RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/106  
 
22 August 202 3 
(23-5650) Page: 1/37 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27-28 JUNE 2023 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Agriculture (CoA) held its one hundredth and f ifth (10 5th) regular meeting 
on 27 -28 June 2023. In the absence of the newly elected Chairperson, Mr. Kjetil T ysdal of Norway,  
the outgoing Chairperson, Mr. Marcel Vernooij of the Netherlands  chaired the meeting as per rule  13 
of the Committee's Rules of Procedure contained in G/L/142 . 
1.2.  The agenda contained in the convening airgram WTO/AIR/AG/6 8 circulated on 1 6 June 2023 
was adopted with the following changes:  
• Under agenda item 1 - Review Process : 
• The question in AG-IMS ID 105002 raised by the United States under Article  18.6 
should be  addressed to Congo rather than the Democratic Republic of Congo ;  
• The annotation used in the question in AG-IMS ID 105165  raised by New Zealand to 
Switzerland  under Article 18.6 should read "Liechtenstein 's decoupled income support " 
rather than "Switzerland 's decoupled income support "; and  
• Annex 1 to this report contains the list of questions that were co -sponsored after the 
issuance of the convening airgram  with the associated new co-sponsoring Members.  
• Under agenda item 3A – Developments in the Field of Export Competition, Canada 
withdr ew its question to China (AG-IMS ID 105078 ).  
• Under agenda item 3E  - Other business , the following items were added:  
• IICA's brief introduction  of its Work Plan of activities contained in G/AG/GEN/220 ; 
• Secretariat 's briefing on  the upcoming 2023 -24 Advanced Notification Workshop ; and  
• Secretariat's presentation on the AG -IMS domestic support reporting project . 
• The Chairperson proposed that agenda 3B(ii) on 'Work Programme pursuant to 
paragraph  8 of the MC 12 Declaration on food insecurity" and 3B(iii) on "Ministerial 
Declaration on the WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic and preparedness for future 
pandemics" be taken up together in view of the overlap across those items. Additionally, 
the Chairperson ack nowledged the written submission by the World Food Programme in 
G/AG/GEN/221 , which was circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram for 
consideration under this joint agenda item.  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.3.  Based on the deliberations on the continuous improvement of the funct ioning of the Committee, 
the Secretariat circulated an annotated agenda for this meeting as contained in RD/AG/112 , on a 
trial basis . 
2  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
2.1.  The Council for Trade in Goods  (CTG)  at its meeting on 5 June 2023 agreed on a slate of 
chairpersons of its  subsidiary bodies  for 2023 -2024. The Committee on Agriculture (CoA) accordingly 
endorsed, by acclamation, the election of Mr. Kjetil Tysdal of Norway as the chairperson of the 
Committee . In the absence of Mr. Kjetil Tysdal and in accordance with its Rules of Procedure , the 
Committee agreed that the outgoing Chairperson Mr. Marcel Vernooij  of the Netherlands chair th e 
June 2023  meeting on an interim basis.  
3  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
3.1.  The Chairper son urged Members  to provide timely and complete responses to questions raised 
under the Committee's review process and to submit them through the Agriculture Information 
Management System (AG -IMS)2 for interested Members to consult. The Chairperson also referred to 
the built -in co-sponsoring function of the Agriculture Information Management System  (AG-IMS) 
Q&A facility and noted that nearly one -fifth of all questions raised for the meeting had been 
co-sponsored by at least one Member.  
3.2.  The Chairperson not ed that for the meeting, as of 9 am, 27 June 2023, 32 out of the 
189 questions raised had responses available on the AG -IMS. The Chairperson welcomed Members' 
practice of submitting responses  in advance of CoA meetings  allowing for  deepened exchanges 
during meetings.  
3.3.  The Secretariat continued its practice of ascertaining the attendance of Members subject to 
advance questions prior to Committee meetings. The delegation s of Iceland and Nicaragua  had 
informed the Secretariat in advance  of their absence at the June meeting.  The Chairperson urged 
Member s receiving advance written questions but wh o were not able to attend the meeting  to make 
an effort to submit a response to those questions prior to the meeting  through the AG -IMS.  
3.1  Matters  relevant to the implementation of commitments under the reform programme 
- Article 18.6  
3.4.  A total of  80 questions on  39 specific implementation matters (SIMs) were raised at the 
105th CoA meeting under Article 18.6.3 Out of the 3 9 SIMs, 27 were raised for the first time. 
Members' responses and follow -up comments can be accessed by clicking on the relevant hyperlinks 
in column  3 of Table  1 in Annex 2 to this report. This information can also be consulted directly in 
the AG -IMS using the relevant question ID numbers as provided in that table.  
3.2  Review of Notifications  
3.5.  The Chairperson reported that since the previous Committee meeting held on 
27-28 March  2023, 180 notifications had been received. Out of those notifications, 18 related to 
market access, 3 0 concerned domestic support, 130 related to export competition, one concerned 
export prohibitions or restrictions, and one was a net food -importing develo ping country  (Table NF) 
notification. Those notifications had been distributed electronically to all delegations and were 
available for consultation through the  AG-IMS. 
3.2.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance  of the convening airgram  
3.6.  Table 2 of Annex 2 to this report lists questions relating to individual notifications raised in 
advance of the issuance of the convening airgram .4 Members' responses and follow -up comments 
 
2 http://agims.wto.org/ . 
3 WTO/AIR/AG/6 8, Section A of Attachment.  The full version of the questions raised can be found under 
Section 1 of the compilation document in G/AG/W/23 7. 
4 WTO/AIR/AG/ 68, Section B of Attachment. The full version of the questions raised can be found under 
Section 2 of the compilation document in G/AG/W/23 7. G/AG/R/106  
 
- 3 - 
 
  can be accessed directly by clicking on  the hyperlinks contained in the table or through the AG -IMS 
using the relevant question ID numbers.  
3.2.2   Overdue notifications  
3.7.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat document summarizing the status of Members' 
compliance with notification obligations .5 
3.8.  The Chairperson acknowledged Members' efforts to bring their notifications up to date, noting 
that several Members had submitted notifications covering multiple years since the March  2023 
CoA meeting, including:  
• Angola : Table ES:1 covering the years 1997 -2017, 2019 -2022; 
• Bangladesh : Table DS:1 covering the years 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 ; and 
• Nicaragua : Table DS:1 covering the years 2017 -2022. 
 
3.9.  In addition, the Chairperson noted that Table ES:1 'Nil' Statements by Guinea, Haiti, 
Mauritania, Nig er, Sierra Leone, and Uganda were released covering multiple years based on their 
oral announcements to th at effect at the 27 -28 March  2023 CoA  meeting.   
3.10.  The Chairperson also drew Members' attention to the overall situation with respect to 
outstanding dome stic support and export subsidy notifications for the period 1995 to 2021:  
• 1,001 Table  DS:1 domestic support notifications remained outstanding; and  
• 862 export subsidy notifications in the Table ES:1 series remained outstanding.  
 
3.11.  Two question s were raised under this agenda item.6 The concerned Member s' response s and 
follow -up comments can be accessed through the hyperlinks contained in Table 3 of Annex 2 to this 
report  or through the AG -IMS using the relevant question ID number.  
3.2.2.1   Outstanding ES:1 notifications - Announcement by delegations of no recourse to 
export subsidies  
3.12.  The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had reached an agreement at its 
November  2022 meeting to establish an additional avenue for Members to report the non -use of 
export subsidies by way of an oral statement to th at effect at Committee meetings in order to fulfil 
their outstanding Table ES:1 notification obligations.7 The Chairperso n noted that the utility of this 
agreement in facilitating ES transparency had been  demonstrated at the previous Committee 
meeting on 27 -28 March when six LDC Members , i.e. Guinea, Haiti, Mauritania, Niger, Sierra Leone 
and Uganda , announced at that meeting their non -recourse to export subsidies to fulfil outstanding 
ES:1 notifications collectively for 125 reporting years. The Chairperson  thank ed those six Members  
for their efforts to clear outstanding ES :1 notifications  and looked forward to the continuation of th at 
trend of improvement in the ES :1 transparency , including via the additional avenue for Members to 
report their NIL statements in the form of an oral statement at Committee meetings.   
3.13.  The Chairperson added tha t the normal channels of submission of notifications via the Central 
Registry of Notifications (CRN) or on -line through the AG -IMS would remain available. The 
Chairperson also recalled the Secretariat's efforts and assistance to LDC Members with outstandin g 
Table ES:1 notifications to sensitize them about the new procedural avenue to clear pending 
notifications.  
3.14.  The following Members took the floor under this agenda item to announce the non-use of 
export subsidies (i.e. the 'NIL' statements):  
• Brunei Darussalam : 1995 to 2022; 
• Paraguay: 2022 ; and  
 
5 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.4 9 circulated on 1 5 June  2023. 
6 The details of the question  raised can be found under Section 3 of the compilation document  in 
G/AG/W/23 7.  
7 G/AG/R/104 , paragraph 2.17.  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 4 - 
 
  • Tanzania : 1995 to 202 2. 
 
3.15.  The Chairperson welcomed Members' announcements and noted that the Secretariat would 
do the necessary follow -up to release the Table ES:1 notifications for the concerned years.8 
The Chairperson encouraged other Members to make use of the new and simplified procedure to 
clear outstanding Table ES:1 notifications in cases where no export subsidies had been provided.  
3.16.  Under the sub-agenda  item "Streamlining of ES:1 notification requ irement -Draft 
Decision on Nil ES:1 notifications' ( RD/AG/109 )", the Chairperson provided a report on the 
discussions at the informal CoA meeting of 27 June as contained in paragraphs 1 -2 of Annex 5 to 
this report . This topic was also considered at the Informal CoA meeting on 6 June 2023. The Chair's 
report on the discussions at that Informal meeting is contained in paragraphs 1 -3 of Annex 4 to this 
report.  
3.17.  Based on the discussions  at the informal  CoA meeting s, a revised draft Decision on the 
streamlining of ES:1 notification in RD/AG/109/Rev.1  was circulated to Members  on 27 June 2023  
for consideration  at the June formal CoA meeting . Members  appreciated the Chairperson's and the 
Secretariat's  extensive efforts to find common ground on t hat issue.   
3.18.  Switzerland  appreciat ed the Chairperson's efforts in addressing its and other Members'  
concern s in RD/AG/109/Rev.1 . The revised  draft, however,  did not fully meet its expectations  
especially on the issue of reliance on the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) in reporting a 'Nil' 
ES:1 statement . Switzerland believed that the language in referring to the ECQ should be made 
stronger and clearer in order to reflect Members'  concern s. Switzerland also noted the ne ed for 
additional time for the examination of the revised draft given that the la test changes had been 
introduced at a very short notice.  
3.19.  Paraguay echoed Switzerland's comments and considered that the revised proposal did not 
strike the required balance between transparency  and streamlining . It would work together with 
Switzerland and other relevant delegations towards achieving that goal.  
3.20.  The United States welcomed the revised draft incorporating some of its suggestions, including 
on a binding language on the submission of outstanding ES :1 notifications. It also noted the need 
for additional time to consider the revised draft.   
3.21.  Costa Rica c onsidered that the revised proposal  was on the right track  and expressed its 
commitment to participating in the discussions to strike a balance in the decision for it to be 
agreeable to all.  
3.22.  Argentina,  Brazil,  Japan , and Uruguay  also echoed previous deleg ations' call for  more time to 
review the revised proposal.  
3.23.  Egypt  thanked  the Chair and the Secretariat for the diligent efforts in preparing the revised 
draft. It was not, however, in a position to endorse the  draft which would be referred to capital for 
examination.  Egypt referred to the Chair's report on the discussions duri ng the informal CoA meeting 
and underlined that under the WTO transparency and monitoring system, there were almost no 
obligation for Members to submit a statement on no recourse to a measure which was already  
inconsistent with the rules. Egypt reiterated that Members , including LDCs and NFIDCs, who  did not 
provide export subsidies  pursuant to the relevant WTO rules, should not be unduly burdened with 
transparency requirements.  It also cautioned against introducing new transparency obligations or 
developing  new interpretations of existing transparency obligations. Lending its support to the 
approach suggested by the Chair in ICN/AG/2 , Egypt suggested th at the template for 'Nil' ES:1 
statement in Attachment 1 of the revised draft should  clarify that its submission was optional for 
Members who d id not provide export subsidies , and that LDCs and NFIDCs would  be exempt ed from 
such requirements.  
3.24.  India commended the exemplary efforts by the Chair and the Secretariat to assist Members 
in reaching  an agreement on the streamlining of the ES :1 notification requirement. It expressed 
 
8 The relevant notifications for the concerned three  Members were later released in the G/AG/N/ series : 
G/AG/N/BRN/1 ; G/AG/N /PRY/40 ; and G/AG/N/TZA/1 . G/AG/R/106  
 
- 5 - 
 
  reservations on the revised draft decision contained in RD/AG/109/Rev.1 . India believed that the 
Chair's initial proposal in ICN/AG/2 to limit the ES :1 notification  obligation only to those Members 
who ha d provided export subsidies  was sound and reasonable . India considered that there was no 
need for Members to provide a confirmatory 'Nil' ES :1 statement when the rules would already 
prohibit recourse to such export s ubsidies. India's right to provide export subsidies under Article  9.4 
of the Agreement on Agriculture would cease to exist after end -2023 and it would not see any reason 
to submit a confirmatory 'Nil' ES :1 statement after that. India echoed the Chair's vie w in his oral 
report that asking Members to confirm that they were not doing anything inconsistent with the rules 
was rare  under WTO transparency obligations. India maintained that a solution on the 
ES:1 notification requirement should be explored around the approach suggested by the Chair in 
ICN/AG/2  and not under the revised draft in RD/AG/109/Rev.1 ; the latter option would not be  
agreeable to India. India also voiced  strong reservation s on the suggestion  in the revised draft to 
invite Members to provide a 'Nil' ES:1 statement via the ECQ. India noted that t he ECQ under the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision did not oblige Members to submit a 'Nil' Statement , and this Committee 
had no right or the mandate to interp ret a ministerial outcome.  
3.25.  Nigeria echoed the views expressed by Egypt  and India that Members who had not provide d 
export subsidies pursuant to their WTO obligations should not be burdened with additional 
notification requirements  to submit a 'Nil' statement on no recourse to such subsidies . 
3.26.  The Chair thanked Members for their interventions. He noted that t he discussions today had 
clearly showed the need for further work and consultations , a task which would now  fall under the 
respo nsibility of the new C hair.  
3.2.3   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
3.27.  The Committee took note of the 148 notifications circulated before the issuance of the 
conven ing airgram on 1 6 June 2023, including notifications carried over from the March  2023 
meeting, but in respect of which no questions had been raised by that date, under paragraph  9 of 
the Committee's working procedures.9 
3.2.4   Notifications circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram  
3.28.  The Committee took note of the following notification s that were circulated after the issuance 
of the convening airgram on 16 June 2023:  
• Bangladesh : Table DS:1 for every other year from 2008 to 2020 ; 
• Burkina Faso : Table DS:1 2019, 2021 and 2022; and Table ES:1 2019, 2021 and 2022 ; 
• Cambodia : Table ES:1 2020 and 2022 ; 
• Costa Rica : Table ES:1 2022 ; 
• Norway : Table MA:2 for 2022, and ES:1 for 2021 and 2022 . 
 
