RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/AG/R/3
6November 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-3418)
Committee onAgriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OFTHE MEETING HELD ON28-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
Note bytheSecretariat
1. TheCommittee onAgriculture helditsthirdmeeting on28-29 September 1995. Intheabsence
oftheChairman, Ambassador Danai Tulalamba ofThailand, itwasagreed thatMr.Jorge Riaboi of
Argentina chair themeeting. Theagenda ofthemeeting, contained inWTO/AIR/158, wasadopted.
PartI:TheReview Process
2. TheCommittee reviewed thefollowing notifications aslisted ontheagenda:
(i) ontheadministration oftariffandother quota commitments (Table MA:1) fromCosta
Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/1), theCzech Republic (G/AG/N/CZE/1), theEuropean
Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/1 andCorr.1), Hungary (G/AG/N/HUN/1), theRepublic
ofKorea (G/AG/N/KOR/1), Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/1), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/1),
theSlovak Republic (G/AG/N/SVK/1), Slovenia (G/AG/N/SVN/1), Thailand
(G/AG/N/THA/1, 2and3),andVenezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/1 andCorr.1).
(ii) ontrigger prices inthecontext oftheprice-based special safeguard (Table MA:4)
from theEuropean Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/2), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/2, 3and
4)andtheRepublic ofKorea (G/AG/N/KOR/2).
(iii) ondomestic support commitments (Table DS:1) fromNewZealand (G/AG/N/NZL/2).
(iv) onexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3) from New Zealand
(G/AG/N/NZL/3).
3. TheCommittee agreed torevert tothenotifications from Costa Rica(G/AG/N/CRI/1), the
EuropeanCommunities(G/AG/N/EEC/1andCorr.1,G/AG/N/EEC/2)andNorway(G/AG/N/NOR/1)
during thereview process ofthenextmeeting.
4. TheCommittee heldaninitial review ofthenotifications from Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/2),
Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/1), South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/1) andThailand (G/AG/N/THA/4). The
Committee noted thatthesenotifications would alsobereviewed atthenextmeeting under paragraph 9
oftheCommittee 'sworking procedures.
5. Specific points raised during themeeting withrespect tothesenotifications (paragraphs 2and4)
aresummarized intheAnnex tothisreport.
6. Anumber ofconcerns were reiterated withrespect totheallocation oftariff quotas through
auctioning. Several representatives expressed theview thattariff quota auctions were, possibly,
incompatible withArticles II,IIIandVIIIoftheGATT 1994. Therepresentatives ofAustralia andG/AG/R/3
Page2
NewZealand noted thattariff quota auctions could leadtoabreach ofbound tariffs incases where
thequotapremiumexceedstheboundin-quotatariff.Headdedthattariffquotaauctionshadthepotential
forencouraging trade inbulkproducts attheexpense ofvalue-added trade. Anumber ofMembers
expressed theview thattariff quota auctions were fullyinconformity withtheGATT 1994 andthe
Agreement onAgriculture, provided thetariff quotas arefilled. Therepresentative ofKorea noted
thattariff quota auctions neither restricted market access opportunities norpresented anadditional
economic burden fortheexporting country. Korea considered thattariff quota auction constituted a
domestic quota allocation procedure rather thanaborder measure, andhence thequota feewasnot
toberegarded asalevybutasatransferred quota rent. Therepresentative ofNorway expressed the
viewthataquota auction system wasthemostefficient andtransparent method ofallocating tariffquotas.
Norway 'sexperience wasthattheallocation oftariffquotas totraditional importers under current access
commitments could giverisetocertain undesired effects (such asillegal tradeinquota rights andmarket
access barriers fornewimporters). Inlightofthisexperience, Norway haddecided tointroduce aquota
auction system forallocating itsminimum access commitments.
7. Following anintervention bytheUnited States, therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities
raised theissue astowhether theWTO Agreement onImport Licensing Procedures wasapplicable
totariff quotas. Therepresentative noted thatthere were differing views onwhether theprovisions
oftheImport Licensing Agreement applied toimport licensing under atariff quota regime.
8. Several Members expressed concerns withregard tothewayinwhich certain Members were
implementing theirminimum access commitments. They noted thatcertain Members werecrediting
import quantities allocated under preferential trade agreements against their minimum access
commitments. Anumber ofrepresentatives expressed theviewthatthispractice wascontrary tothe
m.f.n. nature ofthecommitments. Therepresentative ofNewZealand noted thatthehistory ofGATT
lawsuggested thatm.f.n. quotas could notbeallocated topreferential supplying countries. Some
Members allocating tariff quotas insuchamanner pointed tonotes intheirschedules indicating that
theywould usesuchamechanism. Inaddition, theynoted thatallsuchallocations wereonthebasis
ofpreferential arrangements concluded prior totheendoftheUruguay Round negotiations.
9. TheCommittee requested theChairman toconduct informal consultations onthese andother
matters concerning tariff quota administration atanappropriate time.
