences were taken
upbyimporters buttheactual quantity imported
mayhave been lower.
New Zealand -Noted thatthetariff quota fillfor
dairy products wasrelatively low. Considered
there should besufficient demand toattract lower
priced imports whenever theout-of-tariff quota
wassufficiently high.Referred tothefactors mentioned above, butwill
examine theexact causes fordairy products.
Australia -Why wasthetariff quota forpotatoes
filled?Potatoes areabasic products andin1995 output
waslow.
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/10 Tariff andOther Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Whether thetariff quota
forstarches andinulin wasopened in1995? In
caseofin-quota imports exceeding thetariff quota
commitment, have autonomous tariff quotas been
opened orwhat isthebasis forreporting such
imports?Thetariff quota forstarches andinulin ismissing
duetoatechnical error. Anaddendum tothe
notification willbeforthcoming. Thecommitment
is157,000 tonsandthetariff quota fillamounts to
109,194 tons. Ifnecessary inview ofdomestic
market conditions, Japan opens additional tariff
quota quantities beyond itscommitments hence
some higher imports occur.G/AG/R/6
Page23
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/10 Tariff andOther Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities/Australia -Sought an
explanation fortheunder-utilization oftariff
quotas, particularly fordairy products.
New Zealand -Sought clarification astowhy
Japan could notfillitsdairy tariff quotas, given
thelarge gapbetween external anddomestic
prices? Why isthereduction indemand not
compensated byreduced purchases from domestic
sources rather thanreduced imports?
United States -Noted thattheproducts ofcertain
under-filled tariff quotas areimported bythe
LIPC.Thetariff quota utilization fordairy products was
lowduetodeclining domestic demand, the
decrease ofthenumber ofinfants andschool
children andadecrease inthenumber offed
livestock.
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/5 Tariff andOther Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Sought clarification
regarding thetechnical relationship between brown
riceandmilled rice. Incaseofin-quota imports
exceeding thetariff quota commitment, have
autonomous tariff quotas been opened under the
same conditions orwhat isthebasis forreporting
such imports? Sought anexplanation fortheunder-
utilization oftariff quotas, particularly forbirds'
eggs, potatoes andpotato seeds.Rice imports areexpressed inbrown ricewhereas
thetariff quota commitment isexpressed ona
milled ricebasis. Milled riceequivalent equals
90percentofbrown rice. Tariff quota
expansions areimplemented onanMFN basis.
Only 11tariff quotas outofatotal of67were not
filled. Forproducts, such asbirds'eggs,
silkworms andfruittrees, thereason waslackof
domestic demand; forpotatoes andchestnuts the
reason waslowdomestic prices andformanioc
pellets andother starches, thereason was
substitution bymaize andmanioc starches. The
designated agency fortheallocation ofthepotato
tariff quota attempted onseveral occasions,
unsuccessfully, tofillthetariff quota.
New Zealand -Istheexporting country referred
tounder in-quota imports forriceaWTO
Member?Theentire tariff quota volume in1995 was
imported from aMember.G/AG/R/6
Page24
Malaysia G/AG/N/MYS/4 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Sought anexplanation for
theunder-utilization oftariff quotas, including
certain poultry cuts, eggs, milk, cream, pigmeat,
wheat andsugar.
United States/Australia -Clarification sought
regarding thequota fillofwheat flour andrefined
sugar inlight ofthenotethatimports ofwheat and
sugar were high. Isthiscaused byanykindof
administrative mechanism oristhisoutcome a
result ofmarket forces?Itislefttotheprivate sector toreact tothemarket
access opportunities provided. Concerning wheat
andrawsugar, Malaysia noted thatthe
performance oftrading partners wasremarkable if
looked atintotality. With respect topigmeat it
hastobeborne inmind thatMalaysia islargely a
Muslim country.
New Zealand -Concern raised about the
utilization ofthetariff quota forliquid milk. How
does theallocation oflicences work? Isthere a
possibility ofre-allocation incaseofunder-
utilization oflicences? Isthere anyscope fortrade
attheout-of-quota tariff?
Australia -Inview oftheextremely lowlevel of
imports ofliquid milk, canMalaysia givean
assurance thatthere willbeanimprovement in
access conditions? Arethere anyrestrictions on
theamount ofliquid milk thatcanbeimported?Theliquid milk tariff quota isimplemented ona
first-come-first-served basis. ItisMalaysia 's
intention tocomply withthequantity asindicated
intheSchedule. Other issues raised by
New Zealand tobereverted to.
Morocco G/AG/N/MAR/2 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Thenotification reports in-quota imports
onacalendar yearbasis. Istheadministration of
tariff quotas alsocarried outonacalendar year
basis? What aretheterms andconditions
applicable totheimports ofhardandsoftwheat?
Why ishard wheat notcovered bythenotification?
Why isquota utilization solowforcertain meats
andoilcakes?Infuture theimplementation ofalltariff quotas
willbeonacalendar yearbasis. With respect to
wheat, millers choose theproduct tobeimported,
butthelistcovers allwheat. Thetwotables of
thenotification, asregards meats andoilcakes, are
todemonstrate thehighdegree ofproduct
substitution. Other matters tobereverted to.