3.29.  These notification s would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the working procedures.  
3.2.5   Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: information regarding o utcome where the issue involved is one of 
general interest  
3.30.  There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
3.2.6   Counter  notifications under Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture  
3.31.  The Chairperson called Members' attention to paragraph 11 of th e Committee's working 
procedures in G/AG/1  which provide that "Counter notifications under Article 18:7 of the Agreement 
shall be considered by the Committee at the earliest opportunity." The agenda10 of this Committee 
meeting had included a joint counter  notific ation by Australia, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, Ukraine , 
 
9 WTO/AIR/AG/6 8, Section C of Attachment . 
10 Item 2 B (vi) of WTO/AIR/AG/68 . G/AG/R/106  
 
- 6 - 
 
  and the United States in G/AG/W/234  dated 6 April 2023 regarding 'Certain measures of India 
providing market price support to rice and wheat'.  
3.32.   The Chair noted that he would first offer the floor to the a uthors of the counter  notification 
to present the document. After that, he would give the floor to India for its reaction as well as to 
other Members for their comments.  
3.33.  The United States  (US) presented the joint submission in G/AG/W/234  on behalf of the 
co-sponsors11. The US noted that the counternotification , submitted in accordance with Article  18.7 
of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) , was a continuation of the first counter notification12 on this 
subject submitted by the U S to the Committee in May 2018. The methodology of the counter  
notification was in line with several other counter  notification s which had been presented to the 
Committee in recent years  on India's market price support ( MPS) for various commodities13. The US  
clarified that the current submission was limited to India's MPS for rice and wheat for the period14 
2014/ 2015 to 2020/ 2021 and did not attempt to identify the full value of India 's Current Total 
Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) or even the full amount of product -specific domestic 
support for rice and wheat.  
3.34.  The US noted that India's  use of trade -distorting domestic support in the form of MPS for both 
rice and wheat , apparent inconsistencies in its domestic support reporting , and its status as a major 
global agricultural producer and exporter  were some of the main reasons behind the submission of 
the counter notification.  On the minimum support prices  (MSP)  system in India  covering 
23 commodities , including r ice and wheat, the US noted that India's Cabinet Committee on Economic 
Affairs announces the final MSPs based on t he recommendation s by the  Commission for Agricultural 
Cost and Prices (CACP) . According to the Cabinet 's most recent announcement, the MSP s, 
since 2018, had been set at a level of at least 50 % over the farmers ' average cost of production.  
Following the announcement of the MSPs , the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public 
Distribution announce d procurement targets f or crops before the harvest . Some state governments 
then announce d higher support prices over and above the centrally announced MSPs (i.e. the 
'bonuses'); the counter notification reflected examples of such state bonuses for rice and wheat.  
Finally, the Fo od Corporation of India (FCI) and other authorized procurement entities b ought  rice, 
wheat, and other commodities at the announced MSPs without any quantitative limit.  
3.35.  Based on the review of India's agricultural supporting tables  (AGST) , domestic support 
notifications, official government publications and India's answers under the CoA Review Process, 
the co-sponsors found that  India's domestic support notification methodology had been i nconsistent 
over time, and that reported material d id not match how the measures were implemented.  The 
cosponsors identified several inconsistencies in India's MPS reporting for rice and wheat: i) change 
in quantities of eligible production  - India's domestic support notifications for 2014 -15 through 
2020-2021 appear ed to reflect only volumes of rice and wheat actually purchased by the government 
whereas total production was used as eligible production for similar MPS programmes  in the AGST 
document and the first Table DS:1 notification15 for 1995 /1996. In the absence of discernable 
change in the implementation of India 's MPS programme , such a change in t he reporting would be 
inconsistent and contrary to the MPS calculation methodology in Annex 3, paragraph 8 of the AoA; 
ii) changes in currency - India's AGST  document provide d data on its domestic support commitments 
in Indian rupees , but India ha d reported its domestic support in all its Table DS:1 notifications in 
U.S. dollars  withou t explanation . Currency conversions c ould impact the level of support reported; 
iii) commodity or basic agricultural product used for the calculation of support - minimum support 
prices were announced for unmilled paddy , however, India's notified support was for milled rice. 
Paragraph 7  of Annex 3 of the AoA provide that support "shall be calculated as close as practicable 
to the point of first sale of the basic agricultural product concerned. "; iv) omission of sub -national 
support - additional state -funded "incentive bonuses " had been provi ded by certain states to further 
increase the effective support price for rice and wheat , however, such support ha d not be en included 
 
11 Australia, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand,  Ukraine  and the United States.  
12 G/AG/W/174 . 
13 Cotton ( G/AG/W/188 , November 2018), chickpeas, pigeon peas, black matpe, mung beans and lentils 
(G/AG/W/193 , February 2019), and sugar (G/AG/W/18 9, November 2018) . 
14 India's latest domestic support notification in G/AG/N/IND/29  for 2021/ 2022 was not covered in  the 
current counter notification.  
15 G/AG/N/IND/1 . G/AG/R/106  
 
- 7 - 
 
  in India 's notifications; and v) 'year' of support - India's notifications include d some data that 
appear ed to belong to a different marketing year than the one used in the notification.   
3.36.  The US noted that India's food security policies, particularly for rice and wheat had entailed 
high operation al costs comprising both the cost of procurement of foodgrain under the MSP and its 
subsequent subsidized sale to consumers . India's annual food subsidy expenditure had ranged from 
USD 12-21 billion annually during the previous decade prior to 2020/ 2021; in 2020/ 2021, the food 
subsidy in India had increased to nearly USD 73 billion, which de clined in the following year  despite 
still being at historically high levels. The US also noted that disaggregated information on food 
subsidy expenditures related to procurement activities, and those incurred on distribution and 
storage activities had not been available either in the Indian budget or in its DS notifications . 
Comparing the MPS calculations in India's notifications and in the counter notification, the US noted 
that rice MPS increased by 268% over the period of 2014 -2015 to 2020 -2021 while this increase in 
the counter notification was 78%; the corresponding figures for wheat MPS had respectively been 
113% and 72%. As regard ed the amount of  MPS as a percentage of the value of production  (VoP), 
the counter notification show ed that India h ad exceeded the de minimis  level for all seven years 
covered therein (2014/ 2015 - 2020/ 2021) for both rice and wheat with the support in 2020/ 2021 
reaching 94% of the VoP for rice and over 81% for wheat. On the other hand, India's DS notifications 
showed that the MPS for rice exceeded the de minimis  limit only during the past three reported years  
(i.e. 2018/ 2019 - 2020/ 2021); these were the only y ears, and rice being only commodity , for which 
VoP data was notified by India.16  
3.37.  The US expressed concern about India's significant subsidy concentration in rice and wheat, 
given its role as a major global producer and exporter , including  of those two products. India's 
agricultural production had grown by 376% since 2001 making it the world 's second largest 
agricultural producer. R ice and wheat production represent ed a sizeable share17 of India 's total 
agricultural production. In 2021, India was the second largest producer of rice after China and rank ed 
third after the E U and China  for wheat . The US noted that s ince 2009, India 's total agricultural 
exports had grown by 217% , making it the 9th largest agricultural exporter in the world in 2022.  
India had been the largest exporter of rice  in the world  since 2012 , and the eighth  ranking exporter 
of wheat in 2021. In terms of export destinations, about 70 % of India 's agricultural exports , 
including those from public stocks, were destined for developing, least developed, and net food 
importing developing countries.  The US stated that, according to India 's Department of Food and 
Public Distribution 's Food Grain Bulletin,  India had exported 6.2 million metric tonnes of rice and 
wheat combined since 2012/ 2013 from government stocks. India's rice exports reached record levels 
in 2022, accounting for 45% of global rice trade, driven by increases in the volume of non -basmati 
rice exports and relatively consistent exports of basmati rice ; 68% of India's non -basmati rice 
exports were destined to LDCs and NFIDCs . The US also stressed that India's MSP for rice ha d 
increased each year during 2009 to 2022. As it relate d to wheat, the US noted that the e xports had 
been less consistent compared to rice, but the volume of exports tend ed to rise and fall with the 
level of public stocks of wheat in India.  Export surges had occurred in 2012, 2013, 2021, and 2022 . 
The most rece nt surge in 2021  saw India 's exports of wheat gr ew by over 5 million metric ton nes in 
one year.  Like with rice, nearly all wheat exports were destined for developing countries with the 
majority destined for  LDCs and NFIDCs.  
3.38.  The US also underlined that other forms  of trade-distorting support , in addition to MPS,  also 
contributed to India 's current positioning in terms of being a major global producer and exporter of 
rice and wheat. India reported nearly USD 47 billion of Article 6 support  for 2021/22 , including more 
than USD 32 billion of input subsidies , recording a 469% increase since 2001. India was the largest 
notifier of Article 6 support for 2020. In 2021/22, 88% of India's notified Article 6 support comprised 
MPS and input subsidies , which, according  to economic literature, were two of the most trade -
distorting forms of support. The US pointed out that, under the current WTO rules, India could 
provide as much as USD 81 billion in Amber Box support18, showing the potential  for India t o 
substantially increase its current levels of support; this amount would not include 'exempt' Article 
6.2 support19 as well as MPS covered by the Bali Interim Decision.  The US also enumerated several 
 
16 For both 2016/17 and 2017/18, through responses to questions in the Committee, the cosponsors could 
calculate India’s notified rice and wheat support as a percentage of value of production from unsourced d ata. 
India had not notified VoP data for rice and wheat in 2014/ 2015 or 201 5/2016 and wheat in 2018/ 2019 through 
2020/ 2021. 
17 17% in 2020/ 2021. 
18 Approximated as as 20% of India total agricultural VoP.  
19 Including input subsidies to low -income or resource -poor producers.  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 8 - 
 
  negative effects of MPS which  extend ed well beyond their trade-distorting impact: i) MPS cause d 
inflate d food prices for consumers in the domestic market impos ing financial burden on taxpayers 
who would fund both the price support for farmers and subsidized prices for consumer who otherwise 
could no t afford to pay higher food prices ; ii) MPS could lead to over -production and large stockpiles 
that would further distort markets and result in overuse of natural resources lead ing to 
environmental degradation.  Over-production in turn could lead to other r esource misallocations, 
such as overuse of inputs and underproduction of other commodities; iii) MPS could induce reduced 
competitiveness of beneficiar y producers by insulating them from market signals and prices; and 
iv) MPS could negatively impact global  markets and global food security . Small producers in 
developing countries , primarily LDCs and NFIDCs , were often those least equipped to compete with 
such over -produced commodities.   
3.39.  The US noted that one of the reasons for the submission of the counter  notification was 
Members' significant interest in India 's policies as  evident in the more than 450 questions India had 
received in the Committee on its domestic support policies from September 2011 to June 2023.  The 
US also referred to the ongoing consultations between India and a group of Members under 
Paragraph 6 of the Bali Decision on public stockholding. India was also reminded that substantive 
responses to  some of the questions raised in the Committee as well as those taken up during 
paragraph  6 consultations had remained outstanding. A nother reason for th e counter notification 
was the significant impact  India's domestic policies ha d had on global markets. While India 's public 
stocks of grains catered to large portions of the domestic population, price suppor t-based public 
interventions had also contributed to domestic production far exceeding domestic food needs  
result ing in a steady increase in exports. For example, i n marketing year 2021 -22, Indian exports 
of non -basmati rice had bee n equivalent to approximately one -third of the quantity of rice that India 
used for domestic food aid program mes. Further, over the past two years, the Indian government 
had increasingly used public stocks for other purposes beyond domestic food aid, such as rice 
diverted for ethanol production , boosting farmers' income and prices . According to the Food 
Corporation of India 's Agency -wise All India Stock and Sales Report, in March 2023, 85% of India 's 
open market sales of rice from government stocks went to ethanol production.   
3.40.  In conclusion, the US noted that India appear ed to have provide d MPS for rice and wheat 
vastly in excess of what it had notified. As illustrated in the counter  notification , India's MPS for rice 
and wheat for 2020/ 2021 had been 93.9% and 81.3% of respective rice and wheat VoP values , 
whereas the notified support for the same marketing year had been  15.16% for rice and under 10% 
de minimis  for wheat . The counter notification also note d that India's notifications and calculation 
practices appear ed inconsistent with WTO rules .  
3.41.  Paraguay noted that the previous counter notification on India's MPS to rice and wheat by the 
United States ( G/AG/W/174  of May 2018) had shown that India under -reported support for  those 
two products for the period of 2010/2011 to 2013/2014. That counter notification showed that the 
actual support level for rice and wheat would add up to  between 75 % and 85%, and 60 % and 70% 
of the ir respective  production value s whereas India in its relevant DS :1 notifications had notified 
wheat and rice AMS for all those years to be within the de minimis level. The current new counter 
notification covering the period 2014/2015 to 2020/2021 in G/AG/W/234  by six co -sponsors, half of 
which were food exporting  developing Members, showed a progressive increase of subsidies for both 
rice and wheat . The Rice AMS oscillated between 80% and 90% of its yearly value of 
production  (VoP) whereas the corresponding AMS figure for wheat remained between 65% and 81% 
of the yearly wheat production value. Paraguay noted that s ince 2014, India had been the world's 
second largest agricult ural producer and the ninth largest agricultural exporter. India recently held 
more than 40% share in the world rice market. Members' interest in India's price support policies 
and PSH  programmes was also demonstrated by the large number of questions (clos e to 100) raised 
by Members in the CoA on th ose matters since 2012. India's own calculations that it had exceeded 
the de minimis level for rice since 2018/2019, its consequent invocation of the Bali Peace Clause, 
and the consultations initiated by a group of Members under paragraph 6 of the Bali Decision , 
highlighted the link between India's growing subsidies and increasing exports.  
3.42.  Paraguay disagreed with India's argument that the type of rice subject to subsidies under the 
PSH programme was non -basmati w hereas India's exports mainly consisted of basmati rice; 
according to  official figures from India 's Trade Ministry , non-basmati rice exports were the main 
source of foreign revenue of all agricultural products in India with export value of $6.115 billion f or 
2021-2022; a historical maximum amount of 21.21 million tonnes  of rice w as exported in 2021 -2022 
of which 17.26 million tonnes was of non-basmati variety. Paraguay stated that the current counter G/AG/R/106  
 