10. Several Members expressed concerns inrespect oftariff quotas which areadministered by
producer organizations. They noted thatasystem ofproducer-administered tariff quotas could lead
toaconflict ofinterest andrequested Members concerned toensure thatthetariff quotas were
administered inatransparent andfairmanner.
11. With respect tonotifications concerning thespecial safeguard provision, therepresentative
ofSwitzerland noted thatexantenotifications mustinclude allrelevant information. Thiswould include
pricedataforeachyearofthebaseperiod (1986-88) rather thanonlytheaverage data. TheChairman
andseveral delegations agreed withthisviewandtheUnited States indicated itwould submit price
dataforeachyearwithrespect toitsnotification before theNovember meeting.
12. TheUnited States noted thatithadresponded inwriting toaquestion raised byCanada atthe
lastmeeting oftheCommittee. Mexico recalled thatitwascontinuing discussions withtheUnited
States onanissue raised atthesame meeting.
13. TheCommitteetooknotethatnocounternotificationspursuanttoArticle18:7oftheAgreement
onAgriculture hadbeenreceived.G/AG/R/3
Page3
Matters Relevant totheImplementation ofcommitments under theReform Programme: Article 18:6
14. Anumber ofMembers raised "matters relevant totheimplementation ofcommitments under
thereform programme" pursuant toArticle 18:6oftheAgreement onAgriculture.
15. Several Members expressed serious concerns withrespect toHungary 'simplementation of
itsUruguay Round export subsidy commitments. TheUnited States stated thatHungary 'sUruguay
Round export subsidy commitments for1995, interms ofbudgetary outlays, totalled Ft21.2 billion
(theequivalent ofapproximately US$170 million) whereas according toavailable information budgetary
allocations foragricultural export subsidies in1995amounted toFt35billion (approximately US$280
million) withthepossibility offurther appropriations. Over 80percentofthebudgetary allocations
hadalreadybeenspentinthecurrentyearofimplementation.TheUnitedStateshadreceivedinformation
thatHungary 'sbudget for1996included appropriations foragricultural export subsidies totalling Ft41
billion. According totheHungarian schedule ofconcessions, only16products areeligible forexport
subsidies whereas under itscurrent export subsidy programme some 300products wereeligible, some
ofwhich were notconsolidated intheHungarian schedule. Therepresentative ofNew Zealand
expressed theviewthattheUruguay Round disciplines withrespect toexport subsidies could notbe
renegotiated, adding thatthisviewwassupported byparagraph 6oftheMarrakesh Protocol andthe
Understanding ontheInterpretation ofArticle XXVIII oftheGATT 1994. Anumber ofMembers
urged Hungary tocomply withitsUruguay Round export subsidy commitments. Therepresentative
ofHungary acknowledged thatHungary 'scurrent agricultural export subsidy programme encompassed
more products andinvolved higher outlays thanconsolidated under itsUruguay Round export subsidy
commitments. Heindicated thatthisinconsistency wasduetoasubstantial error made during the
UruguayRound,theresultofwhichbeingthatHungary'sexportsubsidycommitmentsdidnotadequately
reflect thefactual situation withrespect toexport subsidies inthe1986-1990 baseperiod. Indeed,
Hungary hadreduced itsexport subsidies inrealterms since thebaseperiod. Therepresentative stated
thatHungaryintendedtoproceedwithappropriateactionstoremedythissituationwithaviewtoarriving
atasolution which reflects actual subsidized exports during thebaseperiod. Itwasproposed thatthe
Chairman should conduct informal consultations ontheissue.
16. Certain Members reverted toamatter related totheexport subsidy programmes oftheEuropean
Communities andtheUnited States, asafollow-up tothediscussion during theJunemeeting ofthe
Committee (paragraphs 16to18ofG/AG/R/2 refer). They requested theECandtheUnited States
tosupply dataonexports, disaggregated byproduct group, thatwereapproved forsubsidized export
prior to1July1995 forshipment during thefirstyearofimplementation. Therepresentatives ofthe
United States andtheECindicated that,contrary tofearsbycertain other Members, allocations had
notsurged prior to1July1995. They undertook topursue thematter withaviewtomaking the
requested dataavailable toMembers.
17. Therepresentative oftheUnited States raised amatter relevant toAustralia 'sdomestic support
reduction commitments. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thatAustralia hadrecently
implemented asignificant change initsdairy policy byeliminating itsexport subsidy programme for
dairy products andbyreplacing itbyanewdomestic dairy support programme. TheUnited States
wasconcerned thatasaconsequence Australia might notbeabletohonour itsAMS commitments.
