WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/14
9 October 2002
(02-5430)
Committee on Agriculture
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (REGULAR MEETINGS)
IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES
Report to the General Council by the Chairman
In line with the reporting requirements c oncerning implementation-related issues and
concerns approved by the Doha Ministerial Conference, the present report is submitted on theresponsibility of the Chairman, Dr. Magdi Farahat, as agreed by the Committee at its regular meeting
on 26 September 2002.  It covers the Committee's follow-up to its recommendations on
implementation-related issues as approved by the Ministerial Conference at Doha (G/AG/11 and
WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 2 refer).
_______________
Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture:  The Development of Internationally Agreed
Disciplines to Govern the Provision of Export Credits, Export Credit Guarantees or InsuranceProgrammes, taking account of paragraph 4 of the Marrakesh Net Food-Importing Developing
Countries ("NFIDC") Decision
1. The relevant recommendations by the Committee concerning the question of implementation
of Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture that were approved by Doha Ministerial Conference
provide as follows (G/AG/11, Section A refers):
"In the light of their discussions and informal consultations on this matter Members are
agreed and recommend that work in the regular meetings of the WTO Committee on
Agriculture on the development of disciplines pursuant to Article 10.2 and the related
provisions of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision s hould continue in line with the following
general understandings:
"(a) that the focus of the work in the regular Committee meetings would be on the
implementation of Article 10.2 and the disciplines foreseen therein, whereas the
Special Session negotiations would focus on the proposals tabled or to be tabled on
export credit practices;
"(b) that, without prejudice to further work to be undertaken in the regular meetings of the
Committee as provided for in subparagraph (a) above, in the event that a Sector
Understanding on agricultural export cr edits is concluded at the OECD, the
Committee would, as envisaged in the report of the Committee on Agriculture to the
Singapore WTO Ministerial (G/L/131, paragraph 11), consider how any suchunderstanding could be multilateralized within the framework of the Agreement on
Agriculture and how the provisions of pa ragraph 4 of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision
have been taken into account;  andG/AG/14
Page 2
"(c) that the Committee on Agriculture should submit a report to the General Council on
this subject following its regular September 2002 meeting."
2. The further work of the Committee on Agriculture on the implementation of Article 10.2 and
of the related provisions of the Marrakesh NFID C Decision has been pursued on the basis of the
foregoing recommendation.  The relevant summaries of the discussions on this subject at theCommittee's meetings in December 2001 and at the March and June meetings this year, are
reproduced in Annex 1 hereto.  In addition, following the regular March meeting of the Committee, an
informal seminar-type meeting was held, with the general purpose of providing an opportunity for
Members, particularly developing country Members and their capital-based representatives, to
become more familiar with the basic concepts in the area of export credits, export credit guarantees or
insurance programmes and the development of international disciplines.  Following discussion in this
regard at the June meeting of the Committee, Members were invited to respond to a questionnaire inorder to provide the Committee with more detail ed information regarding export credit guarantee
programmes.  At the September meeting, it was agreed that the questionnaires that have so far been
submitted would be issued as a Committee on Agriculture document and any additional
questionnaires submitted by Members would be circulated as addenda to that document.
Implementation of Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and of the related provisions of theMarrakesh NFIDC Decision will continue to be followed-up by the Committee at its future meetings
in line with the recommendation approved by the Doha Ministerial Conference.
Examination of Possible Means of Improving th e Effectiveness of the Implementation of the
Marrakesh NFIDC Decision
F
OOD AID (PARAGRAPH 3(i) AND (ii) OF THE MARRAKESH NFIDC  DECISION )
3. The Committee's recommendations in the area of food aid in the context of the Marrakesh
NIFDC Decision that were approved by the Doha Ministerial Conference provide as follows
(G/AG/11 Section B-I refers):
"(a) that early action be taken within the framework of the Food Aid Convention 1999
(which unless extended, with or without a decision regarding its renegotiation, would
expire on 30 June 2002) and of the UN World Food Programme by donors of food
aid to review their food aid contributions with a view to better identifying and
meeting the food aid needs of least-developed and WTO net food-importingdeveloping countries;
"(b) WTO Members which are donors of food aid shall, within the framework of their
food aid policies, statutes, programmes and commitments, take appropriate measures
aimed at ensuring:  (i) that to the maximum extent possible their levels of food aid to
developing countries are maintained during periods in which trends in world market
prices of basic foodstuffs have been increasing;  and (ii) that all food aid to leastdeveloped countries is provided in fully grant form and, to the maximum extent
possible, to WTO net food-importing developing countries as well."
