RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/104  
 
17 January  2023 
(23-0412) Page: 1/28 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21-22 NOVEMBER  2022  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Agriculture (CoA) held its one hundred th and third (103rd) regular meeting 
on 21 -22 November 2022 under the Chairpersonship of Mr. Marcel Vernooij of the Netherlands.  
1.2.  The agenda contained in the convening airgram WTO/AIR/AG/64 circulated on 
11 November  2022 was adopted with the following changes : 
• Under Agenda item 1 - Review Process:  
− Australia withdrew its quest ion to the Russian Federation concerning its NF:1 notification 
(AG-IMS ID  103129 ) 
− The following questions were co-sponsor ed after the issuance of the convening airgram : 
 
AG-IMS 
ID SIM # Specific Implementation Matter 
(SIM) /Notification concerned  Question by  Co-sponsor(s)  
103029  743 India's other support for rice  United States of America, 
Canada, Japan, Thailand, Brazil, 
Paraguay, Uruguay, Australia  New Zealand ; 
European Union  
103028  767 India's export restriction measures 
on rice  United States of America, 
Canada, Japan, Switzerland, 
United  Kingdom, Paraguay, 
Australia  New Zealand ; 
European Union  
103027  784 India's food security policies  United States of America, Japan, 
Paraguay  New Zealand  
103025  525 India's public stockpiling  United States of America, 
Canada, Japan, Thailand, Brazil, 
Paraguay, Uruguay, Australia  New Zealand ; 
European Union  
103026  525 India's public stockpiling  United States of America, 
Canada, Japan, Thailand, 
Ukraine, Brazil, Paraguay, 
Uruguay, Australia  New Zealand ; 
European Un ion 
103066 , 
103067 , 
103068  782 European Union, Norway, Iceland – 
Prohibitions on access to ports   Russian Federation  Nicaragua; Venezuela, 
Bolivarian Republic of  
103048  710 Argentina's export restrictions  United Kingdom, Switzerland, 
Japan, New Zealand  European Union  
103060  744 India's export restrictions on  wheat  United Kingdom, Switzerland, 
Ukraine  European Union  
103054  729 Türkiye's export restrictions on 
agricultural products  United Kingdom, Switzerland, 
Japan, New Zealand  European Union  
103058  - Malaysia's Table ER:1 notification 
(G/AG/N/MYS/52/Add.1)  United Kingdom, Switzerland, 
Japan  European Union  
103023  766 Ecuador's new milk law  United States of America, New 
Zealand, Australia  European Union  
 
• Indonesia requested t he addition , under 'Other Business' (item 2G),  of a letter2 that it, 
together with 13 other Members, wrote to the European Union (EU) regarding the EU's 
proposal for a regulation on deforestation -free products . 
 
 
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.  
2 Later circulated as G/AG/GEN/213.  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 2 - 
 
  • The Chairperson proposed that a fter the consideration of the item on 'Work Programme 
pursuant to paragraph 8 of the MC12 Declaration on food insecurity ' under 2 B(ii) , the 
remaining items  under  agenda  2B(ii) , (iii) and (iv) would be taken up together in view of 
overlap across th ose item s. 
1.3.  Additionally, the Chairperson acknowledged the following written submission s circulated after 
the issuance of the convening airgram , for consideration under - "Implementation of Ministerial 
Outcomes " (item 2B) : G/AG/GEN/209  by the Food and Agriculture Organization  (FAO), 
G/AG/GEN/210  by the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture  (IICA), and 
G/AG/GEN/211  by the International Monetary Fund  (IMF).  
2  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
2.1.  The Chairperson urged Members to provide timely and complete r esponses to questions raised 
under the Committee's review process and to submit them through the Agriculture Information 
Management System (AG -IMS)3 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 around 15 % of the questions raised for th e meeting had been 
co-sponsored by at least one Member.  
2.2.  The Chairperson noted that for the meeting, as of 9 am, 21 November  2022, 48 out of the 
146 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.  
2.3.  The Secretariat continued its practice o f ascertaining the attendance of Members subject to 
advance questions prior to Committee meetings. No delegation  had informed the Secretariat of their 
absence at the November  meeting.  
2.1  Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the reform programme 
- Article 18.6  
2.4.  A total of 54 specific implementation matters (SIMs) were raised at the 103rd CoA meeting 
under Article 18.6.4 Out of the 54 SIMs, 29 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 1 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.  
2.2  Review of Notifications  
2.5.  The Chairperso n reported that since the previous Committee meeting held on 
14-15 September  2022, 94 notifications had been received. Out of those notifications, 1 6 related to 
market access, 31 concerned domestic support, 43 related to export competition, 1 concerned 
export prohibitions or restrictions, and 3 were  net food -importing developing country  (NF) 
notification s. Those notifications had been distributed electronically to all delegations and were 
available for consultation through the  AG-IMS. 
2.2.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram  
2.6.  Table 2 of Annex 1  to this report  lists questions relating to individual notifications raised in 
advance of the issuance of the convening airgram.5 Members' responses and follow -up comments 
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 http://agims.wto.org/ . 
4 WTO/AIR/AG/ 64, Section A of Attachment  1. The full version of the questions raised can be found 
under Section 1 of the compilation document in G/AG/W/2 26. 
5 WTO/AIR/AG/ 64, Section B of Attachment  1. The full version of the questions raised can be found 
under Section 2 of the compilation document in G/AG/W/2 26. G/AG/R/104  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.2.2   Overdue notifications  
2.7.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat doc ument summarizing the status of Members' 
compliance with notification obligations .6 
2.8.  The Chairperson acknowledged Members' efforts to bring their notifications up to date, noting 
that several Members had submitted  notifications covering multiple years sinc e the September  2022 
meeting, including:  
• Mongolia : Table DS:1 covering the years 2007 -2021;  
• Pakistan : Table DS:1 covering the years 2012 to 2015, Table ES:1 concerning 2013 to 
2020 and Table ES:2 covering 2014 to 2021, and  
• Djibouti : Table ES:1 covering 1 3 implementation years for the period 1995 -2019.  
2.9.  The Chairperson also drew Members' attention to the overall situation with respect to 
outstanding domestic support and export subsidy notifications for the period 1995 to 2020:  
• 931 Table  DS:1 domestic support notifications remained outstanding; and  
• 935 export subsidy notifications in the Table ES:1 series remained outstanding.  
2.10.   One question w as raised under this agenda item.7 The concerned Member 's response and 
follow -up comments can be accessed through the hyperlinks contained in Table 3 of Annex 1  to this 
report  or through the AG -IMS using the relevant question ID number.  
2.11.   Paraguay  informed the Committee that  its Table  ES:1 and DS:1  notifications  for 2020 and 
2021 had been  circulated  after the issuance of the convening  airgram. Paraguay also thanked the 
Secretariat for th e assistance it received for the preparation of these notifications.  
2.12.   On outstanding ES:1 notifications , the Chairperson referred to the suggestion made by the 
Secretariat  in its presentation8 to the informal CoA meeting on 27 October  2022 to allow Members 
with outstanding ES notifications to announce no recourse to agricultural export subsidies in the 
Committee in order to fulfil their outstanding ES:1 notifications for the relevant years.  The proposed 
oral announcement of "nil" export subsidies at Committee meetings should be deemed as an 
additional avenue for Members to fulfil outstanding ES:1 notificati on obligations along with the ir 
existing submi ssion of  notification s via the Central Registry of Notifications (CRN).  
2.13.   The E uropean Union (EU) supported the idea of streamlining  export subsid y notifications. It 
considered that until the elimination of export subsidies in accordance with the timelines in the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition , Members should continue to submit Table  ES:1 notifications , 
including in the form of Supporting Table ES:2 by developi ng country Members for export subsidies 
under Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, in a transparent  manner.  The EU considered that 
transparency in the use of Article 9.4 flexibility was also important for discussions within the work 
programme pursu ant to paragraph 8 of the MC12 Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food 
Insecurity . The EU viewed the Secretariat's suggestion as a practica l way to facilitate the reporting 
of "nil" export subsidies , but stresse d the importance of monitoring by the Committee to ensure that  
any inconsistent use of export subsidies was not overlooked.  
2.14.   Costa Rica supported the Chairperson's proposal to facilitate reduction of outstanding 
ES:1 notifications. Costa Rica also highlighted  the importance fo r the Committee to  be able to review  
the "nil" ES:1  notification s from Members' oral announcements at Committee meetings.  
2.15.   Switzerland  considered that Members with outstanding ES:1 notifications , and  who did not 
apply export subsidies , should submit a "nil"  statement . Switzerland expressed openness to consider 
one "nil" statement covering multiple  years if no export subsidies  were provided during t hat entire 
period. Switzerland supported the idea of Members' announcing non -recourse to export subsidies at 
Committee meetings; it simultaneously  noted that the utility of this avenue in addressing 
 
6 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.4 7 circulated on 11 November 2022 . 
7 The details of the question  raised can be found under Section 3 of the compilation document  in 
G/AG/W/2 26. 
8 RD/AG/96.  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 4 - 
 
  outstanding export subsidy notifications would depend on the actual attendance of the concerned 
delegat ions at Committee meetings and their capacity to make such 'nil' statement s. 
2.16.   The Secretariat clarified that the proposed new avenue of oral announcement of "nil" export 
subsidies at Committee meetings only entails a simpler procedure for Members to report non -use of 
export subsidies . After such announcement by a Member in  the Committee, the Secretariat would 
do the required follow -up with the CRN on behalf of that Member  to release the relevant 'nil' 
Table  ES:1 notification.  
2.17.   In the absence of  any objection, the Chairperson announced  that, starting with the next 
Committee meeting  in March 2023 , a sub-item on "Outstanding ES:1 notifications - announcement 
by delegations of no recourse to export subsidies " would be included under the agenda item on 
"Overdue notifications"  for the  report ing of 'nil' export subsidies by Members .  
2.18.   In closing th e agenda item, t he Chairperson emphasized the importance of transparency and 
timely notifications and encouraged Members to fulfil their notification obligations.  
2.2.3   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
2.19.   The Committee took note of the 7 6 notifications circulated before the issuance of the 
convening airgram on 11 November  2022, including notifications carried over from the September 
2022 meeting, but in respect of which no questions had been raised by that date, under paragraph  9 
of the Committee's working procedures.9 
2.2.4   Notifications circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram  
2.20.   The Committee took note  of the 7 notification s circulated after the issuance of the convening 
airgram on 11 November  2022:  
• Paraguay : Table ES:1 for 2020 and 2021 ; 
• China : Table ES:1 and ES:2 for 2020 and 2021 ; and 
• United States  of America:  Table NF:1 for 2020 . 
 