Therepresentative ofAustralia responded thatanewdairymarketing arrangement hadbeenintroduced
on1July1995 andconcurrently export subsidies hadbeenremoved. Support tofarmers would be
provided through levies applied tomanufacturing milkutilized fordairy products soldonthedomestic
market. Thelevelofsupport provided todairy farmers would bereduced overthenextfiveyears
andon30June2000alllegislated support would beterminated. Therepresentative ofAustralia assured
Members thatthenewdomestic support arrangement would notimpair Australia 'sability tomeetits
AMS reduction commitments.G/AG/R/3
Page4
18. Therepresentative ofNewZealand raised amatter related totheimplementation ofthe"peace
clause" under Article 13(b) oftheAgreement onAgriculture. Therepresentative reiterated New
Zealand 'sinterest inhaving theCommittee consider anotification requirement for"blue box"support
measures (direct payments under production limiting programmes) granted tospecific commodities
during the1992marketing year(paragraph 19ofG/AG/R/2 refers). While several Members responded
favourably toNewZealand 'sproposal andsuggested thatitshould include "amber" policies, certain
Members expressed reluctance tore-open thediscussion onnotification requirements. TheCommittee
agreed thatMembers pursue thematter ininformal consultations atanappropriate time.
19. Therepresentative ofCanada raised amatter ofdispute with respect totheEuropean
Communities 'implementation ofcertain Uruguay Round concessions forcereals. Canada considered
several ECimplementing regulations tobeinconsistent withcertain Articles oftheGATT 1994 and
theWTO Agreement. Thebilateral consultations heldon18July1995 pursuant toArticle XXIII
oftheGATT 1994 hadnotresulted inasettlement tothedispute. Canada wastherefore requesting
theestablishment ofadispute settlement panel toruleontheWTO consistency oftheEuropean
Communities 'cereals regulations. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted hisconcern with
regard toEuropean Communities 'implementation ofitsUruguay Round concession foranumber of
cereals andrice. Formal consultations under Article XXIII oftheGATT 1994 hadfailed toresolve
thedispute. Further bilateral consultations notwithstanding, theUnited States haddecided torequest
theestablishment ofadispute settlement panel during thenextmeeting oftheDispute Settlement Body.
Therepresentative ofAustralia stated thatAustralia hadasignificant commercial trade incereals and
ricewiththeEuropean Communities. Thistrade could beadversely affected bytheCommunities '
useofreference prices rather thanactual invoice prices. TheECreference pricesystem would generally
result inhigher customs duties being applied thanifinvoice prices onashipment-by-shipment basis
were used. Australia wasparticularly disadvantaged since theECreference prices didnottakeinto
account thespecial features ofAustralia 'sexports, including product quality andfreight differentials.
TheGovernment ofAustralia considered thatuseofthereference prices could leadtotheEuropean
Communities breaching itsUruguay Round concessions forcereals andrice. Therepresentative of
Australia urged theEuropean Communities torespond tothelegitimate concerns ofAustralian exporters
andtoensure thatitfullyimplemented itsUruguay Round commitments. Australia reserved itsrights
tomake athird party submission intheadvent ofadispute settlement panel aspursued byCanada
andtheUnited States. Therepresentative ofArgentina stated thathiscountry wasclosely monitoring
theimpact oftheECcereals regulations onArgentinean exports, Argentina being animportant supplier
ofmaize totheEuropean Communities. Argentina reserved itsrighttotakepartinadispute settlement
panel thatmight beestablished toexamine thismatter. Therepresentative ofUruguay expressed his
Government 'sconcern withrespect totheEC'simplementation ofitsUruguay Round concessions
forrice,inparticular thereference pricesystem. Uruguay reserved itsrighttoparticipate inadispute
settlement panel thatmight besetup.Therepresentative ofPakistan stated thatPakistan wasaffected
bytheECregulations onrice. Pakistan waspursuing thematter inconsultations withtheEuropean
Communities withaviewtofinding asatisfactory solution. Therepresentative ofPakistan expressed
thehope thatitwould bepossible toreach aresolution tothematter inthenearfuture. The
representative oftheEuropean Communities regretted theapparent urgeofcertain Members toresolve
thematter inadispute settlement panel while theECreference pricesystem waspresently notleading
toproblems intrade. Therepresentative expressed theEuropean Communities 'readiness todiscuss
anypractical problems thatmayarise.
Other Matters Related totheReview Process
20. TheCommittee tooknoteofthelistof"significant exporters" (document G/AG/W/9, refers)
which arerequired tonotify annually theirtotalvolumes ofexports inrespect oftheproducts orproduct
groups specified inparagraph (iii)onpage24ofdocument G/AG/2. TheCommittee tooknotethatG/AG/R/3
Page5
thelistof"significant exporters" would beissued asanaddendum totheCommittee 'snotification
requirements (G/AG/2).
21. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheresults offurther work oftheSecretariat onimplementation
datesforeachtypeofcommitment (G/AG/W/2/Rev.2). Several Members expressed concerns regarding
thefailure ofcertain Members tofulfill notification requirements concerning market access andurged
Members concerned toduely submit theirnotifications. They wereconcerned thatonlyafewmonths
remained in1995 toimplement market access commitments duein1995.
22. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thattheUnited States believed thattheDominican
Republic, Guatemala, Israel, thePhilippines, Mozambique, Nicaragua, andSenegal hadsofarfailed
toimplement anyoftheiragricultural commitments, andheadded thattheUnited States wasunclear
astothestatus ofimplementation inIceland. TheUnited States would pursue thesematters bilaterally.
