operations. France also defined its pendarmerie as a paramilitary forte. The Federal Republic of Qermany stated that it did no-t dispose of f-orces which fall under this heading and. that the "Dundesp;renzschutz" was by lay strictly limite?! to police functions. Indonesia noted that its police forte was part of the Armed Services, and thus organized und.er the Department of Defence, Italy annotated column 8 16th the abbreviation "G.F./P.S." TThich stands for xrds Finances" and "Police'l of the "Snistry of Interior, The Yetherlands reported no : figures under column 8 but presented the expenditures on its ‘%Iarechaussee” forces instead under column 5 (Other combat forces). It was explained that the "i'larechaussee" forces ?Tere charEed with externa1 as well as interna1 securitv tasks. / . . . -18- 53. In spite of the problems of definition involved, no changes were suggested by any respondent concerninq the columna for paramilitnry forces. (b) Panel's comments 54, As noted in the Panel's instructions for filling in the matrix, those forces that are organized, equipped and able to function similarly to the regular srmed forces should be regarded as paramilitary and expenditures reported accordingly. The information received by the respondents concerning the forces in question has not been sufficient to enable the Panel to analyse the interpretations of its instructions, In any future reporting, further clarifying descriptions of the forces would be helpful, (c) Panel's assessment 55. No change is called for. Civil defence (col= 9) (a) Responden&' comments 56. About half of the respondents supplied data on civil defence. Some of then submitted special comments, raising, inter alia, the question whether civil defence should be included within the bounds of military expenditures or be excluded from the matrix. 57. Australia pointed out that although an emount had been included under Civil 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing military expenditures and the categorization of certain forces, such as paramilitary and civil defense forces. The language used is technical and related to defense and security. It also mentions specific countries and their responses to the panel's questions. This suggests that the text is related to defense and security, rather than economic development, natural resources, or other categories.

**Category**
Defense, International relations