2.21.   These notification s would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the working procedures.  
2.2.5   Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: informati on regarding outcome where the issue involved is one of 
general interest  
2.22.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
2.2.6   Counter -notifications under Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture  
2.23.   No counter -notifications under Article 18.7 were made for this Committee meeting.  
2.3  Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process  
2.24.   The Secretariat document G/AG/W/204/Rev. 8 lists questions raised under the CoA  review 
process from 2013 to 202 1 where responses remain outstanding.  As of 10 November 2022, a total 
of 129 questions still had outstanding responses  from 43 Members  for the period 2013 -2020. 
2.25.   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 ha s introduced 
a feature in the AG -IMS to generate automatic reminders to Members with outstanding responses.  
 
9 WTO/AIR/AG/ 64, Section C of Attachment  1. G/AG/R/104  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE  
3.1  Annual consultation under Article 18.5 of the Agreement on Agric ulture, with respect 
to Members' participation in the normal growth of world trade in agricultural products 
within the framework of the commitments on export subsidies.  
3.1.  The Chairperson recalled that Article 18 .5 provided for Members to consult annually wi th 
respect of their participation in the normal growth of world trade in agricultural products within the 
framework of commitments on export subsidies. Pursuant to the Committee's Working Procedures, 
the annual consultation was undertaken at the November r egular meeting s of the Committee. The 
Chairperson noted that the main basis for the consultations "within the framework of the 
commitments on export subsidies" consisted of  notifications in the area of export subsidy.  These 
notifications (namely Tables ES: 1, ES:2 and ES:3) respectively covered export subsidies, total 
export volumes, and international food aid. In that sense, Members' compliance with their 
notification obligations in the export subsidy area were crucial to enable the Committee to undertake 
the consultations.  
3.2.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat's revised background document for this exercise.10 
The Secretariat introduced the document which provided data on export volumes and shares in world 
exports, for selected agricultural products/pr oduct groups covering the period from 201 1 to 202 1.11 
In terms of product coverage, the document covered all 22 products or group of products listed in 
G/AG/2 for the Committee's monitoring of Members' implementation of export subsidy 
commitments.  
3.3.  Brazil w elcomed the document and noted that after the Nairobi Decision  on Export Competition , 
the focus of discussions should now be on production subsidies given through domestic support as 
it saw a clear correlation between the share of some Members in global ex ports of agricultural 
products and the amount  of domestic support they provide d to such products. Brazil noted that the 
there was a risk that domestic support could become de facto  export subsidies arising from excessive 
product -specific concentration of support , often above de minimis  levels.  
3.2  Implementation of Ministerial outcomes  
3.2.1   Bali Ministerial Decision on TRQ (WT/MIN(13)/39) – First triennial review pursuant 
to paragraph 3 of G/AG/29   
3.4.  The Chairperson st ated that paragraph 3 of the recommendations from the Review of the 
operation of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration approved by the General Council at its meeting 
on 9-10 December 2019 (Annex 2 to G/AG/29) provided for the Committee to undertake  reviews of 
the operation of the Bali TRQ Decision every three years after the conclusion of the 2019 Review. 
The first such triennial review accordingly commenced in 2022.  
3.5.  The Chairperson noted that Members could devote targeted attention to the first triennial 
review and the specific issues that they would wish to consider thereunder only after the successful 
conclusion , in March 2022,  of the discussion on the future operation of paragraph 4 of the underfill 
mechanism. Based on the discussion s on those  issues at the informal CoA meetings in June, 
September, October and November 2022, a draft report of the review was shared with Members in 
RD/AG/95 dated 10 November 2022; a revised version, incorporating Members' comments on the 
draft report, w as later circulated in RD/AG/95/Rev.1 dated 1 8 November 2022.  
3.6.  The Chairperson noted that the Committee had c onsidered the revised draft report during the 
informal CoA meeting  on 21 November. W hile some Members had  indicated their willingness to go 
along with the revised report in RD/AG/95/Rev.1, the general sentiment  among Members was to not 
rush the adoption of the report at th at meeting as they had not had sufficient time to examine the 
specific ideas put forth . 
3.7.  The committee accordingly agreed  to finalize the review at its next meeting in March 2023 . 
 
10 G/AG/W/32/Rev.21 and Corr.1.  
11 Except for fruits & vegetables and live animals for which export data was provided in value terms.  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.2.2   Ministerial Declaration on the emergency response to food insecurity 
(WT/MIN/(22)/28 – WT/L/1139)  
3.2.2.1   Work programme pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Declaration  
3.8.  The Chairperson noted tha t paragraph 8 of the Declaration on the Emergency Response to 
Food Insecurity provided for the establishment of a dedicated work programme under the auspices 
of the Committee to examine ways for the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on LDCs and NFIDCs to be 
made more effective and operational and to consider food security concerns and needs of th ose 
countries.  
3.9.  The Chairperson stated that Members had actively engaged on how to elaborate and implement 
the work programme in the Committee during  CoA meeting s from 27-28 June  to 
21-22 November  2022 with the  target  to agree  on thematic areas and a workplan in order to launch 
detailed technical engagement on the work programme. T he Chairperson stated that d uring the 
informal meeting on 21 November , the draft work programme containing the thematic outline and 
working methods  (RD/AG/97 of 15 November 2022 ) had received broad support across the 
Membership  as the working basis to commence detailed technical engagement u nder the work 
programme.  
3.10.   The Chair also recalled that  several Members at the 21 November informal meeting had not ed 
that RD/AG/97 was a good reflection of the collective progress made in the discussions under the 
work programme.  The discussions  at that meeting had also highlighted some elements of common 
understanding among Members on the working methodology  , includ ing on the following: a 
questionnaire was one of the tools to guide and inform the discussions  under the work programme; 
Members , including LDCs and NFIDCs , would regularly provide oral and written inputs and share 
their experiences in elaborating and implementing the work programme ; and international 
organizations may be invited to support the discussions , as appropriate . Similarly, Members  would 
engage under the work programme with the clarity that the venue of th e work programme is the 
Committee on Agriculture , as provided in Paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Declaration on Food 
Insecurity.  
3.11.   With this introduction, the Chair person  presented the draft work programme c ontained in 
RD/AG/97 for the Committee's consideration and approval  at its formal meeting on 
22 November  2022. The Committee approved the proposed work programme in RD/AG/97. The 
Committee also agreed to establish a single Working Group for the conduct of thematic discussions 
under the work programme and appointed the current Chairperson of the Committee to coordinate 
the Group's activities and discussions in his personal capacity.  The approved work programme was 
later circulated as G/AG/35.  
3.12.   Several Members  welcomed the efforts by the Chairperson, and the Secretariat in  facilitating 
an agreement among Members on the work programme.  They also welcomed the current CoA Chair 
to assume the role of the working group coordinator in his personal capacity.  
3.13.   Egypt welcomed the agreement in the Committee to establish the  work programme and hoped 
that the Committee could deliver a package of concrete and tangible solutions to one of the most 
significant current global challenges . Egypt believed that t he Committe e now had the opportunity to 
prove to the world that the WTO was able to contribute effectively to addressing  food security 
challenges and to deal with similar challenges in the future , including  by agreeing on suitable 
flexibilities to cope with food inse curity  as mandated by the MC12 Declaration . 
3.14.   Sri Lanka thanked Members for their constructive engagement and hoped that all delegations 
would maintain the same spirit throughout the subsequent thematic  engagement under the work 
programme.  
3.15.   The Chairperson thanked Members for their trust in him with the task of coordinating the 
working group in his personal capacity.  The Chair also underlined the overarching authority of the 
Committee on Agriculture in providing the required guidance to the working group and to consider 
its periodic reports on thematic deliberations. The Chair  suggest ed to hold the first meeting of the 
working group before the year -end to take up some organizational matters , including  the frequency 
of meetings, the scheduling of them atic d eliberations,  and to consider possible elements of a G/AG/R/104  
 
- 7 - 
 
  first questionnaire.12 The Chairperson  also noted that the Secretariat would prepare and share with 
Members a short overview of discussions in the Committee  and the progress made  under the work 
programme .13 
3.2.3   Annual monitoring exercise on the follow -up to the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision 
on LDCs and NFIDCs under Article 16.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture  
3.16.   After the consideration of the item on the work programme under paragraph 8 of the 
MC12  Declaration on food insecurity, and as was announced during the adoption of the agenda, the 
three items under 2 B(ii), (iii) and (iv) were taken up together in view of the overlap across them. 
The summary  of discussions on these three items is contained in  paragraphs 3.1 7 to 3.48 below.  
3.2.4   Ministerial Declaration on the WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic and 
preparedness for future pandemics  (WT/MIN/(22)/31 – WT/L/1142) - continuing 
engagement on ' COVID -19 and Agriculture'   
3.17.   The Chairperson explained that the  MC12 Declaration on food insecurity under agenda 2 B(ii) 
sought, in its paragraph 8 , to examine through a dedicated work programme how the Marrakesh 
NFIDC Decision could be made more effective and operational. Under agenda 2 B (iii), the Committee 
had to undertake the annual monitoring of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision under paragraph 18 of the 
Working Procedures of the Committee.  Since 2016, and pursuant to paragraph 32 of the 
Nairobi  Decision on Export Competition, the Committee was tasked  to review the pr ovisions on 
international food aid forming part of the Nairobi Decision within the CoA's annual monitoring of the 
NFIDC Decision. The Chairperson noted that d iscussion s on international food aid were also an 
important part of the follow -up to the Marrakesh  NFIDC Decision as well as under  the paragraph 8 
work programme. Finally,  the agenda 2 B  (iv) deal t with 'COVID -19 and Agriculture ' within the 
overall guidance of the MC12 Declaration on the WTO response to the COVID -19 Pandemics and 
Preparedness for Future Pandemics. The MC12 Declaration on the COVID -19 pandemic also 
recognize d the negative impact of the pandemic on food security of developing countries, especially 
the LDCs and NFIDCs among them.  For efficient and coherent deliberations on these matters, it 
might therefore be prudent to take up the three agenda items together. The Chairperson also noted 
that the content of the written  contributions by the observer international organizations also cut 
across th ose three items.  
3.18.   The Chairperson recalled that  following  the MC12 mandate for th e CoA  to carry out  a dedicated 
work programme on food security concerns of LDCs and NFIDCs, he had urged all donor Members  
to submit their Table NF:1 notifications well in advance of the November m eeting. Th ose notifications 
had always been a key input for the annual  monitor ing the implementation of the Marrakesh 
Decision , which is  undertaken at Novembe r CoA meetings pursuant to the Committee's working 
procedures . A formal reminder14 had been  circulated to Members on 26 October.  
3.19.   The Committee took note of  the following Table NF:1 notifications circulated s ince the previous 
annual NF monitoring exercise : 
• Canada : G/AG/N/CAN/152;  
• Japan : G/AG/N/JPN/266, G/AG/N/JPN/267, G/AG/N/JPN/268, G/AG/N/JPN/269;  
• New Zealand : G/AG/N/NZL/135;  
• Russian Federation : G/AG/N/RUS/36, G/AG/N/RUS/36/REV.1;  
• Switzerland : G/AG/N/CHE/118; and  
• United States of America : G/AG/N/USA/167.  
 
