RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/AG/R/4
19January 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-0161)
Committee onAgriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OFTHE MEETING HELD ON20-21 NOVEMBER 1995
Note bytheSecretariat
1. TheCommittee onAgriculture helditsfourth meeting on20-21 November 1995 under the
chairmanship ofAmbassador Danai Tulalamba ofThailand. Theagenda ofthemeeting, contained
inWTO/AIR/211, wasadopted.
PartI:TheReview Process
2. TheCommittee reviewed thefollowing notifications aslisted ontheagenda:
(i) ontheadministration oftariffandotherquota commitments (Table MA:1) fromCanada
(G/AG/N/CAN/2), Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/1), Costa Rica(G/AG/N/CRI/1), the
European Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/1, Corr.1 and 2,Add.1), Iceland
(G/AG/N/ISL/1), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/1), Romania (G/AG/N/ROM/1), theSlovak
Republic (G/AG/N/SVK/1), South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/1/Rev.1), Thailand
(G/AG/N/THA/4 and5),theUnited States (G/AG/N/USA/2/Add.2), andVenezuela
(G/AG/N/VEN/1 andCorr.1);
(ii) ontrigger prices inthecontext oftheprice-based special safeguard (Table MA:4)
from the European Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/2) and the United
States (G/AG/N/USA/1/Add.1);
(iii) onexportsubsidycommitments(TablesES:1toES:3)fromPakistan(G/AG/N/PAK/1);
(iv) onexport prohibitions andrestrictions (Table ER:1) fromHungary (G/AG/N/HUN/2).
3. TheCommittee agreed torevert tothenotifications from theEuropean Communities
(G/AG/N/EEC/1, Corr.1 and2,Add.1) andtheUnited States (G/AG/N/USA/2/Add.2) during the
review process ofthenextmeeting.
4. TheCommittee heldaninitial review ofthenotifications fromCanada (G/AG/N/CAN/2/Add.1)
andThailand (G/AG/N/THA/6) which willalsobereviewed atthenextmeeting pursuant toparagraph 9
oftheCommittee 'sworking procedures.
5. Specific points raised during themeeting withrespect tothesenotifications (paragraphs 2and4
above) aresummarized intheAnnex tothisreport.
6. TheCommittee tooknotethattheChairman hadinitiated informal consultations, asagreed
attheSeptember meeting, onarange ofmatters concerning theadministration oftariffandother quota
commitments. Some oftheprincipal items included therelative merits ofvarious methods ofallocating
tariffandotherquota licences, including auctioning oftariffquota licences; theallocation oftariffquota
licences tostatetrading enterprises ortobodies which arecontrolled byproducers orprocessors ofG/AG/R/4
Page2
theproduct concerned; thetreatment ofpreferential imports under m.f.n. market access commitments;
andtheapplicability oftheWTO Agreement onImport Licensing Procedures totariff quota import
licences. TheCommittee agreed thatthese informal consultations would needtobecontinued.
7. Several Members voiced concerns inrelation toColombia 'spolicy ofmaking theissuance of
tariff quota import licences conditional uponproper absorption ofdomestic production oftheproducts
concerned, ameasure which Colombia claimed wascovered bytheTRIMs Agreement andwhich had
beennotified inaccordance withArticle 5:1thereof (G/AG/N/COL/1 andtheAnnex tothisreport,
refer). TheCommittee tooknotethattheChairman would consult informally onthismatter.
8. TheCommittee noted thatnocounter notifications pursuant toArticle 18:7oftheAgreement
onAgriculture hadbeenreceived.
Matters Relevant totheImplementation ofCommitments under theReform Programme:
Article 18:6
9. Therepresentative ofNewZealand informed theCommittee thathisdelegation hadreceived
theinformation ithadrequested fromtheUnited States andtheEuropean Communities withrespect
toexports thatwereapproved forsubsidized export prior to1July1995forshipment during thefirst
yearofimplementation (G/AG/R/3, paragraph 16,refers). Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated
thathewouldmaketheinformationavailabletoanyotherinterestedMember.Thisinformationcontained
datawithrespect toexport "bonus" allocations forallcommodities which hadreceived export subsidies
intheperiod MaytoJune1995 compared totheperiod MaytoJuneoftheprevious twoperiods.
TheUSrepresentative noted thatthedatashowed thattherehadbeennosurge inexport subsidy awards;
onthecontrary, awards were inmost cases wellbelow those ofthetwoprevious periods. The
representative oftheEuropean Communities noted thattheECdatademonstrated thatnoabnormal
surge ofexport allocations hadoccurred before theentry intoforce oftheECexport subsidy volume
commitments. Therepresentative ofNewZealand noted thatitwascrucial tothematter whether this
year'spattern ofexport subsidy allocations would repeat itselfinthefuture; ifnot,therewasapossibility
thatsubsidized exports would behigher in1995/96 thancould havebeenexpected fromtherespective
Schedules ofcommitments.