- 9 - 
 
  notification showed that India's actual MPS for rice and wheat would appear to be vastly more than  
what it had reported in its domestic support notifications. Paraguay urged India to correct the 
concerned notifications and the associated calculation practi ces consistent with the AoA and to 
reform its subsidy system to ensure that the support provided to its farmers leads to greater 
resilience of the sector domestically while not affecting producers from other developing countries  
negatively. Paraguay noted that as one of the world's largest food producers, India had an enormous 
responsibility, and hoped that the current counter notification by a group of Members would facilitate 
an improved dialogue with India about its subsidy levels.  
3.43.  Canada noted the impor tance  of the counter -notification mechanism as a valuable tool in 
enhanc ing transparency at the Co A and to draw attention to domestic agricultural policies of 
Members and their impact on global trade. Canada  considered it important for Members to respect  
WTO rules and domestic support commitments to ensure a level -playing field for its domestic 
producers , and that they used the  correct methodology  to calculate the annual level of  such support. 
Canada echoed the detailed interventions by Paraguay and the US on India's MPS levels, alleged 
discrepancies in India's domestic support calculation methodology, and India's prominent presence 
in the global wheat and rice market s and the destination of its exports towards developing countries.  
Canada highlighted that India's MPS regime, particularly those beyond the need for its domestic food 
aid program mes, had potential ramifications for distorting domestic production, global trade, as well 
as food security.  
3.44.  Australia note d that the counter notification provided an idea of the true magnitude of India's 
MPS for rice and wheat and  demonstrated a link between that support and the growing volume of 
India's  exports of the two commodities. Australia also echoed the previous interventions on India's 
prominent role in global rice and wheat production and trade  and the potential distortionary impact 
of India's MPS programmes on domestic production and exports as well as on the world market.  
Australia noted that India was the only WTO Member that ha d thus far invoke d the Bali peace clause 
for its public stockholding program me for food security . Australia referred to the several questions 
it had posed on India's domestic support notifications unde r the Committee's review process and 
during the bilateral cons ultation under  Paragraph 6 of the Bali Decision on public stockholding  and 
noted that in several cases India's responses had lacked necessary detail s to respond to its concerns . 
Australia  also alluded to the lack of consistency between India's domestic support notifications and 
the information available on India's  own websites.  
3.45.  Thailand  thanked Paraguay and the US for their interventions and noted that along with the 
CoA Review Process and paragraph 6 consultations under the Bali Decision, counter notification s 
provided an additional avenue of communication and Members' engagement on India's MPS. In view 
of the divergences in Members' interpretations and understanding o f the relevant AoA discipline s, 
Thailand emphasized the need for detailed technical conversation among Members  on these matters 
to better inform the reporting process of the CoA and the negotiations in the  CoA Special Session . 
Thailand h ighlighted India's role as a major rice exporter and the rapid growth of its exports , while 
express ing concern  on its  MPS scheme. Thailand noted that according to the press release by India's 
Ministry of Commerce and Industr y in April 2022, India's non -basmati rice export increased by  109% 
from USD 2.9 billion in 2013/ 2014 to USD 6.1 billion  in 2021/ 2022. Arguing  that t he record exports 
would enable  improve d income  of rice  famers due to  increased rice demand , Thailand was  
unconvinced by India's claim that  its PSH program me was  required to exceed the de minimis  limit 
for domestic food security purposes when the export s performance of the relevant agricultural 
products, particularly rice and wheat, continue d to improve at an accelerate d pace. Thailand also 
flagged  several element s, including the determination of eligible production , currency of 
notifications, and accounting of State bonuses,  where it believed that India's MPS calculation s in 
domestic support notifications did not reconcile with the relevant AoA disciplines . Thailand also 
flagged the huge discrepancy between the subsidy levels for rice and wheat shown in the counter 
notification and the corresponding figures presented in India's domestic support notifications.  
3.46.  Ukraine  echoed the previous interven tions by the co-sponsors  and noted that the practice of 
counter -notifications could  serve to provide  greater clarity on Members ' agricultural policies . As a 
major global exporter of wheat, U kraine registered its concerns with the significant gap between th e 
amount of subsidies reported by India and the subsidy figures calculated and presented by the 
co-sponsors in the counter notification.  Ukraine underlined that MPS  was a highly distort ing type of 
support placing farmers from countries without comparable support measures at a disadvantage. 
Ukraine added that th is support practice c ould impede market signals and incentivise  agricultural 
export s. Ukraine stated that price guarantees or subsidi es to local farmers  promot ed domestic G/AG/R/106  
 
- 10 - 
 
  production and discourag ed imports by offering  artificial price incentives  and could engender 
imbalances in global trade . Provision of MPS  could also  result in excessive output and surplus es, 
which m ight in turn be sol d in the international market at artificially reduced prices, thus undermining 
the competitiveness of foreign agricultural producers. Ukraine also expressed concerns with India's 
exports of wheat from state stocks . Referring to the US presentation, Ukraine also stressed the 
corelation between India's  wheat exports and the level of public stocks; India had invariably entered 
the export market during the situations of ample stocks such as from 2012 to  2014 and 2021 to 
2022.  
3.47.  India acknowledged the effo rts of the co -sponsors in putting together the counter notification 
while underlining that the submission was replete with several flaws in the underlying assumptions. 
India lamented that some of the developing country co -sponsors had  chosen to  invest their limited 
resources in doing a 'flawed' counter notification rather than employing th ose resources to submit 
their own outstanding notifications.  India also believed that the co -sponsors , while quoting figures 
on India's total Article 6 support , should not  lose sight of the resulting miniscule per -farmer support 
in view of more than 90 million farm households in India. India also wondered which specific country 
might be affected by its PSH programme; its exports of wheat , for example, should only have 
assisted food security of recipient countries , while possibly limiting  the profits of those traders who 
might be interested in extracting exorbitant prices from those vulnerable recipient countries.  
3.48.  India noted that  the provision on counter notification s in Article 18.7 of the AoA had a well -
thought -out purpose; however, the manner in which the provision was invoked  in the instant case 
by the co -sponsors had undermined that purpose. India further believed t hat th e counter notification 
had also exposed the intent and credibility of co -sponsors  particularly for the following two reasons: 
first, the s ubmission unrealist ically implied that an Indian farmer should sell rice and wheat 
respectively at 3 cents per kilogram and 4 cents per kilogram  at the current time ; second ly, several 
co-sponsoring Member s20, who  had defaulted on DS:1 notifications for several years now, had  the 
audacity to issue a counter notification for another Member who had diligently prepared and released 
all its DS :1 notifications without fail. Pointing that some of th ose Members with outstanding domestic 
support notifications were t he cosponsor s of JOB/GC/20 4/Rev.5  of June 2021, India wondered 
whether the latter co -sponsors would agree to apply 'administrative measures' on th ose defaulting 
Members. India said that it was i ronical that rather than focussing on mandated issues of per manent 
solution to PSH  and SSM, or domestic support reforms towards a level -playing field  in the agriculture 
discussions , cosponsors, through the counter  notification, had chosen to divert attention from th ose 
key issues of interest  to developing countries  and LDCs . 
3.49.   India noted  that a similar communication was submitted by the US on 9 May 2018  in 
G/AG/W/174  probing the same issues related to India's MPS calculation methodolog y for rice and 
wheat for the period 2010/ 2011 to 2013/ 2014. India had then replied to a ll those issues at the 
87th CoA meeting held on 12 June 2018 . India regretted  that the co -sponsors of the current counter 
notification had raised the same questions and reached the same conclusions on the MPS 
methodology based on  incomplete information available in the public domain , including private and 
unofficial media reports .  
3.50.  On the issue of currency , India noted  that the AoA d id not place a bindi ng obligation on 
Members  to notify in a particular currency ; the Agreement only require d Members to take into 
account the constituent data and methodology, as referenced in Part IV of a Member 's Schedule, 
which India had  done. India further noted that t here were several examples of Members who had 
used their national currencies in their schedules while using US dollars ( USD) in the notifications. 
Similarly , there were examples of schedules with no currency mentioned or entailing more than one 
currency ; India quoted the example of Paragua y who had notified its measures in the AGST in USD 
but had also included  the support levels for 1986, 1987, and 1988 in its domestic currency , 
Guarani  (Gs).  
3.51.  On using volumes actually procured under its MSP prog ramme as eligible production in its 
DS notifications, India pointed  out that the AoA did not define nor mandate any specific methodology 
for determining what constitutes the 'production eligible to receive the applied administered price '. 
India also stated  that r elying entirely on the interpretation of eligible production by the Appellate 
Body (AB) in the 'Korea -beef' case, would amount  to giving a pre cedential value to the AB  decisions, 
 
20 For example, Ukraine, Thailand, Canada, and Australia  had yet to submit their DS:1 notifications 
from 2012, 2016, 2018, and 2018 -19 onwards respectively . G/AG/R/106  
 
- 11 - 
 
  a proposition which some c o-sponsors themselves had been opposed to. One Member among co -
sponsors had actually used this very argument to block the AB appointments leading to  the AB's  
present de funct state. India wondered if that Member would intend to change its stand on th at 
matter so as to avoid contradictory  stand s thereon in the two different WTO bodies ( i.e., the CoA 
and the DSB).  India noted that if it were to adopt the methodology suggested by the co -sponsors to 
use total production as the eligible production and fixed external reference price ( ERP) in domestic 
curren cy, its policy space in terms of the MPS acquisition price for rice and wheat would 
approximately be USD 3.7 per 100 kilograms  and USD 2.65 per 100 kilograms respectively. India 
doubted whether any Member, including co -sponsors, could operate within th ose unrealistic price  
parameters; such a proposition was rather a joke to hard working farmers and  would engender a 
food and humanitarian crisis for a large developing and agrarian country like India. Referring to the 
challenge posed by a fixed ER P, particularly for developing countries  including LDCs , India called for 
a dynamic ERP within the larger set of domestic support reforms.  
3.52.  Regardi ng the absence of VoP data  in WTO notifications , India underlined that  there was no 
obligation to provide  such data, and considered that for th at reason , many Members, including one  
of the co -sponsors21, had not provide d such data in their DS:1 notificatio ns.  
3.53.  For the  abovementioned reasons, India considered the counter  notification to be an 
unnecessary and futile exercise ; it advised the co-sponsors to focus  on submitting the ir own  pending 
notification s, and to come forward for discussions on the mandated negotiating issues in agriculture  
to help maintain  transparency and efficiency at the multilateral  level.  
3.54.  The European Union (EU)  thanked the cosponsors for the submission and the detailed 
presentation thereon. The EU believed that the submission and the analysis therein were especially 
useful for smaller delegations who might not find it easy to undertake such a detailed work due to 
resource constraints . In view of India's significant market price support, both in absolute value terms 
and in terms of the percentage of VoP of the relevant products and  considering India's role a s a 
major producer and exporter of rice, the EU voiced its continued interest in India's agricultural  
policies . The EU expressed its willingness to engage with India bilaterally to share its own past 
experience of significant reforms to move away from the then unsustainable price support policies  
towards recent support policies that were more mindful  of their impac t on trade and the environment 
and were also more beneficia l to producers and consumers. Some other Members in a similar position 
might also share their experiences of MPS reforms . On reference to the Korea -beef case i n this 
discussion, the EU referred to previous observations by Paraguay under agenda item 2 A on the 
Review Process22 on its EUR 3 billion support  to butter in 2019/ 2020 and noted that it had included 
the entire butter production as eligible production for the purpose of MPS calculations . The EU 
believed that Annex  3 of the AoA require d Member s to include the entire production as eligible 
production in the MPS calculation s when that production was eligible to receive pri ce support , 
irrespective of whether the support was actually granted  or not . In the case of the EU, no support 
was granted in 2019/ 2020 and overall the EU had used less than 10% of its Total AMS limit.   
3.55.  Japan  noted that, a s an importing country,  it recognized the importance of P SH programmes 
as a means of ensur ing food security. It also maintained that PSH programmes had been 
implemented differently by each Member depending on domestic circumstances. Japan expressed 
interest in appreciating how Memb ers implemented their existing PSH programmes and their 
compliance with the AoA . Japan thanked India for its answers to various questions raised under this 
agenda item as well as under the previous agenda item on the review process.  
3.56.  In relation to India's  reference to currency practices , Paraguay  noted that it s domestic support 
notifications in USD had consistently included information on annual exchange rate s to demonstrate 
consistency with its commitments.  On the issue of support prices and the question whether any co-
sponsor could operate within the allowable 'policy  space'  under the WTO as per the methodology in 
the counter  notification, Paraguay  noted that it did not provide any price support and could hence 
remain well within its WTO domestic support limit. On reference to past jurisprudence in the 
Korea -beef case, Paraguay  also underlined  the relevance in this matter of the recent India-sugar  
case. Paraguay believed that some other issues raised by India should better be addressed in the 
 