3.20.   The Chairperson noted that Table NF:1 notifications by Members were an important 
contribution to the annual monitoring exercise . Those notifications cover the following information: 
the quantity of food aid provided to LDCs and NFIDCs; an  indication of the proportion of food aid 
provided in fully grant form or appropriate concessional terms; technical and financial assistance 
 
12 The first meeting of the working group was held on 7 December  2022. At that meeting, Members 
finalized a questionnaire on food security needs and challenges of LDCs and NFIDC Members and their utilization 
of flexibilities  which was later circulated as G/AG/GEN/214.  
13 Later circulated as RD/AG/100.  
14 WTO/AIR/AG/63.  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 8 - 
 
  under paragraph 3(iii) of the Decision; and other relevant information with respect to actions taken 
within the fra mework of the Decision.  
3.21.   The Committee also took note of a revised background note circulated by the Secretariat on 
the implementation of the NFIDC Decision, to facilitate Members' consideration of th e agenda item.15 
The note sets out the substantive provis ions of the NFIDC Decision and provides information 
regarding their implementation. The Secretariat briefly introduced the document , highlight ing the 
main updates in the revised background note.  In the context of  discussions under the work 
programme pursua nt to paragraph 8 of the MC12 Declaration on food insecurity, t he Secretariat 
recalled the challenges with regard to the availability of the global food aid shipments data since the 
discontinuation of the World Food Programme (WFP)'s International Food Aid  Information System  
(INTERFAIS ) in 2014; previous revisions of the background note  in the G/AG/W/42 series  had 
included data on global food aid deliveries until the year 2014 based on the INTERFAIS.  
3.2.5   Contributions by Observer International Organizations  
3.22.   The Internal Grains Council (IGC)16, the World Food Programme (WFP)17, the Food and 
Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations (FAO)18, the Inter -American Institute for Cooperation 
on Agriculture (IICA)19, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)20 presented their written 
submissions. The World Bank also intervened under this agenda item.  
3.23.   The FAO referred to its publication "State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022" 
(SOFI) and noted that the  number of people affected by chronic hunger globally rose to 828 million 
in 2021, about 46 million more than 2020. The challenging food security situation was also reflected 
in high domestic food inflation in several countries  result ing from higher world prices, reduced 
domestic supplies of some commodities, national macroeconomic difficulties, currency depreciations, 
adverse weather conditions, as well as near -record high energy and fertilizer prices. The FAO added 
that due to higher internat ional food prices, the total food import bill of NFIDCs in 2022 was 
forecasted to increase by 21.7 billion USD from 2021, to 148.1 billion USD, mainly reflecting  higher 
unit imports costs rather than higher quantities.  That development was much more pronou nced in 
economically vulnerable regions , increasing  fiscal pressure on th ose countries, generat ing balance 
of payments problems and challeng ing their ability to purchase food supplies on the world market.  
The FAO considered that p ersistently high world foo d, fuel, and fertilizer prices, increasing financial 
constraints, and soaring food import bills would continue to pose significant challenges for food 
security and livelihoods in LDCs and NFIDCs . With that  background, the FAO recommended the 
following meas ures to ensure that world agricultural markets continue to function properly as a 
reliable source of food and crucial agricultural inputs at country level: (i) keeping food, feed and 
fertilizer markets open in line with the MC12  Declaration on food insecur ity; (ii) increasing market 
transparency by providing critical, timely and objective data and information ; (iii)  identifying the 
needs of LDCs and NFIDCs to enhance their capacity to respond to acute food crises ; (iv) increasing 
productivity and lowering trade costs  through public investment in research and development, 
transfer of technology and innovation, and access to high quality inputs , including seeds, fertilizers 
and machinery , and finances. The  FAO also referred to its actions and initiat ives, including , inter alia, 
through technical support and advocacy for financial instruments for LDCs and NFIDCs to access 
sufficient food (e.g. Food Import Financing Facility (FIFF)), an online 'Fertilizer Trade Tracker ' 
allowing countries to assess impo rt needs/export availabilities,  fertilizer 'neediness index' to facilitate 
access to fertilizers in Africa, and a joint FAO -WTO report  on fertilizers for the G20 Leaders.  
3.24.   The IICA noted that global food security had been threatened in recent years due to the 
COVID -19 pandemic, trade restrictions adopted by several  food exporting countries, the container 
crisis and the war in Ukraine. T he IICA reiterated its commitment to co ntribut e to the discussions in 
the Committee under the  recently launched  work programme pursuant to the Ministerial Declaration 
on the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity. It considered that delegations from the Latin 
American region , comprising both net  food exporting and importing countries , should be able to play 
a proactive part in the Committee's food security discussions. The IICA also briefed the Committee 
 
15 G/AG/W/42/Rev.2 3. 
16 G/AG/GEN/207.  
17 G/AG/GEN/208.  
18 G/AG/GEN /209.  
19 G/AG/GEN/210.  
20 G/AG/GEN/211.  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 9 - 
 
  on its technical cooperation activities contributing to food and nutrition security in its 34  Member 
countries . 
3.25.   The WFP stated that the world was facing the worst food crisis in modern history triggered by 
a combination of conflict, climate change and the devastating economic fallout from the COVID -19 
pandemic.  It noted that the outlook for 2023 w as equally alarming  where h igh oil and fertilizer prices 
would significantly affect the upcoming planting and harvest seasons . The WFP noted that net food 
importing countries were the most directly impacted by higher global food prices and developing 
count ries among them have the least options to cope with higher costs of essential food imports.  In 
June 2022, the WFP activated a 'Global Corporate Scale -up' to step -up direct food and nutrition 
assistance to save lives and prevent mortality during the global food crisis. The WFP was targeting 
to support a record 160 million food insecure people this year; it had thus far procured 3.8  million 
tonnes of food valued at 2.8 billion USD, a 27% increase in tonnage compared to the same period 
in 2020.  Local and regio nal food procurement continued to be of high importance given its positive 
impact on local and regional economies, producers,  and food systems.  The WFP again thanked the 
WTO and its Membership for the MC12 Decision to exempt WFP's food purchases from export 
restrictions , which  represented a significant enabler to WFP's timely purchase of food commodities . 
The WFP also referred to its contribution under the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI)  and noted that 
since the conclusion of an agreement on the Initiative, the WFP had procured 330 thousand metric 
tonnes of wheat from Ukraine intended for distribution to the hungriest in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, 
Somalia,  and Yemen. It welcomed the recent renewal of this initiative . The WFP advocated 
coordina tion across governments, financial institutions, the private sector and other stakeholders 
and partners to mitigate a  possibly more severe global food crisis in 2023 . 
3.26.   The IGC  noted that there should be ample supply of grains across the globe  in 2022/23 and 
the main question would be more ab out affordability. The IGC h ighlighted the importance of the 
Grain Corridor Initiative in stabilizing the global grains market by noting that the wheat price index 
decreased by 24% in two weeks after the Initiative was put in place . The IGC also highlighted  
currency exchange movements , stating that the recent appreciation of the US dollar  by over 30 % 
against major currencies had appreciated the cost of wheat at destination by about 32 %. Trade 
finance support would therefore be i mporta nt to avoid a shock contraction of demand in the coming 
year. The IGC noted its efforts and  several activities to better understand trade flow and forecasts 
in the Black Sea Region for the next marketing year. The IGC considered a possible decline in wheat 
seeding areas both in Ukraine and the Russian Federation. The Black Sea Region 's continu ed retreat 
from global wheat trade might be worrying for the next marketing year in 2023 -2024. The I GC 
stressed the need for Members to ensure that the Black Sea Region would continue to produce wheat  
and feed the global wheat market . The IGC also informed the Committee about its coming webinar s 
focussing on trade and logistics in the Black Sea area.  
3.27.   The IMF noted that it had be en supporting countries affected by food insecurity with its full 
range of financing instruments, policy advice and capacity building as well as by working with 
partners toward better regional and global solutions. This included efforts to help address pre ssures 
on external balances and fiscal situations that resulted from food shortages and elevated food prices. 
The IMF noted that a temporary Food Shock Window  had been  approved by the IMF Executive Board 
in September with a view to providing increased acce ss to emergency financing for those countries 
that had urgent balance of payments needs associated with the global food shock and for which a 
full-fledged IMF supported programme was not feasible nor necessary. To qualify, countries should 
meet the standar d qualifications required for emergency financing and demonstrate an urgent 
balance of payments need associated with the global food shock. The IMF also welcomed the 
prolongation of the Black Sea Grain Initiative.  
3.28.   The World Bank noted that the war in Ukrai ne, supply chain disruptions and the continued 
economic fallout of the COVID -19 pandemic had triggered a global crisis that would drive millions 
more into extreme poverty, magnifying hunger and malnutrition while threatening to erase hard 
won developmental  gains.  High food prices were particularly devastating for the poorest households 
which  typically spend two thirds of their income on food. The war had altered global patterns of 
trade, production and consumption in ways that would keep food and input prices at historically high 
levels through to 2024  potentially putting the next planting se ason in difficulty. The Bank cautioned 
against applying e xport cur bs on food which could further aggravate supply problems and lead to 
further rise in food prices and  emphasized the need to ensure  farmers' and fishermen's access to 
fuel and fertilizer for the next season. In order to build agricultural resilience against current and 
future food crises, the World Bank proposed the following  action points; i) re-examine governmental G/AG/R/104  
 
