RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/105  
 
10 May 2023 
(23-3299) Page: 1/32 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27-28 MARCH  2023 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Agriculture (CoA) held its one hundred th and fourth  (104th) regular meeting 
on 27-28 March  2023 under the Chairpersonship of Mr. Marcel Vernooij of the Netherlands.  
1.2.  The agenda contained in the convening airgram WTO/AIR/AG/6 6 circulated on 1 7 March  2023 
was adopted with the following changes : 
• The following questions u nder agenda item 1 - Review Proce ss were co -sponsored after the 
issuance of the convening airgram : 
 
AG-IMS ID  SIM 
Number  Specific Implementation 
Matter/Notification 
concerned  Question by  New Co -sponsor(s)  
104001  
 710 Argentina's export 
restrictions  United Kingdom, 
United States of 
America, 
Europe an Union, 
Switzerland  New Zealand, Japan  
104003  
 306 India's export restrictions  United Kingdom, 
United States of 
America, 
Ukraine, 
European Union, 
Australia, 
Switzerland  New Zealand, Japan  
104008  
 - G/AG/N/CHE/122  
 United Kingdom, 
Paraguay  New Zealand  
104043  
 811 U.S. Inflation Reduction Act  European Union  New Zealand  
104093  - G/AG/N/CHE/122  
 Australia  New Zealand  
104104 ,  
104090 ,  
104106  - G/AG/N/USA/166  
 Australia  New Zealand  
104039  804 Norway's food security policy  European Union  New Zealand  
104061  
 558 EU's Deforestation and Forest 
Degradation Strategy  Brazil, Paraguay  Argentina , Ecuador  
104036  - G/AG/N/EU/81  Paraguay, Brazil  Russian Federation  
104026 ,  
104027  
 
 525 India's public stockpiling  United States of 
America, Brazil, 
Canada, 
Paraguay, 
Thailand, 
European Union, 
Australia  Uruguay, Japan  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 2 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID  SIM 
Number  Specific Implementation 
Matter/Notification 
concerned  Question by  New Co -sponsor(s)  
104021 ,  
104022  
 
 525 India's public stockpiling  United States of 
America, Brazil, 
Canada, 
Ukraine, 
Thailand, 
European Union, 
Australia  Uruguay, Japan  
104023 ,  
104025 ,  
104028 ,  
104029  525 India's public stockpiling  United States of 
America, 
Canada, 
Paraguay, 
Thailand, 
European Union, 
Australia  Uruguay, Japan  
104024 ,  
104030 ,  
104031  
 
 
 525 India's public stockpiling  United States of 
America, 
Canada, 
Paraguay, 
Thailand, 
European Union, 
Australia  Japan  
104007  
 - G/AG/N/CHN/65  
 United Kingdom, 
Brazil, Thailand, 
European Union  Japan  
104056  
 803 Morocco's export ban on 
certain vegetables  Switzerland, 
United Kingdom, 
European Union  Japan  
104070  
 808 Tajikistan's export ban on 
onions and other vegetables  Switzerland, 
United Kingd om Japan  
104013  
 - G/AG/N/CHN/65  
 European Union, 
Canada, United 
States of 
America, 
Australia  Japan  
104047  
 - G/AG/N/CHN/66  
 European Union  Japan  
104015  
 - G/AG/N/CHN/47  
 United States of 
America, 
Canada, 
Australia  Japan  
104016  
 - G/AG/N/CHN/64  
 United States of 
America, 
Thailand, 
European Union, 
Australia  Japan  
104017  
 - G/AG/N/CHN/65  
 United States of 
America, 
Canada, 
Thailand, 
European Union, 
Australia  Japan  
104108  
 - G/AG/N/CHN/66  
 United States of 
America, 
Canada, 
Australia  Japan  
104111 ,  
104116 ,  
104117  - G/AG/N/CHN/67  
 United States of 
America, Canada  Japan  
104020  743 India's other support for rice  United States of 
America, 
Canada, 
Thailand, 
European Union, 
Australia  Japan  
104033  767 India's export restriction 
measures on rice  United States of 
America, Brazil, 
Canada, Japan  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 3 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID  SIM 
Number  Specific Implementation 
Matter/Notification 
concerned  Question by  New Co -sponsor(s)  
Thailand, 
European Union, 
Australia, 
Switzerland, 
United Kingdom  
104037  
 724 Indonesia's palm oil export 
restrictions  United States of 
Ameri ca, 
European Union, 
Australia, 
Switzerland  Japan  
104158  - G/AG/N/CHE/122  Paraguay, Brazil  Argentina  
104157  - G/AG/N/NOR/122  Paraguay  Argentina  
 
• The Chairperson proposed that agenda 2B(ii)  on 'Work Programme pursuant to paragraph 8 
of the MC12  Declaration on food insecurity " and 2B(iii)  on "Ministerial Declaration on the 
WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic and preparedness for future pandemics" be taken 
up together in view of  the overlap across th ose items . 
1.3.  Additionally, the Chairperson acknowledged the following written submission s circulated after 
the issuance of the convening airgram , for consideration under  agenda 2B(ii) and 2B(iii) : 
G/AG/GEN/2 17 by the Food and Agriculture Organization  (FAO), and G/AG/GE N/218 by the World 
Food Program me (WFP) . 
2  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
2.1.  The Chairperson urged Members to provide timely and complete responses to questions raised 
under the Committee's review process and to submit them through the Agriculture Information 
Management Sy stem (AG -IMS)2 for interested Members to consult. The Chairperson also referred to 
the built -in co-sponsoring function of the Agriculture Information Management System (AG -IMS) 
Q&A facility and noted that more than one third of the questions raised for the meeting had been 
co-sponsored by at least one Member.  
2.2.  The Chairperson noted that for the meeting, as of 9 am, 27 March  2023, 19 out of the 
162 questions raised had responses available on the AG -IMS. The Chairperson welcomed Members' 
practice of submitt ing responses  in advance of CoA meetings  allowing for  deepened exchanges 
during meetings.  
2.3.  The Secretariat continued its practice of ascertaining the attendance of Members subject to 
advance questions prior to Committee meetings. No delegation  had informed the Secretariat of their 
absence at the March  meeting.  
2.1  Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the reform programme 
- Article 18.6  
2.4.  A total of 38 specific implementation matters (SIMs) were raised at the 10 4th CoA meeting 
under Article 1 8.6.3 Out of the 38 SIMs, 15 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 Chairperson reported that since the previous Committee meeting held on 
21-22 November  2022, 109 notifications had been received.  Out of those notifications, 36 related to 
market access, 33 concerned domestic support, 32 related to export competition, 2 concerned 
export prohibitions or restrictions, and 6 were net food -importing developing country  (NF) 
 
2 http://agims.wto.org/ . 
3 WTO/AIR/AG/ 66, 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 31. G/AG/R/105  
 
- 4 - 
 
  notification s. Those notificat ions 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 .4 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.  
2.2.2   Overdue notifications  
2.7.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat document  summarizing the status of Members' 
compliance with notification obligations .5 
2.8.  The Chairperson acknowledged Members' efforts to bring their notifications up to date, noting 
that several Members had submitted  notifications covering multiple years since the  November  2022 
meeting, including:  
• China : Table DS:1 covering the years 20 17-2020; and  
• The Gambia : Table DS:1 covering the years 201 5, 2017 and 2019, and Table ES:1 covering 
the years 1996, and 2011 to 2021.   
2.9.  The Chairperson also drew Members' attention t o the overall situation with respect to 
outstanding domestic support and export subsidy notifications for the period 1995 to 202 1: 
• 1,013  Table  DS:1 domestic support notifications remained outstanding; and  
• 1,013  export subsidy notifications in the Table ES: 1 series remained outstanding.  
2.10.  One question w as raised under this agenda item.6 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.  
2.2.2.1   Overdue notifications  
2.11.  The Chairperson recall ed the Committee's past discussions on the streamlining of 
ES notifications  and noted that while those discussions had been ongoing, the Committee had 
reached an agreement at its November  2022 meeting to establish an additional avenue for Members 
to report  the non -use of export subsidies by way of an oral statement to this effect at Committee  
meetings in order to fulfil their outstanding Table ES:1 notification obligations .7 The Chairperson 
added that the normal channels of submission of notifications via the  Central Registry of Notifications 
(CRN) or on -line through the AGIMS would remain available.  The Chairperson also recalled the 
Secretariat 's efforts and assistance to LDC Members with outstanding  Table  ES:1 notifications to 
sensitize them about th e new procedural avenue to clear those pending notifications . 
2.12.  The following Members took the floor under this agenda item to announce  non-use of export 
subsidies  (i.e. the 'NIL' statements):  
• Guinea: 1995 to 2009 and  2019 to 2021  
• Haiti: 2015 to 2021  
• Mauritania: 1995 to 2021  
• Niger: 1997 to 2021  
• Sierra Leone:  1995 to 2021  
 
4 WTO/AIR/AG/ 66, 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 31. 
5 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.4 8 circulated on 1 7 March  2023. 
6 The details of the question  raised can be found under Section 3 of the compilation docu ment in 
G/AG/W/2 31. 
7 G/AG/R/104, paragraph 2.17 . G/AG/R/105  
 