10. TheCommittee tooknotethattheChairman hadheldinformal bilateral consultations onthe
matter raised attheSeptember meeting regarding Hungary 'sapparent non-adherence toexport subsidy
commitments. Itwasalsobrought totheattention oftheCommittee thatanumber ofMembers had
requested additional factual information from Hungary regarding subsidized exports during thebase
period interms ofbudgetary outlays andwithregard tocommodities having received export subsidies
which were notinHungary 'sSchedule. TheChairman stressed theseriousness ofthematter and
indicated thathewould holdfurther informal consultations onceHungary hadprovided therequested
information. Therepresentative ofHungary recognized thenecessity forHungary tosupply appropriate
information inorder toadvance thesubstantive consideration ofthematter andundertook toprovide
theinformation assoonaspossible.
11. Anumber ofMembers reiterated theirserious concerns about whattheyconsidered aconfirmed
breach ofexport subsidy commitments andstressed thatquick action byHungary wasessential. The
representative oftheUnited States urged Hungary tocomply withitsexport subsidy commitments.
TheUnited States wasnotconvinced onthebasis oftheinformation received from Hungary sofar,
thatthecasewarranted anyadjustment ofcommitments. Henoted thatanumber ofcommodities were
exported withsubsidies where Hungary hadacommitment nottoprovide anyexport subsidies, some
ofwhich theUnited States wasexporting ataprofit without export subsidies. Headded thattheUnited
States considered thatitwasnotvitaltoHungarian agriculture toprovide export subsidies forarange
ofsome 300products. Therepresentative ofAustralia deplored thefactthatHungary hadbeenlessG/AG/R/4
Page3
thanforthcoming withfactual information which could assist theCommittee inthismatter. Inresponse
toapointraisedbytherepresentativeofAustraliainthisregard,therepresentativeofHungaryconfirmed
thatHungary hadmade anotification (G/SCM/N/9/HUN, refers) totheCommittee onSubsidies and
Countervailing Measures inaccordance with Article 29:3 oftheAgreement onSubsidies and
Countervailing Measures (the"Subsidies Agreement"). Therepresentative noted thatHungary had
considered thenotification necessary inorder toensure compliance withnotification requirements under
theSubsidies Agreement. Anumber ofMembers expressed theviewthatArticle 29oftheSubsidies
Agreement wasnotapplicable toagricultural subsidies. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted
that,haditbeenintended thatArticle 29oftheSubsidies Agreement derogate from theprovisions
ofArticle 3oftheAgreement onAgriculture, thedrafters oftheAgreements would haveinserted
appropriate language tothiseffect inbothAgreements.
12. Therepresentative oftheUnited States sought clarification onthestatus andprogress of
implementation ofcommitments bytheDominican Republic, Guatemala andthePhilippines. The
representative oftheUnited States stated thattheDominican Republic hadsofarfailed toimplement
anyofitsagricultural commitments. Therepresentative oftheDominican Republic noted thatthe
preparatory legalwork fortheimplementation ofcommitments wasunder wayandthathercountry
wascommitted toensure implementation assoonaspossible.
13. WithrespecttoGuatemala,therepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesnotedthatGuatemalacontinued
tousediscretionary import licensing tocontrol imports ofanumber ofagricultural products andhad
failed toimplement mostofthe32tariffquotas listed initsSchedule. Therepresentative ofGuatemala
undertook toprovide theUnited States witharesponse onprogress ofimplementation inthenear
future.
14. AnumberofMembersvoicedtheirconcernswithrespecttothePhilippines'lateimplementation
ofitsUruguay Round commitments inagriculture. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted that
thePhilippines hadfailed toimplement anyofitsagricultural commitments andcontinued tomaintain
quantitative restrictions, including import bans, andothernon-tariff barriers foranumber ofagricultural
products. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines noted that,asofOctober 1995, thePhilippines had
imported: 117,000 headofcattle ornearly 10times thePhilippines 'commitment of12,200 head; nearly
halfofthecommitment of2,570 headoflivepigs;18,000 tonsofbeefascompared toacommitment
of4,000 tons; 130,000 tonsofcorn; 245,000 tonsofriceor410percentofthecommitment; and
138,000 tonsofsugar or360percentofthecommitment. Except forbeefwhich wasimported at
thebound in-quota tariff, imports entered atlower ratesthantherespective bound in-quota tariffs,
i.e.at3percentcustoms dutyorduty-free. However, theCongressional elections heldinMay1995
haddelayed theenactment ofabillwhich would repeal lawsandprovisions requiring theuseofnon-tariff
measures against agricultural imports. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines assured theCommittee
thatherGovernment would continue todoitsutmost tocomply assoonaspossible withitsobligations
under Article 4:2oftheAgreement onAgriculture.
15. Therepresentative ofCanada noted withconcern thatanumber ofMembers hadnotyet
implemented orcomplied withtheirmarket access notification requirements. Hesought anindication
fromtheMembersconcernedastowhentheyintendedtocomplywiththeircommitmentsandnotification
requirements andwhattheyenvisaged doing inorder toensure thatmarket access opportunities for
1995 werefullyprovided toMembers. Itwassuggested thatMembers concerned consider practical
steps tocompensate forlateimplementation, including implementation ofthesecond stage oftariff
reductions atthebeginning of1996 andanadditional allowance interms oftariff quota access
opportunities inthesecond yearofimplementation tocompensate forlateornon-implementation of
tariff quotas inthefirstyearofimplementation. Thisproposal wasalsomade inthecontext ofthe
review ofNorway 'snotification (G/AG/N/NOR/1). Therepresentative ofMorocco informed the
Committee thatMorocco hadimplemented tariff equivalents formost products on1January 1995,G/AG/R/4
Page4
except forrawandrefined sugar, oilseeds, cereals andcertain oils. These products weresubject to
import licensing tobeeliminated intheperiod 1January 1996to1June1996. Morocco 'snotification
ontheadministration ofmarket access commitments would beforthcoming. Therepresentative of
theUnited States urged Morocco toimplement itscommitments inaspeedy manner. Therepresentatives
ofPoland andSwitzerland informed theCommittee thattheirrespective market access commitments
hadbeenimplemented asof1July1995 andthatMA:1 notifications would beforthcoming shortly.