- 10 - 
 
  farm support and incentives so as to minimize trade and market distortions by potentially 
repurposing USD 639 billion of annual agricultural support ; ii) accelerating innovation through 
targeted agricultural research; iii) enhancing transparency and monitoring of food markets 
(e.g. Agriculture Market Information System (AMIS) ) through robust collaboration among 
governments ; and (iv) scale up investments. Referring to typical indebtedness of importing food 
defici ent countries, the World Bank proposed to combine debt sustainability measures through IMF 
support with investments to impr ove food security.  The World Bank Group , as part of a 
comprehensive global response to the current crisis, was making up to USD 30 billion available for 
a period of 15 months, including USD 12 billion of new projects, and USD 18.7 billion of existing 
portfolio. The Bank referred to its efforts to increase crisis preparedness and response capacity of 
low-income countries  in the context of the twentieth cycle of the International Development 
Association (IDA20) . The World Bank noted that it had been assisting countries to transform their 
food systems through financing and policy advice to support a green, resilient,  and inclusive 
recovery , and gave the example of  a USD 570 million programme  in West Africa to  improve food 
system resilience, promote inter -regional value chains and build regional capacity to manage 
agricultural risks. The World Bank Group and the G -7 presidency were also co-convening a Global 
Alliance for Food Security which aim ed to share best prac tices to catalyse an immediate and 
coordinate response to the crisis. Further, t he International Finance Corporation ha d established a 
global food security platform to respond to the food crisis ; a USD 6 billio n financing facility would, 
inter alia , financ e continued trade flows of vital food supplies to populations in need, and increase 
the availability of fertilizers and other critical supplies for farmers in vulnerable regions.  
3.29.   Brazil welcomed the technical analysis and grains market assessment provided by the IGC . 
Transparency of global markets was essential to appreciate global trade patterns. Brazil stated that 
international trade was essential to the efficiency and resilience of agrifood systems,  and that the 
WTO should strive to strengthen th at efficiency and resilience through disciplines which would reduce 
the prevailing distortions in the system. Regarding submissions by the WFP and  the FAO, Brazil 
underlined that the current global food crisis had been caused by multiple inter -related factors , 
including the COVID -19 pandemic. Th e situation had been exacerbated by the conflict in Ukraine 
and its various implications , including the adoption of measures by several countries that had 
seriously worsened the e ffects of the global food and energy crises, particularly for developing 
countries. Brazil noted that agriculture supply chain s had suffered the most through protectionism 
and distortions , hence required a commitment to avoid barriers which prevent food an d agricultural 
products and inputs reaching deficit regions harming  food security  in those regions. Noting that 
precision agriculture, biotechnology, crop livestock forest integration, fertilizers and pesticides were 
necessary conditions for increased prod uctivity and efficient use of natural resources, Brazil argued 
in favour of sustainable intensification of agricultural production, making all technological tools 
available to producer s. Despite a general trend of stagnating agricultural productivity, Braz il 
considered it unusual that some Members  would be unwilling to adopt practices and technologies 
that were essential for enhancing agricultural  productivity , and, even worse,  would rather seek to 
unjustifiably limit the tools available to producer s. Under lining that t he effects of forcing unjustified 
interruptions in the use of p esticides could be traumatic, Brazil referred to  the case of one Member 
mentioned in the WFP report  as a cautionary tale to the entire Membership.  
3.30.   New Zealand  thanked the FAO, IICA, WB, WFP, IGC and IMF for their reports and  their 
reminders of the sense of urgency. New Zealand expressed its rising  concern over the state of global 
food security  and the fact that the NFIDC's food import bill for 2022 was projecte d to increase  to 
more than USD 148 billion , as noted by the FAO. New Zealand referred to sobering contextual 
challenges mentioned by observer organizations, including Russia's war in Ukraine which was 
exacerbating food prices and market volatility alongsid e climatic challenges, that all have lasting 
consequences for global food production. The observers' reports also highlighted the  important role 
governments must play to develop the right policies for long -term resilience in agricultural 
production , includ ing trade policies to help facilitate trade and lessen the impact of the global food 
crisis. New Zealand expressed its appreciation to observers  for pointing out the target areas for 
governmental interventions, particularly the need to address trade restri ctions, minimize distortions 
and increase investments in research and development and technological transfer. New Zealand 
shared the need to enable small agricultural producers, particularly those in developing countries, 
to participate fairly in global tr ade and ensure adequate policy tools to help improve agricultural 
productivity and resilience in light of th ose challenges.  New Zealand looked forward to continued 
collaboration with the observer international organizations t o inform the Committee 's debate s, 
including under the  food security work programme . G/AG/R/104  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.31.   Australia  thanked observer organizations for reminding the Committee about global food 
security challenges. It noted that some of the figures  presented , including  on the growing food 
import bill  and 349 million acutely food insecure individuals in 2022 as estimated by the W FP, were 
alarming.  
3.32.   The United Kingdom thanked observer organizations for their reports and added that a ccess 
to reliable data and key market developments,  including for staple foods such as grains, rice, and 
oilseeds , was critical in ensuring open and pred ictable trade. This was even more important in the 
current context of global food security  challenges . The United Kingdom regretted the figures 
highlighted by the WFP and the FAO regarding  higher food import bills, chronic hunger and the 
growing gulf betwe en the current situation and the zero-hunger target of the UN SDG s. The 
United  Kingdom expressed its commitment  in supporting the WFP's vital work , including upholding 
the MC12 decision to exempt WFP's humanitarian purchase s from export restrictions , and welcome d 
the WFP intention to provide periodic data to the Co A on the implementation of that Decision . It 
looked forward to contribution by observer organizations to the thematic discussions under the 
LDC-NFIDC work programme , which, inter alia , sought to further improve coordination with those 
organizations. The United Kingdom expressed its support for the policy recommendations outlined 
by the FAO on building longer -term resilience , increasing market transparency , refrain ing from 
imposing export restrictions,  and enhancing longer term productivity.  
3.33.   Egypt  thanked the observer international organizations for the valuable presentations which 
had all underscored the significance of the current food security challenge and its impl ications  on 
the most vulnerable , namely the LDC s and NFIDCs.  It agreed with the statement made by the 
World  Bank concerning the  need to build resilience in  LDCs and NFIDCs as well as the need to 
mobilize financial resources in those countries  towards building th at resilience; however, the details 
of modalities on how to build th at resilience were yet to be agreed. Egypt c ommended the work 
done by the WFP and echo ed its call  to enhance dom estic food systems and increase  local production 
in recipient countries.  Egypt also thanked the IMF for the establishment of the Food Shock Window 
and considered the initiative to be closely linked to discussions under the  work programme.  Egypt 
support ed the statement by New Zealand on the need to ensure adequate policy tools to enhance 
productivity, especially in developing country Members . It noted the  importance of the report 
provided by the FAO, especially  on the food import bills of LDCs and NFIDCs which could usefully 
feed into discussions under the work programme. Egypt also expressed support for the FAO 
recommendations  with respect to  'Food Import Financing Facility ' (FIFF) and looked forward to 
discussions on it under the work programm e. Egypt invited all observer organizations to provide 
inputs and reports to contribute to thematic deliberations under the work programme.  
3.34.   Uruguay  thanked international organizations for providing an overview of the current global 
food security situation,  including on prices and possible mechanisms to deal with the current 
challenge through international cooperation. It echoed the comments made by Brazil on the 
importance of smooth flow of trade in agricultural products , food, and fee d and to ensure  that 
countries c ould meet their food needs while avoiding the imposition of unnecessary trade barriers. 
Uruguay also recall ed paragraph 7 of the Ministerial De claration on the Emergency Response to Food 
Insecurity  in which Members reaffirmed the disciplin es on export competition under t he Agreement 
on Agriculture  and the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition,  especially those on international food 
aid. Uruguay also recalled the importance Members attached to the need for improve d transparency 
of internati onal food aid  in the discussions on the CoA work programme under paragraph 8 of the 
MC12 Declaration on food insecurity . It specifically referred to the  Secretariat document in 
RD/AG/9421 which underlined that t he available information on international food aid through  
Members ' agriculture notifications would not allow the Secretariat to put together a comparable data 
series on annual global food aid  shipments . In the same vein, Uruguay  recalled the references in the 
Secretariat note to the discontinuation of the WFP's International Food Aid Information System 
(INTERFAIS)  and the current absence of a reliable  data source on international food aid quantities 
supplied by countries . Bearing in mind the interest  expressed by several  delegatio ns regarding  the 
monitoring  of global food aid trends, Uruguay wondered whether the INTERFAIS  or a similar 
monitoring  mechanism could be established to enable effective monitoring of global food aid  flows.  
3.35.   India thanked the observer organizations for their highly informative presentations. India also 
expressed interest to the World Bank statement on the Global Alliance for Food Security  and asked 
 
21 A slightly revision version, incorporating Members' comments on the original room document, was 
later circulated in  G/AG/W/227 .  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 12 - 
 
  whether the Bank was supporting th at initiative only through the Secretariat  or it also entailed a 
deeper working relationship with governments . India welcomed the WFP's responses to the questions 
it had raised in the previous Co mmittee  meeting  and also for including information on the 
implementation of the MC12 Decision o n WFP  in its latest statement . India noted that it would be 
helpful if the WFP could inform the Committee about the number of c ountries that had applied export 
restrictions on the WFP purchases post-MC12.  
3.36.   The United States noted its concern about the food security crisis the world was facing which 
was exacerbated by  Russia's war in Ukraine, climate change and high global food prices. The 
United  States noted that f ood prices  had been negatively impacted by other unilateral policy 
decisions taken by Members that undermine d global food security  such as export restrictions which 
had repeatedly been shown to contribute to global price inflation.  The U nited Stated expressed its  
commit ment to help food reach those who are most in need by promoting open and predictable 
markets and help ing build a more resilient agricultural sector and agricultural trading system that 
could mitigate market volatilities. As the largest single donor of huma nitarian and long -term food 
security development assistance, the U nited States wa s mobilizing billions of dollars in additional 
funding for humanitarian organizations who were at the frontlines of responding to the food security 
crisis. The United States w elcomed the work undertaken by international organizations in providing 
timely and objective data, information and outlook that could inform decision -making, policy design 
and the work of th e Committee, including with respect to the work programme regardin g food 
insecurity faced by NFIDCs and LDCs.  The United States also encouraged all Members, in a position 
to do so, to increase their humanitarian assistance especially to critical organizations such as the 
WFP for it to continue its  mission.  
3.37.   The E uropean U nion thanked international organizations for their submissions and 
presentations. The EU was particularly struck by the WFP's estimate of 349 million acutely food 
insecure  people  in 2022 and noted that the alarming data presented to the Committee clearly l inked 
the discussion under this item with the previous agenda item related to the work programme on 
food insecurity. The EU noted that it was stepping up support to help those who had been most 
affected by the rising food insecurity globally. A new humanit arian aid package of EUR 210 million 
would be provided in 15 countries to meet their growing needs  bringing the EU's overall support for 
global food security up to EUR 8 billion between 2020 and 2024.  The EU also stated that factual and 
non-political inter ventions by international organizations and the factual data on production, 
consumption and trade in agricultural staple commodities  clearly  underpin ned the reasons behind 
the current crisis. These international organizations pinpointed the importance of t ransparency and 
drew the Committee's attention to the destructive results of export restrictions. The WFP pointed to 
the conflict being the top driver of food insecurity, followed by climate shocks and rising prices. The 
European Union highlighted that the  conflict resulting from the Russian  Federation's  unjustified 
aggression in Ukraine ha d been disrupting global trade, pus hing up transport costs , and limiting 
farmers ' access to agricultural inputs. It also noted  that the knock -off effect s of the current situation  
on upcoming harvests might reverberate around the world, induc e hunger , and compromis e the 
livelihood of LDCs an d NFIDCs in particular. In this context, the prolongation of the Black Sea Grain 
Initiative as a mitigating factor was welcome. The European Union supported the intervention by 
Uruguay on food aid monitoring noting that there were important elements to dis cuss in the working 
group. The EU looked forward to close cooperation with international organizations in the CoA 
working group on food insecurity.  
3.38.   China  noted that submissions and interventions  by international organizations  had broadened 
Members' underst anding of the current crisis and enriched their understand ing of the concept of 
food security. China stated that f ood security was composed of three important pillars , namely 
i) production capacity of different Members;  ii) open, predictable , and stable in ternational trade;  and 
iii) public stockholdings to support food security in emergencies. China e xpressed appreciation for 
the research by international organizations about repurposing agricultural support. China 
acknowledged that the use of fertilizers and pesticides  might have detrimental impacts on the 
environment. China added that Members needed to find a framework and a formula to reduce th ose 
detrimental elements  and simultaneously advocated for a balanced ap proach to  an optimum use of 
fertilizers and pesticides . China considered that applying a s udden reduction in the use of pesticides 
and fertilizers w ould reduce food production capacities substantially , causing a serious food security 
situation . China  sugge sted to  rely on science and new technologies in agriculture  while also 
consider ing the impact of climate change and other factors . China looked forward to international 
organizations' active contribution to the CoA work programme; it suggested that those o rganizations G/AG/R/104  
 