- 5 - 
 
  • Uganda : 2005 to 2021  
2.13.  The Chairperson  welcomed  Members ' announcements and  noted that the Secretariat would 
do the necessary follow -up to release  the Table ES:1 notifications for the concerned years.8 
The Chairperson encouraged other Members to make use of th e new and simplified procedure to 
clear outstanding Table ES:1 notifications in cases where no export subsidies had been provided. 
In closing th e agenda item, t he Chairperson also emphasized the importance of transparency and 
timely notifications and encouraged Members to fulfil their outstanding notification obligations.  
2.2.3   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been ra ised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
2.14.  The Committee took note of the 7 3 notifications circulated before the issuance of the 
convening airgram on 17 March  2023, including notifications carried over from the November 2022 
meeting, but in r espect 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  
2.15.  The Committee took note of the 7 notification s circulated after the i ssuance of the convening 
airgram on 17 March  2023:  
• Australia – Table MA:2 for 2021 and Table MA:5 for 2022  
• Brazil – Table DS:1 for 2021  
• Canada – Table NF:1 for 2021  
• Nicaragua – Table MA:5 for 2022  
• Chinese  Taipei – Table MA:5 for 2022  
• Ukraine – Table MA:1 for 2023  
 
2.16.  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 a t previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: information regarding outcome where the issue involved is one of 
general interest  
2.17.  There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
2.2.6   Counter -notifications under Article 18.7 of the Agreemen t on Agriculture  
2.18.  No counter -notifications under Article 18.7 were made for this Committee meeting.  
2.3  Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process  
2.19.  The Secretariat document G/AG/W/204/Rev. 9 lists questions raised under the CoA  review 
process from 2013 to 202 2 where responses remain outstanding.  As of 15 March  2023, a total of 
171 questions still had outstanding responses  from 4 5 Members  for the period 2013 -2021. 
2.20.  The Chairperson urged Members to make dedicated efforts to shorten, and ev entually 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.  
2.21.  One question was raised under this agenda item .10 The concerned Member's response and 
follow -up comments can be accessed through the hyperlink contained in Table 4 of Annex 1  to this 
report  or through the AG -IMS using the relevant question ID number.  
 
8 The relevant notifications for the concerned six Members were later released in the G/AG/N/ series.  
9 WTO/AIR/AG/ 66, Section C of Attachment  1. 
10 WTO/AIR/AG/ 66, Section D of Attachment  1. The details of the question  raised can be found under 
Section 4 of the compilation document  in G/AG/W/2 31. G/AG/R/105  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.22.  The Dominican Republic provided pending answers to the questions with AG -IMS ID numbers 
95077 , 95079 , 74046 , and 74045 .  
3  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE  
3.1  WTO  list of NFIDCs  
3.1.  Pursuant to p aragraph 1 .b of the Decision of the Committee relating to the establishment of 
the list of WTO net food -importing developing countries (NFIDC s) in G/AG/3 , the Committee carried 
out its annual review of the List at the March meeting. The Committee had received request s from 
Nigeria and Tonga for inclusion in the List.  
3.2.  Tonga  underlined that as a remo te small island developing country with a narrow export base, 
it was highly susceptible to natural disasters and climate change. Its imports of food and fuel 
collectively constituted over half of its merchandise imports with food imports alone comprising 2 8% 
of the total merchandise imports. Referring to other vulnerabilities related to remoteness, natural 
disasters, climate change and  price volatility, Tonga flagged the importance of functioning 
international food markets, especially considering the  freque nt natural disasters in the region with 
increasing intensity.  
3.3.  Tonga noted its heavy dependence on the import of essential foodstuffs such as rice, wheat 
flour and sugar . Out of 13 basic food items , namely cereals, rice, wheat, flour, pasta, dairy, milk, 
cheese, butter, meat, chicken, beef, lamb, mutton, cooking oil, fruits, apples, onions,  and sugar , for 
which Tonga submitted recent trade statistics in support of its request, only three items had limited 
local production with the rest imported in entirety to meet domestic consumption needs.  
3.4.  Tonga referred to the 1994 Marrakesh Decision  regarding  the potential vulnerabilities of the 
least developed and net food -importing developing countries  and wished to be part of  WTO 
discussions on food security as an NFIDC, including under the ongoing CoA work programme 
established pursuant to the MC12 Declaration  on food insecurity.  
3.5.  Samoa on behalf of the Pacific Group supported the request. Samoa pointed to the high 
intensity and frequency of natural disasters in the region and underscored the crucial need for a 
reliable supply of food in Tonga and other small is land developing states who were heavily dependent 
on imports. Referring to the supporting statistical data furnished by Tonga for the period 2017 -19, 
Samoa believed that the import share of various food commodities would have increased further in 
the wake of the COVID -19 pandemic. Egypt, Fiji, New Zealand, Nigeria, the Republic of Korea, 
Sri Lanka and Uganda voiced their support for Tonga to be added to the NFIDC list.   
3.6.  The Committee agreed to include Tonga in the WTO list of NFIDCs.11  
3.7.  Nigeria also presen ted its request for inclusion in the list of NFIDCs and alluded to the numerous 
challenges  faced by  its agriculture sector , including low technology, limited financing, high 
post-harvest losses, low level of irrigation farming, climate change and land degr adation , which 
continued to  undermine Nigeria's agricultural p roductivity . Citing FAO, Nigeria noted that its 
cumulative agricultural import s between 2016 and 2019  stood at N3.35 trillion, four times higher 
than its agricultural exports of N803 billion wit hin the same period . Nigeria noted th at while several 
initiatives and programmes had been implemented by the government  to boost agricultural 
productivity , Nigeria  believe d that support from the WTO and other partners was crucial for it to 
effectively addr ess the food crisis given its increasing population, which was estimated to reach 400 
million by 2050.  
3.8.  Referring to the statistical data submitted to the Committee showing the  significant net food 
import value s of N1.4 trillion , N2.64  trillion  and N2.44 trillion  respectively in 2019, 2020 and 2021, 
Nigeria called on the Committee to accept its request for inclusion in the NFIDC list for it to access 
the relevant policy instruments within the WTO toolbox to boost agricultural productivity and address  
food insufficiency .  
 
11 The revised NFIDC list, inclusive of Tonga, was circulated in G/AG/5/Rev.12 dated 29 March  2023.  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.9.  Egypt, Sri Lanka, and Uganda supported Nigeria's request for inclusion in the list of NFIDCs.  
3.10.  The European Union, New Zealand, and the United States requested additional time to 
consider Nigeria's request as the examination of Nigeri a's statistical data was still underway. The 
United Sates raised questions regarding the product coverage and the completeness of Nigeria's 
data in relation to the definition of agricultural products under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). 
The United Sta tes stated that it would reach out to Nigeria bilaterally to better appreciate the data 
submitted.  
3.11.  Costa Rica wondered whether there was a definition of "basic foodstuffs" in the context of 
G/AG/3. Costa Rica also noted that some of the Members in the current NFIDC list were large 
exporters of some agricultural products. Costa Rica reminded the Committee that paragraph 3 of 
G/AG/3 requires the list of NIFDCs to be reviewed, which, in its view, could entail both the inclusion 
in as well as exclusion from th e list. Paraguay echoed Costa Rica's comments on the NFIDC list and 
scope of review under G/AG/3 and considered that the topic was apt for consideration under the 
ongoing CoA work programme on food security.  
3.12.  Nigeria affirmed that its net food -importer sta tus was evident based on the data sourced from 
the FAO. Nigeria sought clarification from the Secretariat regarding the composition of the statistical 
data required by G/AG/3 and the timeline for submission of such data to the Committee. Nigeria 
also belie ved that basic foodstuffs may differ from one country to another. Nigeria also invited the 
Secretariat to provide further guidance on how a requesting Member might fulfil the criteria set out 
in G/AG/3 for its inclusion in the list of NIFDCs.  
3.13.  The Secretar iat confirmed that it had received Nigeria's request along with the statistical data 
more than one month in advance of this March Committee meeting. The Secretariat had accordingly 
informed Members about the request through the reminder airgram of the meet ing rather than 
hosting it directly on the draft agenda under the convening airgram. In terms of the composition of 
data required by G/AG/3 and the definition of " basic foodstuffs ", the Secretariat noted that in the 
absence of any elaborate discussions in the Committee on this topic, it could only share information 
on such data provided by the requesting Members in the past.   
3.14.  The Chairperson concluded that the Committee was not in a position to take a decision on 
Nigeria's request at this meeting and the ma tter would be included on the agenda of the next 
Committee meeting in June 2023.  The Chairperson also urged concerned Members to engage 
bilaterally with Nigeria  to address their specific questions, and report progress to  the Committee for 
transparency  purposes.   
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   
3.15.  The Chairperson stated that paragraph 3 of the recommendations of the Review of the 
operation of th e Bali TRQ Decision approved by the General Council in December 2019 (as contained 
in annex 2 to G/AG/29) provided for the Committee to undertake regular triennial reviews of the 
operation of the Decision. The first such triennial review accordingly commen ced in 2022.  
3.16.  The Chairperson noted that several  issues had been raised during the first triennial review at 
the informal and formal CoA meetings between June and November 2022 . The Secretariat had 
prepared a draft report of the review in RD/AG/95 and its revision. During the consideration of this 
matter at the 21 -22 November CoA meeting, Members asked for additional time to examine the 
specific issues raised and finalize the review at the March 2023 meeting of the Committee.  
3.17.  The Chairperson noted that the matter had been  taken up at three informal CoA meetings 
this year , including  the informal meeting held on 27 March  2023, when Members considered the 
latest revised report of the review in RD/AG/95/Rev.3. The latest draft revised report include d an 
important agreement in paragraph 3.1 d) on enhanced transparency of MA:2 notifications in respect 
of TRQs with country -specific allocations in the Schedule. The Chairperson noted while some 
Members  believe d that such transparency in respect of scheduled countr y specific  TRQ allocations 
should already have been  required from the concerned TRQ h olders, Members' MA:2 notification G/AG/R/105  
 