Therepresentatives ofBrazil andMexico noted thattheirrespective Uruguay Round commitments
withrespect toagriculture hadbeenimplemented asof1January 1995; theMA:1 notifications were
inpreparation andwould besubmitted totheCommittee induecourse. Therepresentatives ofIndonesia
andthePhilippinesindicatedthattheirrespectiveMA:1notificationswereimminent.Therepresentative
ofMexico sought clarification onthestatus ofMA:1 notifications fromAustria, Finland andSweden.
Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities noted thattheEuropean Communities market access
notification covered theacceding countries ofAustria, Finland andSweden; furthermore, theEuropean
CommunitieswasintheprocessofArticleXXIVnegotiationstomergetheUruguayRoundcommitments
oftheEuropean Communities withthose ofAustria, Finland andSweden.
16. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheresults offurther work oftheSecretariat onimplementation
datesforeachtypeofcommitment (G/AG/W/2/Rev.3). TheCommittee tooknotethatmostMembers
withTotal AMS reduction commitments hadyettonotify theirrespective applicable starting datein
termsofthedomesticsupportnotificationrequirements.TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesinformed
theCommittee thattheapplicable datefortheUnited States would be1October. Therepresentative
ofPoland noted Poland 'sintention tochange theimplementation datewithrespect totheexport subsidy
reduction commitment ofoneproduct. Anumber ofMembers expressed theviewthatachange of
theimplementation dateofcommitments constituted achange incommitment.
PartII:Other Matters within thePurview oftheCommittee
Decision onMeasures Concerning thePossible Negative Effects oftheReform Programme on
Least-Developed andNetFood-Importing Developing Countries
17. TheCommittee adopted adecision relating totheestablishment ofalistofWTO netfood-
importing developing countries forthepurposes oftheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision onMeasures
Concerning thePossible Negative Effects oftheReform Programme onLeast-Developed andNetFood-
Importing Developing Countries. Thetextofthisdecision hasbeenissued asdocument G/AG/3.
Thisdecision wasadopted ontheunderstanding thatbeing listed would notassuch confer automatic
benefits since, under themechanisms covered bytheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision, donors and
theinstitutions concerned would havearoletoplay.
18. TheCommittee alsoadopted adecision onapreparatory work programme inrespect ofthe
Marrakesh Ministerial Decision. Thetextofthisdecision hasbeenissued asdocument G/AG/4. It
wasnoted thattheSecretariat would prepare abackground noteinrespect ofparagraphs AandBof
thework programme, drawing onarange ofsources, asappropriate, including theInternational Grains
Council, which administers theFood AidConvention, andtheWorld Food Programme. TheChairman
would undertake informal consultations onmatters raised concerning theimplementation ofthework
programme.
19. TheCommitteeundertookitsfirstmonitoringexercisewithrespecttotheMarrakeshMinisterial
Decision onMeasures Concerning thePossible Negative Effects oftheReform Programme onLeast-
Developed andNetFood-Importing Developing Countries ("the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision")
pursuant toArticle 16:2oftheAgreement onAgriculture.G/AG/R/4
Page5
20. TheChairman recalled thatattheSeptember meeting thesuggestion wasmade thatrelevant
aspectsoftheMarrakeshMinisterialDecisionshouldbetakenupbytheDirector-General,Mr.Ruggiero,
inhisconsultations withthePresident oftheWorld Bank andtheManaging Director oftheIMF.
Inthecourse ofhisdiscussions onthismatter, theDirector-General hadraised anumber ofspecific
questions towhich theWorld Bank andtheIMFhadprovided responses assetoutindocuments
G/AG/W/12 andAdd.1, respectively.
21. Therepresentative oftheWorld Bank noted thatassistance indealing withanytransition costs
astheresult oftheUruguay Round would depend onthecountry undertaking sound liberalization of
itsagricultural ortrade policies. Given therange offacilities available from theWorld Bank, the
IMFandtheWorld FoodProgramme, theWorld Bankdidnotconsider itnecessary toestablish aspecial
Uruguay Round adjustment facility. Therepresentative noted thattheconditionality associated with
World Bank lending wasdesigned tosupport thesuccessful outcome ofaproject orpolicy reform,
andrelaxing orwaiving conditionality wasconsidered more likely tohinder thantohelpeconomic
andsocial development. Therepresentative oftheIMFnoted thattheIMFwaswellequipped toassist
member countries confronting balance-of-payments difficulties. Atthepresent stage, theIMFwas
notconvinced oftheneedtocreate newfacilities withthespecific intent toassist thenetfood-importing
countries.Thetwoprincipalfacilitiestoassistnetfood-importingcountriesweretheEnhancedStructural
Adjustment Facility (ESAF) intheevent ofpersistently higher import prices forfoodastheresult of
theUruguay Round; andtheCompensatory andContingency Financing Facility (CCFF), particularly
itscereals element, intheevent oftemporarily higher foodprices. Therepresentative oftheIMFdrew
Members 'attention topage6ofdocument G/AG/W/12, where theCCFF isexplained indetail.