Therepresentative ofIceland stated thatIceland hadimplemented itsmarket access commitments, as
of1July1995. While acknowledging thedelay, heindicated thatIceland intended tosubmit itsmarket
access notification toMembers induetimeforreview atthenextmeeting. Therepresentative ofIsrael
stated thatquantitative restrictions hadbeeninplace forbalance-of-payments purposes untilSeptember
1995. Henoted thatIsrael wascurrently intheprocess ofestablishing thelegalandadministrative
procedures toimplement itsUruguay Round commitments andintended toimplement thesecond stage
oftariff reductions inthebeginning ofnextyear.
23. Asamatter relevant inthecontext ofdomestic support notifications, theChairman expressed
theviewthatthere wasaneedfortransparency astothestarting dateforthetimelimitapplicable to
eachMember forthepurpose ofCurrent Total AMS notifications. Therepresentative oftheUnited
States expressed theviewthatnotifications weredue90/120 days(provisional/final) following theexpiry
ofthelastmarketingyearofaproductincludedintheCurrentTotalAMScalculation.Therepresentative
oftheEuropean Communities noted that,inaddition tomarketing years, payments during thefinancial
yearwererelevantfortheCurrentTotalAMScalculationandhencenotificationsshouldbeduefollowing
90/120 days(provisional/final) oftheendofwhichever period wasthelatest. TheChairman proposed
thateachMember withaTotal AMS reduction commitment notify totheCommittee thestarting date
forthetimelimitapplicable toitsannual notifications ifithadnotalready doneso.
PartII:Other Matters within thePurview oftheCommittee
24. TheCommittee continued thediscussion initiated attheprevious meeting regarding theDecision
onMeasures Concerning thePossible Negative Effects oftheReform Programme onLeast Developed
andNetFood-Importing Developing Countries. TheCommittee tooknotethatatitsforthcoming
November meeting itwould berequired under itsWorking Procedures tomonitor actions taken within
theframework oftheDecision pursuant toArticle 16:2oftheAgreement (paragraph 18ofG/AG/1).
Inastatement subsequently circulated asdocument G/AG/W/11, therepresentative ofEgypt appealed
tothedeveloped countries tosubmit theirnotifications intimefortheNovember meeting (Table NF:1
ofdocument G/AG/2, refers) andreiterated Egypt 'sproposal forself-election ofMembers covered
bytheDecision. Therepresentative proposed torequest theDirector-General oftheWTO toaddress
thematter inhisconsultations withtheWorld Bank andtheInternational Monetary Fund. The
representative ofEgypt aswellasseveral other Members expressed theview that,notwithstanding
consultations withtheWorld Bank andtheInternational Monetary Fund, themain responsibility for
theimplementation oftheDecision should remain withtheWTO. Therepresentative oftheEuropean
Communities expressed theviewthatthenotifications tobesubmitted inaccordance withArticle 16:2
oftheAgreement weredueonlynextyear. Therepresentative ofArgentina noted thattheCommittee
should bearinmind initsdeliberations regarding theDecision theprovisions ofArticle 10ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture toensure thatcommitments were notcircumvented.G/AG/R/3
Page6
25. TheCommittee requested theChairman toconduct informal consultations prior tothenext
meeting oftheCommittee onthebasisofadraftagenda prepared bytheSecretariat, inparticular with
aviewtodefining thecountry coverage oftheDecision andidentifying possible elements ofawork
programme inpreparation forthereview oftheleveloffoodaidprovided forinparagraph 3ofthe
Decision. Several Members expressed theirinterest toparticipate intheinformal consultations and
theirwillingness tocontribute toaconstructive dialogue during theNovember meeting withtheobjective
offinding practical solutions.
26. Several Members refuted aviewpromulgated inotherforaoutside theWTO according towhich
thefirming ofworld grain prices during thepastyearwasadirect result oftheUruguay Round. The
representative ofAustralia expressed theviewthattherewasnobasisforestablishing sucharelationship
sincetheUruguayRoundcommitmentswithrespecttoagriculturalexportsubsidiesanddomesticsupport
hadcome intoeffect onlyrecently andwere tobeimplemented oversixyears. InAustralia 'sview
theprinciple factors responsible fortherelatively highprices ontheworld grain markets weredrought
conditions inanumber ofmajor producing countries andincreased demand astheresult ofonelarge
country having turned from anetexporter intoasubstantial netimporter.
27. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheWTO General Council 'sDecision regarding the"Procedure
forDecisions Having Financial Implications" circulated indocument WT/L/76.
28. TheCommitteetooknotethatwithregardtotheobserverstatusofinternationalintergovernmental
organizations, satisfactory arrangements forreciprocal WTO observer status hadbeenconcluded with
theFAO andtheUNWorld Food Programme; appropriate arrangements withtheOECD andthe
International Grains Council remained tobefinalized.
29. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made bytherepresentatives oftheFAO andthe
World Food Programme. Therepresentative oftheFAO outlined FAO'sactivities toassist thenet
food-importing developing countries. Therepresentative drew attention tothefactthattheFAO
Secretariat hadbeen given themandate toreview, inconsultation withtheWTO Committee on
Agriculture, thePrinciples ofSurplus Disposal andtheSystem ofUsual Marketing Requirements of
theFAO Consultative Sub-Committee onSurplus Disposal. Therepresentative oftheWFP noted its
roleinproviding aidandassistance andsignaled itsaimofcontributing tothesuccess ofthework
oftheCommittee.
30. TheCommittee hadapreliminary exchange ofviews regarding acommunication received by
theChairman fromtheChairman oftheWorking Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures
seeking acontribution fromtheCommittee onthematters under consideration intheWorking Group.
Views were expressed byanumber ofMembers concerning theneedtoavoid duplication inWTO
notifications. TheCommittee agreed torevert tothematter onthebasis ofafactual Secretariat paper
examiningthenotificationrequirementsoftheAgreementonAgricultureandtheAgreementonSubsidies
andCountervailing Measures. TheCommittee agreed that,inthemeantime, theChairman would reply
onhisownresponsibility totheChairman oftheWorking Group indicating thatitwasessential that
there should befullobservance ofthenotification requirements under theAgreement onAgriculture,
sincetheserequirements arespecifically tailored toobligations andcommitments whose implementation
theCommitee ischarged withreviewing; andthat,while respecting notification obligations toother
WTO bodies, practical arrangements should beexplored under which overlap isavoided orminimized
sofarasthecontent andfollow-up tosuchnotifications areconcerned totheextent thattheyrelate
toobligations orcommitments within thepurview oftheCommittee onAgriculture.
31. TheCommittee agreed thattheChairman would submit abrieffactual report under hisown
responsibility ifrequested todosobytheCouncil onTrade inGoods.G/AG/R/3
Page7
32. Under "other business", therepresentative ofAustralia flagged hisGovernment 'sconcern with
respect totheEuropean Communities 'import regime foroats. Henoted thatoats,unlike certain other
grains, werenotsubject tothe155percentconcession ontheapplication ofduties. Australia considered
theCommunities 'current import arrangement incompatible withtheobjectives oftheUruguay Round.
Heexpressed thehopethatthecontinuing bilateral consultations would result inasatisfactory solution.
TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesstressedthattheEuropeanCommunitieswasrespecting
itsUruguay Round commitment foroatsandexpressed theCommunities 'willingness tocontinue to
discuss thematter bilaterally.
DateofNext Meeting andProgramme ofMeetings for1996
33. Thenextmeeting oftheCommittee willbeheldon20-21 November 1995.
34. TheCommittee agreed onthefollowing programme fortheCommittee 'sregular meetings in
1996, withtheadditional meeting inOctober inorder toallow foranynecessary preparation forthe
Singapore Ministeral Conference:
28-29 March 1996
24-25 September 1996
28-29 October 1996
28-29 November 1996.G/AG/R/3
Page8
ANNEX
Review ofNotifications bytheCommittee onAgriculture atitsMeeting on28-29 September 1995
Summary ofSpecific Points Raised andResponses Thereto
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/2 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Community -Clarification sought
regarding therateofdutyapplied onMexican and
USwheat andwheat product imports. Itisstated
thatMexico andtheUSwillcontinue tofacethe
same tariff when thetariff quota isfilled. Isthe
same dutyapplied within quotas?Theappropriate NAFTA rateisapplied toimports
ofwheat andwheat products from Mexican and
USatalltimes.
Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States/New Zealand -Would liketorevert
tothenotification after amore detailed
examination.Tobereverted to.
Czech Republic G/AG/N/CZE/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/United States/New Zealand -Concerns
raised regarding thecountry-specific allocation of
minimum access tariff quotas under preferential
trade agreements.Thecountry-specific allocations were committed
prior totheconclusion oftheUruguay Round
negotiations andtheywere mentioned inthe
Czech schedule. Oneexception concerns a
country-specific allocation forpoultrymeat
reflecting abilateral understanding concluded after
theUruguay Round. TheCzech Republic will
shortly submit acorrigendum tothenotification in
thislight. TheCzech quota administration isin
conformity bothwiththespirit ofWTO
commitments andthem.f.n. nature ofminimum
access tariff quotas.
Canada -Clarification sought astowhether the
country allocations arefixed sothattheincrease
inthetariff quota quantity overthesixyears of
implementation would beavailable toallcountries
orwhether thecountry allocations would increase
proportionally?Thecountry allocations arefixed. Allthe
increases intariff quotas willbeavailable toall
countries except for1996, when thetariff quota
allocation ofoneproduct willincrease
proportionally.G/AG/R/3
Page9
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/1 and Corr.1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/New Zealand/Uruguay -Concern raised
regarding theallocation ofm.f.n. minimum access
tariff quotas topreferential suppliers. Inparticular
fordairy products, theEChasreserved inthe
firstquarter aportion ofthetariff quotas for
Central andEastEuropean countries according to
Europe agreements.Thequestion ofimports under thepreferential
arrangements raises anumber ofissues including
preferential allocations andpreferential tariffs. In
EC'sschedule, afootnote indicates thatEC
reserves theright totakeintoaccount imports
under Europe agreements. Theallocation for
particular products isbeing reviewed bytheEC
authorities.