4. The recommendations on food aid were before the Committee for consideration at its
meetings in March, June and September.  With regard to the recommendation in paragraph 3(a)above, it may be noted that the Food Aid Convention,1999, which was to expire on 30 June 2002, will
not be renegotiated at this stage but, as agreed by the Food Aid Committee in June, would be
extended for at least one year.  The period of extens ion of the Convention (for either one or two years)
will be decided by the Food Aid Committee at its next Session in December this year.G/AG/14
Page 3
5. With regard to the recommendation in paragraph 3(b) above, it is considered that notifications
in the NF series by WTO Members which are donors of food aid, provide an appropriate means for
informing the Committee concerning the manner in which this recommendation is being taken into
account in the framework of donors food aid policies, statutes, programmes and commitments.  It is
the understanding of the Committee that the follow-up to the recommendations on food aid would be
subject to specific review at the November meetin g of the Committee on Agriculture in the context of
the annual monitoring exercise of the NFIDC Decision and that for this purpose updated NF
notifications would be submitted by food aid donor Members concerned.
TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF AID PROGRAMMES TO IMPROVE
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE (PARAGRAPH 3(iii) OF THE MARRAKESH
NFIDC  DECISION )
6. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, the Committee's recommendations in the area of
technical and financial assistance in the context of aid programmes to improve agricultural
productivity and infrastructure were approved as follows (G/AG/11, Section B-II refers):
"(a) that developed country WTO Members should continue to give full and favourable
consideration in the context of their aid programmes to requests for the provision of
technical and financial assistance by least-developed and net food-importingdeveloping countries to improve their agricultural productivity and infrastructure;
"(b) that, in support of the priority accorded by least-developed and net food-importingdeveloping countries to the development of their agricultural productivity andinfrastructure, the WTO General Council call upon relevant international
development organisations, including the World Bank, the FAO, IFAD, the UNDP
and the Regional Development Banks to enhance their provision of, and access to,
technical and financial assistance to least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries, on terms and conditions conducive to the better use of suchfacilities and resources, in order to improve agricultural productivity and
infrastructure in these countries under existing facilities and programmes, as well as
under such facilities and programmes as may be introduced."
7. With regard to the recommendation in paragraph 6(a) above, it is considered that notifications
in the NF series by WTO Members which are donors of technical and financial assistance, provide an
appropriate means for informing the Committee concerning the manner in which this recommendation
is being taken into account in the context of their aid programmes.  It is the understanding of theCommittee that the follow-up to the recommendations on technical and financial assistance would be
subject to specific review at the November meetin g of the Committee on Agriculture in the context of
the annual monitoring exercise of the NFIDC Decision and that for this purpose updated NF
notifications would be submitted by donor Members concerned.