22. Therepresentative ofEgypt expressed disappointment attheviewtaken bytheWorld Bank
andtheIMFthattheestablishment ofnewUruguay Round related facilities were, atthepresent stage,
notjustified. Hedrewattention toparagraph 5oftheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision inwhich reference
ismade to"...under existing facilities, orsuchfacilities asmaybeestablished...". Heexpressed the
view thattheleast-developed andnetfood-importing developing countries were facing newand
exceptional circumstances during theperiod oftheagricultural reform programme which called for
afresh approach bytheBretton Woods institutions. Heappealed totheWorld Bank andtheIMFto
reconsider theirposition onthematter withduesense ofurgency andseriousness, withaview to
improving andadapting access tofacilities andcreating newfacilities. Theleast-developed andnet
food-importing developing countries would need additional resources inorder tocontinue their
liberalizationandstructuraladjustmentprogrammes.HeexpressedthehopethattheWTOwouldsucceed
through consultation andnegotiation withtheWorld Bank andtheIMFinreaching amore balanced
outcomeassuringthecredibilityoftheinstitutions.AnumberofMembersendorsedtheview'sexpressed
bytherepresentative ofEgypt andstressed theneedforconcrete action intheimplementation period
ofthereform programme.
23. Therepresentative oftheFAO stated thattheFAO offered assistance totheleast-developed
andnetfood-importing developing countries inbroadly twoways: first, withtechnical studies,
information andsupport totheirefforts tohavetheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision implemented at
anearlystage, andsecondly, through theprovision oftechnical assistance toimprove theiragricultural
productivity andinfrastructure. Therepresentative oftheFAO expressed theview thatifhigher
international foodprices weretopersist, partly astheresult oftheUruguay Round, thiswould provide
animportant incentive toundertake increased investment. TheFAOwascurrently undertaking projects
amounting toUS$2 billion, withthose mostclosely linked toagriculture amounting toUS$1 billion.
Justover US$1 billion ofthetotalwere spent inlow-income, food-deficit countries, including
US$667 million intheleast-developed countries. Therepresentative noted thattheFAO hadrecently
launcheditsspecialprogrammeonfoodproductioninsupportoffoodsecurityinlow-incomefood-deficit
countries.G/AG/R/4
Page6
24. Therepresentative oftheWorld Food Programme (WFP) noted thatalloftheWFP'sactivities
wereaimed atcontributing tothefoodsecurity ofdeveloping countries andthatmany ofthese would
bewellsuited toassist countries faced withtransitional problems related totheReform Programme.
Theextent towhich theWFP would beabletoofferadditional assistance would depend ontheresources
available. Many developing countries werecurrently facing thetriple challenge ofhistorically high
world market prices forcereals (innominal terms), asubstantial decrease intheavailability ofsubsidized
exports andamarked reduction intheleveloffoodaid.Therepresentative stressed theimportance
oftimeliness intheprovision offoodaidaswellasoffoodaidtargeting tothose toopoortoexpress
their fullfoodneeds through commercial market demand. Thisfoodaidwould have nomarket
displacementeffect,andinmanycasestargetingwouldbelesscostlyandmoreappropriatethanfinancing
asafety netfortheentire population. TheWFP representative stated thattheWFP would beready
tocontribute tothefollow-up oftheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision onthebasis of:experience in
working withgovernments toaddress theneeds ofthemostvulnerable; on-the-ground familiarity with
foodaidneeds indeveloping countries; capacity torespond quickly andeffectively toincreased needs
offoodaid;andinformation onglobal foodaidflows, including theWFP'sInternational Food Aid
Information System (INTERFAIS).
25. Therepresentative oftheInternational Grains Council stated thatthenewFoodAidConvention
which hadentered intoforceon1July1995, maintained thetarget of10million tonsoffoodaidannually
tobesupplied todeveloping countries intheformofgrain. Therepresentative noted thatthecurrent
highprices hadtriggered asubstantial expansion intheareasown inbothexporting andimporting
countries, andproduction ofwheat andcoarse grains waslikely torecover significantly. Heinformed
theCommittee thattheWTO Secretariat would beinvited toparticipate attheDecember meeting of
theFoodAidCommittee,includingatclosedsessions,onanadhocbasis,whenissuesofdirectrelevance
totheCommittee onAgriculture were discussed.
26. TheCommittee expressed appreciation forthecollaboration anduseful contributions ofthe
observer organizations withrespect tothefollow-up ontheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision. The
representative oftheUnited States recalled thatimplementation oftheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision
aswellasanumber ofprovisions intheAgreement onAgriculture, including thedisciplines onfood
aidunder Article 10,required theco-operation oftheobserver organizations.