- 8 - 
 
  practices of more than 25 years had suggest ed otherwise. Additionally , there was an agreement 
proposed in the draft report t o review the  existing MA:1 format in G/AG/2 to enable Members to 
include information on the implementation of paragraph s 2 to 5 of the Bali TRQ Decision. The 
Chairperson considered th at to be a n important affirmation and statement of intent from the 
Committee to review a transparency obligation  established decades ago taking into account 
subsequent developments.  
3.18.   While some Members preferred  a more ambitious outcome, the Chairperson urged Members 
to agree on the outcome presented in RD/AG/95/Rev.3  to conclude the first triennial review within 
the agreed deadline of th e March CoA meeting . The Chairperson also remind ed Members that even 
after the conclusion of the triennial review, the implementation of the Bali TRQ Decision would  
remain an ongoing conversation in th e Committee pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Decision.  
3.19.  Paraguay  requested  additional time to consider the revised report as it was awaiting 
instructions from the capital. The Committee  accordingly agreed  to finalize the review at its next 
meeting in June 2 023. The Chairperson also took note of Paraguay's comment that the draft report 
might be considered earlier through a special meeting of the Committee in the event it would receive 
capital's feedback prior to the June  2023 Committee meeting.   
3.2.2   Ministerial Declaration on the emergency response to food insecurity 
(WT/MIN/(22)/28 – WT/L/1139) - Work programme pursuant to paragraph 8 of the 
Declaration and  
3.20.  As was announced during the adoption of the agenda, the items under 2B(ii) on Work 
Programme pursuant to paragraph 8 of the MC12  Declaration on food insecurity  and 2B(iii)  on 
Ministerial Declaration on the WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic and preparedn ess for future 
pandemics were taken up together in view of the overlap across them. The summary of discussions 
on these two items is contained in paragraphs 3.21to 3.38 below.  
3.2.3   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'   
3.21.  The Chairperson, as the Coordinator of the Working Group for the conduct of the Work 
Programme pursuant to paragraph 8 of the MC12  Declarat ion on food insecurity, pro vided a report 
on the discussions that have taken place in the Working Group since the Committee established the 
work programme at its November 2022 meeting pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the MC -12 Declaration 
on the Emergency Respon se to Food Insecurity12. The report by the Working Group coordinator  is 
contained in Annex 2 to this report.  
3.22.  The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)13 and the World Food 
Programme (WFP)14 presented their written submissions.  
3.23.  The FAO noted that the  number of people affected by chronic hunger globally rose to 828 
million in 2021, up by 150 million since the outbreak of the COVID -19. While hunger continued to 
increase globally in 2021 , the largest increase was registered in Africa . The FAO stated that f uture 
projections suggest that globally, nearly 670 million people w ould still be undernourished in 2030, 
78 million more than the number which would have prevailed had the COVID -19 pandemic not 
occurred. On global cereal suppl y and demand scenario, the FAO forecasted slight declines in world 
production, utilization, stocks, and trade levels of cereals for 2022 -2023 compared to the previous 
year while overall supply levels  were estimated to be comfortable . Unfavourable weather, worsening 
socioeconomic conditions, and elevated fertilizer prices had lowered 2023 cereal production 
prospects in low -income food deficit countries.  A downward trend in the FAO  Food Price Index had 
continued for 11 consecutive month s, averaging 129.8 poin ts in February 2023, 18.7% less than  
the peak  level it had reached in March 2022.  Simultaneously, domestic staple prices remained at 
elevated levels in several countries, including due to conflict, adverse weather events and exchange 
rate movements. The w orld food import bill was estimated to reach another  all-time high in 2022, 
surpassing USD 1.9 trillion, a 10.3% increase from last year's record level  primarily due to higher 
 
12 WT/MIN(22)/28 - WT/L/1139.  
13 G/AG/GEN/217.  
14 G/AG/GE N/218.  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 9 - 
 
  international  prices. Due to high  agricultural input prices , the world agricultural input import s bill 
was estimated to reach USD  424 billion in 2022, representing a leap of 48% from the corresponding 
value in 2021. The FAO had continued to play a key role in framing the trade-related response  by 
way of provid ing timely infor mation on markets , analysis and evidence building , targeted policy 
proposals, and supporting global food security governance. The FAO expressed its readiness to 
support the ongoing discussions in the CoA W ork Programme under pa ragraph 8 of the Ministerial 
Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity . 
3.24.  The WFP reported that  345 million people were estimated to be acutely food insecure across 
79 countries where the WFP had operat ions with n early three -fourth of them originating i n NFIDCs  
in what the WFP considered to be the largest food and nutrition crisis in modern history . Conflict  
remain ed the main driver of hunger and food insecurity ; climate extremes , econom ic shocks , soaring 
input prices and debt distress were other contributory factors. The WFP continued to scale up its 
food and nutritional assistance to the most vulnerable populations ; it assisted 158 million people  in 
2022, the largest number in the WFP's history. The WFP procured 4.2 million metric to nnes of food  
in 2022  with o ver one-third of it from the l east developed and net food -importing developing 
countries ; half of these food purchases had been effected through local and regional markets. The 
WFP also underlined the importance of partnership across relevant stakeholders, including 
governments, international organizations, private sector,  and local actors to address the  global food 
crisis through coordinated actions. The WFP assigned significant importance to the Black Sea Grain 
Initiative ; since the signing of the Initiati ve, the WFP had procured 575,000 metric ton nes of wheat 
from Ukraine intended for distributions to the hungr y populations in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Somalia 
and Yemen. The WFP reaffirmed its commit ment to work with other partners  to counter hunger, 
alleviate suffering s and save lives . 
3.25.  India thanked the WFP for its submission and presentation to the Committee. India wondered 
how paragraphs 1.8 and 1.9 of the WFP submission in G/AG/GEN/218  could be reconciled as the 
former talks abo ut price mitigation and containment due to the Black Sea Grain Initiative  and the  
latter refers to burgeoning food import bills driven by high import prices.  India sought the WFP's 
view on the  reports that the offtake from the Black Sea Grain Initiative had been destined to richer 
countries rather than the poor and vulnerable countries and LDCs. India also invited the WFP 's to 
regularly report  to the CoA on the impact of the MC -12 Decision15 on WFP on its purchase operations.  
3.26.  Australia voiced its gratitude , respect, and admiration for the W FP's global operations , which, 
in its view, continued to have major impact in addressing food insecurity  world -wide. Australia also 
welcomed the work and analysis shared by the WFP and other organizations at the Committee. 
Australia stressed the importance of c ollaboration between international organizations as th is was 
key for having  an effective and durable  response to the crisis . Australia supported India's question 
regarding the WFP's perspectives o n the MC 12  Decision on the exemption of WFP purchase from 
export restrictions and wondered as to what extent export restrictions had remain ed a concern for 
the WFP 's work and operations . Australia noted its  contribution of  more than AUD 232 million to the 
WFP in 2021 and 2022.  
3.27.  New Zealand recognize d the significant work  done by the WFP  to help address the worsening 
food insecurity crisis and reiterated its  commitment to working with international partners and 
responding to the growing food security crisis via both the humanitarian and development funding 
streams. New Zealand highlighted the various financial contributions it made in 2022 in this regard, 
including NZD 3 million to the WFP and the FAO respectively i n Afghanistan, NZD 4.4 million to the 
WFP in the Horn of Africa, NZD 2 million  to the WFP in Myanmar, and NZD 1.3 million to the WFP, 
FAO, and UNICEF, in Sri Lanka.  Additionally, New Zealand  had recently announced support of 
NZD 1.85 million to address global food insecurity , exacerbated by Russia's actions in Ukrain e, along 
with its plan to mobilize additional contributions to meet urgent food security needs in the coming 
period. New Zealand noted that export restrictions remain ed a critical concern for Members as a 
measure that creates uncertainty a nd unpredictability in world food markets, especially for the most 
vulnerable . New Zealand voiced its continued commitment to the MC-12 Decision on prohibiting 
export restrictions for humanitarian food purchases by the WFP  and welcome d their ongoing work 
and analysis on that Decision.  
3.28.  The European Union (EU)  acknowledged t he WFP ' actions in the context of global food 
insecurity  and welcomed the updated report to the Committee. The EU  warmly welcomed the 
 