United States -Sought anexplanation forlow
quota utilization. Why have thetariff quotas for
peanuts, sunflower oilandcottonseed oilnotbeen
notified?Under-utilization oftariff quotas isduetoa
number offactors, including consumer preferences
andproduct substitution (e.g. between sorghum
andmaize). Asregards over-filled tariff quotas,
while noadditional quotas were opened, incertain
cases importers were granted thesame conditions
forover-quota imports asforimports falling under
thetariff quota. Thethree tariff quotas not
opened tobereverted to.G/AG/R/6
Page25
New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/5 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Does New Zealand
consider theapplied MFN duties tobebound?New Zealand -Considers theapplied tariffs for
thetariff quotas forhops andapples andpears to
bebound uptothetariff quota commitment levels.
Forimports beyond thecommitments, thetariffs
arenotconsidered tobebound attheapplied
level.
United States -Sought anexplanation forthe
under-utilization ofthetariff quota forapples and
pears aswellashops. What arethereasons that
imports in1995 were lower thantraditional levels?Prior to1994, theNew Zealand Apple andPear
Marketing Board controlled imports aswellasthe
retail distribution ofapples andpears. After the
abolition ofthisdomestic monopoly, domestic
producers were permitted tosupply thedomestic
market directly. Thequantity supplied tothe
domestic market increased considerably. These
twofactors have ledtogreater competition onthe
retail market from domestic growers, hence the
decrease inimports. Asregards hops, the
commitment isaminimum access commitment as
traditional imports were below 3percentof
domestic consumption (average imports inthebase
period of1986-88 were only10kg). Imports in
1995 were therefore veryhighhistorically.
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/2/Rev.1 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Clarification sought
regarding thenon-implementation ofcertain tariff
quotas.
Canada -WillNorway provide import figures for
thetariff quota commitments even where these
have notbeen implemented?On1July1995, Norway reduced itstariffs tothe
final bound levels indicated intheSchedule. This
tariff level equals thetariffs ofmany ofNorway 's
current access tariff quotas. There were no
specific steps taken toopen these tariff quotas
since itwasfeltthatthese tariff quotas would be
ofnoparticular interest toimporters. The
respective imports were notnotified under Table
MA:2.G/AG/R/6
Page26
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/2/Rev.1 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/United States/Australia -Explanation
sought forthefactthat8outof17tariff quotas
were under-filled orimports were zero.Theauthorities have nomeans ofensuring quota
fillfollowing allocation. Onereason ofunder-
utilization oftariff quotas ispreferential trade and
autonomous tariff quotas atmore favourable
conditions thantheWTO tariff quotas. These
imports have notbeen notified. There wasno
commercial interest atquota auctions formeat of
swine, chicken andturkey. Inother cases, tariff
quotas were allocated through auctions but
eventual imports were lower. Itisstillconsidered
thatauctioning isthebestwaytoallocate tariff
quotas. Afurther factor forunder-utilization of
tariff quotas isthatthegapbetween domestic and
international prices hasdecreased since thebase
period. Atthe1996 auction, almost allofthe
tariff quotas were allocated andthequota fillin
1996 isexpected tobehigher thanin1995.
Canada/New Zealand -Were licences forthe1995
quota yearextended beyond 31March 1996 to
compensate forthedelay inopening market
access?Norway wasprepared toconsider anextension of
thevalidity ofimport licences butreceived no
signals from importers thatthelicence validity
should beextended beyond 31March 1996.
Poland G/AG/N/POL/3 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/United States -Could Poland explain why
many ofitstariff quotas were under-filled ornot
filled atall?Inthecaseofunder-filled tariff quotas, such as
those forhoney, rapeoil,spirits, cucumbers and
strawberries, domestic products compete
effectively withforeign products. There isnota
single casewhere arequest from animporter was
refused when tariff quotas were under-filled.
Canada -Forthetariff quotas which were
underfilled during thesecond halfof1995, did
Poland make theunfilled portion ofthetariff quota
available during thebalance ofthequota year(i.e.
to30June 1996)? Inanumber ofcases, the
amount ofthetariff quota made available inthe
period 1Julyto31December 1995 waslessthan
halfoftheannual tariff quota. Why andonwhat
basis didPoland divide thetariff quotas between
thetwohalves oftheyear? There areanumber of
inconsistencies between thegrouping ofproducts
intheMA:2 notification andthegrouping inthe
Schedule andthere arealsochanges inthequantity
units. Could Poland explain these inconsistencies?The1995 tariff quotas were established asthe
second halfofPoland 'srespective calendar year
commitments, asPoland became aMember only
on1July1995. Some tariff quotas were divided
toreflect market conditions. InJanuary 1996, the
second stage intheimplementation period began
andthetariff quotas have been opened onan
annual basis. Unfilled tariff quotas in1995 arenot
available in1996. Other matters tobepursued
bilaterally orreverted to.G/AG/R/6
Page27
Poland G/AG/N/POL/3 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Onwhat basis does Poland determine
tariff quota levels where there areaggregated
product groupings foritstariff quotas?
Australia/New Zealand -CanPoland confirm that
tariff quota products notnotified faceMFN tariffs
lower thanorequal toin-quota rates? What are
theimport levels ofthese products?Current notification formats arenotconsidered to
besuitable fornotifying totalimports subject to
tariff quota commitments incases where thetariff
quotas arenotimplemented.