Canada/United States -Clarification sought
regarding theproduct definition forthetariff
quota forpizza cheese.Acorrigendum ofthedefinition willbe
forthcoming.
Canada/Argentina -Clarification sought regarding
thetariff quotas which have notyetbeen notified,
inparticular: the500,000 tonsofcorntariff
quota forPortugal, andthe2million tonsofcorn
and300,000 oftonssorghum tariff quotas for
Spain.Notifications willbeforthcoming.
Canada/Japan -Why does thevalidity period of
import licences varygreatly depending onthe
commodities (i.e.5days forwheat versus expiry
attheendofmarketing yearforcertain cheeses)?There isnooneruleastothevalidity ofimport
licences.
Canada/United States -How does theCommission
andthemember States work together overthe
administration oftariff quotas? How domember
States customs authorities know howmany
licences areavailable? How istheCommission
informed ofthelevel ofimports bythemember
States?Importers mayapply forlicences tothecompetent
authorities inmember States. Member States
inform theCommission inashort period oftime
astothenumber ofrequests andthesizeofthe
requests. Ifthere isnoover-subscription the
member States issue thelicences. Ifthere isan
over-subscription theCommission applies a
coefficient ofreduction. Thetariff quota fillis
established upon therelease oftheguarantee.
United States -Why areretail establishments
barred access toimport licenses inthecaseof
several meat andcheese items?ECconsiders thattherestriction imposed for
retail establishments allows avoids aheavy over
subscription forlicences.
Canada/United States -Clarification sought
regarding theregime applied toproducts for
which tariff quotas willbeadministered bythe
Commission, such asalmonds anddried onions.
What arethedocuments forrelease forfree
circulation andhowdotheydiffer from import
licence? What arethe"drawings" referred toin
(b)(iii)? Isitpossible foranimporter tobecertain
before aproduct arrives attheborder whether that
product canbeimported atthein-quota rate?Tobereverted to.G/AG/R/3
Page10
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/1 and Corr.1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Clarification sought onthe
"certificate ofauthenticity" referred tounder the
entries ofcertain products such asfrozen
concentrated orange juice andcertain meats. How
does itdiffer from animport licence?Tobereverted to.
United States -When willthetariff ratequotas be
notified fortheremaining products which are
listed intheSecretariat document?Tobereverted to.
United States/Canada -Regarding animal products
ECrequires thatlicence recipients must be
historical importers. Isthere anyprovision for
newentrants?There isareserve fornewentrants.
Canada -Clarification sought regarding the
eligibility ofapplicants foralicence forhigh
quality wheat. Why isthere adiscrepancy between
theECregulation andthemarket access
notification?Tobereverted to.
Hungary G/AG/N/HUN/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States/Canada -Thenotification includes
country allocations (G/AG/N/HUN/1, e.g.p.2)
which were notincorporated inHungary 's
Marrakesh schedule, although reference tothe
matter ismade inafootnote intheschedule. How
does Hungary justify country-specific allocations
ofm.f.n. quotas? Does Hungary claim thatthese
allocations areinconformity withArticle XIIIof
theGATT 1994?Atpresent access quantities areallocated onthe
basis ofglobal tariff quotas. Thisiswithout
prejudice toHungary 'sright tospecify country
related quota shares based onhistorical trade
patterns inaccordance withArticle XIIIofthe
GATT 1994.
United States -Clarification sought regarding
notified tariff quotas forproducts notincluded in
Marrakesh schedule forsoybean oil,icecream,
soups andbroths, frozen vegetables. What arethe
tariff quota quantities andin-quota tariffs?Compared totheschedule, Hungary has
established additional tariff-rate quotas subject to
thefollowing in-quota tariffs:
0710 (frozen vegetables) 750t 30%
1507 (soybean oil) 300t 8%
1905 (bread,pastry...) 200t 50%
2103 (soups andbroths) 60t 25%
2105 (icecream) 200t 30%
United States -Confirmation requested thatthere
willbenorequirement thatcertain imports under
tariff quotas areexclusively forfurther
processing.Inorder topreserve traditional trading
relationships between importers andsuppliers and
toprevent market manipulation, certain imported
products, normally outside thescope oftheretail
trade, have tobedestined forfurther processing.G/AG/R/3
Page11
Hungary G/AG/N/HUN/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Iftheallocated quota isnotused, what
isthelevel ofreimbursable deposit andthelevel
ofpenalties? Aretheyprohibitive?Thelevel ofreimbursable deposits varies
according tothecharacteristics oftheaffected
products. Iftheallocated quota isnotused upto
80%, thedeposit cannot bereclaimed. Astothe
level ofdeposit anditseffect inpreventing
allocation hoarding andmarket manipulation, itis
stillpremature todraw wellfounded conclusions
inthefirstyearofimplementation.