15 WT/MIN(22)/29  -WT/L/1140.  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 10 - 
 
  renewal of the  UN Black Sea Grain Initiative  and expr essed support for  the efforts of the UN and 
Türkiye to facilitate the continuation of the Initiative. The EU noted that t he despite the fragility and 
sensitivity of the grain initiative, it had facilitate d safe navigation for the export of grain s and relat ed 
foods, and fertilizers from  the Ukrainian Black Sea ports, and allowed additional international supply 
of grains to third countries . The EU referred to  an UNCTAD report16 of 9 March  2023 on the Black 
Sea Grain Initiative  showing how the initiative signed in July 2022 amid the ongoing war ha d offered 
hope and shown the power of trade in times of crisis , and simultaneously why it's critical to renew 
the initiative , especially for developing countries. According to the repor t, while the shipment of 
grains from Ukraine picked up since the launch of the Initiative, grain exports could not however 
compensate for the trade slump resulting from the first months of the war . Compared to the previous 
year's level of wheat exports to developing countries, there had been a shortfall of 12 million tonnes 
of wheat in 2022 , which is equivalent to the annual wheat food consumption of 175 million people. 
Maize and wheat account ed for more than 75% of the 2 3 million tonnes of grain that ha d left 
Ukrainian ports under the initiative ; 65% of the wheat exports had been channel led to developing 
and least developed countries, with 20% share  for the least developed countries. The EU further 
noted that, as regards wheat, as of 8 March 2023, 249 shipments totalling more than 6.5 million 
tonnes had taken place  to 28 countries  of which the  EU destinations represented only 32% of the 
shipped quantity . Around 50% of the exported whea t quantity had gone to developing and least -
developed countries in need, for example, Bangladesh, Sudan, Kenya, Egypt, Somalia, Afghanistan, 
Türkiye, Yemen, and Ethiopia. As for maize, 323 shipments  comprising  11.5 million tonnes had been 
shipped to 21 cou ntries where the EU destinations represented 45%. The EU stated that as the 
largest traditional buyer of Ukrainian maize, it was not surprising  that maize vessels had headed for 
EU member States  replicating the pre -war trade pattern . Further, once processe d, some of the se 
exports could effectively end up in different countries. Supported by  direct maritime transport , the 
largest traditional buyers of Ukrainian wheat  had been  Egypt, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippines, 
Tunisia,  and Morocco  with the Su b-Sahara n Africa normally represent ing only 7% of total Ukrainian 
wheat exports.  The EU also noted that the Black Sea Grain Initiative  enabled the WFP, wh ich usually 
procured half of its wheat stocks from Ukraine  to export grain from Ukraine directly to those 
countries most in need. The EU noted that, t o date, the WFP  chartered vessels had transported over 
456 million ton nes of wheat through various Black Sea ports, supporting Ethiopia, Afghanistan, 
Yemen, Somalia,  and Kenya.   
3.29.  Canada echoed some of the EU's comments and welcomed the WFP's analysis on the impact 
of the Black Sea Grain Initiative on global food prices . Canad a emphasized that  the immediate cris is 
should be address ed in a coherent manner, while also set ting course for medium - and long -term 
resilience. Canada  referred to its engagement with multilateral partners in major forums such as the 
UN, Rome -based agencies, the G7, the G20 and the WTO to promote an evidence -based and 
coordinated response to the ong oing food crisis. It also expressed its continued  commitment to 
support ing humanitarian partners such as the WFP to help meet the emergency food and nutrition 
needs of the growing number of acutely food insecure people.  Canada referred to its new funding 
for emergency food and nutrition assistance , essential for saving lives and alleviating suffering , and 
noted that  it had allocated a record amount of more than CAN$615 million for humanitarian food 
and nutrition assistance  in 2022. Simultaneously, Canada considered that humanitarian assistance 
was not designed to address the root causes of hunger and malnutrition and  must be accompanied 
by longer term development assistance to build resilience to future shocks. In this regar d, 
Canada  noted that, s ince 2008 -2009, it has disbursed over CAN$6.6 billion in agriculture and food 
system development progra mmes . Funding to this portfolio had increased to CAN$ 827 million in 
2020-21, including CAN$ 313 million in climate finance loans. In the fiscal year 2021 -22, Canada's 
support to developing countries towards the agriculture and food systems projects had amounted to 
CAN$602 million .  
3.30.  The Republic of Korea thanked the WFP and the FAO for their efforts in addressing food 
insecurity. Korea  highlighted its  accession to the Food A ssistance Convention in 2018 and noted that 
it had provided 50,000 metric ton nes of Korean rice to Yemen and Sudan  through the WFP . Korea 
looked forward to further  strengthen ing its cooperation with the WFP. 
3.31.  The Russian Federation also thanked the WFP and the FAO for their reports and contributions 
to fighting against food insecurity. As regards the implementation of the Black Sea Grain Initiative , 
Russia noted that according to the data published at the Joint  Coordination Centre (JCC) website , 
the main destination of Ukrainian food shipments had been high-income countries ; for example, 
 
16 A Trade Hope: The impact of the Black Sea Grain Initiative .  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Spain had been the top destination of wheat export s under this Initiative  which the delegate from 
the Russian Federation could  confirm by the data downloaded from the JCC website during the 
meeting . The Russian Federation also regretted the lack of tangible progress on the second part of 
the deal on the memorandum of understanding between the United Nations and the Russian 
Federa tion to facilitate the unimpeded access for its food and fertilizers exports to global markets . 
The Russian Federation  also welcomed the FAO report and its focus on fundamental systemic causes 
of the deterioration  of agrifood markets , including rising inte rest rates, volatility  of global currency  
and financial markets , and growing public debt . The Russian Federation  considered the reference to 
the situation in Ukraine in relation to these issues  as misleading. Sharp increase in financial injections 
by governments for post -pandemic recovery ha d led to a significant jump in inflation. In efforts to 
fight inflation, developed Members significantly increased their interest rates which in turn had led 
to the appreciation of their curr encies and devaluation of developing countries' currencies  triggering 
increased food bills  and public debt challenges for LDCs and NFIDCs.  On the inflationary prices of 
energy and fertilizers , the Russian Federation regretted the omission of the unilateral  coercive 
restrictions by certain Members , including punitive measures  against Russian suppliers , while 
attributing those inflationary price trends solely to the situation in Ukraine . Questions on personal 
sanctions, blocking of accounts , multiple l ogistic al bottlenecks  and restrictions  against the Russian 
Federation  were raised during the Committee's review process but those had remained unanswered 
by Members  applying such measures. The Russia n Federation  cautioned against disregarding 
economic and energy policies and unilateral restrictions applied by certain Members against the 
Russia n Federation  over the last several months and presenting one-sided vision of the factors 
affecting global agricultur al marke ts. The Russian Federation exhorted the WTO Membership , the 
Secretariat,  and international organizations to be more objective in their assess ment of the causes 
and consequences of the current problems facing the world economy, trading system and agricultural 
markets. 
3.32.  Ukraine also referred to UNCTAD 's publication  entitled "A Trade Hope" and the statistics 
therein showing the share of  wheat and corn exports destined to  least developed and developing 
countries under the Black Sea Grain Initiative at 65% and 49%  respectively. Ukraine thank ed the  
FAO for the comprehensive analysis of the global food security situation  and the support  it had 
provid ed to Ukrainian agricultural producers . Ukraine was convinced that the support by the FAO 
would assist its companies  to cope with the consequences of the war led by the Russia n Federation 
and to resume their activit ies which  was necessary for the functioning of food market s. Ukraine also 
thanked the WFP for the background  information  and expressed its high apprecia tion tow ards the 
activities of the WFP to help food insecure people across the world. Referring to the WFP's 
contribution, Ukraine noted that the Black Sea Grain Initiative had a significant impact on the 
reduction of world prices of agricultural products. Ukraine  complained that the Russian Federation 
had attempted to disrupt the extension of the Initiative and  considered those attempts as 
unacceptable actions which prevented market operators from planning their activities and posed 
global food security challenges . Ukraine  also informed the Committee about the humanitarian food 
program me launched at the end of last year  by President Zelenskyy under which Ukrainian grain 
was d elivered to  countries suffering from food shortages in Africa and Asia . Ukraine  targeted th e 
delivery of grains to at least 5 million people by the end of the spring  2023; the intention had been 
to send at least 60 ships this year  from Ukrain e to countries most affected by the food crisis . Since 
the start of the program me, being implemented in close partnership with the WFP, 170,000 ton nes 
of Ukrainian wheat had been sent to Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen,  and Kenya.  30,000 ton nes of wheat 
were sent from Ukraine to Yemen  last week  under this programme ; three more ships had departed 
since then whereas two more ships were being loaded with more than 190,000 ton nes of wheat 
destined for Bangladesh. Ukraine emphasized the importance of multilateral response to food 
insecurity  and its commitment to contributing  to those efforts despite the  current extreme 
circumstances.  
3.33.  The United States thank ed the WFP and the  FAO for their insightful  presentations.  
The US noted that food security h ad always been at the heart of the WTO agricultural discussions, 
and it was critically important now. The US emphasized the important role of i ncreasing agricultural 
production and productivity in enhancing food security  while preserving the planet and the la nd. 
The US underlined its  commitment  to continuin g collabora tion with other Members to address food 
insecurity crisis through th e CoA work program me related to food insecurity and through other global 
efforts. The US called the Committee's attention to t he Coalition on Sustainable Productivity Growth 
for Food Security and Resource Conservation, also known as the SPG Coalition, launched in 2021 at 
the UN Food System Summit. The US noted that the SPG coalition was a platform for sharing and 
disseminating info rmation about best practices, lessons learned and innovative evidence -based  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 12 - 
 