8. In line with the recommendation in paragr aph 6(b) above, the Chairman of the
General Council wrote to the respective heads of the international organizations concerned, most of
which were represented as observers at the Doha Ministerial Conference, recalling the relevant
recommendation.  The Chairman stressed that in view of the importance which WTO Members
attached to this matter, and the requirement th at the WTO Committee on Agriculture should review
and report to the General Council on the follow-up to this recommendation, it would be appreciated ifthe Committee on Agriculture could be informed about the outcome of any deliberations and actions
in this regard within the framework of programmes and policies of the international organizations
concerned.  The response that has been received from the European Investment Bank is attached in
Annex 2.  Any further responses by the international organizations concerned will be circulated to
Members of the Committee on Agriculture.G/AG/14
Page 4
FINANCING NORMAL LEVELS OF COMMERCIAL IMPORTS OF BASIC FOODSTUFFS (PARAGRAPHS 4 AND
5 OF THE MARRAKESH NFIDC  DECISION )
9. The Committee's recommendations related to financing of normal levels of commercial
imports of basic foodstuffs that were approved by the Doha Ministerial Conference provide as follows
(G/AG/11, Section B-III refers):
"(a) that the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision, which
provide for differential treatment in favour of least-developed and WTO net
food-importing developing countries, shall  be taken fully into account in any
agreement to be negotiated on disciplines on agricultural export credits pursuant to
Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture;
"(b) that an inter-agency panel of financial and commodity experts be established, with the
requested participation of the World Bank, the IMF, the FAO, the International
Grains Council and the UNCTAD, to explore ways and means for improving access
by least-developed and WTO net food-importing developing countries to multilateral
programs and facilities to assist with short term difficulties in financing normal levels
of commercial imports of basic foodstuffs, as well as the concept and feasibility ofthe proposal for the establishment of a revolving fund in G/AG/W/49 and Add.1 and
Corr.1.  The detailed terms of reference, drawing on the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision,
should be submitted by the Vice-Chairman of the WTO Committee on Agriculture,
following consultations with Members, to  the General Council for approval by not
later than 31 December 2001. The inter-agency panel shall submit itsrecommendations to the General Council by not later than 30 June 2002."
10. With regard to the recommendation in paragraph 9(a) above, it is understood that in the
context of the Committee's work towards the development of disciplines on export credits, export
credit guarantees or insurance programmes, special and differential treatment for LDCs and WTONFIDCs will be taken into account (see paragraphs 1 and 2 above).
11. Following the establishment of the Inter-Agency Panel on Short-Term Difficulties in
Financing Normal Levels of Commercial Im ports of Basic Foodstuffs (recommendation in
paragraph 9(b) above refers), the Committee, at its December 2001 meeting, adopted the detailed
terms of reference of the Panel which were approved by the General Council (G/AG/12 refers).  On28 June 2002, the Inter-Agency Panel submitted its report to the General Council, including a number
of specific recommendations (paragraph 168 of WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13 refers).  As a result of the
inconclusive consideration of the Panel recommendations at the General Council meeting on
8 July and 31 July 2002, the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture was invited to hold informal
consultations with interested Members on ways to proceed with the recommendations of the
Inter-Agency panel.  At its September meetin g, the Committee agreed to submit the following
procedure to the General Council for its consideration:  (i) that the General Council approve therecommendations contained in paragraph 168 of the Inter-Agency Panel report;  (ii) that with regard
to the recommendations in paragraph 168(a), (c) and (d) the General Council authorize the Chairman
of the General Council to write to the IMF, the World Bank and the Integrated Framework agencies,
requesting them to review the Panel report as it re lates to the issues within their competence;  and
(iii) that with regard to the recommendation in paragraph 168(b) the question of the feasibility of anex-ante financing mechanism aimed at food importers would be pursued by the Committee on
Agriculture, on the understanding that a proposal regarding the establishment of an ex-ante financing
mechanism would be submitted by the WTO Net Food-Importing Developing Countries and that a
follow-up report concerning the discussion of the proposal would be submitted to the General Council
following the regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in November.G/AG/14
Page 5
The Submission  by Members Administering Tariff Quotas of Addenda to their Notifications to
the Committee on Agriculture (Table MA:1) in accordance with the Decision of the General
Council in WT/L/384 Regarding the Administration of Tariff Rate Quota Regimes in a
Transparent, Equitable and Non-discriminatory Manner
12. Paragraph 1.1 of the General Council Decision  WT/L/384 provides that: "Members shall
ensure that their tariff rate quotas regimes (TRQs)  are administered in a transparent, equitable and
non-discriminatory manner.  In that context, they shal l ensure that the notifications they provide to the
Committee on Agriculture contain all the relevant information including details on guidelines and
procedures on the allotment of TRQs.  Members administering TRQs shall submit addenda to their
notifications to the Committee on Agriculture (Table MA:1) by the time of the second regular meeting
of the Committee in 2001."  The understanding was that this Decision should not place undue new
burdens on developing countries (WT/GC/M/62, paragraph 14, refers).