Mexico -Could Poland provide more detailed
import information fortheproduct group
HS2208.90?Thistariff quota isnotdivided intosub-categories,
butapplied asintheSchedule. Tobefollowed up
bilaterally.
Romania G/AG/N/ROM/5 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Could Romania explain thelowrateof
fillofthetariff quotas forbeef, pork andbeer?
Aretariff quota commitments administered ona
calendar yearoramarketing year?
United States -Why wasthecheese tariff quota
notfilled?
Australia -Could Romania explain whythetariff
quota quantities inthenotification donotreflect
theinitial quota quantities intheSchedule?Thetariff quota commitments areadministered on
acalendar yearbasis. In1995, thecommitments
were implemented onaproratatemporis basis for
theperiod 1Julyto31December 1995. Thein-
quota imports relate tothisperiod. Total quota
requests in1995 were lower thancommitment
levels. Norequest wasrefused.
Australia -Dothenotified import levels include
preferential trade withtheEC?Thein-quota imports donotinclude preferential
trade.
Argentina -Clarification sought regarding the
implementation basis ofRomania 'sagricultural
commitments.Romania accepted theWTO Agreement on
1January 1995. Agricultural commitments were
implemented on1July1995 butinthefirstsix
months of1995 theapplied tariffs forall
agricultural products subject totariff quota
commitments were lower thanthebound in-quota
tariff rates.G/AG/R/6
Page28
Slovak Republic G/AG/N/SVK/3 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/United States -Could theSlovak Republic
explain thelowrateoffillofcertain tariff quotas?Under-utilization ofsome tariff quotas isnota
result ofanytrade barriers. Thereasons are
related totheprocess ofeconomic restructuring.
Thecommitments arebased onimport volumes in
theperiod ofinitial liberalization when imports,
including agricultural imports, increased rapidly.
Subsequently, consumption decreased significantly.
Lower domestic demand, lower prices together
withsufficient domestic production account forthe
current trade volumes fortheproducts inquestion.
Australia -Doin-quota imports include
preferential trade?
Argentina -Considered thattheinclusion of
preferential trade inthetariff quota allocation was
inconsistent withcommitments.
New Zealand -Sought clarification ofwhether
tariffs applied under preferential arrangement were
thesame astherespective MFN tariffs.Preferential trade isincluded inthenotified in-
quota imports, except forpreferential trade with
theCzech Republic. Only 4items areconcerned.
Forpotatoes, theapplied MFN tariff iszero. As
regards wine ofgrapes, additional quantities were
imported atthein-quota rate.
Slovenia G/AG/N/SVN/3 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/United States/Australia -Could Slovenia
explain whymany ofitstariff quotas were under-
filled?
United States -Islateimplementation afactor
contributing tounder-utilization?In-quota imports arebased onthecalendar year
1995. Allquotas were allocated. Anyunder-
filling isareflection oflackofcommercial
interest. Inthecaseofrape/colza oil,themarket
preferences areforthesubstitutes sunflower and
cornoil.High-quality beefisarelatively
unknown product inthemarket with, sofar,
limited demand. Current access commitments for
wheat andcorn arebased on1992 which wasa
verybadcrop year; current imports reflect
normal import levels ofthese commodities.
New Zealand -Could Slovenia provide import
figures forthetariff quota commitments even
where these have notbeen implemented? Has
Slovenia opened tariff quota access forfrozen beef
carcasses?There wasnoimport demand forfrozen beef
carcasses astheMFN rates forother beefcuts
were lower.G/AG/R/6
Page29
Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/4 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Areimports inexcess of
tariff quota commitments based onautonomous
tariff quotas andareadditional imports entering
under thesame conditions?There areessentially three reasons foroverfilling:
(i)where demand hasgrown since thebaseperiod
(e.g. tariff quotas 13to19inthenotification)
taking intoaccount thattariff quotas arenot
limited quantitively where there isaprise-en-
charge system; nopreferential trade exists for
these quotas; (ii)tariff quotas aredefacto not
applied inthecaseofeggproducts, bovine semen
and,partially, tariff quotas 15to19and22;(iii)
imports inthefirsthalfof1995 prior toWTO
membership were higher thanduring thebase
period.
New Zealand -Why istheutilization ofthedairy
tariff quota only86percent? Inlight of
Switzerland 'sprevious reference tomarket access
"obligations" inthecontext oftheprise-en-charge
system, does Switzerland intend toopen up
additional tariff quota access tocompensate forthe
shortfall? Could Switzerland provide import data
forcommitments made inrespect ofbeef,
horsemeat andsheepmeat under theaggregate
tariff quota ofmeat (tariff quota 5inthe
notification)?Noted thatitsmanagement oftheprise-en-charge
system, notthetariff quota assuch, could be
considered asamounting toanimport obligation.