21 Thailand.  
22 AG-IMS ID 105034 . G/AG/R/106  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Special Session of the Committee based on proposals on the table. Paraguay did  not consider the 
latter part of the EU's statement on support to butter falling within  the current agenda item.  
3.57.  New Zealand reiterated  its interest  in understanding India's subsidy program mes, especially 
its market price support policies , given India's significance as an agricultural producer and exporter 
of major commodities.  New Zealand encourage d India to address the concerns and discrepancies 
raised by Members in an open -minded manner, including by way of providing wider contextual 
information  for Members to better understand its support programmes  such as on per capita  support  
even thou gh the latter was not required by the AoA. New Zealand considered the discussions very 
useful to appreciate India's and other Members' domestic support calculation practices. New Zealand 
also noted that it had  held bilateral consultations with India on PSH and had been awaiting India's 
responses to some of the questions that it had raised.  
3.58.  Uruguay  thanked the co -sponsors for their work and detailed presentation to the CoA. It noted 
that the figures presented in the counter  notification largely aligned with the calculations it had made 
of rice MPS in India in accordance with  the agreed methodology in Annex 3 of the AoA, as well a s 
the relevant DSB finding s. Uruguay noted that, in view of India's lead p osition in  global exports of 
rice with 44% market shar e, its growing support level s had appeared to have negative  distortive  
impact on other WTO Members, including other developing countries. Uruguay expressed its interest 
to continue active engagement on th e matter . 
3.59.  The US emphasize d that th e counter  notification was limited to comparing India's notified 
methodology for market price support vis-a-vis the rules established in the AoA, and that the co -
sponsors did  not make  any claims  in respect of India's recourse to the Bali interim decision, which 
the US believed was a separate issue. The US noted and took issue with India's assertions that the 
counter notification had been  erroneous and had not represent ed the situation in India . The US 
stressed that the co -sponsors had extensively researched how India's programmes operated and 
had utilized that information in the counter notification consistent with WTO rules. The US 
emphasized that the counter  notification follow ed the rules established in the AoA and  create d a 
comparable basis between India's domestic support reporting and its AGST document . The US 
disagreed with India's statement that the counter notification had suggested selling rice at 
USD 0.03 per kilo gram. The co-sponsors ha d rather maintained that farmers could  sell rice at market 
prices, which were substantially higher tha n the cited figure . The US echoed India's comment about 
the importance of timeliness of notifications and  called on all Members  to provide their notifications  
in a timely manner. However, the US underlined that  timeliness was not at issue here, it was rather 
the accuracy of what had been  notified by India. In relation to India's reference to  per-farmer 
support,  the US viewed  that per -farmer  support statistics might appear more relevant in the 
discussions in respect of direct  income support to farmers ; the support given by the Indian 
government  had, however, been based on the products sold rather than on a per-farmer basis.  
3.60.  The US reit erated that the  counter  notification was consistent with standard WTO practice for 
notifying domestic support, as demonstrated by numerous WTO Members  including the US itself . 
The US noted that if it were to utilize India's methodology, it would notify zero MPS, creating new 
policy space for the US to effectively increase product specific domestic support without any actual 
changes in its support policies.  The US could easily reduce its notified trade -distorting domestic 
support by following India's current methodology , but that  it had chosen not to do so  because the 
rules d id not provide for that . In response to  India's claims that the counter  notification d id not 
represent India's support policies or their effects , the US noted that the reason for the co-sponsors 
to make  the counter  notification had precisely been  to accurately reflect India's MPS policies under 
the WTO r ules in light of their negative effects  building on the significant discussions o n that matter 
in the CoA . The co -sponsors had carefully  laid out the situation with rice and wheat in India and put 
it into a global context detailing why India's policies were of concern  and warranted a counter 
notification . Referring to India's comments on the need to update the rules on PSH programmes, 
the US noted that the counter notification and the facts contained therein as presented at th is CoA 
meeting demonstrate d that Members must proceed with extreme caution to ensure that any action 
taken d id not create new policy space for such distortive policies and exasperate the ir negative 
effects.  
3.61.  In conclusion, the US clarified that the  cosponsors were not  calling for India to end its support 
to the agricultural sector, but rather to find policies that, as the EU  had stated  earlier , were more 
mindful of trade impacts, the environment , and the interest of producers,  and consumers. The US G/AG/R/106  
 
- 13 - 
 
  noted  that, like the EU, it had also been in India's position more than 30 years ago and that it had 
shared its experiences with transition ing several times at the WTO.  
3.62.  India thanked the cosponsors for their interventions and responses to its earlier statement 
and repeated its disagreement with the calculation methodology contained in the counter 
notification.  
3.3  Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process  
3.63.  The Secretariat  document G/AG/W/204/Rev. 10 lists questions raised under the CoA  review 
process from 2013 to 202 2 where responses remain outstanding.  As of 1 4 June 2023, a total of 
166 questions still had outstanding responses  from 4 3 Members  for the period of 2013-2021. For 
the questions posed in 2022, 39 responses from 22 delegations were still pending.   
3.64.  The Chairperson urged Members to make dedicated efforts to shorten, and eventually close, 
the list of pending responses. To assist Members in this endeavour, the Secretariat  has introduced 
a feature in the AG -IMS to generate automatic reminders to Members with outstanding responses.  
3.65.  Eleven  question s were raised under this agenda item.23 The concerned Member s' response s 
and follow -up comments can be accessed through the hyperl ink contained in Table 4 of Annex 2 to 
this report  or through the AG -IMS using the relevant question ID number s. 
4  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE  
4.1  Developments in the field of export competition  
4.1.  The Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition of 19 December 2015, states in its 
paragraph  4, that the "Committee on Agriculture shall monitor the implementation of the Decision 
by Members in accord ance with existing notification requirements under the Agreement on 
Agriculture  (AoA) , as complemented by the provisions set out in the Annex to this Decision".  The 
Chairperson recalled that the current ( eighth ) export competition dedicated discussion  exercise had 
been launched on 17 January 2023 when he had invited delegations to reply to the export 
competition questionnaire  (ECQ). The original deadline of 30 March 2023 to submit replies to 
the ECQ had later been extended to 21 April  2023. 
4.2.  A total of 27 replies to the ECQ, counting the EU as one,  had been submitted  prior to the 
deadline . The Secretariat 's revised  background document , incorpora ting Members' replies to the ECQ 
received until 5 May 2023 as well as relevant information from their notifications, was circulated on 
24 May 202 3 in document G/AG/W/125/Rev.1 8 and its 4 addenda . Three additional replies to the 
ECQ were received after the deadline bringing the t otal number of such replies to 3 0. These would 
be incorporated in the revised background documentation to be released later. T he 202 3 annual ECQ 
exercise represented the lowest response rate to the questionnaire since 2018.  
4.3.  The Chair person also noted the positive development  this year of the launch of the ECQ -IMS 
on-line tool enabling online submission of Members' responses to the ECQ and also containing online 
data extraction and reporting functions. Ten Members out of the 27 responding Members had used 
the ECQ -IMS on -line response facility to send their responses this year . The development of the ECQ 
IMS tool had formed part of the agreed recommendations24 of the second triennial review of the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition . The Secretariat ha d also commenced the process of 
uploading Members' historical ECQ responses into the ECQ -IMS database received since the adoption 
of the 2015 Nairobi Ministeri al Decision ; the record w ould be maintained in all three WTO official 
languages.   
4.4.  The Chair invited any Member requiring technical support on how to use the ECQ -IMS on -line 
tool to contact the Secretariat. The Secretariat ha d already prepared and hosted on  the AG -IMS 
webpage two demonstration videos on the submission and retrieval of on -line responses. The 
 
23 WTO/AIR/AG/6 8, Section D of Attachment.  The details of the question  raised can be found under 
Section 4 of the c ompilation document  in G/AG/W/23 7. 
24 Paragraph 40 (e) of G/AG/33 . G/AG/R/106  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Secretariat w ould also incorporate a module on how to use the ECQ -IMS tool in its training activities 
and was also developing a handbook to complemen t the two demonstration videos.  
4.5.  Canada , the EU, and New Zealand  thanked the Secretariat for the launch of the new ECQ -IMS 
tool and hoped that it would contribute to enhanced transparency in the domain of export 
competition and an improved ECQ response rate. Th e Secretariat's efforts to provide technical 
assistance to Members were also appreciated  towards an enhanced uptake of the system. The EU 
also reminded that all Members were required to reply to the ECQ following the expiry of the grace 
period pursuant to footnote 17 of the Nairobi Decision  and asked Members who had not submitted 
responses to the ECQ to share details of the constraints they had faced in not being able to do so. 
The EU also underlined that except in emergencies, provision of in -kind food aid  was not an efficient 
choice neither for donors nor the recipients; and encouraged Members to increasingly move towards 
cash-based food assistance.  The EU also raised the issue of duplication in food aid reporting 
requirements and considered it urgent to f ind a satisfactory solution in that respect.   
4.6.  Advance  written questions were raised by Members in the context of the export competition 
dedicated discussion  exercise .25 Members' responses and follow -up comments can be accessed 
directly using the hyperlinks contained in Table 5 of Annex 2 to this report  or through the AG -IMS 
using the relevant question ID numbers.  
4.7.  Chile referred to the background note by the Secretariat i n G/AG/W/125/Rev.18 /Add.4 on 
agricultural exporting state trading enterprises (STE) and noted its systemic interest in the STE 
notification by New Zealand  on Zespri  in G/STR/N/19/NZL . Chile referred to the significant growth 
experienced by Zespri over the years in the export quantity and average export value and price of 
kiwifruit . As the Secretariat background note showed, the exported quantities of kiwifruit almost 
doubled from more than 353,000 tonnes in 2010/ 2011 to more t han 616,000 tonnes in 2021/ 2022. 
The average export value for the STE in the same period went up to NZD  0.9 billion  in 2010/ 2011 
to NZD 2.7 billion in 2021/ 2022. Chile wanted to know the strategies and measures implemented 
by Zespri contributing to th at successful performance. Chile also sought i nformation on main export 
markets organized by volume and value shares over the recent period. Chile indicated that it would 
upload the questions on the AG -IMS after th e June CoA meeting.  New Zealand noted that it had 
previously clarified in the CoA that Zespri was a private and fully commercial entity and as such New 
Zealand might not be able to provide information on its commercial operations. Once the question 
was submitted in the AG -IMS, Ne w Zealand m ight guide Chile to Zespri's annual reports available 
online which would contain the information requested by Chile.  
4.8.  Egypt presented some comments on addendum 2 and 3 of the Secretariat background note in 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.18  respectively on export finance and international food aid. Egypt  emphasized 
the importance of a clear and consistent understanding of Members' export financing support  in light 
of their commitments under the Nairobi Decision on export compe tition.  Egypt stated that w hile 
some Member s had provided comprehensive details on their program mes, including direct financing 
support, risk cover and government to government credit agreements , others ha d not defined their 
program mes adequately. Egypt considered that adequate transparency and comprehensive 
information on export finance wa s crucial to assess Members' compliance with the Nairobi  Decision. 
In that regard, Egypt encourage d Membe rs to provide more detailed information on : i) product 
coverage of export financing support program mes; ii) maximum repayment terms, including the 
alignment with the 18-month time limit set out in the Nairobi Decision , as well as recourse to the 
special and differential treatment (S&DT) outlined in  the Decision ; and iii) compliance with the 
provisions on self-financing . Egypt believed that based on the current level of transparency, it might 
not always be feasible to determine whether Members had been complying with the provisions of 
the Nairobi Dec ision, including the S&DT provisions there in. 
4.9.  Egypt also expressed concerns on the incomplete nature of the information provided on food 
aid in the Secretariat background note . Egypt noted that comprehensive and accurate data on the 
quantity and value of f ood aid provided to LDCs and NFIDCs was crucial for effective policy 
formulation and decision -making in the field of international food aid.  Towards improved 
understanding  and evaluation of international food aid program mes and their contribution to food 
security in recipient markets , Egypt requested food aid donor Members to provide information on: 
i) the objective and purpose of food aid program me; ii) the geograph ical coverage of food a ssistance 
 
25 WTO/AIR/AG/ 68, Section E of Attachment.  The full version of the questions raised can be found under 
section 5 of the compilation document  G/AG/W/2 37. G/AG/R/106  
 
- 15 - 
 
  operations ; iii) quantity and value of food aid provided to LDCs and NFIDC s; iv) relevant needs 
assessment , including the responsible party or organization  undertaking such assessment  and the 
methodology employed ; v) whether food aid was in response to a declaration of emergency or an 
emergency appeal, and to specify the entity responsible for such declarations or appeals ; vi) impact 
assessment to evaluate the effect of international food aid operations on local and regional 
production, as well as market conditions in the recipient  countries  or regions ; vii) whether food aid 
provided was in-kind or cash  based, was in  fully-grant  form or on concessional terms , as well as 
whether monetization was permitted ; and vi ii) whether re -export of food aid was permitted. Egypt 
stated that it had been working on some ideas to enhance transparency in respect of both export 
finance and international food aid.  
4.10.  Concerning the modification of Schedules pursuant to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, the 
situation had not changed since the March 202 3 CoA meeting: out of the 16  Members with export 
subsidy reduction commitments at the time of adoption of the Nairobi Decision, 13 had their revised 
schedules certified26; two Members, namely Canada and the EU, had circulated their draft schedule 
in 2017 where  certification is ongoin g; and the remaining Member, namely the Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela, had yet to circulate its draft schedule.  
4.11.  The Chairperson urged  all Members who ha d not replied to the ECQ to make all possible efforts 
to do so by no later than COB on 15 July 2023.  A revised version of the Secretariat's background 
document would be circulated later in the year to include all additional replies received by that date 
to conclude the 2023 exercise.27 Despite the low level of the ECQ response rate this year, the 
Chairpe rson was encouraged by Members' active engagement under the dedicated discussion, 
including through the detailed Q&A -based process and the positive developments in the use of the 
ECQ-IMS tool. The Chair noted that t he overarching objective of the dedicated  discussions was to 
transparently monitor the implementation of Members' export competition obligations arising from 
the Agreement on Agriculture and the Nairobi Decision on export competition ; in th at context, he 
also recalled the ongoing discussions in t he Committee on the streamlining of ES :1 notification 
requirements.  
4.2  Implementation  of Ministerial outcomes  
4.2.1   Bali Ministerial Decision on TRQ (WT/MIN(13)/39) – First triennial review pursuant 
to paragraph 3 of annex 2 to G/AG/29   
4.12.  The Chairperson stated that paragraph 3 of the recommendations of the Review of the 
operation of the Bali TRQ Decision approved by the General Council in December 2019 (as contained 
in annex 2 to G/AG/29 ) provided for the Committee to undertake regular triennial reviews of the 
operation of the Decision. The first such triennial review had accordingly commenced in 2022.  
4.13.  The Chairperson noted that several issues had been raised during the first t riennial review at 
the informal and formal CoA meetings between June and November 2022. The progress made in the 
discussions had been captured in the Secretariat's draft reports of the review in RD/AG/95  and its 
revisions with the latest revision contained in RD/AG/95/Rev.3 . The latest revised report in 
RD/AG/95/Rev.3  contained an important agreeme nt on enhanced transparency of MA:2 notifications 
in respect of TRQs with country -specific allocations in the Schedule ; there was also an agreement to 
review the existing MA:1 format in G/AG/2  so as to enable Members to include information on the 
implementation of paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Bali TRQ Decision  in their MA:1 notification .  
4.14.  During the consideration of the latest revised report in RD/AG/95/Rev.3  at the Ma rch 2023 
CoA meeting, one Member had requested additional time as it was awaiting instructions from the 
capital. The Committee accordingly agreed to finalize the review at th e June 2023  meeting.  
4.15.  The Committee considered the matter at its meeting on 27 -28 June 2023 and conclude d the 
first triennial review of the operation of the Bali TRQ Decision based on the revised draft report in 
RD/AG/95/Rev.3 . The final report of review was circulated in document G/AG/36 . The Chairperson 
thanked Members for the ir const ructive engagement to conclude the first triennial review and 
remind ed them that while the  first triennial review  had been concluded , the implementation of the 
 