Notification Requirements inRespect ofSubsidies under theAgreement onSubsidies and
Countervailing Measures andunder theAgreement onAgriculture
27. Following thepreliminary exchange ofviews attheSeptember meeting onthepossible overlap
between thenotification requirements under theAgreement onAgriculture andother WTO multilateral
tradeagreements, theCommittee reverted tothismatter onthebasisofaSecretariat paper examining
thenotification requirements oftheAgreement onAgriculture andtheSubsidies Agreement
(G/AG/W/13). TheCommittee tooknotethatinthemeantime theChairman hadconveyed, onhis
ownresponsibility asagreed attheSeptember meeting, thepreliminary views oftheCommittee to
theChairman oftheWorking Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures (G/AG/R/3,
paragraph 30,refers). Anumber ofMembers expressed theviewthatthereappeared tobelittledirect
overlap between bothAgreements. Therepresentative ofCanada suggested thattheCommittee consider
thepossibility ofaligning thetiming ofnotifications withrespect totheirsubmission andreview in
theCommittees concerned. Therepresentative oftheUnited States suggested forconsideration the
possibility ofmaking certain adjustments tothenotification requirements under theAgreement on
Agriculture withaview tomeeting theminimum notification requirements under theSubsidies
Agreement. TheCommittee agreed torevert tothematter attheappropriate stage. Inthiscontext,
therepresentative ofAustralia reiterated hisGovernments 'interest inhaving theCommittee consider
anotification requirement fornewormodified measures subject toreduction commitments (G/AG/R/2,
paragraph 23,refers).G/AG/R/4
Page7
Report bytheChairman totheCouncil forTrade inGoods
28. TheCommittee tooknotethattheChairman would submit areport, onhisownresponsibility,
totheCouncil onTrade inGoods, asrequested bytheCouncil.
Other Business
29. TheChairman recalled thatoneoftheunderstandings was,when theCommittee adopted its
decision ontheOrganization ofWork andWorking Procedures oftheCommittee (G/AG/2) atitsfirst
meeting inMarch 1995, thatattheappropriate stagetheCommittee would consider rulesofprocedure
based onthose contained inWT/L/28 (rules oftheGeneral Council), withaviewtodetermining, inter
alia,theextent towhich these rulesofprocedure might beadapted ormodified interms oftheneeds
andfunction oftheCommittee (G/AG/R/1, paragraph 4,refers). TheCommittee agreed totakeup
thematter atitsnextmeeting onthebasis ofanappropriate draftbytheSecretariat.
Date ofNext Meeting
30. Thenextmeeting oftheCommittee onAgriculture willbeheldon28-29 March 1996. The
airgramme convening thismeeting andthedraftagenda willbeissued on15March 1996.G/AG/R/4
Page8
ANNEX
Review ofNotifications bytheCommittee onAgriculture atitsMeeting on20-21 November 1995
Summary ofSpecific Points Raised andResponses Thereto
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/2 andAdd.1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/Australia/European
Communities/United States -Expressed concern
withrespect tocases where tariff quotas were
allocated tostate trading enterprises and/or the
products concerned were designated forfurther
processing.
New Zealand -Stated thatCanada hadimpaired
thecommercial value ofitsminimum access quota
forbutter byallocating thetariff quota tothe
Canadian Dairy Commission, astate trading
monopoly, foruseofprocessors, andthatinso
doing ithadreverted toameasure required tobe
converted intoordinary customs duties, contrary to
Article 4:2oftheAgreement onAgriculture and
thefootnote thereto (G/AG/N/CAN/2/Add.1,
refers). Furthermore New Zealand considered the
operation oftheCanadian Dairy Commission tobe
inconsistent withArticle XVII oftheGATT 1994
asitwasanentity which didnotoperate ona
commercial basis.Canada considered thattheoperation ofthe
Canadian Dairy Commission operated in
accordance withArticle XVII oftheGATT 1994
andtheUnderstanding ontheInterpretation of
Article XVII oftheGATT 1994, andthe
allocation wasnotinviolation ofArticle 4:2ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture. Henoted thatthe
Committee 'snotification formats specifically
provided forthecaseinwhich tariff quota import
licences areallocated tostate trading enterprises
(G/AG/2, page 3,refers). Therepresentative of
Canada expressed theview thatCanada 'saccess
commitments presented arealaccess opportunity
compared tothepre-Uruguay Round import
regime andnoted thatCanada hadundertaken to
review itstariff quota administration forbutter in
mid-1996.
Mexico -Noted thatimplementation ofagricultural
market access commitments wasanissue unrelated
totheoperation ofstate trading enterprises in
accordance withtherelevant provisions ofthe
GATT andnoted thattheallocation ofimport
licences tostate trading enterprises wasnoreason
forconcern aslongasthese enterprises were
operating oncommercial terms.Took noteofthestatement.
Argentina -Expressed theview thattariff quota
allocations designated forfurther processing could
entail acertain selectivity withrespect tosourcing
ofsupplies andthereby possibly violate them.f.n.
principle.Took noteofthestatement.