Nocompensation isenvisaged fortheunfilled
dairy quota which includes fresh milk, milk
powder, butter andcheese. Amonopoly applies
onlytobutter. Forcheese, noconditions, such as
prise-en-charge oranyother, arerequired to
obtain tariff quota shares. Cheese imports have
increased from 23,000 tonsinthebaseperiod to
31,000 tonsin1995. Thedairy tariff quota isat
least 50percentfilled bycheese imports and
therefore Switzerland didnotconsider itnecessary
toimplement aspecial quota management system
toensure quota fill. Nevertheless, Switzerland 's
dairy policy isunder review. Imports under the
beefsub-quota (2,000 tons) were 9,167 tonsin
1995; forsheepmeat (4,500 tons) imports were
6,235 tonsandforhorsemeat (4,000 tons) imports
were 4,141 tons. Nonetheless itshould benoted
thatsome ofthesub-quotas were noteffective in
1995 duetothetiming oftherectification tothe
Schedule.
United States -Could Switzerland explain whythe
tariff quotas forpoultry meat andshell eggs were
notfilled andonly1tonoffruitforcider was
imported?Poultry meat ispartofthewhite meat tariff quota
which wasoverfilled. Shell eggconsumption (and
production) hasdeclined relative tobaseperiod
levels. Thefruitforcider tariff quota issubject to
auctioning butthere were nobidsin1995.
Argentina -Reminded Switzerland aswellasother
Members ofitsobligations under Art.XIV:2 of
theWTO Agreement withrespect to
implementation after theentry intoforce ofthe
Agreement.Switzerland hasimplemented itsconcessions and
commitments, including tariff quota commitments,
asifithadbeen aWTO Member forthewhole of
1995.G/AG/R/6
Page30
United States G/AG/N/USA/3 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities/Australia/New Zealand/
Argentina -Sought anexplanation forunder-
utilization oftariff quotas, inparticular fordairy
products andpeanut butter.Under-utilization oftariff quotas isareflection of
market conditions in1995. Asregards dairy
products, USprices ofbutter/butter oilwere very
lowandtheUSwasexporting without subsidies.
Thelicensing system wasnotacontributing
factor. Unused licences were subject toapenalty
andwere offered forre-allocation. Thetariff
quota forpeanut butter isimplemented onafirst-
come-first-served basis: under-utilization was
either duetolackofsupplies intheexporting
country holding aquota share ordemand factors
intheUSmarket.
European Communities -What rates ofdutyare
applied toimports from Mexico? Areimports in
excess oftariff quota commitments based on
autonomous tariff quotas andarethese imports
entering onthesame conditions?
Mexico -Noted ittoohadaccess totheMFN
tariff quotas.Theduties applied toMexico arezero, with
Mexican tariff quotas being separated from the
MFN tariff quota commitments. There areno
tariff quotas which areover-filled inthis
notification. Theexplanation fordivergencies
between tariff quantities inthenotification and
quantities indicated intheSchedule (e.g. peanuts)
isthattheaccess commitment forMexico is
indicated intheAddendum tothenotification and
needs tobeadded tothequantity inthemain part
inorder toarrive atthescheduled commitment
level. Thenotification withregard towhey and
dried butter milk constitutes anerror anda
corrigendum willbeforthcoming
(G/AG/N/USA/3/Corr.1). Under-filled tariff
quotas forcheese aretheresult ofpro-rating
access forcountries which implemented their
commitments onlyinJuly1995 inaccordance with
theUSSchedule.
Switzerland -Does thecountry-specific allocation
ofthetariff quotas forcheese impede quota-fill?
Isre-allocation possible?There areprovisions forreturning unused licences
forcheese quotas. ForUruguay Round tariff
quotas, consent ofthedesignated country which
hasbeen granted thetariff quota isrequired. For
pre-Uruguay Round quantities, shares canbere-
allocated ifthelicensing authority determines that
thequotas willnotbefilled.
Czech Republic -Does theimplementation date
forthetariff quota forsugar containing products
refer totheendof1995? Willthe1996 tariff
quota cover quantities for1995 and1996?Tobereverted to.G/AG/R/6
Page31
Tables MA:3 toMA:5 Notifications
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/9 Volume-based Special Safeguard (Table MA:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Clarification sought with
regard totheapplication ofthespecial safeguard
oninulin anditsinteraction withthetariff quota
forstarches andinulin.
Canada -How could thespecial safeguard be
applied when thetariff quota wasnotfilled and
when there isnoscheduled "break-out" ofinulin
within thetariff quota forstarches?
New Zealand -Proposed thatJapan revises its
trigger level inorder toavoid thesituation in
which thespecial safeguard isapplied where the
tariff quota isnotfilled. Considered thismight
alsobeacasewhere some oftheallocated but
unused licences should beredistributed.Thespecial safeguard wasautomatically triggered
once theimport level exceeded thetrigger level.
Thespecial safeguard isnotapplied toin-quota
imports. Thetariff quota contains 5tariff lines
andtrigger levels forthespecial safeguard are
alsosetforeach tariff lineinaccordance withthe
Agreement.
United States G/AG/N/USA/4 Summary ofSpecial Safeguard Actions (Table MA:5)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/Australia -Why wasthespecial
safeguard applied tominuscule quantities, e.g.