  approaches for sustainable productivity growth in agriculture , a powerful engine to increase food 
production without using more resources.  The Coalition compr ised of stakeholders f rom every region 
of the world, including countries, farmer groups, agricultural and food businesses, NGOs, civil 
society,  and indigenous groups, as well as academic and research institutions. The  US encourage d 
all WTO members to join this dynamic coalition  which was voluntary and entailed no  financial 
commitment. In addition, the US  alerted  the Committee that it would  host the  AIM for Climate 
Summit from 8 to 10 May 2023 in Washington, DC. The event w ould bring together convening 
partners, including governments, private sector, academia, and non -governmental organizations, to 
increase and accelerate investment in and support for climate -smart agriculture and food systems 
innovation. Further, t he event so ught to build collaborations and share knowledge on innovative 
solutions that can advance agriculture and development goals, including inclusive agricultural -led 
growth to support food security. The US encouraged AIM  for Climate partner s to attend  the upcomi ng 
summit in May and encouraged others to consider becoming a  partner. The US noted that the two 
initiatives provide d opportunities for technical experts from all countries to coordinate and learn from 
each other ; this collaboration c ould help inform polic y development s and investment in agricultural 
research and development, the importance of which was a common thread in Members'  responses  
to the Q uestionnaire  under the food security work program me, as well as the upcoming workshop  
on productivity. The US underlined the vital importance of this type of coordination and cooperation, 
given the current global food security situation and the challenges Members faced . In response to a 
question from the Chairperson, the US also confirmed that its latest submissio n17 on food security 
would be presented at the coming meeting of the Special Session of the Committee.  
3.34.  In response to some  question s from Members on its report , the WFP noted that several factors 
could influence import bills  and the associated challenges in financing imports. Importing countries' 
level of economic development or poverty, debt stress and currency movements could play a critical 
role in this regard . The WFP also explained that the food and fertilizer prices wer e high at the start 
of 2022 (i.e. before the war); while the Black Sea Grain Initiative  had driven th ose prices down , the 
drop from their 2022 peaks was however  not enough to effectively contain food inflation. In fact, 
the food inflation was over 15%  in 70 countries , over 50%  in about 15 countries,  and about 
5 countries had experienced food inflation over 100% . On the destination of trade under the 
Black  Sea Grain Initiative , the WFP noted that increased supplies of traded grains , even to upper 
high income  and upper middle -income countries , had brought the international p rices down  
benefitting other countries and assisting WFP's food purchases from global markets. In relation to 
export restrictions and prohibitions, the WFP expressed its appreciation towards the WTO 
Membership for the MC -12 Decision exempting WFP humanitarian food purchases from those 
measures. The WFP had started to collect information on the origins of its p urchases  and on instances 
where it had faced constraints in unde rtaking such purchases due to export restrictions and 
prohibitions. The WFP also called for countries to avoid such measures  on trade in food for the benefit 
of the bigger global community . The WFP also thanked the WTO Members for their generous 
contributi ons to the WFP; it had received $14.2 billion  in 2022 , the highest amount  thus far . Those 
contributions allowed the WFP operations to reach a total of 158 million people , which was another 
record high. However, despite these positive developments, the WFP did not project the number of 
food insecure people to decrease in 2023, due to the continuation of structural reasons such as 
climate change, geopolitical conflicts, and economic downturns . The WFP also underlined the  
importan ce of the continuation  of the Black Sea Grain Initiative  and drew Members' attention to the 
website of the Initiative which provide d real-time information regarding the number of vessels 
leaving the ports each day and the cargo carried on the vessels as well as their destinations.   
3.35.  The Chairperson thanked both the FAO and WFP for their actions on the ground, consistent 
collaboration across other international institutions, including the WTO, and other stakeholders, and 
rich contributions to the Committee's food security debate. The C hairperson also drew Members' 
attention to the annex of the WFP's submission which , for the first time, contained information  on 
the WFP food purchases from individual countries in response to Members' request. The Chairperson 
asked the WFP if such information  was sensitive  especially in being potentially prejudicial to source 
country markets. T he WFP shared the Chair's view about the sensitive nature of the information on 
country -specific procurements , hence not disseminated publicly  by the WFP , and asked Members to 
use it with discre tion. Considering the parallel discussions on food security in the Special Session of 
the Committee on Agriculture (CoASS), the Chairperson advised the Secretariat to the keep the 
CoASS Chair informed of the CoA delibera tions under the food security work programme.  
 
17 JOB/AG/241 and other symbols.  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.36.  On agenda item 2 B(iii)  on COVID -19, the Chairperson recalled that in October 2022 the Chair 
of the Council for Trade in Goods ( CTG) had requested18 the Chairs of all CTG subsidiary bodies, 
including the Commi ttee on Agriculture, to prepare a factual report on the WTO response to the 
COVID -19 Pandemic. The intention was to understand how the various WTO bodies had to adjust 
their work to address pandemic -related issues and challenges.  The Chairperson informed M embers 
that he had accordingly prepared a report in consultation with the Secretariat in document 
G/AG/W/228 - G/L/1469. The report highlighted the impressive job th e Committee had done to 
continue carrying out its functions during the COVID -19 pandemic, b oth in terms of the process, 
starting from a special meeting that the Committee held in June 2020 as well as efforts towards 
enhanced transparency , including via ad hoc  reports on Members' COVID -19 agricultural measures 
to enable a timely review of Members ' measures taken in response to the pandemic. The Chairperson 
encouraged all Members to be transparent about their COVID -19 agricultural measures and to 
present information on those measures to th e Committee for a collective assessment. Members were 
also encouraged to take advantage of the COVID -19 agriculture webpage and to provide updated 
information on their COVID -19 measures as appropriate within the framework of the WTO's trade 
monitoring exerc ise. The Chairperson noted that this  would be a valuable source of information for 
a comprehensive and detailed assessment to evaluate the WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic 
and follow up on Members' preparedness for future pandemics.  
3.37.  Brazil, supported by New Zealand, Uruguay,  and the United States , invited the WTO 
Secretariat to make a present ation on  its report19 released in February 2023 on "A Year of Turbulence 
on Food and Fertilizers Markets". Brazil expressed  specific  interest to have background in formation 
behind this report on trade facilitating measures  adopted by countries .  
3.38.  New Zealand thanked the Secretariat for its efforts throughout the pandemic to ensure that 
the WTO system continue d to function. New Zealand called for transparency of COVID -19 measures  
and asked Members implementing those measures to ensure that open, reliable, and transparent 
trade continue d and that th ose measures were targeted, temporary and proportionate. New Zealand 
considered th ose principle s to be highly relevant and suggested that the Membership should strive 
to build on th em and keep them at the centre of their response s to new challenges  such as climate 
change .  
3.2.4   Implementation of other Ministerial Decisions  
3.39.  On the implementation of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, the Chairperson stated 
that t he situation ha d not evolved regarding the modification of schedules pursuant to the Decision. 
Out of the 16 Members with export subsidy reduction commitments at the time of adoption of the 
Nairobi Decision,  13 had their revised schedules certified20; two Members, namely Canada and the 
European Union , had circulated their draft schedule in 2017 where certification was ongoing; and 
the remaining Member, namely the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, had yet to c irculate its draft 
schedule.  
3.40.  Regarding the preparation for the next Export Competition Dedicated Discussion scheduled 
for the June 2023 CoA meeting , the Chairperson noted that an email initiating this exercise had been 
circulated on 17 January 2023 with a deadline for submission of responses to the Export Competition  
questionnaire (ECQ) by Thursday 30 March 2023. He informed Members that o nly six replies  had 
been received so far . Considering  the currently low response  rate and as per the past practice,  the 
Secretariat would extend  the deadline for Members to submit responses to the questionnaire until 
21 April 2023 . A message to this end would be circulated to Members shortly.  The Chairperson 
emphasize d the importance of providing timely and comprehensi ve responses to the ECQ, as 
stressed in the conclusions of the second triennial review21 on Export Competition adopted a year 
ago. Members facing difficulties to comply with this requirement were invited to  reach out to the 
Secretariat for support and clar ification as necessary.  
3.41.  The Chairperson  welcome d the launch of the ECQ Information Management System 
functionality for the on -line submissions of ECQ responses and noted that the  development of this 
 
18 JOB/CTG/18.  
19 https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news23_e/trdev_02mar23_e.pdf .  
20 Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Iceland, Indonesia, Israel, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, 
Turkey, Un ited States of America, and Uruguay.  
21 G/AG/33.  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 14 - 
 
  tool was one of the recommendations of the second trienni al review . The Chairperson welcomed the 
first online ECQ response submitted  by the Dominican Republi c.  
3.42.  The Secretariat provided a brief introduction to the ECQ  Information Management System . 
The Secretariat noted that ECQ -IMS had two modules dealing respe ctively with Members' online 
submission of ECQ responses,  and on -line reports on information  under those  responses. The 
Secretariat confirmed that ECQ -IMS facility for the online submission of the responses  had been 
operational since 21 March 2023. A demon stration video explaining how to fill the ECQ had been 
hosted on the AG -IMS. the Secretariat also informed Members that the current practice for 
ECQ responses had been to monitor those responses by the year of response or the year of the 
dedicated discussi on, and that it had the intention to progressive ly switch to organizing information 
under ECQ responses by 'reporting' or 'implementation' year as in agricultural notifications . Under 
the second module on the ECQ -IMS reporting function,  reports on  Members'  responses will be 
accessible via the ECQ-IMS. The historical data on ECQ responses for previous years would also be 
progressively populated on the system. A demonstration video on the reporting function was under 
preparation and would be hosted on the AG -IMS. The Secretariat also noted that it would prepare 
its usual background documentation in the G/AG/W/125/ series to facilitate th e annual dedicated 
discussions at the June 2023 CoA meeting.  
3.43.   Brazil, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic commended the S ecretariat 's efforts in 
developing the online ECQ  tool. The Dominican Republic also acknowledged the Secretariat's 
assistance to submit its first online ECQ response . The Dominican Republic found the online ECQ 
system to be intuitive and  encouraged other Members to follow suit. Costa Rica viewed the tool as 
an important step forward towards improved transparency  and reduce duplication  in notifications on 
export subsidies . Brazil informed the Committee that it would soon submit its response through the 
online system.  
3.44.  Australia, on behalf of Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Paraguay, Thailand, the United States,  
and Uruguay, provided an upda te on their consultations  with India  under paragraph 6 of the Bali 
Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. Australia noted that India 
was the only WTO Member that had invoked the Bali Decision after having exceed ed the de minimis  
limit for rice support. The  consulting M embers , with differing development al status and positions in 
global agricultural trade , had sought to better understand how India implement ed its PSH 
program mes and the associated market price support. Austra lia informed the Committee that t he 
consultations held in November -December last year focused on ten questions which had been shared 
with India in advance in September 2022. The questions covered issues repeatedly raised in th e 
Committee  such as whether In dia provide d support payments to farmers at state level on top of 
what ha d been notified; notification methodology, including India's practice of defining eligible 
production as quantity purchased; information on what predetermined targets were as required  by 
the Bali Decision ; and data on stocks, including stock releases. For transparency purposes,  Australia 
stated that  they had submitted those questions to this Committee meeting. While understanding the 
difficulties India ha d faced in gathering certain in formation, including from state governments , 
Australia noted that requests for such information date d back several years, which clearly was also 
a part of India's long standing transparency commitments. Together with other Members that  had 
requested the consultations , Australia continued to seek greater clarity on how India's public 
stockholding and market price support operations were implemented  and to urge India to bring the 
necessary transparency to its measures, which was critical for global agricultural markets and 
discussions at the WTO.  
3.45.  Uruguay provided a  detailed update on its consultations with India for the sake of 
transparency. It noted that the consultations it had with India on 2 5 November 2022 were based , 
to a great extent , on the list of questions which had been submitted to India in  writing in 
September  2022.  Uruguay found the discussions highly interesting but the time available for 
discussions was insufficient to c over all aspects in a detailed fashion . Uruguay reported tha t, firstly, 
it had  a general conversation with India on the functioning of its PSH program mes, especially for 
rice, including on the role of different institutions in India in the implementation of these 
program mes, the determination of the minimum support  prices, the announcement of these prices, 
and the effect  the announcement of those support prices could have on producers a nd their 
production decisions. Secondly, i n view of requirements in paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture, Uruguay discussed how India had established pre-determined stock  targets . India 
explained during those consultations how they had established estimat es on the level of stocks  to 
attend  to the needs of 75% of the rural population and 50% of the urban popula tion at national G/AG/R/105  
 