26 Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Iceland, Indonesia, Israel, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, 
Türkiye, United States of America, and Uruguay.  
27 G/AG/W/1 25/Rev.19  and addenda of 26 July 2023.  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Bali TRQ Decision would  remain an ongoing conversation in the Committee pursuant to paragraph  11 
of the Decision.  
4.2.2   Ministerial Declaration on the emergency response to food insecurity 
(WT/MIN/(22)/28 – WT/L/1139) - Work programme pursuant to paragraph 8 of the 
Declaration and  
4.16.  As was announced during the adoption of the agenda, the items under 3B(ii) on Work 
Programme pursuant to paragraph 8 of the MC12  Declaration on food insecurity  and 3B(iii) on 
Ministerial Declaration on the WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic and preparedne ss for future 
pandemics were taken up together in view of the overlap across them. The summary of discussions 
on these two items is contained in paragraphs 4.17 to 4.34 below.  
4.2.3   Ministerial Declaration on the WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic and 
prepare dness for future pandemics  (WT/MIN/(22)/31 – WT/L/1142)  - Continuing 
engagement on ' COVID -19 and Agriculture'   
4.17.  The Chair, as the Coordinator of the Working Group for the conduct of the Work Programme 
pursuant to paragraph 8 of the MC12  Declaration  on the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity28, 
provided a report on the discussions that ha d taken place in the Working Group since the March 
2023 meeting of the Committee . The report by the Working Group Coordinator  is contained in Annex 
3 to this Report.  
4.18.  The Chair invited the Committee to take note of the report he just provided in his capacity as 
the Coordinator of the Working Group . He also requested the Committee to take a decision on th e 
new Coordinator who could take over th e responsibility upon his departure from Geneva in end -July 
2023.  
4.19.  Paraguay supported by Egypt , India, New Zealand,  and Nigeria  proposed to follow the same 
approach as earlier to entrust the new CoA Chair (Kjetil T ysdal of Norway) with the responsibility of 
the Working Group Coordinator. The Chair informed the Committee that Mr.  Tysdal had indicated 
his willing ness to assume the responsibility of the Working Group Coordinator if the Committee would 
so decid e. The Committee accordingly agreed to appoint Mr. Kjetil Tysdal of Norway as the new 
Coordinator of the Working Group.  Egypt expressed its gratitude to the  Chairperson  for his 
exceptional leadership in the conduct of the food security work programme.  
4.20.  In response to questions from Egypt on the expected report by the WG Coordinator on the 
food security work programme and its future roadmap, the Chair and the WG Coordinator noted that 
the report would be released in the week of 3 July 2023 and Members would h ave the first 
opportunity to consider it at the meeting of the Working Group on 19  July 2023.29  
4.21.  The World  Food Programme (WFP) presented its written submission30. The WFP noted that 
alarming global food insecurity continued to deepen its impact driven by the deadly combination of 
conflict, climate change and disasters and compounded recently by the serious financing challenges. 
It reported that  345 million people were estimated to be acutely food insecur e across 79 countries 
where the WFP had operat ions. The WFP continued to work with its partners to scale up its operations 
and provide lifesaving  assistance to the most vulnerable populations; between January and 
March  2023, the WFP had already reached 94 million people with food and nutrition assistance that 
was 10 million more than the count for the same period last year. In line with its Local and Regional 
Food Procurement Policy, the WFP had continued to invest in local and regional procurement as a 
tool to support food systems and strengthen their resilience. From January -early June 2023, the 
WFP had purchased 1.4 million metric tonnes of food, over two thirds  of which was sourced from 
least developed and net food -importing developing countries. As rega rds the impact of the recent 
MC-12 Decision31 concerning the WFP on its  procurement operations, the WFP noted that while more 
time was needed for a fulsome analysis and attribution, the positive effects of the Decision had 
 
28 WT/MIN(22)/28 - WT/L/1139 . 
29 The report was first released as a room document in RD/AG/113  dated 3 July 2023. After its 
consideration at the 19 July Working Group meeting, the report was later circulated in G/AG/W/240  dated 
19 July 2023.  
30 G/AG/GEN/221 . 
31 WT/MIN(22)/29  - WT/L/1140 . G/AG/R/106  
 
- 17 - 
 
  already been evident  in terms of a steady increase in the number of the WFP source countries from 
91 in 2020 to 101 in  2022. The WFP also expressed its commitment to the 'do-no-harm' principle  in 
making its procurement decisions in order not to  destabili ze local markets of source countries 
through excessive purchases.  The WFP considered the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI) to be a 
successful example of international collaboration to stabilize global food prices and meet growing 
food needs around the world.  The WFP underl ined the importance of building partnerships across 
stakeholders towards effective delivery of its humanitarian operations and stated that it had 
maintain ed close collaboration with international financial institutions and other international 
organizations , including the WTO, to seek solutions to tackle the global food crisis.  
4.22.  The International Monetary Fund (IMF) informed the Committee that it had continued its 
efforts to  support countries affected by food insecurity through the full range of its financing  
instruments, policy advice and capacity building as well by working with other partners. The IMF  
continued to closely monitor the macroeconomic impacts of the current food security crisis through 
bilateral surveillance and food security assessment tool an d through its analytical work.  The IMF had 
consistently highlighted the need to protect food vulnerable households through timely and targeted 
support and the criticality of maintaining open trade to enable the flow of food staples from surplus 
to deficit regions. It had also stepped -up capacity development assistance for countries affected by 
the impact of the war in Ukraine.  On financing, the IMF considered that humanitarian institutions 
and multilateral development banks were better equipped to assist co untries in addressing the global 
food shock through grants and concessional loans. Since the onset of the global food crisis, the IMF 
had also scaled up its financial support using all elements in its lending toolkit. Overall, the Fund 
had provided support  to 21 countries through the existing and new program me arrangements. In 
addition, a temporary Food Shock Window  (FSW), approved  in September 2022 , had  offered 
emergency financing to countries with urgent balance of payment (BoP) needs arising from the 
global food shock. Since its approval, six countries had benefitted from financing under the FSW. 
The IMF also referred to its strategic coordination at the level of the heads of institutions, including 
through policy messages and joint statements, with the W orld Bank, the WTO, the WFP, and 
the FAO.  
4.23.  The World Bank noted that its food and nutrition security response was a mixture of 
emergency response s, as well as long term investments for resilience building. The World Bank 
Group had committed USD 16 billion  of additional finance in response to the food crisis  with over 
USD 12 billion from the World Bank, USD 3.5 billion from the International Finance Corporation  (IFC) 
and USD 50 million from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency  (MIGA ). About 
USD 8.8 billion from the World Bank Group had been in the form of short-term food-finance whereas 
USD 7.2 billion  had been  assigned to longer term climate support  and production system resilience 
finance.  The Bank, under its food and nutrition support, had supported 108 operations across 
63 countries.  The World Bank during the food crisis had focussed more on predictive rather than 
reactionary support. The Bank would establish Food Security Crisis Preparedness Plans (FSCPP) in 
26 countries to establish syste matic processes for identifying future food and nutrition security crisis 
and establish time bound protocols for mobilizing collective and early actions across government s, 
and humanitarian and development partners.  
4.24.  The FAO  noted that  the data and analysis on the global food crisis it had presented in its 
previous written submissions to the Committee were still valid.  Concerning international prices, in 
May 2023, the FAO Food Price Index had averaged 124.3 points down 2.6% from April 2023 a nd as 
much as 22.1% below the all -time high reached in March 2020. International prices of wheat and 
maize had continued to decline in May due to ample global supplies and subdued import demand. 
The extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiatives had also con tributed to the softening of world prices. 
On the other hand, rice prices had increased further due to tightening supply conditions in some 
exporters. The FAO also noted that according to the recent FAO Food outlook, the global food import 
bill was forecas ted to reach USD 1.98 trillion in 2023, representing a 1.5% or USD 28.9 billion 
increase over the previous record high attained in 2022. Simultaneously, the least developed 
countries (LDCs) and the net food -importing developing countries (NFIDCs) would see  their food 
import bill contract by 1.5% and 4.9% respectively suggesting a decline in their purchasing capacity. 
The FAO reiterated its readiness to provide timely data and information tools, impartial analysis and 
other technical support in line with its  mandate and contribute to the deliberations of the Committee, 
including under the food security work programme.  
4.25.  Argentina thanked the intervening international organisations for their reports. Argentina 
asked the WFP about  its budgetary situation and enquired whether there remained a gap between  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 18 - 
 
  available resources and financing needs to meet its objectives. Argentina also requested the IMF to 
clarify whether the credit taken by a Member to finance food emergencies would take up the credit 
quota of that M ember for that quarter and whether the credits granted under the emergency FSW 
entail ed the same debt servicing burden  as for any other credit by the Fund.  
4.26.  Brazil thanked the observer international organizations for their continued engagement with 
the Com mittee including in the CoA Working Group on food security.  Brazil congratulated the WFP 
for its presence and actions on the ground in various h unger hotspots and recalled the close 
collaboration Brazil had had with the WFP on latter's  humanitarian food actions. Referring to the 
question from Argentina, Brazil also requested the IMF about the duration of the FSW, and whether 
additional requests for accessing the Window  were being examined.  
4.27.  Ukraine thanked international organizations fo r their contribution and for highlighting the 
importance of the BSGI in stabilizing global grain prices. Ukraine had already exported more than 
32.4 million tonnes of grains under the Initiative, including 655,00 tonnes of grains under the WFP 
charted vess els to support humanitarian operations in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and 
Yemen. Ukraine underlined that the deliberate actions by the Russian Federation over the last eight 
months had slowed down the movement of grains under the B SGI and had eff ectively reduced at 
least 20 million tonnes of food supply to the rest of the world. It noted that th ere were currently 
more than 50 vessels waiting in line for Joint Coordination Centre (JCC)  inspections in the territorial 
waters of Türkiye  intended to be  loaded with 2. 4 million ton nes of food. Some vessels ha d been 
waiting for inspections for over 3 months, resulting in huge financial losses and adding to the final 
consumer cost of food. Ukraine also complained that the Russia n Federation  had blocked the 
registration of new incoming fleets and obstruct ed its largest port  and had thereby limit ed global 
food supplies . With less than a month left before the expiry of the current BSGI extension and the 
surrounding uncertainty, Ukraine emphasized the vital impo rtance of ensuring predictability and 
freedom of navigation in the Black Sea for incoming and outbound vessels from all Ukrainian sea 
ports.  Ukraine also thanked the WFP for its partnership with Ukraine, including within the framework 
of the BSGI, to support humanitarian food needs around the world.  
4.28.  Nigeria welcomed the participation of observer international organizations to inform the WTO 
debate on food security . It also noted that Nigeria was mentioned among the hunger hotspots  and 
hoped that countries could collectively work together towards addressing the issue of food insecurity 
global ly. Nigeria referred to its repeated call to address the structural causes of f ood insecurity in 
developing countries and unlocking the huge production capacities therein. Nigeria believed that the 
reports by international organizations also had a key relevance for the work of S pecial Session of 
the Committee on Agriculture  to assist  the WTO Membership in working towards an MC-13 outcome 
on food security.  
4.29.  The Russian Federation thanked the observer organizations for their analytical support and 
inputs to the work of the Committee. It welcomed the focus in the reports by th ose organiz ations 
on the fundamental and systemic multi -causes of the deterioration of agri -food markets. The Russia n 
Federation  did not , however,  share the ir assessment on the role of the current situation in Ukraine 
on global price movements, which it believed had been independent of the situation in Ukraine . It 
considered that global food price developments had been driven by other fundamental and systemic 
factors, including unilateral, restrictive economic measures by select Members, which in turn had 
led to an increase in the cost of logistics and food prices  and lessening the availability of food for 
those most in need. The Russia n Federation  noted that it had offered 260,000 tonnes of fertilizers 
to support the needs  of least developed countries, of which 2 00,000 tonnes had continued to be 
blocked at various European ports. As regards the comments made on the BSGI, the Russia n 
Federation  noted that the  agreement on the BSGI was conditional on parallel tangible progress on 
the implementation of the Russia -UN Memorandum of Understanding on facilitating  Russia 's 
agricultural exports . The Russia n Federation  believed that no progress on the Memorandum had yet 
been recorded,  and the o peration of the Togliatti -Odessa ammonia pipeline  had not resumed ; in 
addition, th e Russian Federation had faced several transport, logistics and financial services -related 
restrictions , including the removal of Russian banks from the 'Swift' system. The Russia n Federation  
called for an objective assessment of the current market develop ments and drivers of the food crisis 
in order for countries to collectively take appropriate remedial actions.  
4.30.  India referred to the WFP intervention where the latter had recalled that the number of source 
countries for the WFP food procurement operations had gone up from 91 to 101. India wondered 
whether the additional 10 countries in that list were new source markets or that th ose countries  had G/AG/R/106  
 