13. So far the following Members administering tariff quotas have submitted the requisite
Table MA:1 Addenda:  Australia (G/AG/N/ AUS/1/Add.1);  Canada  (G/AG/N/ CAN/2/Add.2,
6/Add.1, 10/Add.1, 19/Add.1, 45);  Czech Republi c (G/AG/N/CZE/1/Rev.1/Add.1); European
Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/1/Add.2, 3/Add.1, 14/Add.1, 15/Add.1);  Hungary
(G/AG/N/HUN/1/Add.1, 5/Add.1, 8/Add.1, 13/Add.1 and 18/Add.1); Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/1/Add.1,8/Add.1, 23/Add.2, 57/Add.1);  Latvia (G /AG/N/LVA/1/Add.1);   New Zealand
(G/AG/N/NZL/ 1/Add.1);  Norway (G/A G/N/NOR/1/Add.1); Slovenia (G/AG/N/SVN/ 1/Add.1);
Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/38/ Add.1),  and the United States (G/AG/N/USA/ 2/Add.3 and 34/Add.1).G/AG/14
Page 6
ANNEX 1
Summary of the discussions by the Committee concerning the implementation of
Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture at its meetings in
December 2001 and March and June 2002
Committee meeting on 6 December 2001 (G/AG/R/29 refers)
1. The Vice-Chairman noted that in accordance with the recommendations approved by the
recent WTO Ministerial Conference it had been agreed that work in the regular meetings of the WTO
Committee on Agriculture on the development of disciplines pursuant to Article 10.2 and the related
provisions of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision should  continue in line with the following general
understandings:
(a) that the focus of the work in the regular Committee meetings would be on the
implementation of Article 10.2 and the disciplines foreseen therein, whereas the
Special Session negotiations would focus on the proposals tabled or to be tabled on
export credit practices;
(b) that, without prejudice to further work to be undertaken in the regular meetings of the
Committee as provided for in subparagraph (i) above, in the event that a Sector
Understanding on agricultural export cr edits is concluded at the OECD, the
Committee would, as envisaged in the report of the Committee on Agriculture to the
Singapore WTO Ministerial (G/L/131, paragraph 11), consider how any suchunderstanding could be multilateralized within the framework of the Agreement on
Agriculture and how the provisions of pa ragraph 4 of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision
have been taken into account;  and
(c) that the Committee on Agriculture should submit a report to the General Council on
this subject following its regular September 2002 meeting.
2. The representative of Argentina drew the Committee's attention to the paper G/AG/W/50
dated 21 March 2001 submitted by Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), Bolivia,
Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India and Malaysia on export credits for agricultural products.  Therepresentative of Argentina asked that the paper G/AG/W/50 be on the agenda of future meetings
when referring to the implementation of Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The paper
contained a proposal establishing a work programme in connection with export credits for agricultural
products.  Argentina stressed that time was short and export credits could represent a technically
difficult topic which many delegations could have difficulty grasping.  The representative of
Argentina noted that the Committee had to draw up in 2002 a report on export credits, an
implementation matter.  Therefore, Argentina wished  to have a preliminary discussion to see how the
Committee could proceed with the matter.
3. The representative of Brazil noted that this was a matter of great importance and Brazil was
one of the co-sponsors of the paper G/AG/W/50.  This was an implementation matter and by virtue of
the Doha Declaration, implementation issues were also part of the overall package of negotiations.
Brazil had agreed to the terms of document G/AG/11 in which, in paragraph 4(a), it is stated that thefocus of the work in the Regular Committee meetings would be on implementation of Article 10.2 and
the disciplines foreseen therein whereas the Special Session negotiations would focus on the proposals
tabled or to be tabled on export credit practices.  However, Brazil wished to record that export credits
had to remain open for consideration as an implementation matter in the Committee.  Brazil would
agree to the convening of information meetings or other informal processes for the purposes ofinformation gathering and exchange of views on the overall matter of export credits.G/AG/14
Page 7
4. The representative of Egypt asked whether the proponents of G/AG/W/50 could explain why
the credits that were singled out were those beyond 180 days.  Secondly, concerning special and
differential treatment, Egypt requested clarification on the statement that appropriate minimum
interest rates shall be established to address the in terests of exporting developing countries.  Finally,
Egypt noted that the implementation of Article 10.2 did not fall within the Doha mandate on
implementation issues and, therefore, it was a regular exercise to be undertaken by the Committee.