- 15 - 
 
  level, bearing in mind the number of beneficiaries and their nutritional profile.  Uruguay also 
requested India how the estimation of stock targets was arrived at for each production  or marketing  
season over the past years ; India was still assessing whether  it would be able to respond to this 
request. Uruguay also sought to understand how stock targets  estimate d ex ante  would compare 
with actual procurement levels e x-post for public stockholding for  the past years. Uruguay noted 
that wheat a nd rice procurements at minimum support prices had increased  both in absolute terms  
from 20 million tonnes to more than 100 million tonnes  over the past year s, and in relative terms 
as a percentage of total domestic production of stocked commodities . In the case of rice, for 
example, the procured government stocks at minimum support prices had gone up from 30% of 
total production in 2013 -2014 to nearly 50% in 2020 - 2021. According to the data of the  Department 
of Food and Public Distributi on in India, rice, and wheat stocks at the beginning of each quarter in 
2021 had been between 2.2 and 2.7 times compared to the prescribed stocking norms ; the surplus 
stocks had reached between 54% and 63% of total stocks. Uruguay  asked for the clarificati ons on 
the nature of th ose stocking  norms  and the way in which they were determined and updated, and 
how the quantities were updated. Some of these questions were still pending .  
3.46.  Thirdly,  Uruguay discussed the question of state bonuses on top of the centra l government's 
minimum support prices that had not been accounted for in India's notifications submitted thus far. 
India said that they were collecting information on whether th ose states had offered  bonuses 
according to the official announcements of these state governments and press articles.  
Fourthly,  Uruguay  requested clarification on the footnote regarding other types of support for rice , 
in addition to the support under the PSH programme . India assured that it had not provided other 
support for rice, and that it would examine the relevance of th at footnote. Uruguay called for  greater 
clarity on t his question and on support granted at the state level. Fi fthly, Uruguay discussed the 
evolution of the yearly rice stock releases, their end uses, and open market sales, including their 
possible direct or indirect impact on India's export position. Discussions  specifically focused on  the 
existence of  effective  mechanisms to prevent potential export s of such stocks. The sixth question 
dealt with the statisti cal appendix  and the associated information  gaps and in consistenc ies. Uruguay 
gave the examples of missing information on other products subject to PSH programmes such as  
wheat , coarse grains or pulses and export and import data on those products. Clarifications were 
sought regarding the discrepancies between  the total stocks available and the quantities released 
through  the government programmes and th e open market  sales, as well as  possible exports of 
stocks for humanitarian  purposes through government -to-government  transactions. India indicated 
that it might consider some of these points in their future notifications, and that they would review 
the information on apparent exports  which should be free -of-cost donations.  
3.47.  Under the s eventh  point, Uruguay and India also discussed the question s around the 
notification methodology , whether  India had considered alternative  policies  to achieve its food 
security objectives without exceeding the de minimis  level, the reason s why there was no 
information included  in the Bali Annex  for years before 2013 , and the interpretation of eligible 
production. Uruguay stressed the need for more details on the Bali Annex. Eighth, Uruguay 
expressed interest in receiving further details on the information in Annex, including on the relevant 
laws and regulations, published objective criteria or official  guidelines. Uruguay believed that India 
might provide some additional information on some of these matters. Ninth, Uruguay raised the 
issue of jointly reported expenditures for  the accumulation of PSH stocks and the provision of 
domestic food aid. Tenth, and finally, Uruguay referred to the provisional nature of the information 
provided in India's notifications . India did not expect significant differences in the final information 
compared to what had been reported on a provisional basis.  
3.48.  Uruguay  noted that, as  a small developing country , its economy depend ed, to a great extent , 
on the productio n and export s of agricultural products  such as r ice. The production  and trad e of rice  
was very important for the income of many farmers  in Uruguay as 95% of its rice production was 
exported. Historically Uruguay had been among the 6th to the 8th largest gl obal exporter  of rice  and 
the top rice exporter in Latin America.  Uruguay naturally had strong interests in understand ing the 
rice policies of India, whose share in global rice exports stood at 45%. Uruguay believed that 
subsidies ha d played an important role behind increased rice exports  and looked forward to 
deepened exchange with India on its rice production and trade policies.  
3.49.   Japan echoed Australia and Uruguay 's comments . Japan thanked  India for the constructive 
discussions during the bilateral consultation held after the last CoA meeting in November . Japan 
recognized the importance of PSH as one of the means to ensure food security for net food importing 
countries , with the  understanding that PSH could be implemented differently  depending on the G/AG/R/105  
 
- 16 - 
 
  situation of agricultural production in each country. Japan flagged continued interest s in examining 
the operation of India's PSH programme considering that India was the only WTO Member that had 
invoked the Bali mechanism .  
3.50.  Paraguay cons idered the consultations to be productive  and having taken place in a cordial 
atmosphere . The consultations cover ed a series of questions , as presented to th is Committee 
meeting, and some additional follow -up questions on India's responses, focusing mostly  on public 
stocks . Paraguay  noted that, as  one of the main exporters of rice , its total exports represent 
1.13 million to nnes. Like Uruguay, it was a small  developing country whose economy mostly 
depend ed on export s of agricultural products , including rice.  Paraguay therefore had an interest in 
better understanding how a Member , which represent ed 40% of the world's rice market , was 
complying with its commitments in granting subsidies above the de minimis  level. Paraguay sought 
further clarity  regarding the release of stocks.  Paraguay  sought India's clarification on the 
discrepanc y of 14 million tonnes  in stocks , causes of th e discrepancy , and the possible implications 
of the conversion factors. Paraguay stated that proper  eligible production  level should be determined 
to appropriate ly calculate the subsidy . Paraguay also referred to the following five questions which 
it had sent to India in wri ting a few days following the consultations: (1) information on exports of 
stocks and the list of states that had announce d bonuses , as well as the reference to the official 
document containing the  four objectives in paragraph 2 f) of the Bali Annex with r egard to the Indian 
food security program me; (2) the methodology to determine the administered prices and the 
objectives for the government al purchases, as well as the list of all agencies  both at the federal and 
state level s involved in the design, implem entation and distribution of PSH program mes; 
(3) disaggregated data for the PSH  program mes, including spending for consumers, as well as for 
the purchase and stockage; (4)  confirmation about wh ich states ha d made grants and subsidies, 
and the amount of the  payments dis bursed ; and (5) information about the relationship between 
increased administered prices and the inflation rate in India.  Paraguay  had contacted India  on 
26 February  2023 to follow up on responses to these questions . Paraguay urged India to provide the 
requested information  in response to th ose follow -up questions submitted last year , which India had 
committed to provide by the end of January this year.  
3.51.  The U nited States  echoed the comments by Australia  and thanked Paraguay and Uruguay for 
detailing some of the outstanding information that the consulting Members were  still seek ing from 
India. Voicing its disappointment with the experience  of its bilateral consultations with India , the US 
noted that it was  still waiting to receive some  information  which India had promised to provide 
during the consultation s. The US expressed frustration regarding the large number of unanswered 
questions and India's unwillingness  to provide sufficient information  through either the consult ation 
process or the Committee . In addition, the US believed that India's domestic support for rice was 
severely underreported  in the notification , according to publicly available data and the U.S. analysis.  
While the US, like Australia, understood and  appreciate d some o f the difficulties India ha d expressed 
regarding gathering certain information, including from state governments , the US noted that the 
requests for this information date d back several years and were a clear part of India's transparency 
commitments. The US  urged India, once  again , to bring the necessary transparency to its measures, 
which plays a significant role in global agricultural markets, global food security and the work of this 
Committee.  
3.52.  Thailand aligned itself with Australia's statement . Thailand considered the bilateral meeting 
held on 23 November  2022, involving both Thailand and India's capital and Genev a-based 
representative s, productive. Thailand thanked  India for its active particip ation and efforts to address 
the questions raised by Thailand both beforehand and during the consultation s. Thailand referred to 
a few questions discussed with India during the consultation, including, inter alia , the question s on 
how India conducted procu rement process for the PSH stocks, the purpose of the footnote on other 
rice support , how the state government s provide d support to farmers , discrepancies between 
statistics  related to stock s, whether India ha d set predetermined target  and how it was  calculated , 
and further information on the market price support mechanism. Although Thailand considered the 
information obtained during the consultation s useful  and acknowledged the difficulties faced by India  
in coordinating among various agencies and between the central and state governments , Thailand 
noted that some responses fro m India were still pending, such as breakdown of information on PSH 
program me by scheme s and state s, the number of states that ha d implemented state bonuses , as 
well as the amount spent . Thailand share d the concern s of other co -signatories and noted that the 
information provided by India, through notifications or responses in the CoA meeting s and bilateral 
consultations, was insufficient to address co -signatories ' concern s on whether India's PSH 
program me on rice fully complie d with WTO rules and d id not distort trade or adversely affect ed the G/AG/R/105  
 