- 13 - 
 
  study the asymmetries in the existing Agreement on Agriculture and determine the elements needed 
to level the playing field to enable consensus among Members in the agriculture negotiations.  
3.39.   Switzerland  noted that the presentations and reports  by international organizations 
highlight ed the critical and alarming situation worldwide and particularly in certain developing 
countries with regards to the prevalence of chronic hunger and of undernourishment and  echoed 
other Members ' concerns  regarding  the situation.  Switzerland noted  that only a handful of Members 
had submitted Table  NF:1 notification s for the year 2021. Switzerland stated that NF  notification s 
provide valuable information , including  about food aid to LDCs and NFIDCs , which was particularly 
relevant given the current food insecurity  situation.  
3.40.   Türkiye  thanked the observer organizations for their important work and reports and  noted 
that international diplomacy and Member  governments ' role had assumed critical importance in 
times of crisis . Turkey referred to its efforts to foster the Black Sea Grain Deal to stabilize and secure 
movement  of food in the region  and hoped that the initiative w ould enable a resolution of other 
political issues. Türkiye  also looked forward to achiev ing results in the CoA  for the benefit of countries 
facing food security difficulties.  
3.41.   The Russian Federation appreciated the  analytical support and inputs provided by observer 
organisations to the Committee's discussions on food security. The Russian Federation  noted that 
its donations of fertilizers to vulnerable economies were facilitated by the WFP while part of  
shipments remained  blocked at EU ports. The Russian Federation informed the Committee about its 
humanitarian assistance to countries in need  recalling that t he WFP had delivered Russian food 
donations to Armenia, Afghanistan, Cuba, Lebanon, Mozambique, Madagascar, Mali, Nicaragua, 
Palestine,  Tajiki stan, the Kyrgyz Republic , Yemen,  and Sudan. The Russian Federation questioned 
the attribution of the current global food market developments highlighted by the WFP and FAO to 
the conflict in Ukraine . It noted that th ose developments were rather caused, fu lly or partially, by 
restrictive measures imposed illegally by some WTO Members against the Russia n Federation . 
Increased transport ation costs and lack of access to inputs originate d exclusively  from those 
restrictions which substantially led to the destru ction of supply chains, increased prices,  and 
triggered  food, fuel , and fertilizer shortages. Regarding  FAO's report as regards to global fertilizer 
trade as well as the joint FAO -WTO mapping  exercise of November 2022 , the Russian Federation 
noted that t he reports attributed inflationary pressure on the prices of energy, agricultural products 
and fertilizers  to the conflict in Ukraine but avoid ed a mention of the unilateral coercive restrictions 
by certain Members  against  Russian suppliers. The Russian Federation referred to the IFPRI's 
analysis  which noted that soaring fertilizer prices were driven by a confluence of factors , including 
increasing demand, surging c osts of production and supply disruptions caused by sanctions and 
export restrictions. Growth in prices for energy resources  had resulted in an increase in the prices 
of fertilizers and other agricultural products following some countries' decision to reje ct receiving 
Russian hydrocarbons. Rising natural gas prices in Europe, which were ten times higher than those 
prevailing last year and seven to ten times higher than in other parts of the world, had led to 
widespread production cutbacks in ammonia which was an important input for nitrogen -based 
fertilizers. As a result, up to 70% of the European fertilizer production capacity ha d been curtailed. 
With natural gas prices falling, some producers were able to restart production in October, however 
a significan t portion of the European capacity was still on hold  as the European Union  had decided 
to significantly reduce gas purchases from the Russia n Federation . The Russian Federation added 
that actions against the Russia n Federation  were detrimental to all consu mers worldwide as reduced 
fertilizer production in the EU would have to be compensate d via enhanced European imports to the 
detriment of other markets and fuelling inflationary prices. The Russian Federation did not accept 
that there were no restrictions on its exports of fertilizers; personal sanctions on owners and chief 
executives, blocking of accounts  and payment systems, logistic al bottlenecks through prohibition on 
access to  roads and  seaports, insurance  issues, restrictions on purchases of equipment and access 
to support and services  had negatively impacted the supply of Russian Fertilizers.  The Russian 
Federation stated that in the period between March and July 2022 , there was a decrease of 14% in 
its exports of fertilizers compared to the corresponding period in 2021, and  added that  the Eurostat 
report ed more than 30% decrease in Russian fertilizer shipments to the EU. The Russian Federation  
underlined that conduct of international trade under the WTO r ules without unilateral import 
restrictions should be the basis for ensuring global accessibility and affordability of food and 
fertilizers. It also invited  international organizations to make an objective assessment of the 
fundamental drivers of the unfol ding crisis to enable appropriate trade policy decisions  by 
governments.  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.42.   The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  thanked international organizations for their 
presentations  and share d their concerns on the state of agricultural trade and its effect on food 
security . Venezuela referred to the  FAO's  call for open food and fertilizer markets in line with the 
Ministerial Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity  and urged c ountries to avoid 
imposing new restrictions on exports and  remove , as much  as possible, such existing restrictions in 
line with the appropriate disciplines of the WTO. Venezuela  argued against unilateral coercive 
measures which  were being  used as a political weapon and  had affect ed the food security of  
vulnerable countries. Venezuela  stated that it had been a victim of trade restrictions and embargoes 
which  had directly affected 7 million famili es, sabotaged its agricultural inputs and  fertilizer sector , 
and significantly impacted its foreign trade. Venezuela stated that the questions by the 
Russian  Federation under Article 18.6, which it had co-sponsored , regarding measures by some 
countries to prevent  the access of Russian ships  to their ports , including ships which had changed  
flag after 24 February 2022 , were purely technical ; however, the responses  provided by the 
concerned Members were purely  political in nature . Venezuela hope d that the topic w ould be 
discussed in a technical and objective manner to address the existing asymmetries in the trade of 
food and inputs  and to foster policies to achieve the 'Zero Hunger' objective  of the 2030 UN SDG 
agenda.  
3.43.   Canada  expressed appreciation to international organizations for providing evidence -based 
inputs to the Committee's discussions. It emphasized how a conflict could disrupt supply chains and 
necessitate the need for humanitarian assistance.  Canada echoed the points raised by Brazil  
regarding  the supply -side of agricultural trade and production and underlined the role of innovative 
technical advancements and biotechnology as well as pesticides in enabling some major grains 
exporters to feed the international market. Canada  also encourage d international organizations to 
generate facts and evidence to emphasize the positive role of supply -side parameters . 
3.44.   Nicaragua  thanked the observer organizations for their reports on the  food security situation. 
Nicaragua noted  that while there were various causes to the current situation, the Committee's  
mandate was to look at measures affecting trade in agri culture , and accordingly it had co-sponsor ed 
Russia n Federation 's questions regarding the prohibitions  maintained by the European  Union, 
Norway , and Iceland on access to their ports for ships registered under the Russian flag , including 
ships which had changed  flag after 24 February 2022. Nicaragua  asked for technical responses to 
those questions from the concerned delegations and noted that t he issue did not only affect the 
Russia n Federation  but also other Members , including small and vulnerable econom ies such as 
Nicaragua and other developing countries , by causing disruption in supply chains and compromising 
their development al and food security goals. Nicaragua urged the Committee to look at th e issue 
from a trade and development perspective and to no t dwell on aspects which  fell outside the 
competen ce of the Committee and the WTO.  
3.45.   Nigeria thanked international organizations f or their presentations which shed light on the 
severity of the current food security difficulties. It opined that t hat the food security crisis was largely 
a result of concentration in global export markets leading to  heavy  dependenc e of most developing 
countries on limited sources of food supply  and hence making them highly vulnerab le and 
aggravat ing their food and livelihood insecurity. Nigeria noted that m any developing countries ha d 
shifted from being food producers and exporters to currently being net food importers. Nigeria 
argued that this was the reason for their continu ed call for the delivery of re sults in the WTO that 
would unlock the productive capacities of developing countries, especially  LDCs and  NFIDCs . Nigeria 
added that  the competitiveness of th ose developing countries was being eroded due to the imbalance 
in the Agreement of Agriculture und er the domestic support pillar, and therefore i t was necessary to 
level the playing field and to offer them the policy space to unlock their productive capacity.  
3.46.   The Republic of Korea  noted that the contributions of international organizations would assist  
in the development of the CoA work programme for LDCs and NFIDCs. It emphasized the importance 
of the continuation of the Black Sea Grain initiative  by referring to the almost immediate  impact of 
the initiative on wheat prices as quoted by the IGC. The Re public of Korea also urged international 
organizations to present their analysis and perspectives in the context of possible  future food  crises.  
3.47.   The delegate from Brazil thanked all delegations for their kind remarks on the completion of 
his term in Geneva. He noted his regret  to not getting the opportunity to receive and examine China's 
domestic support notifications during his tenure  in Geneva. He also referred to the question Brazil 
had posed to the Secretar iat at the September CoA meeting on the latter's involvement in the 
French -led Food and Agriculture Mission (FARM) initiative. The Secretariat had informed the G/AG/R/104  
 