United States -Does Canada intend togivean
import guarantee forthetariff ratequota for
butter? What areCanada 'splans incasethetariff
ratequota isnotfilled?Preliminary response: Filling thequota atany
price isnotnecessarily consistent withnormal
commercial considerations.G/AG/R/4
Page9
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/2 andAdd.1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/Australia -Expressed theview that
thegeneral expectation ofexporting countries was
thattariff quota commitments would generate
access opportunities forfinal consumption rather
thanforfurther processing. Inthisgeneral
context, therepresentative ofAustralia noted that
itwould beamatter ofconcern ifacountry were
todesignate imports under market access
commitments foruseasfood aid.Took noteofthestatements.
Colombia G/AG/N/COL/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities/United States -Noted that
inmany cases thegranting ofanimport permit is
subject tothecondition thatthenational production
oftherelevant product hasbeen "properly
absorbed". Why didColombia introduce this
requirement? Does Colombia claim thatthis
requirement isinconformity withArticle IIIofthe
GATT 1994?Thisprovision isdesigned toimprove the
profitability ofagricultural activities without
affecting thecompetitiveness ofthenational
industry, byassuring stability todomestic
agricultural producers andcontrolling excess
supply ofsome agricultural products.. The
measure wasnotified totheTRIMs Committee
pursuant toArticle 5:1oftheTRIMs Agreement.
United States/ European Communities/
Switzerland/Japan -Noted thatthegranting ofan
import permit forwheat issubject tothecondition
that"thedeclared import price ishigher than 90
percentoftheofficial reference price". Does
Colombia claim thatthisrequirement isin
conformity withArticle VIIoftheGATT 1994
andArticle 1oftheAgreement onImplementation
ofArticle VIIoftheGATT 1994?Thisexceptional measure isonlyvalid forwheat
andwasintroduced inthesecond halfof1993 to
cope withlowprices ontheinternational markets.
Colombia considers thattheapplication ofthe
minimum price provision iscovered bya
reservation made atthetime ofratification ofthe
WTO Agreement pursuant toArticle 20ofthe
Agreement onImplementation ofArticle VIIof
theGATT 1994.
European Communities -Does Colombia claim
thatthese tworequirements apply without any
discrimination between supplying countries?There isnodiscrimination between thesupplier
countries, since nodistinction withrespect tothe
origin oftheproduct ismade.
European Communities/United States -Noted that
theproducts listed onpage 9,10,11 and12of
Colombia 'snotification arenotsubject toany
quantitative restrictions. What arethetariff rates
applied? Aretheylower thanthein-quota rates
listed intheSchedule?Atpresent, thecommon external tariff under the
ANDEAN Agreement isapplied. Theapplied
tariffs areconsiderably lower thanthein-quota
tariff rates listed intheSchedule.
United States -Why does theINCOMEX issue
import licences forpoultry cutssubject tothe
"criterion ofprotecting thedomestic industry"?
Does Colombia claim thatthisrequirement isin
conformity withArticle 3:2oftheAgreement on
Import Licensing Procedures?
Inthelight ofthereply tothisquestion, the
representative indicated thattheUSwould request
further information bilaterally.Thiscriterion isdesigned toprevent disruption on
thedomestic market caused bytheimportation of
product considered "waste product" inthecountry
oforigin, andtherefore commercialized atprices
thatareabnormally low. Theprocedure isin
conformity withtheprovisions oftheImport
Licensing Agreement, inparticular withArticle
3:2thereof.G/AG/R/4
Page10
Colombia G/AG/N/COL/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Thenotification includes tariff rate
quota aggregations, which were notincorporated
inColombia 'sSchedule. Does Colombia intend to
administer itstariff ratequotas atthelevel of
aggregation indicated inthenotification?Thetariff ratequotas areimplemented separately.
United States -Noted thatthegranting ofimport
permits formost oftheproducts issubject tothe
condition thattheimporter beaprocessor of
agricultural rawproducts. What does thiscriterion
mean? How does thecriterion apply forprocessed
products?Thiscriterion ispartofthemechanism of
absorption ofdomestic agricultural production. As
such itwasnotified totheCommittee onTrade-
Related Investment Measures
(G/TRIM/N/1/COL/2,refers). Thispractice is
consistent withtheTRIMs Agreement andthe
Import Licensing Agreement.
Australia -Data requested ontheproportion ofthe
domestic consumption subject totariff ratequota.Colombia willprovide thisdata.
Uruguay -Requested further information ontariff
quotas established fordairy andbovine animals.Colombia willprovide thisinformation.
Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/ European Communities -The
notification states thatimport certificates willbe
allocated through theCommodity Exchange tothe
importer whosubmits thelowest bid.Does thebid
relate tothecostofphysically importing the
product ordoes itinvolve thepayment forthe
right toimport?
Therepresentative oftheECindicated thattheEC
would further examine thissystem andmaycome
back tothematter atafuture meeting.Thebidreflects theprice oftheproduct itself.
New Zealand -How does thesystem work incase
ofasituation where there aretoomany
preliminary contracts?Ifthere isanover-subscription, preliminary
contracts willbechosen bylottery.
European Communities -Clarification sought
regarding thetariff quotas which have notyetbeen
notified.Theproducts forwhich Costa Rica decided notto
open tariff quotas, arenotincluded inthe
notification. Theapplied tariff willbem.f.n. tariff
rates forwhatever quantity isimported.