15kgofNew Zealand cheese. New Zealand
would urge areview ofautomatic triggering ofthe
special safeguard.Thedatacontained inthenotification arecorrect
andbased onthecustoms records. TheUS
applies anautomatic system fortheprice-based
special safeguard andthere isnoreview of
individual shipments. While thequantity in
question isnotanunusual shipment size, there are
provisions fortheexemption ofconsignments
below 5kgs. Theintention ofnotifying these
small quantities wastodemonstrate thatthe
application ofthespecial safeguard, inthecaseof
theUS,hadminimal effects ontrade.G/AG/R/6
Page32
Table DS:1 Notifications
Cyprus G/AG/N/CYP/1 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding the
specificity ofthewine grapes areasubsidy. Does
themeasure affect allwine growers? Ifso,how
does themeasure satisfy thecriteria in
paragraph 13ofAnnex 2oftheAgreement on
Agriculture?Themeasure covered under regional assistance
programmes affects allproducers ofwine grapes.
Wine grapes aremainly grown ontheslopes of
themountains, where monoculture isbasically the
norm. Theareaisdisadvantaged andthefarm
income ismuch lower thanaverage agricultural
income. Themaintenance ofvineyards isalso
important inorder topreserve thenatural
environment andtokeep thepopulation from
emigrating from these areas.
New Zealand -DidCyprus apply thecitrus area
subsidy beginning 1January 1995? Ifsothe
measure would constitute anewormodified
domestic support measure under Article 18:3 of
theAgreement onAgriculture.Themeasure iscovered under "direct payments to
producers" assetoutinparagraph 5ofAnnex 2
oftheAgreement onAgriculture. Payments were
provided inorder tocompensate therevenue
foregone intheyear1993/94 duetobadweather
conditions andtoprevent farmers from uprooting
their trees. Themeasure wasnotnotified in1995
asanewormodified domestic measure forseveral
reasons: thesubsidy waspaidin1995 butreferred
toproduction year1993/94; theWTO Agreement
wasratified byParliament onlyinthemiddle of
1995; andtheassistance wasannounced after the
endofthemarketing yearasanadhocmeasure.
Thesubsidy applied tothespecific yearandisnot
tobecontinued.
Australia -Noted thattheSupporting Tables
included inthenotification contain differences
compared tothose included inG/AG/AGST/CYP:
green boxmeasures areadded inSupporting Table
DS:1; domestic support forbarley isincluded in
theproduct-specific AMS (Supporting Table DS:5)
whereas before itwasincluded inproduct-specific
equivalent measurements ofsupport (Supporting
Table DS:8); milk andeggs have been added in
Supporting Table DS:7 asbeing covered bythe
feedgrain subsidy.Undertook toprovide response.
Slovak Republic G/AG/N/SVK/5 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding
export activity promotion. Why does theSlovak
Republic include themeasure inthecalculation of
AMS?Themeasure isintended tosupport agricultural
operators intheir participation intrade exhibitions.
Accordingly, themeasure hastobeincluded inthe
green boxcategory rather thanintheAMS. The
Slovak Republic willmake theappropriate change.G/AG/R/6
Page33
Slovak Republic G/AG/N/SVK/5 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Noted thatsupport formilk was
calculated using anadministered price in
G/AG/AGST/SVK, whereas thenotification
indicates support intheform ofquality promotion
-isthisachange inthemeasure?Duetoradical change inagricultural policy inthe
beginning ofthe1990s, theSlovak Republic now
grants support tofarmers inorder toencourage
theproduction ofhighquality milk.
Australia -Does Supporting Table DS:1 reflect
onlygreen boxmeasures included indocument
G/AG/AGST/SVK?Thenotification reflects green boxmeasures which
areineffect atthepresent time.
Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/6 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Information requested as
regards cantonal spending onagriculture. What are
theobjectives ofthemeasures andtheir scope?Cantonal expenses onagriculture represent about
10% ofthetotalgovernment expenditure of
Switzerland forfood andagriculture. The
cantonal measures concentrate onthefollowing
areas: regional development indisadvantaged
areas, facilitation ofinvestment, incentives for
conversion tobiological production methods anda
revenue complement destined forlowincome
farmers. More details willbeprovided in1997.
United States -Noted thatthecalculation of
market support foreggs includes apayment for
eggcollection which amounted to8.4million
Swiss francs. What isthenature ofthepayments?Themeasure aims tofacilitate thecollection of
eggs inremote areas under thedomestic purchase
provisions.
Argentina -Clarification sought regarding the
inclusion ofthree additional measures inthegreen
boxunder items (d)and(k),respectively,
decoupled income support andregional assistance
programmes (pages 4and5refer).Direct payments inthecategory ofdecoupled
income support reflect various types of
expenditure made through different types of
channels. Forhardcheese, payments areprovided
forfarmers committed nottousesilage fodder.
Farmers whocultivate onsteep slopes alsoreceive
compensatory payments.G/AG/R/6
Page34
Thailand G/AG/N/THA/15 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/Australia -Noted thatadditional
products -garlic, onions andsoybeans -are
included inother product-specific support andthe
total product-specific AMS. Could Thailand
explain thenature ofthesupport provided and
their treatment intheAMS?Market price interventions notified incolumns 3
and4inSupporting Table DS:7 arenotmarket
price support measures stricto sensu .These
measures aretaken bythegovernment ona
temporary basis. When thecountry encounters a
low-price crisis, thegovernment intervenes by
setting theappropriate price atwhich theproduct
canbesoldtothegovernment orprivate sector.
Forriceitiscalled "market price support" when
theprogramme iscarried outbytheMinistry of
Interior and"market price intervention" when the
programme iscarried outbyother government
agencies ortheprivate sector such asmillers.