- 17 - 
 
  food security of other Members, including whether India m et the notification requirements.  India 
was encouraged to provide the additional information  as requested  as soon as possible to provide a 
better understanding of its public stockholding scheme.  
3.53.  Canada noted similar experience with the consultation s as other requesting Members . Canada 
thanked India for provid ing additional information on inconsistencies in the notified data and about 
how the decisions were made in India to release stocks. It also alluded to remaining significant 
transparency gaps and c alled for  additional information on state bonuses programmes,  other support 
provided to rice producers , and the potential for stocks to be exported .  
3.54.  New Zealand , like others, found  its consultations  last November collegial and useful to better 
understand India's PSH program mes. It noted the three general areas  cover ed in the consultations: 
(1) transparency and notification of India's  PSH program mes, including discrepancies and increase 
of India's wider domestic support measures in line with its food security objectives ; (2) stockpiling 
of staple commodities under min imum price support schemes, and  (3) the impact of PSH 
program mes on trade, including measures to prevent exports from PSH stocks. New Zealand  
appreciate d India's efforts to engage constructively in these consultations  and looked forward to 
receiving the follow up information which it had  requested since the consultations .  
3.55.  The E uropean Union  concurred with the comments made by previous speakers on this issue 
and encouraged India to provide more clarity on the questions asked at this Committee  meeting  and 
during the consultation where responses had not yet been provided.  
3.56.  India expressed doubt whether the agenda item on " Implementation of other Ministerial 
Decisions" could accommodate and address the issue of Bali PSH consultations . India also expressed 
its disappointment with some Members' statements. The delegate from India mentioned that he had 
approached several  consulting Members by proposing bilateral meetings to further the discussions 
which the latter did not agree to.  India underlined i ts efforts in providing responses to all the 
questions in good faith and asked Members to be objective when assessing India's engagement in 
the consultations. Referring to Australia's statement that India was the only Member to have invoked 
the Bali peace clause, India noted that its notification of the breach of de minimis  level and the 
invocation of  the Bali PSH mechanism was a demonstration of its belief in and commitment to 
transparency.  India considered this to be a transparent approach consistent with  the Bali Decision 
rather than choosing not to notify despite the breach. India also lamented that one Member had 
elaborate d in detail on all the questions raised during the bilateral consultations giving the 
impression  as if no question had been answered.  India disagreed with some Members' views that its 
PSH programme was "trade distorting" ; it highlight ed that the PSH  programme in India had 
benefitted 800  million people domestically in terms of providing them with access to food, and none 
of the grain s procured ha d been exported . India also noted that it was in the process of providing 
corrig enda22 to its previous notifications invoking the Bali peace clause which should clarify a num ber 
of the questions raised.  
3.57.  In response to India's question on the organization of the agenda, the Chairperson noted that 
the item on the " Implementation of other Ministerial Decisions" had consistently remained on the 
agenda of CoA meetings . Australia c ommented that it would be open to discuss this matter under a 
different agenda item, for example item 1 B on the review process if that would be deemed more 
appropriate; however, it considered the issue being related to the work of the Committee on the 
implementation of the Bali Ministerial Decision. Australia also noted its intention to continue 
providing the Committee with updates on the consultations.  
3.58.  Costa Rica bought  to the attention of th e Committee the Bali Ministerial Decision on General 
Services23. In view of the growing relevance and importance of this Decision for Members , Costa 
Rica invited Members to start discussions on the implementation of this Decision . The Chairperson 
noted that Members could propose to  include this or any other topic on the agenda of Committee 
meetings.  
 
22 G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1; G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1;  G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1 . 
23 WT/MIN(13)/37 -WT/L/912 dated 11 December 2013.  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 18 - 
 
  3.3  Functioning of the CTG and its subsidiary bodies  
3.4  Chair report on the informal meeting of 27 March, Other issues  
3.59.  The Chairperson noted that the co-sponsors of the communication "Functioning of the CTG 
and its Subsidiary Bodies" under JOB/AG/238/Rev.1 (and other symbols) requested the inclusion of 
this item on the agenda. Members had an initial exchange on this communication at the 13 March 
informal CoA meeting  and took up the consideration of t he submission aga in at the informal 
CoA meeting of 27 March . The Chairperson provided a report on the discussions at the informal CoA 
meeting on 27 March which covered the joint submission as well as some other transparency -related 
matters. The Chairperson's report is cont ained in Annex 3 to this summary report.  
3.60.  The Chairperson stated that in response to Members' suggestions to circulate reports on 
informal meetings sufficiently in advance of the formal meeting to take account of Members' 
comments , he had made efforts with  the Secretariat to share this report prior to its consideration at 
the formal  meeting . Similarly,  along with the convening notice for the informal CoA meeting on 
27 March 2023, t he Chairperson had shared with Members his oral reports on the two previous 
informal CoA meetings respectively on 13 February and 13 March 2023, as attached in Annex 4 to 
this report.  
3.61.  The E uropean Union welcomed China's submission24 and considered Members' positive 
reaction to the paper an encouraging signal for supporting transpa rency. While acknowledging the 
preoccupations expressed by a few Members  on its non -paper, the EU called on Members to focus 
on substance of the paper.  
3.62.   Paraguay briefly presented on the joint submission  in JOB/AG/238/Rev.1(and other symbols) . 
Paraguay st ated that the intention of the submission was to highlight the challenges faced by 
delegations to participate meetings at the WTO and to suggest a series of elements that could 
facilitate delegates'  work. While it might not be possible or even desirable to have complete 
alignment and harmonization of working mechanics across all Committees  considering the distinctive 
nature of work in different bodies , Paraguay noted that some good practices from the CoA co uld be 
used in other bodies and vice versa. In Paraguay's view, harmonizing th e practices  to the extent 
possible would facilitate, particularly small delegations' participation at this Committee and others.   
3.63.  The Chairperson confirmed that he and Secretari at would prepare a consolidated document25 
with all the different suggestions which could form the basis of future discussions on this topic.  On 
submissions on transparency by the  European Union and China, the Chairperson encouraged 
Members to have a dialo gue among them to develop some concrete pragmatic proposals for 
examination at the next Committee meeting.   
3.5  Implementation -related issues  
3.64.  The Chairperson noted that in the Doha Ministerial Decision on implementation -related issues 
and concerns, the Commit tee had been asked to follow up on three issues: (i) development of 
disciplines to govern 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) continued review 
of the administration of TRQs and the submission of addenda to Table MA:1 Notifications on tariff 
rate quota regimes.  
3.65.  No intervention was made under this a genda item . The Chairperson stated that this had also 
been the case for several previous CoA meetings,  and this was mainly because the two specific 
implementation matters covered by this agenda item, namely the disciplines on export finance  and 
TRQ adminis tration , are regularly discussed in detail under the Committee's review process as well 
as the follow -up to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition and the Bali Decision on 
TRQ administration. The third element under this agenda on the imple mentation of the Marrakesh 
NFIDC Decision had been considered under the review process based on Members' NF notifications, 
under the annual dedicated NF discussion in November CoA meetings, and lately also under the food 
 