European Communities/Philippines -Why did
Costa Rica establish atariff quota forproducts
which arenotincluded initsSchedule?Thisisamatter relating tothecommodity
description. Theproducts inquestion areincluded
intheSchedule.
Argentina/ Australia -Consider thattheallocation
oftariff quotas through theCommodity Exchange
appeared tobesimilar toanauction system and
questioned whether thismethod ofallocating
quotas wasinconformity withArticles II,IIIand
VIIoftheGATT 1994?Took noteofthestatements.G/AG/R/4
Page11
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/1, Corr.1 and2,Add.1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/United States -Clarification sought
regarding theregime applied toproducts forwhich
tariff quotas willbeadministered bytheEC
Commission, such asalmonds anddried onions.
What arethedocuments forrelease forfree
circulation andhowdotheydiffer from import
licences? What arethe"drawings" referred toin
(b)(iii) ofthenotification? Isitpossible foran
importer tobecertain before aproduct arrives at
theborder whether thatproduct canbeimported at
thein-quota rate?ECwillpursue thematter bilaterally.
Switzerland -Clarification sought regarding the
portion oflivebovine heifers tariff quotas reserved
fortheCentral andEastern European countries
andtheBaltic countries. Does theECintend to
notify thecountry allocation totheWTO? Does
theECclaim thatthese allocations arein
conformity withthem.f.n. nature ofthe
commitments?Tobereverted to.
United States -Given thesmall amount ofeggs
andeggproducts imported inthepast, howdoes
theECimplement anefficient import licensing
regime onthebasis ofhistorical imports?Tobereverted to.
United States -When willthetariff ratequotas be
notified fortheremaining products which are
listed intheSecretariat 'sReport onTable MA:1
notifications?Tobereverted to.
Canada -Clarification sought regarding the
product definition forpizza cheese.ECinformed theCommittee thatitwasinthe
process ofamending thespecification forpizza
cheese andexpected thattheinternal procedures
would becompleted soon.
Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/Argentina/Australia -When the
auction premium exceeds thetariff quota rate, how
does Iceland claim thattheauction system for
allocating quotas isconsistent withWTO rules?Took noteofthestatements.
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina -Concern raised about thepotential
limitation ofthedistribution oftariff quotas under
theauction system.Norway hasnotyetestablished thedetailed rules
fortheauction system.G/AG/R/4
Page12
Norway G/AG/N/NOR/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina -Asregards apples andpears, howis
theinitial tariff quota defined fornewimporters?Thetariff quota isallocated toimporters according
tohistorical imports overthelastthree years
(including theperiod oftheyearwithlowduties).
New importers areeligible toasmall share ofthe
totaltariff quota.
Argentina/Australia/United States -Concerns
raised regarding thedelay ofimplementation of
market access commitments, inparticular the
possible lossofexports from theSouthern
hemisphere.Norway willmeet itscommitments thisyearby
extending thevalidity oftheimport licences for
animal products.
Romania G/AG/N/ROM/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities/United States -
Clarification sought regarding thetariff quotas
which have notyetbeen implemented which are
listed inPartBoftheRomanian notification. What
arethetariff rates applied? Aretheylower than
thein-quota rates listed intheSchedule?Thereasons whynotariff quotas have notbeen
opened arethefollowing:
firstthecurrent applied tariff islower thanthein-
quota ratelisted intheSchedule and,second, the
quota isnilregarding potatoes, ethyl alcohol and
vermouth.
Mexico -Requested bilateral consultations
regarding tariff items HS2208and2402.Romania accepted topursue thematter bilaterally.
Slovak Republic G/AG/N/SVK/1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Clarification sought
regarding theallocation ofimport licences which
arenotused byimporters (G/AG/N/SVK/1
footnote (d),page 2,refers).Theimport licences areissued onaquarterly basis
toimporters. Importers inform theMinistry of
Agriculture astolicences used onaquarterly
basis. Theunused licences areallocated inthe
following period onafirst-come-first-served basis.
European Communities/Canada -Noted thatthe
Schedule indicates aninitial tariff quota quantity of
2,414 tonsrising to4,025 tonsforrapeseed while
thenotification indicates acountry allocation of
2,500 tonsforPoland. How willthisbe
implemented toallow access tonewentrants inthe
firstyears ofimplementation? Thesame question
wasraised withregard tolivesheep andsheepmeat
(aninitial tariff quota of96tons, with100tons
being allocated toHungary).Thetariff quota isopen toallWTO suppliers.
Mexico -Clarification sought ontheproduct
coverage ofcertain tariff quotas.TheSlovak Republic indicated thatitwould pursue
thematter bilaterally.G/AG/R/4
Page13
South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/1/Rev.1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -When willthetariff rate
quotas benotified foralltheproducts listed inPart
I,Section I-BoftheSchedule?Allthetariff ratequotas have been included inthe
revised notification.
New Zealand -Onwhat basis arethetariff rate
quotas allocated forvegetables?They areallocated onafirst-come-first-served
basis.
European Communities/Argentina/Uruguay -
Clarification sought regarding theallocation of
tariff quotas totraditional suppliers. How does
South Africa intend toallocate tariff quotas for
bovine meat, sheepmeat andsugar?Tariff quota willbeallocated onaproratabasis.