Canada -Why didHungary notestablish atariff
quota forfrozen berries (HS0811)? Ifthere isno
tariff quota atwhat level ofimports willHungary
invoke theSSG?In1995, notariff quota isapplied forfrozen
berries asthetariff exceeds onlyveryslightly the
pre-Uruguay Round rate. Fortherestofthe
implementation period, theapplied m.f.n. tariff
rates willbelower thanthose applied prior tothe
Uruguay Round negotiations. Hungary has
indicated initsschedule theright touseSSG
provisions andifandwhen itinvokes it,itwill
comply withtheAgreement onAgriculture.
Canada -Information requested onthedateofthe
validity ofimport permits, i.e.whether the
notified daterelates tothedateonwhich the
goods areintransit, cross-the-border orare
customs-cleared.Thedates referred tointheHungarian notification
relate tothedateofcustoms clearance.
Canada -Arethere mechanisms fortheprotection
ofthehistorical relationships between importers
andtheir traditional suppliers?Protection oftraditional trading relationships is
ensured through thecondition thattariff quotas of
certain products, normally outside thescope ofthe
retail trade, arereserved forprocessors.
Argentina -How arepriorities assigned within the
tariff quotas including thecountry-allocated
quotas? How dotheHungarian authorities
distribute import licences?Forthemajority ofproducts, quota allocations are
made inproportion tothequantities requested, if
necessary shares aredistributed onaprorata
basis. Fortheother products, quotas areallocated
onthefirst-come-first-served basis.
New Zealand -Clarification sought onthe
allocation ofm.f.n. access quantities. Does that
imply thatthere arenopreferential duties applied
within theglobal allocation?Nopreferential duties areapplied under global
tariff quotas.G/AG/R/3
Page12
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/European Communities/New
Zealand/Argentina -Concerns raised regarding
Korea 'sauction system forallocating tariff quotas.
Does Korea claim thatthismethod ofallocating
quotas isinconformity withArticles II,IIIand
VIIIoftheGATT 94?
Switzerland -considers thatauction system is
perfectly compatible withtheobligations under the
GATT 1994 aswellasunder theAgriculture
Agreement 'sprovisions.Theuseofauctioning asamethod ofallocating
quotas wasintroduced duetodifficulties related to
thelarge price gapbetween theinternational
markets andtheinternal markets. Theauction
system presents alarge number ofadvantages
such asfurthering them.f.n. principle, enhancing
thequota fill,giving newentrants access totariff
quotas and,furthermore, itisamethod of
transferring quota rents from importers tothe
government without anyadditional economic
burden ontheexporters.
Australia/European Communities -Concerns
raised thatinmost, ifnotallcases, producer
and/or processor groups areinvolved inthe
administration oftariff quotas, withthe
consequent potential forimpairment ofthe
concessions.Tobereverted to.
United States -While noting theneed toexamine
auctioning inthecontext ofother methods oftariff
quota administration, sought information with
respect tothesumoftheapplied in-quota tariffs
andthequota auction fee.How dothetotal
amounts compare tothebound in-quota tariffs?Tobereverted to.
Malaysia G/AG/N/MYS/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Clarification sought regarding theone
month validity period oftheimport permit. On
what basis areimport licences allocated?Ifthere isaneed toextend thevalidity period, an
extension willbegranted. Licences areawarded
onafirst-come-first-served basis.
United States -What aretheprocedures for
extending thevalidity period ofimport licences?Tobereverted to.G/AG/R/3
Page13
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Noted thattariff quotas have not
been established forcurrent access commitments.
How willNorway ensure compliance withArticle
5:2oftheAgreement onAgriculture?Norway willfindappropriate methods toensure
compliance ifthespecial safeguard istobeused
inthefuture.
United States -Regarding highUruguay Round in-
quota tariffs, howdoes Norway intend tomaintain
current access?Duetotheinternal price reduction since thebase
period, Norwegian authorities decided toreduce
alltariffs down toyear2000 level already from
July1995. Thisregime willmaintain theimport
possibilities existing inthebaseperiod. There is
noindication thatoverall import levels have
declined.
Australia -Does Norway claim thattheauction
system forallocating quota isinconformity with
Articles II,IIIandVIIIoftheGATT 94?Theuseofauctioning isthemost efficient and
transparent waytodistribute tariff quotas. The
auction system isinconformity withNorway 's
obligations under theGATT.
Australia -Noted thatNorway hasapplied the
final bound Uruguay Round tariffs asofJulythis
year. Does thatmean thatthetariff quota quantity
willnotbeapplied?Duetotheapplication ofyear2000 tariff rates
already forJuly1995, tariff quotas willnotbe
established.