- 19 - 
 
  originally  maintained export restrictions and decided subsequently to exempt the WFP from such 
restrictions pursuant to the MC -12 Decision. This question  was later transmitted to the WFP by the 
Secretariat as the WFP  representative was not connected to the meeting at that stage.  
4.31.  New Zealand thanked the FAO, IMF, WFP and the World Bank for their updates and noted that 
the food security challenge could not be resolved by one organization alone. In this context, New 
Zealand appreciated the Joint Statement by the heads of the FAO, IMF, World Bank, WFP and the 
WTO late  last year to maintain a comprehensive and coordinated effort in addressing the global food 
security and nutrition crisis. It referred to the following four key areas  laid out in the Joint Statement : 
i) governments to urgently examine their agricultural tr ade and market interventions such as 
subsidies and restrictions in order to support efficient production and trade; ii) governments to 
provide the necessary data and resources to support the monitoring of food markets and availability 
of food to improve tr ansparency of food markets; iii) to invest in agricultural research and 
development to accelerate innovation which was crucial to achieving long -term global food security 
and nutrition ; and iv)  to invest in food systems transformations  to strengthen the re silience of food 
systems to risks, including environmental and economic shocks. New Zealand expressed its 
commitment to work with international partners to respond to the food security crisis using both 
humanitarian and development funding streams . It had already provided more than NZ D 15 million 
of aid to organizations such as the WFP, FAO and the UN and had plans  to mobilize additional 
contributions in the coming period to meet the urgent food security needs.  
4.32.  The WFP took note of the question s from Argent ina and noted that funding shortfall had been 
a serious issue  for the organization . The WFP informed the Committee that it had received 
USD 14.2 billion in 2022 against the requirement of about USD 21 billion. For 2023, the budgetary 
needs stood at about USD 25 billion whereas the funds received in the first quarter of 2023 had 
been about USD 4.1 billion. The WFP renewed its support for the BSGI which it considered had 
provided stabili ty to the global grain  market  while also underlining that the repeated short extensions 
had hampered the predictability.   
4.33.  In response to questions from Argentina and Brazil on financing under the FSW, the IMF 
informed the Committee that a forthcoming IMF Board paper32 on the experienc e of the 
implementation of the FSW should adequately answer those questions. The IMF also informed the 
Committee that considering the ongoing food insecurity challenges, the IMF Board had approved the 
previous day a  six-month  extension of the FSW through M arch 2024.   
4.34.  The Chairperson thanked all observe r organizations for their contributions. He noted that the 
Committee on Agriculture, as a part of its institutional architecture, had had the benefit of regularly 
hearing from these organizations, which, he be lieved, was a great model of institutional 
collaboration. The Chair urged all observer organizations to continue fostering targeted and in -depth 
joint actions for the global good.  
4.2.4   Implementation of other Ministerial Decisions  
4.35.  The Chairperson noted that the  Committee had the  responsibility for the follow -up on a 
number of Ministerial outcomes which might not be specifically listed on the agenda. He asked if any  
Member would like to take the floor on this agenda item, including comments and/or updates on the 
implementation of any of the relevant Ministerial Decisions .  
4.36.  There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
4.3  Functioning  of the Committee on Agriculture (RD/AG/111 ) and Chair report on the 
informal meeting of 27 June, Other issues  
4.37.  The Chairperson noted that the Co mmittee had regularly taken up discussions on the 
transparency and efficiency of the Committee on Agriculture in its informal meetings for some years. 
Starting October  2022, with request from the Chair of the Council for Trad e in Goods  (CTG)  to Chairs 
of CTG subsidiary bodies to submit reports on the functioning of their respective bodies , this 
discussion had since gotten a new context of 'WTO reform s'. Since then, the Committee had taken 
 
32 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Policy -Papers/Issues/ 2023/06/30/Review -of-Experience -with-
The-Food-Shock -Window -Under -The-Rapid -Financing -Instrument -and-535478 .  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 20 - 
 
  up this matter regularly at its informal and formal meetings . Since t he 27 -28 March 2023 Informal 
and formal CoA meetings, this matter was considered at two informal CoA meetings respectively on 
6 June and 27 June 2023.  The Chairperson provided oral report s on th e discussions  at those two 
informal CoA meetings , which are contained respectively in Annex 4 (paragraphs 4 -6) and Annex  5 
(paragraphs 5 -6) to this report.   
4.38.  The Committee approved the use of an annotated agenda for its meetings along the draft 
circulated by the Secretariat , on a trial basis , for the June 2023 CoA meeting in document 
RD/AG/112 . 
4.39.  During the informal meeting on 27 June, the Committee continued its deliberations on 
enhancing transparency based on written submissions by China (G/AG/W/232 ), Costa  Rica 
(G/AG/W/230 ) and the European Union (RD/AG/110 ). At the formal meeting, the Chairperson 
provided an oral report on the discussions, which is contained in paragraphs 3 -4 of Annex  5 to this 
report. Costa Rica thanked the Chair for the report and noted that several Members during the 
informal CoA meeting on  27 June had lent their support to the changes proposed to the MA:1 format 
in its submission in G/AG/W/230 . Referring to paragraph 4 of the Chair's report, Costa Rica and 
Paraguay recalled the discussions at the 27 June Informal CoA meeting and underlined that food 
security was a broader concept  and not limited to the domain of export competition or food aid.  
4.4  Other Business  
4.4.1   IICA presentation on its work plan in G/AG/GEN/220  
4.40.  The Inter -American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) introduced its work p lan 
for 2023 contained in G/AG/GEN/220 . The IICA referred to a typology of activities it had developed 
in relation to the work of t he Committee on Agriculture , including technical cooperation activities 
and workshops to support its member States . The IICA and the WTO  had jointly delivered  a workshop 
on agricultural notifications in El Salvador in February 2023 to strengthen the technical capacity of 
public officials on issues related to notifications. In July 2023,  the IICA and the WTO would 
commence work on developing a manual o n particip ation of Members in the Committee  with a view 
to presenting this work by the November 2023 meeting of the Committe e. The IICA also added that 
it was in the process of fine-tuning a memorandum of understanding  (MoU)  between it and the WTO 
for signature to f acilitate enhanced collaboration between the two institutions . 
4.4.2   Advanced Agriculture Notification Workshop 2023/2024  
4.41.  The Secretariat announced the organization of the Advanced Agriculture Notification 
Workshop for 2023/2024. Th e workshop would be organized in two phases. The first phase of the 
workshop would be held virtually from 3 to 5 October 2023 ; the second phase would be carried out 
in person in Geneva in 2024. A total of 30 government officials  from developing country Members 
and LDC's w ould be selected for participation. Only those participants who would  successfully 
complete the first virtual phase of the workshop w ould be selected for  the funded  in-person 
participat ion at the second  phase of the workshop . An invitation message  for the work shop, along 
with details  of the selection process , would be sent to Members in due course.33   
4.4.3   Presentation by the WTO Secretariat on AGIMS DS project  
4.42.  The Secretariat recalled th e discussions that took place at the June 2022 Informal CoA 
meeting on the joint proposal  in RD/AG/92  requesting the Secretariat to develop a project on 
domestic support reporting . The Secretariat had then informed  the Committee that the AG -IMS 
already include d a reporting functionality on domestic support based on  notified data. The 
Secret ariat had also noted that those reports currently had some factual discrepancies  which were 
being addressed .34 At the November 2022 CoA meeting, the Secretariat agreed  to organize a 
working session on the AG -IMS domestic support reporting function in the coming period  in order to 
update the Membership on the status of those reports and their accuracy.35  
 
33 The invitation letter was sent to Members on 17 August 2023.  
34 Annex 4 to G/AG/R/102 . 
35 Annex 2 to G/AG/R/104 . G/AG/R/106  
 
- 21 - 
 
  4.43.  At the June 2023 CoA meeting, the Secretariat made a presentation on the domestic support 
reporting function of  the AG -IMS and highlighted  the different types of reports that would be 
accessible on the System. The Secretariat noted that all those reports would be based on Members' 
domestic support notifications. The reports would also be made available in USD36 to facilitate  
analysis and comparison across the Membership. The Secretariat stated that the first set of reports 
on the three  'exempt' domestic support categories, namely the Green Box, Article  6.2 development 
programmes, and the Blue Box, would already be accessible on the AG -IMS,37 both in the notified 
currency and in  USD, before the summer break.  The Secretariat highlighted that the remaining 
second batch of reports , including on Bound and Current Total AMS, were targeted for finalization 
before the end of 2023; those reports would also include the option of generati ng automatic graphic  
reports  on various categories  of domestic support .  
4.44.  Members welcomed the presentation by the Secretariat on the domestic support reporting 
function of the AG -IMS and recog nized  the potential usefulness of th e data tool for their participation 
in the domestic support negotiations.  
4.4.4   Date of next regular meetings  
4.45.  The next (10 6th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture w ould be held on 
27-28 September  2023. On th at basis, the  reminder airgram will be issued on Monday, 
28 August  2023 and the convening airgram will be distributed to Members on Friday, 
15 Septembe r 2023.  
4.46.  The Chair thanked Members for their trust and confidence during his chairmanship of the 
Committee.  The Chair noted that considering his experience  over decades in the Dutch Ministry of 
Agriculture, the Committee on Agriculture , among the WTO bodies,  was a natural choice for his 
closer involvement . He noted that it ha d been an honour for him to chair th e Committee, an 
experience he would always cherish. The Chair also thanked the CoA Secretariat team for the 
excellent professionalism in support ing the work of the Committee .  
 
 
 
 
36 Based on annual average exchange rates sourced from the IMF.  
37 https://agims.wto.org/en/DomesticSupport/SearchResults    
  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 22 - ANNEX 1  
LIST OF QUESTIONS CO-SPONSORED AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONVENING AIRGRAM  
AG-IMS ID  New Co -sponsor(s)  Question summary/Notification concerned  Question by  SIM # 
105038  Canada, European 
Union  G/AG/N/IND/27 , G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of America, Brazil, Japan, Paraguay, 
Australia, Thailand  - 
105039  Canada,  European  
Union  G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of America, Brazil, Paraguay, Australia, 
Thailand  - 
105051  Canada  G/AG/N/IND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18 , 
G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, G/AG/N/IND/25 , 
G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1, and G/AG/N/IND/27 , 
G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1  United States of America, Paraguay, Australia, 
Thailand  - 
105040 , 105046 , 
105048 , 105049 , 
105050  Canada, European 
Union  G/AG/N/IND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18 , 
G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, G/AG/N/IND/25 , 
G/AG/ N/IND/25/Corr.1, and G/AG/N/IND/27 , 
G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1  United States of America, Paraguay, Australia, 
Thailand  - 
105047  European Union  G/AG/N/IND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18 , 
G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, G/AG/N/IND/25 , 
G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1, and G/AG/N/IND/27 , 
G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1  United States of America, Paraguay, Australia, 
Thailand  - 
105041  Canada, European 
Union  G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of America, Brazil, Japan, Paraguay, 
Australia  - 
105042  Canada, European 
Union  G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of America, Paraguay, Australia  - 
105043  Canada, European 
Union  G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of America, Brazil, Paraguay, Australia  - 
105045  Canada, European 
Union  G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of America, Australia  - 
105044  European Union  G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of America, Japan, Paraguay, Australia, 
Thailand  - 
105010  European Union  G/AG/N/IND/29  United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil, United States of 
America, Australia  - 
105012  European Union, 
New Zealand  G/AG/N/IND/29  United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, 
Australia  - 
105056  Canada, European 
Union  G/AG/N/CHN/62 ,G/AG/N/CHN/63 , G/AG/N/CHN/64 , 
G/AG/N/CHN/65  United States of America, Paraguay, Australia, 
Thailand  - 
105058  Canada, European 
Union  G/AG/N/CHN/62 ,G/AG/N/CHN/63 , G/AG/N/CHN/64 , 
G/AG/N/CHN/65  United States of America, Paraguay, Thailand  - 
105057  Canada, European 
Union  G/AG/N/CHN/62 ,G/AG/N/CHN/63 , G/AG/N/CHN/64 , 
G/AG/N/CHN/65  United States of America, Paraguay, Japan, Australia, 
Thailand  - 
105018  United Kingdom  Türkiye's export licensing requirement   Switzerland, European Union, Japan  834 
105003  Canada, New Zealand, 
European Union  India's subsidy for fertilizers   United States of America, Paraguay, Australia  827 
105090  Canada  Türkiye's increased import tariffs  European Union  833  
  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 23 - AG-IMS ID  New Co -sponsor(s)  Question summary/Notification concerned  Question by  SIM # 
105017  Canada  G/AG/N/USA/166  New Zealand, China  - 
105053  Canada  Export Competition - India United States of A merica, Brazil  - 
105007  European Union; 
Korea, Republic of  India's export restrictions  United Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada , Ukraine, 
United  States of America, Australia , Japan  306 
105008  European Union; 
New Zealand; Korea, 
Republic of  Argentina's export restrictions  United Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada, United States 
of America, Australia , Japan  710 
105009  European Union  Brazil's Food Purchase Programme (PAA)   United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, 
China  817 
105011  European Union, 
New Zealand  G/AG/N/BRA/74  United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America  - 
105023  European Union  Canada's Review of the TRQ System  Australia, United Kingdom, China  536 
105037  European Union  South Africa's import measures on poultry meat  United Kingdom  807 
105148  New Zealand  G/AG/N/GBR/18  Australia  - 
105096  United Kingdom  Brazil - "Feed Brazil"  Programme   India 815 
105001  European Union  China's cotton reserves purchasing system  United States of America, Australia  295 
105164  United Kingdom  Switzerland's support to milk and milk products   New Zealand  830 
 