- 15 - 
 
  delegation of Brazil bilaterally that the Secretariat's interaction with Members on their nation al 
measures and initiatives did not entail a review of the substantive provisions of those initiatives ; 
this was the prerogative of Members collectively and of relevant bodies.  
3.48.   The Chairperson t hanked all international organizations  for their presentations  and the spirit 
of cooperation to support Members' deliberations in the Committee and  looked forward to their 
continued collaboration , including in the context of the ongoing CoA work programme.  
3.2.6   Implementation of other Ministerial Decisions  
3.49.   Paraguay, on be half of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Thailand, the 
United  States and Uruguay, provided an update regarding their request to India for consultations 
under paragraph 6 of the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Securit y Purposes. 
The request originally  was for th ose consultations to take place in a plurilateral setting as the 
requesting Members had shared the same questions and concerns. At the request of India, it was 
later agreed for th ose consultations to take place on a bilateral basis. Paraguay also informed the 
Committee that the initial bilateral consultations between India and requesting Members , namely 
Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Paraguay, Thailand, the United States and U ruguay , would 
be conducted during  the week of th e November Committee  meeting . Paraguay noted that t he 
Bali Decision created an interim exception to some domestic support rules for developing countr y 
Members , provided certain conditions were met , including the fulfilment of transparency obligations. 
Paraguay noted that India's latest DS:1 notification showed support for rice of nearly USD 7 billion 
under Art. 6. 4 of the AoA . India also accounted for  44.7% of total world rice exports according to 
the latest S ecretariat report under G/AG/W/32/Rev.21. Paraguay also noted that Members must 
ensure that 'stocks procured under such programme s do not distort trade or adversely affect the 
food security of other Members '. India had invoked the Bali peace cl ause three t imes for its support 
provided to rice in 2018, 2019 and 202 0. The intent behind the request for consultations was to 
determine further details regarding th at support and how India's PSH programme operated. The 
questions asked by Members for the consultatio n process were based on questions previously asked 
in the Co mmittee for which  response s provided were not deemed adequate by requesting  Members . 
Paraguay noted that the questions posed to India requested information on the support it provided 
to its rice sector , including national level payments , and other information required by the Bali 
Decision. Paraguay thanked India for agreeing to hold bila teral consultations  and looked forward  to 
fruitful exchanges.  
3.50.   Regarding the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, the Chairperson stated that as was 
announced at the June CoA meeting, the testing of the first module of the Export Competition 
Questionnaire IT tool project (ECQ project) comprising on -line submission s had taken place in 
July 2022 with a  group of interested Members. A similar small group testing exercise for the second 
module of the on -line reporting function had taken  place in Oc tober 2022. The testing exercise  had 
provided very useful feedback to the Secretariat. The Chairperson added that the Secretariat would  
proceed with the final technical adjustments to launch the next project phase in  December  which 
would allow Members to u se the online ECQ tool for the submission of their  replies to the 
questionnaire on a full -scale test basis.  The Chairperson stated that v ideos w ould be made available 
on the AG IMS to explain how to use the new tool as soon as it was operational. The Secre tariat 
would keep Members  informed of the next steps and would provide necessary support to them for 
the use of the tool. Finally, the Chairperson noted that it would circulate the export competition 
questionnaire in the coming weeks to initiate the prepar ations for the 2023 annual dedicated 
discussions on export competition.  
3.3  Chair report on the informal meeting of 21 November - Other issues  
3.51.   During the informal meeting of 21 November, the Committee continued its deliberations on 
enhancing transparency and the Committee's review process  including the transparency 
requirements in the areas of export competition and export restrictions. At the formal meeting, the 
Chairperson provided an oral report on the discussions, which is contained in Ann ex 2 to this report.  
3.4  Implementation Related Issues  
3.52.   The Chairperson noted that in the Doha Ministerial Decision on implementation -related issues 
and concerns, the Committee had been asked to follow up on three issues: (i) development of G/AG/R/104  
 
- 16 - 
 
  disciplines to gover n the provision of export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance 
programmes in accordance with Article 10.2; (ii) examination of the possible means of improving 
the effectiveness of the implementation of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision; and (iii) cont inued review 
of the administration of TRQs and the submission of addenda to Table MA:1 Notifications on tariff 
rate quota regimes.  
3.53.   The Chairperson stated that one of the implementation -related matter under this agenda was 
to examine the means for improving  the effectiveness of the implementation of the Marrakesh NFIDC 
Decision. This had an obvious overlap with the task assigned to the Committee at MC12 under 
paragraph 8 of the Declaration on Emergency Response to Food Insecurity. The Chairperson 
suggested t o organize discussions on this sub -agenda under the discussions on Para 8 work 
programme. Concerning the other two sub -items under this agenda dealing with export finance and 
TRQ administration, the Chairperson noted that these were regularly discussed in detail under the 
implementation of the Nairobi Export Competition Decision and the Bali Decision on TRQ 
respectively. The Chairperson stated that for several CoA meetings, including at this November 
meeting , there were no  intervention s under this agenda it em. The Chairperson invited Members to 
reflect on how to address the issue of duplication and overlapping agenda items of the Committee 
for an efficient conduct of meetings.  
3.5  Annual report to the Council for Trade in Goods  
3.54.   The Chairperson noted that as per regular practice, a brief factual report on the activities of 
the Committee in 202 2 would be provided to the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG). Accordingly, the 
Chairperson would submit a factual report, on his own responsibility, reflecting the activities of the 
Committee. A draft of the report was circulated to Members as a room document.22 The Chairperson 
also noted that the draft report would be updated to reflect discussions from the November meeting 
as well as any comments from Members on the draft.23 
3.55.   The Chairperson added that the Chairperson of the CTG had requested the Chairs of its 
subsidiary bodies, including the Committee on Agriculture, to prepare factual reports on two issues, 
namely, (i) the WTO response to the COVID -19 Pandemic and (ii) the cu rrent functioning of the 
Committees.24 Concerning the first, the Chairperson stated that the intention was to understand how 
the various bodies had to adjust their work to address pandemic -related issues and challenges. The 
Chairperson noted that the Committee did an impressive job to continue  carrying out its functions 
during the COVID -19 pandemic, both in terms of the process, starting from a special meeting that 
the committee held in June 2020 as well as efforts towards enhanced transparency to enable a 
review of Members' measures taken in r esponse to the pandemic. The Chairperson stated that the 
second report concerned the current functioning of the Committees, which was one of the issues 
that Members would like to discuss under  WTO reform. Here again, the Chairperson noted that the 
Committe e had a successful story to report especially on the effective digital tools that underpin its 
work,  and which ha ve added transparency and efficiency to the Committee's functions. In th at 
regard, the Chairperson referred to the Secretariat document  G/AG/GE N/206 containing detailed 
background on the digital tools and the Committee's documentation practices. The Chairperson 
stated that since improving transparency and efficiency of the work of the Committee was an ongoing 
task, the Committee would deliberate on these matters in 2023. The Chairperson stated that he 
would prepare th ose reports requested by the CTG Chair, in consultation with the Secretariat.25 
3.6  Other Business  
3.6.1   Renewal of ad hoc  observer status to  IICA  
3.56.   The Chairperson recalled that at its March 201 2 meeting, the Committee had agreed to invite 
the Inter -American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)  to its regular meetings as an 
ad hoc observer on an annual basis to expedite procedures unless the issue was to be specifically 
 
22 RD/AG/98 circulated on 18 November 2022.  
23 The final report was circulated  on 24 November 202 2 in document  G/L/14 46. 
24 JOB/CTG/18 . 
25 The draft reports  on "WTO response to the pandemic " and "current functioning of the Committee  on 
Agriculture" were shared with Members for comments as RD/AG/101 and RD/AG/102, respectively. Final reports , 
incorporating Members' comments were later circulated as documents G/L/1469 -G/AG/W/228 on WTO response 
to the pandemic , and G/L/1470 -G/AG/W/229 on current functioning of the Committee  on Agriculture.  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 17 - 
 
  placed on the a genda by a Member in the intervening meetings. IICA had accordingly been invited 
to participate in the Committee regular meetings since 2012.  
3.57.   The Committee agreed to invite IICA as an ad hoc observer to participate in the formal 
meetings of the Committee in 202 3. 
3.6.2   Joint statement by a group of Members on the EU's Proposal for regulation on 
deforestation -free products  
3.58.   Indonesia  referred to a letter that it, together with 13 other Members , had s ent to the head 
of the European Parliament, the European Council, and the European Commission on 27  July 2022 
expres sing concerns with the E uropean Union  (EU) proposal for a regulation on deforestation -free 
products.26 Indonesia considered that t he proposal would create new trade barrier s by imposing 
additional controls and measures  and would also negatively impact smallholder  producers in 
developing countries. Indonesia  added that the proposed regulation posed a significant challenge to 
WTO rules a nd appeared to contain elements which were discriminatory in terms of product coverage 
and national treatment. Indonesia strongly believe d that free trade help ed rather than hinder the 
promotion of sustainable development goals  and considered it imperative  that regulatory objectives 
be achieved through a non -trade -restrictive approach.  
3.59.   Paraguay  noted that the transition towards more sustainable production should be gradual 
and be determined by countries in line with their development al needs. Such a transit ion should 
additionally respect local realities , including  social, economic,  and environmental characteristics, of 
different regions . Paraguay argued that Members should implement  environmental measures in line 
with internationally established  standards an d norms particularly those of the WTO for measures 
impact ing international trade. Paraguay noted some Members achieved their current level of 
development and industrialization  while employing  environmentally harmful means and posed 
climate change related challenges to other countries who otherwise had contributed only marginally 
to environmental degradation. Expecting th ose latter countries to employ the same measures to 
combat climate change without any assistance was against the international leg al principle of 
common but differentiated responsibility  (CBDR) . Paraguay added that unlike in the EU,  producers 
in Paraguay did not benefit from subsidies; the cost of adapting to the proposed EU measures for its 
producers were significant and would come out of their income.  Countries which contributed the 
least to climate change were made to bear the burden of compliance; Paraguay wondered how th at 
situation would reconcile with the CBDR and the three pillars of sustainable development . Paraguay 
alluded t o the existing implementational uncertainties related to matters like risk assessment, 
compliance procedures, country classification under the draft  EU regulation and urged the EU to 
provide details of all those  practical matters . Paraguay did not approve the EU's decision to abandon 
multilateral collaboration  and rather adopt unilateral measures and urged the EU to proceed through 
negotiations and cooperation to achieve environmental objectives.  
3.60.   Malaysia  expressed concerns and disappointment on the unilate ral decision introduced by the 
European Union and urged them to broaden their consultations and engagement with affected 
countries in an open and inclusive manner . 
3.61.   While r ecogniz ing that the EU's deforestation proposal was provisional , Argentina expressed 
several  systemic concerns with the measure as currently  drafted. Argentina noted that its concerns 
did not relate to the objective of the measure, which were shared virtually by all Members, but rather 
with regards to its markedly restrictive and protectionist nature  and the potential conflict  with the 
balance in other international fora. Argentina  referred to available studies show ing substantial 
internal deforestation within the EU territory equivalent to 90% while simultaneously driving global 
deforestation to further its own economic development  fuelling demands by many developing 
countries for the E U to respect the CBDR. Argentina point ed out that whilst due diligence was a 
commonplace mechanism in the environment  and human right laws, insisten ce on due diligence 
from all , independent of the prevailing conditions  on the level of protection,  seem ed excessive. 
Costly a dministrative requirements on trading operations , demanding requests for information , 
excessive penalties for infractions could constitute a disincentive for the diversification of sources of 
supply for trading operators . Argentina stated that c ategorizing countries according to the risk they 
present ed in fulfilling the legislation could lead to arbi trary discrimination against companies, 
sectors , or countries.  Argentina stated than an evaluation of the original proposal from 
 