New Zealand/Uruguay -Clarification sought
regarding thefootnote indicating foranumber of
products thatpermits areissued onhistorical basis.
Isthere anyprovision fornewentrants?There willinmost cases beprovision fornew
entrants.
New Zealand/Canada -Clarification sought
regarding thefootnote (page 9,refers) indicating
thatsuitable measures canbetaken when the
applied rateofdutyisadjusted above thein-quota
tariff rate.Thisfootnote issuperfluous.
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding the
three month validity period oftheimport permit.
Onwhat basis isthevalidity period extended?TheSouth African authorities reserve theright of
flexibility inextending thevalidity period of
import licences without prior notification tothe
WTO.
Canada/New Zealand -InSouth Africa 's
Schedule, there isreference that"sufficient import
opportunities areavailable atsixdigit tariff
subheadings, atduties which arelower thanthein-
quota tariff rate. Therefore, noarrangement is
necessary atthisstage". Does thisfootnote mean
thatthere aresub-allocations ofthefourdigit
access commitments atthesixdigit level? Ifso,
howdoes thesystem work?South Africa hasnotsub-allocated thefourdigit
access commitment tothesixdigit level.
However, trade exceeding South Africa 's
commitment istaking place ininternationally
traded commodities within thefour-digit heading
atduties lower thanthein-quota tariff rate.
Thailand G/AG/N/THA/4 and5Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Clarification sought
regarding theshort validity period ofthetariff
quota foronion seeds. How willThailand ensure
thatthetariff quota willbefilled?Thailand hasimported 3.3tonsofonion seeds
during theperiod 25August to31October 1995,
while itsUruguay Round commitment is3tons.
United States -Onwhat basis aretheimport
licences allocated?Import licences areallocated onanm.f.n. anda
first-come-first-served basis.G/AG/R/4
Page14
Thailand G/AG/N/THA/4 and5Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Does Thailand consider theone
month validity period oftheimport certificate to
beadequate forexporters?The30dayvalidity period oftheimport
certificates does notinclude timeperiod for
transportation. Thailand considers thatthisshort
validity period allows market access fornew
importers, since licences thatarenotused arere-
allocated.
United States G/AG/N/USA/2 andAdd.2 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Colombia -Onwhat legal basis arethetariff rate
quotas fortobacco allocated tocountries? How
wastheglobal tariff ratequota calculated?
Data requested ontrade foreach beneficiary
country detailed bytariff linefortheperiod 1990
to1995.
Noted that98percentofthetariff ratequota is
allocated to9countries andasmall amount is
reserved fortherestoftheexporters. Would
imports from China becredited totheresidual
quota? Would liketohave theopportunity to
revert tothenotification.Thetariff quotas were established astheresult of
GATT Article XXVIII negotiations withall
countries having aprincipal supplying interest and
thecountry possessing initial negotiating rights.
Theglobal quota hasbeen calculated bysumming
upthecountry specific quotas andadding a
residual quota of3,000 tons.
TheUSwillprovide therequested data.
Preliminary response: Imports from China willbe
counted against theresidual quota, butthiswill
have tobeconfirmed.
Switzerland -Clarification sought regarding the
tariff quota share for"other cane orbeetsugars or
syrups" allocated toeach country.Theamount referred tointhenotification reflects
thecountry allocation under theoldregime. For
thenewquota period, starting on1October, a
revised notification willbeforthcoming.
Venezuela G/AG/N/VEN/1 andCorr.1 Tariff Quotas (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Does Venezuela intend to
open thetariff quotas referred toinsection I-Bof
itsSchedule ofcommitments for1995?
Information requested ontheapplied level of
duties.Until November 1995, notariff ratequotas have
been opened asimports enter dutyfree. If
Venezuela does decide toopen tariff quotas, itwill
comply withtheAgreement onAgriculture.
Australia -How willimports under thecurrent
tariff-only regime becounted against tariff quota
commitments iftariff quotas areindeed
implemented?Tobeconsidered atthetime when tariff quotas
areopened.
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/2 Trigger Prices (Table MA:4)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Japan -Clarification sought regarding theSSG
trigger prices which aremissing inthenotification.ECiscurrently checking what trigger prices
should benotified.G/AG/R/4
Page15
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/2 Trigger Prices (Table MA:4)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina -Clarification sought withregard tothe
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 aslaiddown innotes 14to37ofthe
Schedule.
United States -Regarding thecalculation ofthe
SSGtrigger prices, does theECintend tonotify
theprice dataforeach yearofthebaseperiod
(1986 to1988)?ECwilllookintotherequest tosubmit price data
foreach year.
Mexico -Could theECprovide thename ofthe
products covered bythetariff lines?ECwillprovide aproduct description forthe
tariff lines listed inthenotification.
Hungary G/AG/N/HUN/2 Export Prohibitions andRestrictions (Table ER:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Japan -Since Japan isthebiggest maize importer
ontheworld market, itisveryconcerned bythe
matter. TheHungarian delegation hasalready been
contacted inorder toclarify some issues. Japan
might come back tothisissue inafuture meeting.Took noteofthestatement.