 G/AG/R/106  
 
- 24 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
 
Annex 2 includes the full list of questions raised under the various agenda items of the Committee. 
Members' responses and follow -up exchanges (if applicable) can be accessed through the AG -IMS 
(http://agims.wto.org/ ) by selecting the function "Search Q&A Submitted Since 1995" and inputting 
the ID number of the question concerned. This information can also be accessed directly b y clicking 
on the relevant hyperlinks in the last column ("ID number") of tables 1 -4 below. Question IDs where 
replies were yet to be submitted into the AG -IMS as of 1 8 August  2023 have been identified with 
the symbol "*". Members are invited to submit out standing replies through the AG -IMS at the earliest 
opportunity.  
Table 1  - Specific Implementation Matters (Article 18.6)  
Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID 
Argentina's export restrictions  United Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada, 
United States of America, Australia, 
Japan, European Union, New Zealand, 
Korea, Republic of  105008  
Australia's SPS measure on dairy imports  India 105094  
Australia's new support schemes in Victoria  India 105093  
Brazil's price support mechanisms  India 105095 * 
Brazil - Price Guarantee Programme for Family 
Farming (PGPAF)  India 105097  
Brazil - "Feed Brazil " Programme  India, United Kingdom  105096  
Brazil 's Food Purchase Programme (PAA)  United Kingdom, Canada, United States 
of America, China, European Union  105009  
Canada 's Review of the TRQ System  Australia, United Kingdom, China, 
European Union  105023  
Canada's Bill C -282 Brazil  105024  
China's support to beef cattle sector  Canada  105025  
China's wheat support  Canada  105026  
China's purchase policy of grains and oils  Canada  105030  
China's environmental programmes  Canada, United Kingdom  105027  
China's Blue Box support  Canada  105028  
China's food aid  European Union  105031 * 
China's cotton reserves purchasing system  United States of America , Australia, 
European Union  105001  
China's grain subsidies  Canada  105029  
Congo - import -limiting price measures  United States of America  105191 * 
Spain's agricultural support  Brazil  105033  
EU's Young Farmers Scheme  India 105098  
European Union's coupled pa yments  India 105099  
EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation 
Strategy  Brazil, China  105034  
EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation 
Strategy  India 105100  
India's subsidy for fertilizers  United States of Am erica, Paraguay, 
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, 
European Union  105003  
India's export restrictions  New Zealand  105022  
India's export restrictions on wheat and rice  United Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada, 
Ukraine, United States of America, 
Australia, Japan, European Union, 
Korea, Republic of  105007  
India's export restrictions on wheat  Australia  105020  
India's export restrictions on wheat  Canada, United Kingdom, Japan  105021  
Japan -US Trade Agreement  Brazil  105035  
Nicaragua - information about import quotas  United States of America  105004  
Nicaragua - Information about import quotas  United States of America  105005  
Paraguay - Improved Family and Indigenous 
Production in the Department of Eastern Paraguay 
(PROMAFI) programme  India 105102  
Switzerland's support to milk and milk products  New Zealand, United Kingdom  105164  
Lichtenstein's decoupled income support  New Zealand  105165  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID 
Thailand's palm oil price guarantee scheme  India 105101 * 
Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme  India 105103  
Türkiye's increased import tariffs  European Union, Canada  105090  
Türkiye's export licensing requirement  Switzerland,  European Union, Japan, 
United Kingdom  105018  
UK's SSG entitlements  India 105104  
U.S. export development progr ammes  India, China  105107  
U.S. Resilient Food System Infrastructure (RFSI) 
Program  India 105105  
U.S. support to organic producers  India 105106  
Japan - US Trade Agre ement  Brazil  105036  
U.S. Inflation Reduction Act  India 105108  
U.S. Inflation Reduction Act  New Zealand  105120  
Uruguay's insurance subsidy  India 105111  
 
 G/AG/R/106  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Table 2  - Questions raised in connection with individual notifications  
Document symbol  Question  by Answer  by Notification  Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/THA/132  European Union  Thailand  MA:1 - TQ administration  Transparency 
issues  105154  
G/AG/N/CAN/157  Paraguay  Canada  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  105126  
G/AG/N/CRI/90  Canada  Costa Rica  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  105127  
G/AG/N/CRI/90  Paraguay  Costa Rica  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  105150  
G/AG/N/PAN/67  Canada  Panama  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  105158 * 
G/AG/N/PAN/67  European Union  Panama  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  105153 * 
G/AG/N/USA/168  Canada  United 
States of 
America  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  105159  
G/AG/N/USA/168  Switzerland  United 
States of 
America  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  105161  
G/AG/N/USA/168  United Kingdom  United 
States of 
America  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  105155  
G/AG/N/TPKM/223  Canada  Chinese 
Taipei  MA:5 - Annual summary 
of SSG action  Transparency 
issues  105128  
G/AG/N/AUS/142  India Australia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105110  
G/AG/N/AUS/142  India Australia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS Non-product -
specific AMS  105109  
G/AG/N/BRA/63  China  Brazil  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105129 * 
G/AG/N/BRA/74  Japan, United 
Kingdom  Brazil  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105072  
G/AG/N/BRA/74  Canada  Brazil  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105130  
G/AG/N/BRA/74  United States of 
America  Brazil  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding  for 
food security 
purposes  105055  
G/AG/N/BRA/74  European Union  Brazil  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Article 6.2 
(Special and 
Differential 
Treatment /  
Development 
Programmes)  105138  
G/AG/N/BRA/74  United Kingdom, 
Canada, United 
States of 
America, 
European Union, 
New Zealand  Brazil  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Article 6.2 
(Special and 
Differential 
Treatment / 
Development 
Programmes)  105011  
G/AG/N/BRA/74  Australia  Brazil  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt su pport - Current 
total AMS  Investment 
subsidies 
generally 
available to 
agriculture  105135  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 27 - 
 
  Document symbol  Question  by Answer  by Notification  Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/BRA/74  Canada  Brazil  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Other product -
specific 
AMS/EMS  105136  
G/AG/N/CHN/62  United States of 
America, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Thailand, 
Canada, 
European Union  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105056  
G/AG/N/CHN/65  United States of 
America, 
Paraguay, 
Thailand, 
Canada, 
European Union  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105058  
G/AG/N/CHN/65  United States of 
America, 
Paraguay, Japan, 
Australia, 
Thailand, 
Canada , 
European Union  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105057  
G/AG/N/COL/74  Australia  Colombia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Investment 
subsidies 
generally 
available to 
agriculture  105125  
G/AG/N/IND/13  European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105119  
G/AG/N/IND/18  Australia  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105122  
G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1  European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105121  
G/AG/N/IND/27  United States of 
America, Brazil, 
Japan, Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Thailand, 
Canada, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105038  
G/AG/N/IND/29  Canada  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2) 105137  
G/AG/N/IND/29  Canada  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105139  
G/AG/N/IND/29  European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including  Table 
DS:2)  105141  
G/AG/N/IND/29  Japan  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105074  
G/AG/N/IND/29  New Zealand  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105142  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Document symbol  Question  by Answer  by Notification  Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/IND/29  New Zealand  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105143  
G/AG/N/IND/29  Paraguay  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105151  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United Kingdom, 
Canada, Brazil, 
United States of 
America, 
Australia, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparenc y 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105010  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United  Kingdom, 
Canada, United 
States of 
America, 
Australia, 
European Union, 
New Zealand  India DS:1 - Exempt and non-
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105012  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Thailand, 
Canada, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105040  
G/AG/N/IND/29  Brazil  India DS:1 - Exempt and non-
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105124  
G/AG/N/IND/29  Japan  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105075  
G/AG/N/IND/29  Japan  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105076  
G/AG/N/IND/29  Paraguay  India DS:1 - Exempt and non-
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105152  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, 
Australia, 
Canada, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105045  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, Brazil, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Canada, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105043  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, Japan, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Thailand, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockhold ing for 
food security 
purposes  105044 * 
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Thailand, Canada  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105051  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 29 - 
 
  Document symbol  Question  by Answer  by Notification  Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Thailand, 
Canada, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105046  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Thailand, 
Canada, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105048  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Thailand, 
Canada, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105049  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Thailand, 
Canada, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105050  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Thailand, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public 
stockholding for 
food security 
purposes  105047  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, Brazil, 
Japan, Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Canada, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Input subsidies 
available to 
low-income or 
resource -poor 
producers  105041  
G/AG/N/IND/29  European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Market price 
support  105140  
G/AG/N/IND/29  Japan  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Market price 
support  105073  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, Brazil, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Thailand, 
Canada, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Market price 
support  105039  
G/AG/N/IND/29  Australia  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Market price 
support: 
Eligible 
production  105123  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, 
Canada, 
European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Non-product -
specific AMS  105042  
G/AG/N/NIC/60  Canada  Nicaragua  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105144  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Document symbol  Question  by Answer  by Notification  Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/PAN/66  Canada  Panama  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Scheduled 
commitment 
level 105160 * 
G/AG/N/PAN/66  Paraguay, United 
States of 
America, United 
Kingdom  Panama  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Scheduled 
commitment 
level 105156 * 
G/AG/N/PAN/66  Thailand  Panama  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Scheduled 
commitment 
level 105157 * 
G/AG/N/PRY/36  India Paraguay  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Domestic food 
aid 105114  
G/AG/N/PRY/36  India Paraguay  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Classification of 
measures  105115  
G/AG/N/THA/85  India Thailand  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Other product -
specific 
AMS/EMS  105117  
G/AG/N/GBR/11  India United 
Kingdom  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including  Table 
DS:2)  105118  
G/AG/N/USA/166  Australia  United 
States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  105146  
G/AG/N/USA/166  Australia  United 
States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  General 
services: 
infrastructural 
services  105145  
G/AG/N/USA/166  India United 
States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Direct 
payments: 
payments 
under 
environmental 
programmes  105116  
G/AG/N/USA/166  China  United 
States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Non-product -
specific AMS  105147  
G/AG/N/USA/166  New Zealand, 
China, Canada  United 
States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Classification of 
measures  105017  
G/AG/N/GBR/18  Australia, New 
Zealand  United 
Kingdom  DS:2 - New or modified 
DS Direct 
payments: 
structural 
adjustment 
assistance 
provided 
through 
investment aids  105148  
G/AG/N/GBR/18  Australia  United 
Kingdom  DS:2 - New or modified 
DS Classification of 
measures  105149  
G/AG/N/COL/77  United States of 
America  Colombia  ES:1 - Export subsidies  Transparency 
issues  105063  
G/AG/N/KOR/90  Australia  Korea, 
Republic of  ES:1 - Export subsidies  Special and 
differential 
treatment 
(Article 9.4)  105134  
G/AG/N/KOR/90  Thailand  Korea, 
Republic of  ES:1 - Export subsidies  Special and 
differential 
treatment 
(Article 9.4)  105133  
G/AG/N/CAN/156  European Union  Canada  NF:1 - NFIDC Decision  Quantity and 
concessionality 
of food aid  105132  
G/AG/N/USA/167  European Union  United 
States of 
America  NF:1 - NFIDC Decision  NFIDC  105131  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Table 3 - Questions raised under agenda item "Overdue notifications"  
Question by  Answer by  ID 
India Thailand  105113  
India Uruguay  105112  
Table 4 - Questions raised under agenda item "Defer red replies"  
Specific Implementation Matters (Article 18.6 ) 
Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID 
Angola's import policies  European Union  105019 * 
Australia – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  105166 * 
Australia  – Import duties in excess of the bound rates applied on 
agricultural goods  Russian Federation  105167 * 
Canada – Import duties in excess of the bound rate s applied on 
agricultural goods  Russian Federation  105169  
Canada – Prohibitions and restrictions on agricultural machinery 
supplies  Russian Federation  105170  
European Union – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related 
services  Russian Federation  105171  
European Union – Prohibitions and restrictions on agricultural 
machinery supplies  Russian Federation  105172  
European Union – Prohibitions on road freight transport  Russian Federation  105173  
European Un ion – Prohibitions on access to ports  Russian Federation  105174  
Iceland  – Restrictions  on agricultural -and agriculture -related -services  Russian Federation  105175 * 
Iceland – prohibitions and restrictions on agricul tural machinery 
supplies  Russian Federation  105176 * 
Iceland – Prohibitions on road freight transport  Russian Federation  105177 * 
Iceland – Prohibitions on access to ports  Russian Federation  105178 * 
Japan – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  105179  
Japan – Prohibitions and restrictions on agricultur al machinery supplies  Russian Federation  105180  
New Zea land – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related 
services  Russian Federation  105181  
New Zealand – Import duties in excess of the bound rates applied on 
agricultural goods  Russian Federation  105182  
New Zealand – prohibitions and restrictions on agricultural machinery 
supplies  Russian Federation  105183  
Norway – Prohibitions and restrictions on agricultu ral machinery 
supplies  Russian Federation  105184 * 
Norway  – Prohibitions on road freight transport  Russian Federation  105185 * 
Norway – Prohibitions on access to ports  Russian Federation  105186 * 
United Kingdom – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related 
services  Russian Federation  105187  
United Kingdom – Import duties in excess of the bou nd rates applied 
on agricultural goods  Russian Federation  105188  
United Kingdom's banking and financial restrictions  Russian Federation  105162  
United States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related 
services  Russian Federation  105189  
United States – Import duties in excess of the boun d rates applied on 
agricultural goods  Russian Federation  105190  
Côte d'Ivoire  – Tax on imported spirits  European Union  105032 * 
Philippines' implementation of tariff quotas  United States of 
America  105013  
Philippines' implementation o f tariff quotas  United States of 
America  105006  
Philippines – Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Cle arance (SPSIC) 
Permits  United States of 
America  105014  
Philippines – Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) 
permits  United States of 
America  105015  
Philippines – Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) 
permits  United States of 
America  105016  
South Africa's import measures on poultry meat  United Kingdom, 
European Union  105037  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Questions raised in connection with individual notifications  
Document 
symbol  Question by  Answer 
by Notification 
Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/PHL/27  United States of 
America  Philippines  MA:4 - Price-based 
SSG Transparency 
issues  105054  
Table 5 - Questions related to "Export Competition"  
Question by  Answer by  ID 
United  States  of America  Argentina  105059  
European Union  China  105079  
European Union  China  105080 * 
United States of America  China  105062  
United States of America  China  105065  
United States of America  China  105069 * 
Canada  Dominican Republic  105081 * 
United States of America, 
Australia  Egypt  105066 * 
Canada  European Union  105082  
United States of America  European Union  105067  
United States of America  Ghana  105068 * 
United States of America  Guyana  105071 * 
Canada  India 105083  
United States of America  India 105052  
United States of America, Brazil, 
Canada  India 105053  
Canada  Indonesia  105084 * 
United States of America  Indonesia  105061 * 
United States of America  Japan  105064  
United States of America  Kazakhstan  105070 * 
Canada  Korea, Republic of  105085  
United States of America  Malaysia  105077  
European Union  Norway  105086 * 
Australia  Thailand  105087 * 
European Union  Türkiye  105088  
European Union  United Kingdom  105089  
European Union  United States  of America  105091  
European Union  United States of America  105092  
United States of America  Viet Nam  105060 * 
 
  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 33 - 
 
  ANNEX 3 
REPORT BY THE WORKING GROUP COORDINATOR  
1. Since the 27 -28 March 2023 Committee meeting, the Working Group (WG) held two meetings 
respectively on 17 April and 8 June 2023.  
2. Prior to both of those Working Group meetings, the Secretariat organised a workshop or technical 
expert session on select them es to inform the deliberations of the WG. The 17 April Working 
Group meeting was preceded by a workshop on productivity and resilience on 12 April. Similarly, 
an expert session of import finance was organized on 6 June to feed into the Working Group 
discus sions on 8 June.  
3. At both the Working Group meetings, Members also examined their responses to a Questionnaire 
finalized last December on LDC and NFIDC Members' food security need and challenges. 
Secretariat's rich background notes and presentations have a lso usefully informed the 
WG debates.  
4. Having almost traversed the mid -way into the overall work programme journey with the agreed 
finish line of end -November, the main question for our collective reflection now, therefore, is 
what could finally be harvest ed from this solid conversation which in turn can guide the 
Membership to deal with this and any future food crises.  
5. For the meeting today, I do not intend to delve into the technicality of discussions that we have 
had in the Working Group. I am rather wor king on a written report under my own responsibility 
to share some thoughts on the progress made under the work programme and a possible way 
forward. The report should be released early next week.  
6. You will have the opportunity to offer your initial though ts on the report at the Working Group 
meeting on 19 July.  
7. I also have an announcement to make which would entail a decision by the Committee today. 
As some of you may already be aware, I will be departing Geneva at the end of July this year 
and wouldn't th erefore be in a position to subsequently coordinate the Work programme.  The 
Committee may therefore appoint a new Coordinator today who could take over the 
responsibility of the WG Coordinator immediately after my departure.  
8. I would like to thank you all for your confidence and trust reposed in me all this time for which 
I am very grateful.  I would also like to warmly commend the contribution of various international 
organizations, several of which are observers to this Committee, for enriching the Work 
Programme debates, including through written contributions which we would take up shortly.  
9. With that, I conclude my report.  
 