Australia -Why didcoffee andcornreceive no
product-specific support in1995, andgarlic and
onions receive such support although none was
provided inthebaseperiod?Subsidies tocoffee andcorn fellbelow the
deminimis level. Forthenewproducts inthe
AMS, theprogrammes areunchanged, but
subsidies under those programmes were lessthan
deminimis inthebaseperiod.
Uruguay G/AG/N/URY/3 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/Australia -Noted thatinSupporting Table
DS:1, Uruguay indicates thatdomestic support
provided iswithin thedeminimis level. Inthe
absence ofSupporting Table DS:4, could Uruguay
provide datatosupport thedeminimis claim?Uruguay willprovide thedatatosupport the
deminimis claim -asanindication, thevalue of
totalagricultural production amounted to
US$1.87 billion in1994.
Canada/Australia -Information requested onthe
fiveprojects included inSupporting Table DS:2
andidentified asproviding investment subsidies to
agriculture. Does Uruguay claim thattheyarein
conformity withArticle 6:2oftheAgreement on
Agriculture? Does thevalue reflect the
expenditures oftheGovernment orinternational
assistance?Uruguay willprovide arguments tosupport that
theprojects areinconformity withArticle 6:2of
theAgreement onAgriculture. Only national
expenditures areincluded.
Australia -Clarification sought regarding footnotes
1and2inSupporting Table DS:9 (page 5refers)
explaining thecalculation ofother non-product-
specific support.Thesupport isgiven notbyproviding money, but
bynotcharging thetariffs oninputs (revenue
foregone).G/AG/R/6
Page35
Table DS:2 Notifications
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/5 New orModified Support Measures Exempt from Reduction
(Table DS:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Noted thatCanada hasnotified the
Western Grain Transition Payment Programme
(WGTPP) asameasure exempt from reduction
commitments under Table DS:2. Canweassume
thatCanada 'selimination ofsupport means that
there willbeanilreturn forexport subsidies to
thefivegrains products covered bythe
programme?Export subsidy commitments forgrains and
oilseed products were based ontheWestern Grain
Transportation Act(WGTA). TheWGTA subsidy
waseliminated effective 1August, 1995. Asa
result Canada 'sexport subsidies forgrains and
oilseeds andtheir products were zeroinyear
1995/96 aswillbeindicated intheexport subsidy
notification. TheWGTPP isanewprogramme,
which isproviding aone-time payment toowners
ofprairie farmland inrecognition oftheimpact on
landvalues from thetermination ofthelong-
standing WGTA freight subsidy. Canada considers
thattheprogramme isfully consistent withthe
provisions ofAnnex 2oftheAgreement on
Agriculture.
United States G/AG/N/USA/5 New orModified Support Measures Exempt from
Reduction (Table DS:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Does theUnited States
consider thewhole programme asdomestic support
measures exempt from thereduction commitment?
ECwould liketorevert tothenotification after a
more detailed examination.Thespecific payments notified arebased on
historical performance andmeet thecriteria setout
inparagraph 6ofAnnex 2oftheAgreement on
Agriculture. TheUSconsiders therefore, that the
payments notified areexempt from thereduction
commitments.
Tables ES:1 toES:3 Notifications
Brazil G/AG/N/BRA/5 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Thenotification indicates thatBrazil did
notprovide anyexport subsidy in1995 toanyof
theproducts mentioned initsSchedule. Didthe
policy change inorder toeliminate export
subsidies? Ifso,could Brazil provide further
information onthenewpolicy?Brazil didnotgrant anyexport subsidy to
agricultural products in1995. Nevertheless, there
wasnochange inpolicy andthesubsidies listed in
Brazil 'sSchedule remain available foruseatany
time.G/AG/R/6
Page36
Brazil G/AG/N/BRA/5 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Noted thatBrazil reported tothe
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing
Measures theuseofexport incentives bywaiving
orreducing import duties forvarious products.
Why didBrazil notnotify thisprogramme tothe
Committee onAgriculture?
Argentina -Noted that, asdescribed, themeasure
sounded likeadutydraw back scheme rather than
anexport subsidy.Thefigures provided totheSubsidies Committee
(G/SCM/N/3/BRA, 18March) refer totheyears
1992, 1993 and1994 andfigures provided tothe
Committee onAgriculture refer totheyear1995.
Therefore there isnocontradiction between their
respective contents. The"BEFIEX" asstated in
thenotification G/SCM/N/3/BRA was
discontinued in1990. Afewofitscommitments
which extended beyond theendoftheprogramme
arestillbeing phased out.Regarding theproducts
being exported under what stillremains of
BEFIEX, Brazil undertook toprovide the
response.
Chile G/AG/N/CHL/2 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Confirmation requested thatChile didnot
grant anyexport subsidy subject tothedeveloping
country exemption.Chile confirms thatitdidnotgrant export
subsidies ofanykind.
Czech Republic G/AG/N/CZE/4 and5Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 toES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Thenotification indicates thatexport
subsidies were applied onlyonmilk powder and
other dairy products. Didthepolicy change forthe
other products withreduction commitments inthe
Schedule inorder toeliminate export subsidies? If
so,could theCzech Republic provide further
information onthenewpolicy?In1995, export subsidies were granted onlyto
dairy products although intervention tookplace for
other products. There wasnopolicy change and
theright touseexport subsidies remains.