5. The representative of Brazil noted that the period of 180 days for the credits had been chosen
as being the most adequate period to cover annual crops but that different periods of time could be
considered for permanent crops and Brazil was open to proposals in that regard.  Concerning special
and differential treatment, the point concerning minimum interest rates attempted to install provisions
whereby government credits could be used to lower interest rates hence addressing the difficulties
faced in that regard by many developing countries.  The representative of Argentina added that the
timeframe of 180 days refered to the normal timeframe in which agricultural products forconsumption came to the end of their lifecycle.
6. The Vice-Chairman noted that the matter would be on the agenda of the Committee's March
meeting and that there was also the benchmark of the progress report to be made to the
General Council on work on the issue as well as on other issues on implementation-related matters in
September 2002.  The document G/AG/W/50 was a concrete element tabled as part of theimplementation of Article 10.2 exercise undertaken by the Committee and appropriate opportunity
would be provided to discuss the paper with the aim to further Members' understanding of export
credits.
7. The representative of Argentina stated that a specific meeting on the issue of export credits
could be held before the March meeting of the Committee to start consideration of the issue and helpbetter inform Members.  The representative of  the European Communities echoed by Argentina and
Brazil suggested that the meeting be held the da y before the Committee meeting in March so as to
take advantage of the presence of delegates from capitals.  The representative of India, supported by
Brazil and Cuba wondered whether some kind of seminar or technical assistance could be built into a
possible future specific meeting on export credits.
8. The representative of the United States referred to paragraph 4(a) of document G/AG/11
wherein the regular Committee meetings would focus on the implementation of Article 10.2 and the
disciplines foreseen therein whereas the Special Sessions would focus on proposals tabled or to be
tabled on export credit practices and requested clarification from Argentina on how it differentiated
those two aspects within its proposal tabled in the Committee and also in the Special Session.  Therepresentative of Argentina noted that the existing disciplines of the Uruguay Round Agreement on
Agriculture required some further specific disciplines.  The process of the Special Session was clearly
one of moving agricultural negotiations forward and the issue of export credits which was an
implementation-related matter, had to remain in the regular meetings of the Committee independently
of the progress made in the Special Sessions.
9. The Vice-Chairman stated that it seemed from the discussions that it would be useful to have
an information meeting on the issue of export credits and the implementation of Article 10.2.  Theinformal meeting could possibly be held in conjunction with the next regular meeting of the
Committee on Agriculture.  The informal meeting could also have a sort of technical assistance part in
it to inform those who were not familiar with the issue of export credits or the development of
international disciplines on export credit, credit guarantees and insurance programmes.  In view of the
time constraints which existed for 2002, the proposed information meeting could also help clarifywhat specifically Members were looking for in the context of the regular session as part of the
implementation of Article 10.2 and in the context of the negotiations.G/AG/14
Page 8
Committee meeting on 25 March 2002 (G/AG/R/30 refers)
10. The Vice-Chairman recalled that, in accordance with the WTO Ministerial Conference, the
focus of the work in the regular Committee meetings would be on the implementation of Article 10.2
and the disciplines foreseen therein, whereas the Special Session negotiations would focus on the
proposals tabled or to be tabled on export credit practices (G/AG/R/29, paragraph 34 refers).  In this
connection and in line with the suggestions made by Members, an informal half-day seminar on
export credits had been organized to take place on 26 March 2002.
11. The delegations of Argentina, Brazil and the European Communities expressed satisfaction
with the organization of a specific seminar on this very important and complex issue, which would
contribute to enhance the knowledge of all Members in this area.  The EC stated that the presentations
would be particularly welcome in view of the absence of disciplines on export credits in the current
Agreement on Agriculture.  Argentina clarified that Articles 3.3, 8, 9 and 10.1 already constituted aset of rules which were relevant to this area.