  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 34 - 
 
  ANNEX 4 
CHAIR REPORT ON THE INFORMAL COA MEETING OF 6 JUNE 2023  
Members considered two items at the Informal CoA meeting on 6 June 2023.  
1. Under the agenda item on 'Agricultural Notifications and Improving Transparency' , 
Members considered the European Union non-paper on  "Better Tools for Sharing Information on 
Policies in Agriculture " and a submission by China in G/AG/W/232  on 'Streamlining Agricultural 
Notifications and Improving Transparency' . Both China and the EU indicated that their papers 
addressed similar issues and expressed a preference for an incremental approach taking up 
specific elements, such as the ES :1 notification as proposed by the Chair, where progress c ould 
be achieved relatively swiftly. Some comments were also made on other elements of the two 
submissions. On the issue of possible overlap between TRQ notifications in the CoA and the 
information submitted on TRQs to the Committee on Import Licensing, on e Member favored 
achieving the required improvements in the agricultural MA1 notification first, so as to effectively 
monitor the implementation of the Bali TRQ Decision, before moving on to examining the issue 
of notifications overlap across the two Commi ttees. A point was also made about the need to 
have the notified information on international food aid under the ES and NF notifications and the 
ECQ at one place possibly through a Secretariat compilation. One Member alluded to the usual 
critical circumsta nces in which governments invoke export restrictions and suggested caution in 
approaching any further strengthening of the existing ER transparency, whereas another 
Member sought special consideration of LDCs and NFIDCs both in their imposition of, as well  as 
in addressing the impact thereon, of export restrictions by others. The need to avoid additional 
administrative burden for developing countries in the transparency debate was also highlighted.  
2. Members also examined the  specific  suggestions by the Chair  (contained in document ICN/AG/2 ) 
to align the existing  ES:1 notification requirement with the timelines stipulated in the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition. The Chair's suggestions fundamentally entailed converting the 
existing regular and annual ES :1 notification requirement , starting from 2024 and onwards, into 
a 'positive ' obligation to submit an ES :1 notification only reporting on the actual use of export 
subsidies rather than obliging all Members, as currently, to also submit a confirmatory 'nil' ES :1 
statement when such subsidies were not provided. The Chair considered the latter to be 
superfluous wh en the Nairobi Decision, post -2024, would already prohibit most Members from 
using such subsidies.  
3. There was a general willingness among Members to go along with the thrust of the Chair's 
proposed approach and suggestions on the ES :1 notification requirem ent. Members emphasized 
the need that such proposals have to be based on a clear understanding that Members remain 
fully committed to the fulfilment  of their outstanding ES:1 notifications, as required under 
G/AG/2 , until the reporting year 2023, an d a timely submission of annual responses to the Export 
Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) by all Members. One Member also proposed that the 
elimination of the ES :1 'nil' statement requirement should be made contingent on the submission 
of outstanding ES:1 no tifications and timely ECQ responses. Simultaneously, some Members 
saw value in the retention of the 'nil' export subsidy statement to provide assurance that the 
prohibition on the provision of agricultural export subsidies was indeed adhered to; these 
Members were open to address such a statement either via the ECQ or through a streamlined 
export competition notification format to be developed. The Chairperson, taking the various 
suggestions into account, proposed the continuation of the ES :1 discussion at  the next informal 
CoA meeting on 27 June, based on a revised draft which he would circulate in advance of that 
meeting. The Chair fully shared the sentiments in the room about the need for making dedicated 
efforts in the CoA to fulfil outstanding ES:1 not ification obligations until the reporting 
year 2023.Referring to some of the drafting suggestions from the floor, the Chair requested 
Members to reflect on whether or not the proposed decision on the elimination of the nil ES:1 
statement requirement, which  originates in the new obligations arising from the Nairobi Decision, 
has to be conditional on the submission by a Member of outstanding ES :1 notifications. He 
suggested that the Chair and the Secretariat could also start a motivated 'campaign' and 
sensiti zation in the Committee, to urge Members to submit their outstanding ES:1 notifications 
and timely responses to the ECQ. Such a campaign would also include the opportunity for G/AG/R/106  
 
- 35 - 
 
  Members to receive support from the Secretariat in case they needed advice or su pport to fulfil 
their reporting requirements.  
4.  Under the second agenda item, Members continued their engagement on the 'Functioning of 
the Committee on Agriculture ' based on a tabular compilation summary of their suggestions 
prepared by the Secretariat as contained in annex to ICN/AG/2. The Chair also reminded 
Members about the several improvements which had been introduced over the years in the work 
and mechanises of the Committee pursuant to the 2009 -2011 work programme to improve 
transparency and timelin ess and completeness of notifications launched pursuant to a 
communication to this effect from the then Chairman the General Council to the Chairs of all 
WTO Councils and Committees. He also acknowledged the new context (of WTO reform) for the 
ongoing disc ussions on this theme.  
5. Among some specific issues raised in the discussions, and which the Chair advised the 
Secretariat to include suitably in a revised version of the tabular summary, included i) the 
request for a 'style manual' containing an explanation  of the different types of the CoA document 
symbols to be integrated in the delegate manual currently prepared by the Secretariat; 
ii) exploring linkage between the Q&A database of the CoA and a house -wide STC database; and 
iii) closure of agenda of the Co A and the circulation of convening airgram 15 and 14 days prior 
to the meeting respectively (compared to the corresponding 11 - and 10 -days rule implemented 
currently).  
6. Several Members raised the issues of improvement of the existing digital tools (AG -IMS),  and 
more specifically an expeditious finalization of the ongoing AG -IMS domestic support reporting 
functionality by the Secretariat, and the scheduling and planning of WTO meetings to minimize 
conflict across different bodies. Some cross -cutting suggestio ns such as the use of interactive 
meetings calendars and the use of annotated agenda also came up in the discussions. Several 
Members appreciated the current CoA practice of a detailed convening airgram and the 
accompanying background documents to facilita te the conduct of Committee meetings. The 
Secretariat presented some ideas for Members' consideration of a possible annotated agenda 
which could explain the different agenda items under the Convening Airgram and relate those 
to the relevant background info rmation contained either in various attachments of the Airgram 
or in separate documents released together with the Airgram. The Secretariat later shared the 
draft with all Members which it would use for the 27 -28 June 2023 CoA meeting on a trial basis 
for its further consideration and improvement. The Chair added that this indicative annotated 
agenda would not have formal status in the conduct of the upcoming CoA meeting.  
  G/AG/R/106  
 
- 36 - 
 
  ANNEX 5 
CHAIR REPORT ON THE INFORMAL COA MEETING OF 27 JUNE 2023  
Members considered three items at the Informal CoA meeting on 27 June 2023.  
1. Under the agenda item on 'Agricultural Notifications and Improving Transparency' , 
Members examined a revised draft proposa l by the Chair (in RD/AG/109 ) so as to align the 
existing  ES:1 notification requirement with the obligations and associated timelines stipulated in 
the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. Compared to the earlier suggestions by the Chair 
(in ICN/AG/2 ), the revised draft proposed that from the reporting year 2024 and onwards when 
all Members, except LDCs and NFIDCs, would be prohibited from applying export subsides, a 
Member not using export subsidies should submit an  ES:1 'Nil' statement notification only once 
which would be presumed to be valid for subsequent reporting years unless otherwise notified.  
Simultaneously, a system of supporting background documentation by the Secretariat  was 
proposed to enable a robust follow -up on these multi -year 'Nil' statements under the review 
process of the Committee on Agriculture. The revised approach sought to answer the concern 
raised at the 6 June Informal CoA meeting in relation to the difficulty in distinguishing Members 
who wouldn't submit an ES :1 notification  in the absence of the use of export subsidy from those 
who would have outstanding or delayed ES :1 notifications.  The Chair also explained that the 
presumption of continued validity of Membe rs' 'Nil' Statements beyond the actual year of 
notification was grounded in the obligations stemming from the Nairobi Decision which Members 
are required to abide by.  The Chair also recalled that under the WTO transparency and 
monitoring system , Member s are rarely required  to submit notifications every year simply stating 
it did not apply a measure inconsistent with the rules.  
2. There was a general willingness among Members to go along with the thrust of the Chair's 
revised approach and suggestions on the ES :1 notification requirement so as to achieve the 
coherence between ES transparency requirements and Members' export subsidies obligations. 
Some Members expressed their preference to integrate the obligation to fulfil outstanding ES:1 
notification obligation s until the reporting year 2023 in the same draft decision, and to enable 
the submission of a 'Nil' ES :1 statement post -2024 via the Export Competition 
Questionnaire  (ECQ). There were also a few suggestions of editorial or presentational nature. 
One Member  also raised the issue of presumption of universal alignment between Members' legal 
obligations and their actual practices. Taking into account the discussions during the 27 June 
Informal CoA meeting, the Chair circulated a revised draft in RD/AG/109/Rev.1  for Members' 
consideration at the 27 -28 June formal CoA meeting.   
3. Members also considered the written submissions on transparency matters by China 
(G/AG/W/232 ), Costa Rica ( G/AG/W/230 ) and the European Union (RD/AG/110 ). Costa Rica  
presented its submission dealing with  the transparency of TRQ administration and more 
specifically to enable the implementation of obligations arising from the Bali TRQ Decision via 
the Table MA:1 format.  The proposal included specific drafting suggestions to the existing MA:1 
format, inter alia  on the number of TRQ administering entities, licensed quantities, and 
processing of applications, to enable Members to include the required information on the 
implementation of paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Ba li TRQ Decision  in their MA:1 notifications . The 
Chair also acknowledged ongoing engagement among some Members on transparency in a small 
group brainstorming setting.   
4. Members welcomed discussions around the transparency of tariff quotas and expressed thei r 
willingness to examine the specific suggestions contained in the Costa Rican submission.  A point 
was made by a Member that a prior examination of issues around TRQ administration and 
experience sharing should precede discussions on altering TRQ notificat ion formats. That 
Member also raised a systemic question on whether every commitment should be translated into 
a notification requirement. Another set of Members favored an incremental or step -by-step 
approach on transparency and sought to prioritize trans parency improvements especially in 
areas that they considered have a direct bearing on global food security, for example in the 
domain of export competition or food aid. These Members also reaffirmed their commitment to 
engage on all transparency issues. Another Member underlined that efforts towards streamlining G/AG/R/106  
 
- 37 - 
 
  of transparency requirements would be useful only when the scope of such transparency 
obligations was first aligned with the existing commitments. It was also suggested that there 
might be no usefu l purpose served in the current transparency discussions by proposing a 
hierarchy among various objectives, be it food security or sustainability or some others. The 
Chair urged Members to pragmatically engage on the various issues put on the table while a lso 
keeping in mind the scope of discussions in the regular and special sessions of the Committee 
and the ongoing discussions under the CoA food security work programme. The Chair also urged 
Members to continue their engagement in bilateral or group settin g on the various transparency 
ideas and suggestions.   
5. Under the second agenda item, Members continued their engagement on the 'Functioning of 
the Committee on Agriculture ' based on a revised tabular compilation summary of their 
suggestions prepared by the Secretariat in RD/AG/111 . The Chair also recalled the ongoing 
improvements in the functioning of the Committee, including through the reliance on 
ICN/AG/  document for convening informal meetings or the draft annotated agenda shared for 
the first time for the June CoA meeting in RD/AG/112 on a trial basis.  
6.  Members welcome the Secretariat's draft annotated agenda in RD/AG/112  as being useful for 
their work and looked forward to that becoming a recurrent practice. On the proposed issue of 
the closure of agenda of the CoA and the circulation of convening airgram 15 and 14 days prior 
to the meeting respectively , some Members highlighted the need for a desired balance between 
the adequacy of preparatory time for responding Members vis -à-vis the availability of time -
window for questioning Members. The possible role of the AG -IMS to enable Members to pose 
questions early was also noted in the discussions . The issue of exploring enhanced accessibility 
and efficiency across Secretariat's STC or Q&A databases also came up. Similarly, the discussions 
touched the issue of reliance on interactive meeting calendar and expeditious distribution of 
documents. The S ecretariat was suggested to continue its efforts on the improvement of the 
AG-IMS and its reporting functions, and to regularly report to the CoA on the ongoing discussions 
in the CTG on the functioning of committees.  
7. Under the third agenda item, Members welcomed the Secretariat's presentation on the report 
'A Year of Turbulence on Food and Feed Markets '. Members attached importance to the 
trade monitoring work and reports. Several Members emphasized the need not to pursue policies 
which could have destabi lizing effect on international food markets especially under the current 
global food security challenges. Suggestions were also made for the CoA (or the CoASS) to take 
up and organize discussions on the relevant content of the periodic trade monitoring rep orts  
8. The delegation of Korea announced about the organization of a Green Revolution Workshop in 
the afternoon  of 19 July 2023 t o support the ongoing food security work programme.  
 
 
__________