26 The letter was later circulated as G/AG/GEN/213 .  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 18 - 
 
  the EU Commission in line with the amendments put forward by the Council and the Parliament 
would in principle strengthen the p otentially protectionist nature of this initiative. The additional 
requirements put through by member States and private operators alongside the possibility of 
unilaterally extending the scope of the measure to additional production sectors in the future created 
a great deal of uncertainty and concern . 
3.62.   Guatemala  pointed out that all countries ha d a responsibility to address deforestation, 
however, it believe d that the EU's initiative was restrictive and affect ed developing countries ' 
interests . 
3.63.   Brazil  noted that the joint letter was a testimony to multiple Members ' concerns  regarding the 
proposed  legislation. Brazil noted that the evolving drafts of the regulation had included increasingly 
protectionis t and discriminatory  elements. It argued against the extra-territoriality  of measures 
which ignore d local realities, needs and policies . Brazil referred to figures quoted earlier by the EU 
in response to question ID 103006  on increasing forest cover in the EU, and noted that  the ABC Plan 
in Brazil  had helped recover 26.8 million hectares of degraded pastureland from 2010 to 2020 , an 
area bigger than the territory of the United Kingdom. Brazil stated that  the recovery  of degraded 
pastureland produce d benefits in all three pillars of sustainable development , generate d income, 
employment, allow ed for carbon capture, and food production among other benefits. Brazil 
underlined  economic activities  in developing countries needed to be profitable for the concerned 
producers to also embrace environmentally sustainab le practices  and Brazil's ABC Plan d id precisely 
that. 
3.64.   Côte d'Ivoire  expressed  concern with the European Union's  draft regulation on deforestation  
stating that the legislation did n ot consider the realities of individual countries suffering from climate 
change and deforestation . The proposed regulation could be counter -productive to its stated 
objective and could hamper developing countries ' market access to the EU for products such as 
coffee, palm oil  and wood . Côte d'Ivoire call ed on the EU to respect the principle of the CBDR and 
to continue its dialog ue and consultations with potentially impacted partners . Côte d'Ivoire referred 
to several  concerns  included in the joint letter , including on the scope of the measure, the selection 
criteria for products, definitions involved, the cost and operability of the geo -localization elements; 
further , the unilateral nature of the deforestation measure and potentially discriminatory criteria  
could be in conflict with  WTO rules.  Côte d'Ivoire stated tha t the objective of protecting the 
environment could actually be defeated , as small producers in developing countries , in the absence 
of sufficient resources to undertake additional tasks , would be negatively impacted, compromising 
their ability to compete in the E U market . The draft regulation address ed only the environmental 
pillar of sustainability  but could create imbalance regarding  the other two pillars of sustainable 
development of  society , and econom ic development w hich were highly relevant for small producers. 
Côte d'Ivoire  argued for  a balance between the three pillars in all sustainability -driven measures  and 
for considering  the interest of small producers who were already affected by the crisis. Côte d'Ivoire 
preferred  an approach which entai led consultations with trading partners, and technical and financial 
assistance to those affected.  
3.65.   Colombia expressed its  concern  on the  extra-territorial nature of the EU's draft deforestation 
policy . Colombia pointed out that many Members  had more than 5 0% primary forest coverage  
making them vulnerable to illegal activities . It noted that combatting deforestation was very costly 
and difficult  especially i n tropical and humid countries, which had different realities compared to 
European countries . Any defo restation measure should consider  the relevant geographical and social 
aspects of concerned  countries.  
3.66.   The European Union thanked intervening Members and expressed its openness  to discuss any 
matter relating to its legislation or draft legislation. The European Union stated that it did not find in 
Members' intervention s a clear link to the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture , which 
would have been relevant for th e attention of the Committee  on Agriculture.  The European Union 
requested a copy of the written statements so that these could be reviewed and potentially sent to 
a more appropriate Committee . 
3.67.   The Chairperson encouraged Members to avoid detailed substantiv e discussions under "Other 
Business".  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 19 - 
 
  3.6.3   Date s of regular meetings  in 2023  
3.68.   The Secretariat informed the Committee that four meetings were scheduled for 2023 , 
in March, June, September,  and November. 27 The dates of all those meetings would uniformly be 
27 and  28 of relevant months with the exception of the November meeting which had been scheduled 
for 27 -29 November , given the usually long agenda for that meeting.  
3.69.   The next (10 4th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will accordingly be held 
on 27-28 March 202 3. On that basis, the reminder airgram will be issued on 24 February 2023  and 
the convening airgram will be distributed to Members on Friday 17 March 202 3. 
  
 
27 The schedule of meetings in 2023 was later circulated in G/AG/GEN/212.  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 20 - 
 