Committee meeting on 28 June 2002 (G/AG/R/31 refers)
12. The Chairman recalled the Committee's recommendations with respect to the implementation
of Article 10.2 in G/AG/11, Section A, paragraph 4, which was approved by the Doha Ministerial
Conference.
13. The United States pointed out that it was clear that countries would not be able to conclude
negotiations on agricultural export credits at the OECD.  The United States recalled its position as
stated at the Special Session meetings and emphasised its commitment to the negotiation of specific
disciplines in this area as expeditiously as possible.  To complement the ongoing negotiations, theUnited States suggested that a questionnaire (hard copy distributed in the Committee and
subsequently by fax) be used to gather information regarding export credit guarantee programmes.
This information could subsequently be used in negotiations of modalities.  The United States
undertook to provide to the Secretariat a sample of the questionnaire with information on its
GSM-102 programme with a view to making it ava ilable to Members (subsequently distributed by
fax).  The United States pointed out that specific items in the questionnaire concerned the terms that
should be negotiated.  The United States encouraged all Members who operated export credit
guarantee programmes to fill out the questionnaire and make the information available to Members,
via the Secretariat, preferably before the next regular Committee meeting, so that as negotiations
proceeded, Members would have as much information as possible about the various programmes thatwere currently operating.
14. Argentina welcomed the US initiative as it would bring greater transparency and advance
progress in negotiations but expressed concern about a possible shifting of discussions from the
Special Session, where they rightfully belonged, to the regular Committee meeting.  While agreeing
with the US assessment of the prospects of the OECD negotiations in this area, the EC expressed
concern about reverting to this issue in the re gular Committee meeting, arguing that these were
technical discussions that should take place in the Special Session.  With regard to the questionnaire,the EC pointed out that once the information was provided by the United States, 95 per cent of
existing programmes would have been notified.
15. While reserving comments about the format of the questionnaire, the representatives of
Canada, Brazil, New Zealand, and Australia welcomed the initiative as a complement to the
negotiations and as an exercise in exchange of information.  They highlighted, however, that it wouldbe unacceptable if it were to slow down or detract from the development of disciplines on export
credits in the negotiations.  In light of a clear need for more information in this area, New Zealand
stressed that this exercise would only be useful if major players filled out the questionnaire and urged
Members to do so.G/AG/14
Page 9
16. The United States reassured Members that it had never had an intention to delay the
negotiations in this area.
17. The Committee took note of the US initiative.  The Chairman encouraged all Members to
complete the questionnaire and provide the Secretariat with a copy.G/AG/14
Page 10
ANNEX 2
Response by the European Investment Bank on the issue of enhancing technical and financial
assistance to LDCs and WTO NFIDCs
Thank you for your letter of 29 August 2002 regarding the recommendation of the WTO
Ministerial Conference concerning Technical and Financial Assistance in the Context of Aid
Programmes to Improve Agricultural Productivity and Infrastructure, which we have read with
considerable interest.
The European Investment Bank's activities in the countries concerned – notably the least-
developed countries – largely come within the pur view of the Lomé Convention and its successor the
Cotonou Agreement, which govern the European Union's assistance to the 77 ACP countries.  Under
Lomé and Cotonou, by virtue of the fact that all of its aid is in the form of grants, primary
responsibility for supporting the agricultural sector, food production and rural infrastructure rests with
the European Commission, which manages about 80% of the funds provided to the ACP countries
under these agreements.  By contrast, the EIB's involvement tends to be limited to commercial andplantation agriculture, typically but not necessarily for export, and for more general revenue-
generating infrastructure such as power, water supply and sanitation, ports, etc.
In the light of the above you will appreciate that any deliberations about increasing EU
support for agricultural productivity and infrastructure in the least-developed and net food-importingdeveloping countries rest with the European Commission and the EU Member States within the
framework of the Council of Ministers in Brussels.
__________