Australia -Clarification sought astothesizeof
theglobal tariff quota forsheepmeat and
goatmeat. Why does thenotification include a
reserve forIceland?Norway notified onlytheminimum access quotas.
Bilateral current access tariff quotas have notbeen
notified.
Argentina -Concern raised about thepotential
limitation ofthedistribution oftariff quota under
theauction system.Thedetailed rules, including maximum shares of
thetariff quota arestilltobedecided. Tobe
reverted to.
Argentina -Asregards apples andpears howis
theinitial quota defined fornewimporters?Tobereverted to.
Slovak Republic G/AG/N/SVK/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/Australia/United States/Mexico -Concerns
raised regarding theallocation ofm.f.n. tariff
quotas tospecific suppliers.TheSlovak Republic stated thatthecountry-
specific quotas were committed prior tothe
conclusion oftheUruguay Round negotiations and
theywere mentioned intheSlovak schedule,
except inonecasewhich willberectified witha
corrigendum. Many tariff quotas arem.f.n. and
allthegrowth willbeallocated onam.f.n. basis.
There isalittle demand forlicences formany
tariff quotas.G/AG/R/3
Page14
Slovak Republic G/AG/N/SVK/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Noted thattheschedule indicates an
initial tariff quota quantity of2,414 tons, raising
to4,025 tonsforrapeseed, andthenotification
MA:1 indicates acountry allocation of2,500 tons
forPoland. How willthisbeimplemented to
allow access tonewentrants inthefirstyears of
implementation?Tobereverted to.
Mexico -Sought clarification ontheproduct
coverage ofcertain tariff quotas. Indicated itwill
pursue thematter bilaterally.Tobereverted to.
South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Noted thatforcertain products
tariff ratequota administration hasnotyetbeen
notified.Notifications willbeforthcoming, hopefully in
advance ofthenextmeeting.
Thailand G/AG/N/THA/1, 2and3Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Noted thatimport certificates for
maize were valid onlyuntil 31July1995. Does
thismean thatthetariff quota wasopen foronly
onemonth? Ifso,wasthequantity filled? Ifnot,
does Thailand intend tore-open thetariff quota
before theendoftheyear?Thailand hasexpanded boththequota volume and
thevalidity ofthecertificates. Thetariff quota
formaize of52,096 tonswasenlarged to200,000
tonsandfilled before 31July1995. Inadditional
tariff quota of200,000 tonswasallocated until 15
August 1995 andalmost filled attheexpiry date.
United States -What areThailand 'splans with
respect tothetariff quotas thathave notyetbeen
opened?Notifications concerning onion seeds andsugar
have been prepared andadministration details for
other products have been submitted toCabinet;
their notifications willbeforthcoming.G/AG/R/3
Page15
Venezuela G/AG/N/VEN/1 andCorr.1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -How willimports under thecurrent
tariff-only regime becounted against tariff quota
commitments iftariff quotas areindeed
implemented?Itwillbeconsidered atsuch atime asaquota is
opened.
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/2 Trigger Prices (Table MA:4)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Isthelevying ofanyadditional duty
under theprice-based SSGautomatic or
discretionary?Asregards theprice-based SSG, anadditional
dutywillbelevied iftheconditions setoutin
Article 5oftheAgreement onAgriculture are
met, unless theimports areunlikely todisturb the
ECmarket ortheeffects aredisproportionate to
theobjectives.
Argentina/Mexico -Clarification sought about the
difference between the"trigger price" andthe
"entry price" forfruitandvegetables. What isthe
purpose ofnotifying "trigger prices" forproducts
towhich theSSGdoes notapply? What isthe
purpose ofnotifying"trigger prices" which are
lower thanthe"entry prices"?Although trigger prices arelisted fortheproducts
concerned, there willbenoadditional charge
from thesystem laiddown innotes 14to37of
theschedule.
Japan -Clarification sought regarding theSSG
trigger prices which aremissing inthe
notification.ECiscurrently checking what trigger prices
should benotified.
Switzerland -Why hasECnotified quantities
imported during thebaseperiod?ECprovided quantities andvalues oftheimports
formore transparency.
Switzerland -Regarding thetriggering ofthe
price-based SSG, does theECintend tonotify the
actual useoftheSSG?Up-front notifications areinaccordance withthe
decisions oftheCommittee onAgriculture.
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/2 Trigger Prices (Table MA:4)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Switzerland -Noted thatthenotification was
incomplete according totheArticle 5ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture andisinsufficient for
theinvocation oftheprice-based SSG.Korea willendeavour tosubmit theinformation
forthe1988-90 period (asinformation is
unavailable forthe1986-88 period).G/AG/R/3
Page16
New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/3 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 toES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Clarification sought
regarding theexplanatory noteinTable ES:1.Inorder toenhance export performance, New
Zealand hadascheme payments under which
ended in1994/95. Fortransparency reasons, New
Zealand decided tolistthisscheme inits
schedule. Itwasnotpossible toattribute the
subsidy toparticular commodities hence no
quantitative commitments aretobefound inthe
schedule.