Australia -Could theCzech Republic provide the
name oftheproducts andtariff lines covered by
thecategory "other dairy products"?Other dairy products cover cheeses, butter and
condensed milk under tariff positions HS0401 to
0406.G/AG/R/6
Page37
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/3 Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities/New Zealand/United
States/Australia/Canada/Japan/Argentina/
Brazil -Expressed concerns withrespect to
Norway 'simplementation ofitsUruguay Round
export subsidy commitments, bothinvolume and
outlay terms, forpoultry meat. How does Norway
intend toremedy theviolation andtocompensate
other Members?Norway hasexceeded itscommitments levels on
volumes andvalues by,respectively, 30tonsand
US$150,000. Norway 'snon-compliance with
export subsidy commitments wasduetoan
administrative mistake bytheexecutive authorities
which caused adelay intheimplementation ofthe
necessary legislation onexport subsidy payments
inthepoultry sector. In1996, Norway didnot
grant anyexport subsidies tothepoultry sector
andplans toreduce thespending in1997 inorder
tobring intolinetheaccumulated spending during
theperiod 1995-97 withtheaccumulated
commitments forthesame period. Norway agreed
thatitsspending goes beyond theflexibility
allowed under Article 9:2(b) oftheAgreement on
Agriculture. Norway isprepared todiscuss the
matter further.
Poland G/AG/N/POL/4 Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Thenotification indicates thatexport
subsidies were applied onlyonsugar. Didthe
policy change fortheother products withreduction
commitments intheSchedule inorder toeliminate
export subsidies? Ifso,could Poland provide
further information onthenewpolicy?In1995, Poland provided export subsidies for
sugar only. Thefinal quantity ofsubsidized
exports amounts to862tonsandtheoutlays to
US$43,000 (compared withcommitment levels of
127,500 tonsandUS$47 million). There wasno
change inpolicy, butalackoffunds forother
products.
Australia -Does Poland intend tonotify total
exports using Table ES:2?TheES:2 notification willbesubmitted tothe
Committee.
Australia -Clarification sought regarding the
exchange rateused toconvert expenditures into
USdollars.Poland used theexchange rateoftheyear1995.G/AG/R/6
Page38
Romania G/AG/N/ROM/3 Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised byother MembersResponse byNotifying Member
Canada -Thenotification indicates thatRomania
didnotprovide anyexport subsidy in1995 toany
oftheproducts initsSchedule. Didthepolicy
change inorder toeliminate export subsidies? If
so,could Romania provide further information on
thenewpolicy?In1995, Romania didnotprovide anyexport
subsidies duetobudgetary constraints. However a
number ofdomestic support measures were
applied. Allofthem were ofagreen boxtype
and/or related todevelopment programmes.
Romania reiterates thatallcommitments included
initsSchedule willbefully observed, including
thecalendar forexport subsidy reduction
commitments.
Slovak Republic G/AG/N/SVK/4 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 toES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Thenotification indicates thatexport
subsidies were applied onlyonsome products.
Didthepolicy change fortheother products with
reduction commitments intheSchedule inorder to
eliminate export subsidies? Ifso,could theSlovak
Republic provide further information onthenew
policy?Some products withreduction commitments inthe
Schedule didnotreceive anyexport subsidies for
tworeasons: insome cases domestic prices were
lower thanworld market prices; andinother
cases, there waslittle interest onthepartof
producers toexport.
Canada/United States -Clarification sought
regarding thequantity commitment level forsugar
which amounts to8,700 tonsinthenotification
and4,800 tonsinitsSchedule.Thenotification contains anerror. Thequantity
commitment level forsugar amounts to4,800 tons
(butsubsidized exports were lower thanboth
figures).
Australia -Could theSlovak Republic provide the
tariff lines forthesubsidized products?TheHStariff lines fortheproducts listed in
Table ES:1 arethefollowing:
milk powder -0402; other dairy products -0406;
sugar -1701; malt -1107; beef-0202; poultry,
eggs -0408
Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/5 Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina/European Communities/New Zealand/
Australia/Japan/Uruguay -Concerns expressed
regarding theimplementation ofSwitzerland 's
export subsidy quantity commitment forbreeding
cattle andhorses. How does Switzerland intend to
remedy thisviolation andtocompensate other
Members?Switzerland 'scattle exports have been following a
typical pattern, characterized byasignificant peak
inautumn, upon thereturn ofanimals from alpine
pastures. In1995, andagainst thenormal trend,
exports involved higher quantities than
consolidated initsSchedule early inthepeak
season. Given theunavoidable delay in
assembling thedata, some shipments were still
made exceeding thequantity limit by15percent
although inoutlay terms subsidies were 7percent
below thelimit. Meanwhile thenecessary
measures toprevent asimilar slippage in1996
have been taken.G/AG/R/6
Page39
Thailand G/AG/N/THA/10 Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Clarification sought regarding
export subsidies allocated toriceastheyappear to
fitintheArt.9:1(a) oftheAgreement on
Agriculture definition andarethusprohibited asno
reduction commitments areinThailand 'sSchedule.Export subsidies allocated toricecomply with
provisions inArticle 9,paragraph 1(d)and1(e)of
theAgreement onAgriculture. Themeasure was
notapplied inorder toreduce theprice ofexports
nortopromote exports nortoenhance export
competitiveness. Thesubsidy isaimed atreducing
themarketing costforexporters whopurchase
from poorer farmers, toupgrade thequality of
riceandtoreduce stocks. Asadeveloping
country Member, there wasnoobligation to
indicate anyexempt subsidy programme under
Article 9:1(d) and9:1(e) intheSchedule of
commitments. Therefore, according tothe
Agreement onAgriculture, Thailand isnot
prohibited from introducing such subsidies during
theimplementation period.