  ANNEX  1 
Annex 1 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 by 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 12 January 2023  have been identified with 
the symbol "*".  Members are invited to submit outstanding replies through the AG -IMS at the earliest 
opportunity.  
Table 1 - Specific Implementation Matters (Article 18.6)  
Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID Number  
Argentina's  currency controls and import licensing 
rules United States of America  103012  
Argentina's  foreign exchange regime to facilitate soy 
exports  European Union  103041  
Argentina's  foreign exchange regime to facilitate soy 
exports  United States of America  103013  
Argentina's export restrictions  United Kingdom, Switzerland, 
Japan, New Zeal and, 
European  Union  103048  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, 
New Zealand, United Kingdom, Unites States - 
Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related 
services  Russian Federation  103078  
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, 
United States - Import duties in excess of the bound 
rates applied on agricultural goods  Russian Federation  103061  
European Union, Canada, Iceland, Norway, New 
Zealand, Japan - Prohibitions and restrictions on 
agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  103070  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, 
New Zealand, United Kingdom, Unites States - 
Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related 
services  Russian Federation  103079  
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, 
United  States - Import duties in excess of the bound 
rates applied on agricultural goods  Russian Federation  103062  
Canada's Special Milk Class S cheme  New Zealand  103130  
Canada's compensation for farmers after trade 
concessions  India 103135  
Canada's review of the TRQ system  United Kingdom  103086  
China's grain subsidies  Australia  103087 * 
China's recent agricultural policy modifications  Brazil  103004 * 
China's pork reserve programme  United States of America, Canada, 
Australia  103015 * 
China's pork reserve programme  United States of America, Canada, 
Australia  103016 * 
China's pork reserve programme  United States of America, Canada, 
Australia  103017 * 
China's swine support  United States of America, Canada, 
Brazil, Australia  103014 * 
China's Export Restrictions on corn starch  European Union  103042 * 
China's export restriction on corn starch  United Kingdom, Switzerland, 
Japan  103051 * 
China's cotton reserves purchasing system  United States of America  103019 * 
China's cotton reserves purchasing system  United States of America  103020 * 
China's cotton reserves purchasing system  United States of America  103021 * 
China's cotton reserves purchasing system  United States of America  103022 * 
China's Cotton Policies  United States of America  103018 * 
Ecuador's new milk law  United States of America, New 
Zealand, Australia, European Uni on 103023  
Egypt's Export Prohibitions on Agricultural Products  Switzerland, United Kingdom  103088 * G/AG/R/104  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID Number  
European Union, Canada, Iceland, Norway, New 
Zealand, Japan - Prohibitions and restrictions on 
agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  103069  
European Union, I celand, Norway - Prohibitions on 
road freight transport  Russian Federation  103075  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, 
New Zealand, United Kingdom, Unites  States - 
Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related 
services  Russian Federation  103080  
European Union, Norway, Iceland - Prohibitions on 
access to ports  Russian Federation, Nicaragua, 
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  103066  
EU's Temporary Framework for State Aid  Brazil  103089  
EU's Blue Box programmes  India 103136  
France - "European Food and Agricultural Resilience 
Mission" initiative  Brazil, Paragu ay 103005  
EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategy  Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay  103006  
European Union, Canada, Iceland, Norway, New 
Zealand, Japan - Prohibitions and restric tions on 
agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  103071  
European Union, Iceland, Norway -Prohibitions on 
road freight transport  Russian Federation  103076  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, 
New Zealand, United Kingdom, Unites  States - 
Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related 
services  Russian Federation  103081  
European Union, Norway, Iceland - Prohibitions on 
access to ports  Russian Federation, Nicaragua, 
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  103068  
India's dairy subsidies  Australia  103090  
India's food security policies  United States of America, Japan, 
Paraguay, New  Zealand  103027  
India's export restriction on sugar  Australia  103091  
India's public stockholding   United States of America, Canada, 
Japan, Thailand, Brazil , Paraguay, 
Uruguay, Australia, New Zealand, 
European Union  103025  
India's public stockpili ng United States of America, Canada, 
Japan, Thailand, Ukraine, Brazil, 
Paraguay, Uruguay, Australia, 
New Zealand, European Union  103026  
India's other support for rice  United States of America, Canada, 
Japan, Thailand, Braz il, Paraguay, 
Uruguay, Australia, New Zealand, 
European Union  103029  
India's export restric tions on  wheat  United Kingdom, Switzerland, 
Ukraine, European Union  103060  
India's export restrictions on  wheat  Australia  103092  
India's price support  United States of America, 
Paraguay, Australia  103024  
India's export restriction measures on rice  United States of America, Canada, 
Japan, S witzerland, United 
Kingdom, Paraguay, Australia, 
New Zealand, European Union  103028  
Indones ia's stockholding programmes  Canada  103093  
European Union, Canada, Iceland, Norway, New 
Zealand, Japan -prohibitions and restrictions on 
agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  103074  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, 
New Zealand, United Kingdom, Unites States -
Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related 
services  Russian Federation  103082  
Japan's stockpiles of skim milk powder  Australia  103094  
Korea's tariff policies  New Zealand  103124  
Korea 's zero tariff quotas  Australia  103095  
Malaysia's chicken and egg subsidies and export 
restrictions for chicken  Australia  103096  
Mexico's ban on exports  of agricultural products  European Union  103043  
Mexico's ban on exports of agricultural products  Switzerland  103097  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID Number  
Mexico's ban on exports of agricultural products  United States of America  103030  
Morocco's export restriction of chickpea (Licence 
exportation pois chiches)  European U nion 103044 * 
Canada, European Union, Iceland, Norway, New 
Zealand, Japan -Prohibitions and restrictions on 
agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  103073  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, 
New Zealand, United Kingdom, Unites States -
Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related 
services  Russian Federation  103083  
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, 
United States - Import duties in excess of the bound 
rates applied on agricultural goods  Russian Federation  103063  
European Union, Canada,  Iceland, Norway, New 
Zealand, Japan -prohibitions and restrictions on 
agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  103072  
European Union, Iceland, Norway -Prohibitions on 
road freight transport  Russian Federa tion 103077  
European Union, Norway, Iceland -Prohibitions on 
access to ports  Russian Federa tion, Nicaragua, 
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  103067  
South Africa's poultry TRQ administration  Uruguay  103045 * 
Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme  India 103137 * 
Türkiye 's stone fruit support  Australia  103098  
Türkiye 's export restrictions on agricultural products  United Kingdom, Switzerland, 
Japan, New Zealand, 
European  Union  103054  
Türkiye 's freight support  United States of America, Brazil, 
Australia  103031  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, 
New Zealand, United Kingdom, Unites  States -
Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related 
services  Russian Federation  103084  
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, 
United States - Import duties in excess of the bound 
rates applied on agricultural goods  Russian Federation  103064  
U.S. Inflation Reduction Act 2022  Australia  103100  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, 
New Zealand, United Kingdom, Unites  States -
Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related 
services  Russian Federation  103085  
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, 
United States - Import duties in excess of the bound 
rates applied on agricultural goods  Russian Federation  103065  
U.S. expanded insurance coverage for soybean and 
grain sorghum  Brazil  103002  
U.S. corn support  China  103049  
U.S. fertilizers  European Union  103053  
U.S. biofuel infrastructure grants  European Union  103055  
U.S. Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production  India 103138  
U.S. Farm Bill 2023  India 103139  
U.S. American Rescue Plan Act  Australia  103099  
United States' soybean programmes  China  103046  
United States' soybean programmes  China  103047  
U.S. funding for environmental action  New Zealand  103107   
  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 23 - Table 2 - Questions raised in connection with individual notifications  
Document Symbol  Question by  Answer by  Notification Format  Keywords  ID 
Number  
G/AG/N/CHN/57  Australia  China  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  103101 * 
G/AG/N/CHN/57  Paraguay  China  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  103102 * 
G/AG/N/CHN/57  Thailand  China  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Other  103103 * 
G/AG/N/ISL/65  Paraguay  Iceland  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  103104  
G/AG/N/ISL/66  New Zealand  Iceland  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  103105  
G/AG/N/MYS/54  Brazil  Malaysia  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  103003 * 
G/AG/N/USA/162  Brazil, Argentina  United States of America  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  103001  
G/AG/N/AUS/129/Rev.1  India Australia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Non-product -specific AMS  103140  
G/AG/N/AUS/142  United States of America  Australia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  103032  
G/AG/N/CAN/151  India Canada  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Market price support  103106  
G/AG/N/EU/79  Australia  European Union  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  103108  
G/AG/N/GEO/28  United States of America  Georgia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103034 * 
G/AG/N/GEO/28  United States of America  Georgia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  General services: 
infrastructural services  103033 * 
G/AG/N/JPN/277  India Japan  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public stockholding for 
food security purposes  103141  
G/AG/N/MYS/53  United States of 
America, Austra lia Malaysia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103035 * 
G/AG/N/MYS/53  United States of 
America, Australia  Malaysia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103036 * 
G/AG/N/MEX/56  Australia  Mexico  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103109  
G/AG/N/MEX/56  Canada  Mexico  DS:1 - Exempt and n on-exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103110  
G/AG/N/MEX/56  Japan  Mexico  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103112  
G/AG/N/MEX/56  New Zealand  Mexico  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transpa rency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103113  
G/AG/N/MEX/56  United States of America  Mexico  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Direct payments: 
structural adjustment 
assistance provided 
through investment aids  103037   
  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 24 - Document Symbol  Question by  Answer by  Notification Format  Keywords  ID 
Number  
G/AG/N/MEX/56  United States of America  Mexico  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Direct payments: 
structural adjustment 
assistance prov ided 
through investment aids  103039  
G/AG/N/MEX/56  United States of America  Mexico  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Input subsidies available 
to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  103038  
G/AG/N/NZL/132  India New Zealand  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  General services: pest 
and disease control  103142  
G/AG/N/PAK/17/Corr.1  European Union  Pakistan  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public stockholding for 
food security purposes  103114 * 
G/AG/N/PRY/34  India Paraguay  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Domestic food aid  103143  
G/AG/N/PHL/85  Japan  Philippines  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Input subsidies available 
to low-income or 
resource -poor producers  103115  
G/AG/N/RUS/37  Brazil  Russian Federation  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Direct payments: other  103007  
G/AG/N/RUS/37  Thailand  Russian Federation  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Direct payments: other  103117  
G/AG/N/RUS/37  Paraguay  Russian Federation  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  103116  
G/AG/N/GBR/11  European Union  United Kingdom  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Market price support: 
Eligible production  103050  
G/AG/N/USA/157  Canada  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103118  
G/AG/N/USA/157  Canada  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  103119  
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)  103122  
G/AG/N/USA/166  New Zealand, Paraguay  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Annex 2 (Green Box)  103131  
G/AG/N/USA/166  Australia  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  General services: 
infrastructural services  103120  
G/AG/N/USA/166  Australia  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Domestic food aid  103121  
G/AG/N/USA/16 6  Brazil, Paraguay  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Domestic food aid  103009  
G/AG/N/USA/166  Japan  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Domestic food aid  103126  
G/AG/N/USA/166  New Zealand  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Domestic food aid  103132   
  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 25 - Document Symbol  Question by  Answer by  Notification Format  Keywords  ID 
Number  
G/AG/N/USA/166  European Union  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Direct payments: 
payments under 
environmental 
programmes  103056  
G/AG/N/USA/166  European Union  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Current Total AMS 
(Amber Box)  103052  
G/AG/N/USA/166  New Zealand  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non-exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Current Total AMS 
(Amber Box)  103133  
G/AG/N/USA/166  Brazil  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Market price support: 
Eligible production  103010  
G/AG/N/USA/166  Australia  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exem pt support - Current 
total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  103123  
G/AG/N/USA/166  Australia  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  103125  
G/AG/N/USA/166  New Zealand  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  103144  
G/AG/N/USA/166  European Union  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exemp t support - Current 
total AMS  Non-product -specific AMS  103057  
G/AG/N/USA/166  Brazil  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Classification of measures  103008  
G/AG/N/USA/166  New Zealand  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Classification of measures  103134  
G/AG/N/BRA/68  India Brazil  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103145  
G/AG/N/GBR/14  Brazil, Paraguay  United Kingdom  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103011  
G/AG/N/GBR/14  European Union  United Kingdom  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103059  
G/AG/N/GBR/14  India United Kingdom  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103146  
G/AG/N/GBR/14  United States of America  United Kingdom  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  103040  
G/AG/N/GBR/4  Australia  United Kingdom  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Classification of measures  103127  
G/AG/N/EU/77/Rev.2  Paraguay  European Union  ER:1 - Export restrictions  Timely notification  103147  
G/AG/N/MYS/52/Add.1  United Kingdom, 
Switzerland, Japan, 
European Union  Malaysia  ER:1 - Export restrictions  Importing Member s' food 
security  103058  
G/AG/N/JPN/269  Australia  Japan  NF:1 - NFIDC Decision  NFIDC  103128  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Table 3  - Questions raised under agenda item "Overdue notifications"  
Question by  Answer by  ID Number  
India Uruguay  103111 * 
 
  G/AG/R/104  
 
- 27 - 
 
  ANNEX 2 
 
CHAIR REPORT ON THE INFORMAL MEETING ON 'ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY  
AND THE COA REVIEW PROCESS' OF 2 1 NOVEMBER  
(AGENDA ITEM 2. C) 
During yesterday's informal meeting Members discussed two topics related to transparency and the 
work of this committee.  
 
Under the first topic , Members continued their engagement on  a Domestic Support Database based 
on a joint submission by a group of Members in document RD/AG/92. In light of the discussions on 
this matter at the June and September Informal Committee meetings, I suggested that the 
Secretariat could prepare a methodol ogical note on the proposed database with the details of 
technical elements required for its construction so as to encourage practical discussions on the 
matter to make progress. The Secretariat in that methodological note would also explain the existing 
structure of the AG -IMS reports under the domestic support pillar and the current status in terms of 
the accuracy/functioning of such reports.  
 
Several Members pointed out the inadequacies and factual discrepancies in the existing AG -IMS 
domestic support database and supported my idea for a methodological note on the proposed 
database to be prepared by the Secretariat to kickstart discussions on the proposed database. 
Simultaneously, some other Members preferred to first undertake an informed stock -taking of the 
existing Secretariat database to in order to appreciate what additionality or upgrade would need to 
be considered in order for it to cater to Members' needs.  At the end, there was a convergence around 
the idea that the Secretariat should org anize a working session on the existing AG -IMS database 
prior to the next Committee meeting in March 2023. One Member, who is also a cosponsor of 
RD/AG/92 indicated that it might present its existing domestic support database to enable a 
comparative apprec iation of what currently exists and what is potentially targeted to be 
accomplished.  
 
The Secretariat expressed willingness to organize a working session on the existing AG -IMS database 
in the coming period. The Secretariat also clarified that it had been working over the last several 
months on the AG -IMS domestic support reporting functions which was not yet ready for use. To 
avoid any additional confusion, the Secretariat would disable this function until work on these reports 
had been finalized.  
 
On the second topic , the European Union presented its submission on "transparency in the areas 
of export competition and export restriction". The EU referred to the MC12 Declaration on food 
insecurity and highlighted that enhanced transparency of trade policies h ad gained increased 
importance in the context of the current global crisis. The EU proposed to initially target the areas 
of Export restrictions and Prohibitions, Export Competition and International Food aid to improve 
and streamline the respective transp arency obligations while also reducing administrative burden 
for notifying governments. In the areas of export competition including international food aid, the 
EU presented a number of concrete ideas to streamline the existing ES notification requirements  
following the adoption of the Nairobi Decision on export competition while not lessening or losing 
the existing level of transparency. The EU also underlined the need for improving transparency of 
export restriction, inter alia , by clarifying the existing  transparency requirements and deadlines 
especially during the current global situation when export restrictions were high on the global 
political agenda. The EU also alluded to the need for examining the linkage in the functions of the 
Committee on Agricu lture and the Committee on Market Access in respect of transparency of export 
restrictions.  
 
Several Members supported the EU's ideas and objectives to improve transparency, including in the 
area of export restrictions, and expressed willingness to partici pate in the technical discussions. 
Some of them also shared the view that proposed simplification and streamlining of export subsidy 
notifications should not lead to loss of important information.  Simultaneously, some other Members 
didn't share the priorit y accorded to only select agricultural topics for improving transparency; these 
Members in turn also emphasized the need for enhanced transparency in the domestic support and 
market access pillars. Referring to the earlier discussions in the CoASS, one Mem ber didn't support 
singling out transparency as a separate pillar for targeted discussions; similarly, a question was 
raised whether the regular Committee had the authority and mandate to enhance the existing G/AG/R/104  
 
- 28 - 
 
  transparency requirements.  One Member cautioned  that discussions should not lead to creating 
additional transparency burden for developing countries.  
 
I indicated at the end that the issue of enhanced transparency and improved notification compliance 
will continue to be on the agenda of the next inform al CoA meeting.  
 
 
__________