Turkey G/AG/N/TUR/1 Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Thenotification indicates thatexport
subsidies were applied onlyonsome products.
Didthepolicy change fortheother products with
reduction commitments intheSchedule inorder to
eliminate export subsidies? Ifso,could Turkey
provide further information onthenewpolicy?Turkey didnotchange itsexport subsidy policy -
itwillcontinue tocomply withthecommitments
initsSchedule.
Australia/New Zealand -Could Turkey provide
tariff lines forthesubsidized products listed in
Table ES:1? Clarification sought regarding the
exchange rateused toconvert expenditures into
USdollars.Turkey indicated thatitwould respond bilaterally.G/AG/R/6
Page40
Table ER:1 Notifications
Czech Republic G/AG/N/CZE/6 Export Prohibitions andRestrictions (Table ER:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/Japan -Information requested regarding
theconditions thathave compelled theCzech
Republic tointroduce temporary prohibitions on
wheat andflour exports. Hasthere been aserious
shortage resulting from adrop indomestic
production oranincrease indomestic
consumption?Export restrictions were invoked toprevent a
critical shortage oftheproducts inquestion onthe
domestic market. Theshortage resulted from a
significant increase indomestic demand andfrom
thedifferences between theinternal andworld
prices. Measures ofprotection hadtobetaken in
order tostabilize thedomestic market, safeguard
sufficient supplies fordomestic processing
industries andtoprevent substantial increases in
domestic prices. Theconditions toinvoke such a
measure have been metsince theCzech Republic
hasnever been amajor supplier ofwheat tothe
world market. Theprovisions oftheAgreement
onAgriculture andoftheGATT 1994 givethe
possibility toinvoke themeasure inquestion.
Canada -Inorder toenforce themeasure, the
Czech Republic stopped issuing licences forgrain
andflour exports inNovember 1995. Dothese
export restrictions alsoapply tothe"State Fund
forMarket Regulation"?The"State Fund forMarket Regulation" is
covered bytheexport restriction.
Canada/Japan -Could theCzech Republic bemore
specific astowhen theexport restrictions will
end?Theabolition ofthemeasure issubject tothe
evolution ofmarket conditions. Onerelevant
factor insuch adecision isthefinal outcome of
theharvest in1996 which isnotyetknown.
Japan -Data requested onproduction,
consumption, level ofstocks andprices with
respect totherelevant products forthepastfive
years.
New Zealand -Data requested onthelevel of
imports withrespect torelevant products.Undertook tosupply therelevant published data
bilaterally.
Japan -Clarification sought regarding the
procedure followed toinvoke theexport restriction
measure.First, theMinistry ofAgriculture collects
information onthesituation inthemarket.
Secondly, theMinistry ofAgriculture in
cooperation withtheMinistries ofFinance andof
Industry andTrade decide whether toinvoke the
measure. Thirdly, theGovernment discusses the
issue andmakes adecision.
Japan -Clarification sought onthelegal basis of
theCzech measure.Themeasure which stops theissuance oflicences
onexports hasbeen introduced bytheDecision of
theGovernment oftheCzech Republic No.165
dated 28February 1996. Theapplication is
administered through alicensing mechanism
defined bytheDecree oftheFederal Ministry of
Foreign Trade No.560/91.G/AG/R/6
Page41
Czech Republic G/AG/N/CZE/6 Export Prohibitions andRestrictions (Table ER:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Korea/Argentina/New Zealand -Matter raised with
regard totheprovisions ofArticle 12:1(a) and(b)
oftheAgreement onAgriculture -namely
consideration oftheeffects ofsuch aprohibition or
restriction onimporting Members.TheCzech Republic complies withArticle 12:1(a)
oftheAgreement onAgriculture since ithasnever
been amajor supplier ofwheat totheworld
market.
Hungary G/AG/N/HUN/6 Export Prohibitions andRestrictions (Table ER:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Expressed concerns about the
contradiction between thelowutilization oftariff
ratequotas andtheintroduction ofexport
restrictions byHungary.Hungary does notseeanycontradiction between
thetwomeasures forthefollowing reasons: the
MA:2 notification showing tariff quota fillreferred
totheyear1995 andexport restrictions were used
inthesecond halfof1996; andtherestrictions
were designed toprevent ashortage rather than
address anexisting situation.
Australia -Question raised astowhether the
measure isinconformity withtheprovisions set
outinArticle 12:1(a) oftheAgreement on
Agriculture -namely theeffects ofsuch a
prohibition orrestriction onimporting Members.Hungary applies thismeasure inconformity with
Article 12oftheAgreement onAgriculture.