24 G/AG/W/232.  
25 Annex 1 to ICN/AG/2.  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 19 - 
 
  security  work programme  pursuant to  paragraph 8 of the MC -12 Declaration on food insecurity . In 
view of this clear overlap and redundancy , and for the sake of efficient organization of the 
Committee's agenda, the Chairperson suggested  not to list this item on Implementation -related 
matters on the agenda of every CoA meeting and rather include it on the agenda of only November 
CoA meetings when the Committee, under its working procedures, is mandated to undertake the 
annual monitoring of the follow -up to the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision. Later on , Members may review 
this practice to see if there was any added value in keeping this item on the agenda of November 
meetings or that  Members  would like to revert to the current practice to dealing with it at each CoA 
meeting.  
3.66.  The Committee agreed to the Chairperson's suggestion to take up the agenda item on 
implementation -related issues only at the November meeting s of the Committee.   
3.6  Electio n of the Chairperson  
3.67.  The Chairperson informed Members that the consultations on the slate of Chairs for the 
Council for Trade in Goods (CTG)  subsidiary bodies for 202 3 were ongoing  and propose d that th e 
agenda item be taken up at the beginning of the next CoA meeting in June  2023. 
3.7  Other Business  
3.7.1   Date of next regular meetings  
3.68.  The next (105th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be held on 
27-28 June 2023. On this basis, the  reminder airgram will be issued on 26 May 2023 and the 
convening airgram will be distributed to Members on Friday, 16 June 2023.  
  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 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 c licking 
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 9 May 2023 have been identified with the 
symbol "*".  Members are invited to submit outstandin g replies through the AG -IMS at the earliest 
opportunity.  
Table 1 - Specific Implementation Matters (Article 18.6)  
Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID 
Argentina's measures against drought  Australia  104049  
Argentina's export restrictions  United Kingdom, United States of America, 
European Union, Switzerland, New Zealand, 
Japan  104001  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, 
Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Unit ed 
States – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  104057*  
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United 
Kingdom, United States - Import duties in 
excess of the bound rates applied on 
agricultural goods  Russian Federation  104058*  
Canada's dairy policies  India 104098  
Canada's review of the TRQ system  United Kingdom, United States of America, 
Australia, Paraguay  104002  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, 
Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United 
States – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  104118  
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United 
Kingdom, United States - Import duties in 
excess of the bound rates applied on 
agricultural goods  Russian Federation  104125  
Canada, Eu ropean Union, Iceland, Norway, 
New Zealand, Japan – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  104129  
China's programme to increase grain 
production  European Union  104009  
China's cotton policies  United States of America, European Union  104050  
China's grain subsidies  European Union  104034  
China's swine support  United States of America, European Union, 
Canada  104051  
Egypt's subsidy policies  Paraguay  104142*  
European Union's rescheduling of its domestic 
support and export subsidy comments  Canada, Paraguay, Australia  104052  
EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation 
Strategy  Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Ecuador  104061  
EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation 
Strategy  India 104097  
EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation 
Strategy  India, Paraguay  104096  
EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation 
Strategy  Indonesia  104053  
Italy's "local content" requirement  Brazil  104161  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, 
Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United 
States – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  104119  
Canada, European Union, Iceland, Norway, 
New Zealand, Japan – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  104130  
European Union, Iceland, Norway – 
Prohibitions on road freight transport  Russian Federation  104135  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID 
European Union, Norway, Iceland – 
Prohibitions on access to ports  Russian Federation  104138  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, 
Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United  
States – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  104121  
Canada, European Union, Iceland, Norway, 
New Zealand, Japan – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  104131  
European Union, Iceland, Norway – 
Prohibitions on road freight transport  Russian Federation  104136  
European Union, Norway, Iceland – 
Prohibitions on access to ports  Russian Federation  104139  
India's export restri ctions  United Kingdom, United States of America, 
Ukraine, European Union, Australia, 
Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan  104003  
India's public stockpiling  United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, 
Thailand, European Union, Australia, Japan  104031  
India's public stockpiling  United States of America, Brazil, Canada, 
Paraguay, Thail and, European Union, 
Australia, Uruguay, Japan  104026  
India's public stockpiling  United States of America, Brazil, Canada, 
Paraguay, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia, Uruguay, Japan  104027  
India's public stockpiling  United States of America, Brazil, Canada, 
Ukraine, Thailand, European Union, Australia, 
Uruguay, Japan  104021  
India's public stockpiling  United States of America, Brazil, Canada, 
Ukraine, Thailand, European Union, Australia, 
Uruguay, Japan  104022  
India's public stockpiling  United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, 
Thailand, European Union, Australia, Japan  104024  
India's public stockpiling  United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, 
Thailand, European Unio n, Australia, Japan  104030  
India's public stockpiling  United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, 
Thailand, European Union, Australia, Uruguay, 
Japan  104023  
India's publ ic stockpiling  United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, 
Thailand, European Union, Australia, Uruguay, 
Japan  104025  
India's public stockpiling  United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, 
Thailand, European Union, Australia, Uruguay, 
Japan  104028  
India's public stockpiling  United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, 
Thailand, European Union, Australia, Uruguay, 
Japan  104029  
India's other support for rice  United States of America, Canada, Thailand, 
European Union, Australia, Japan  104020  
India's price support  United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, 
Thailand, Australia  104032  
India's export restriction measures on rice  United States of America, Br azil, Canada, 
Thailand, European Union, Australia, 
Switzerland, United Kingdom, Japan  104033  
Indonesia's palm oil export restrictions  Japan  104080  
Indonesia's palm oil export res trictions  European Union, Japan, Korea, Republic of, 
Chinese Taipei  104035  
Indonesia's pa lm oil export restrictions  United States of America, European Union, 
Australia, Switzerland, Japan  104037  
Japan's support system for milk  India 104099  
Japan's structural transition programme for 
rice India 104100  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, 
Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United 
States – Restrictions on  agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  104122*  
Canada, Europea n Union, Iceland, Norway, 
New Zealand, Japan – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  104132*  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID 
Mexico's export restriction on white corn  Australia  104055*  
Mexico's export restriction on white corn  European Union, United States of America, 
United Kingdom, Australia, Switzerland  104038*  
Mexico's export restriction on white corn  United Kingdom, United States of America,  
Paraguay, Switzerland  104004*  
Morocco's export ban on certain vegetables  Switzerland, Un ited Kingdom, European 
Union, Japan  104056*  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, 
Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United 
States – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  104120  
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United 
Kingdom, United States - Import duties in 
excess of the bound rates applied on 
agricultural goods  Russian Federation  104126  
Canada, European Union, Iceland, Norway, 
New Zealand, Japan – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  104133  
Norway's food security policy  European Union, New Zeal and 104039  
Canada, European Union, Iceland, Norway, 
New Zealand, Japan – Prohibitions and  
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  104134  
European Union , Iceland, Norway – 
Prohibitions on road freight transport  Russian Federation  104137  
European Union, Norway, Iceland – 
Prohibitions on access to ports  Russian Federation  104140  
Pakistan's wheat policies  United States of America  104040*  
Pakistan's wheat policies  United States of America  104041*  
Pakistan's wheat policies  United States of Amer ica 104042*  
Philippines' calculation methodology for SSG 
trigger prices  United States of America  104060*  
Philippines' TRQ administration  United States of America  104063*  
Philippines' TRQ administration  United States of America  104064*  
Philippines's import statistics in TRQ 
notifications  United States of America  104062*  
Philippines' TRQ administration  United States of America  104065*  
Philippines' implementation of tariff quotas  United States of America  104066*  
Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import 
Clearance (SPSIC) permits  United States of America  104067*  
Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import 
Clearance (SPSIC) permits  United States of America  104068*  
Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import 
Clearance (SPSIC) permits  United States of America  104069*  
South Africa's import measures on poultry 
meat United Kingdom, United States of America  104005*  
Tajikistan's export ban on onions and ot her 
vegetables  Switzerland, United Kingdom, Japan  104070*  
Thailand's Paddy Pledging Schem e India 104101  
Türkiye's  export ban on onions and potatoes  Switzerland  104071  
United Kingdom's banking and financ ial 
restrictions  Russian Federation  104141  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, 
Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United  
States – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  104124  
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United 
Kingdom, United States - Import duties in 
excess of the bound rates applied on 
agricultural goods  Russian Federation  104127  
U.S. Inflation Reduction Act  European Union, New Zealand  104043  
U.S. Inflation Reduction Act  India 104102  
Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, 
Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United  
States – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  104123  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 23 - 
 
  Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID 
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United 
Kingdom, United States - Import duties in 
excess of the bound rates applied on 
agricultural goods  Russian Federation  104128  
 
 
  
  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 24 - Table 2 - Questions raised in connection with individual notifications  
Document Symbol  Question by  Answer by  Notification Format  Keywords  ID number  
G/AG/N/CAN/150  India Canada  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Transparency issues  104103  
G/AG/N/CHN/47  Canada, Australia  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104054  
G/AG/N/CHN/47  United States of America, 
Canada, Australia, Japan  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104015  
G/AG/N/CHN/62  European Union  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104010  
G/AG/N/CHN/62  European Union  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104011  
G/AG/N/CHN/62  United States of America, 
European Union, Australia  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104045  
G/AG/N/CHN/62  European Union  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Annex 2 (Green Box)  104012  
G/AG/N/CHN/62  Paraguay  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  104144  
G/AG/N/CHN/62  Japan  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Market price support  104075  
G/AG/N/CHN/62  Japan  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Market price support: 
Eligible production  104076  
G/AG/N/CHN/63  Paraguay  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104145  
G/AG/N/CHN/64  Paraguay  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104146  
G/AG/N/ CHN/64  United States of America, 
Thailand, European Union, 
Australia, Japan  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  104016  
G/AG/N/CHN/65  Paraguay  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104147  
G/AG/N/CHN/65  Paraguay, Brazil  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104148  
G/AG/N/CHN/65  United States of America, 
Canada, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transpare ncy issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104019  
G/AG/N/CHN/65  New Zealand  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  General services: 
infrastructural services  104077  
G/AG/N/CHN/65  United States of America, 
Canada, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia, Japan  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  104017  
G/AG/N/CHN/65  United Kingdom, United 
States of America, European 
Union  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct payments: payments 
under regional assistance 
progr ammes  104006   
  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 25 - Document Symbol  Question by  Answer by  Notification Format  Keywords  ID number  
G/AG/N/CHN/65  European Union  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Payments based on 85 per 
cent or less of the base 
level of produ ction 104014  
G/AG/N/CHN/65  Australia  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Market price support: 
Eligible production  104081  
G/AG/N/CHN/65  European Union, Canada, 
United States of America, 
Australia, Japan  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Market price  support: 
Eligible production  104013  
G/AG/N/CHN/65  United Kingdom, Brazil, 
Thailand, European Union, 
Japan  China  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Classification of measures  104007  
G/AG/N/CHN/66  Japan  China  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104109  
G/AG/N/CHN/66  Japan  China  DS:2 - New or m odified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104110  
G/AG/N/CHN/66  Canada, Australia  China  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Article 6.5 (Blue Box)  104105  
G/AG/N/CHN/66  European Union, Japan  China  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Article 6.5 (Blue Box)  104047  
G/AG/N/CHN/66  Paraguay  China  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Payments based on 85 per 
cent or less of the base 
level of production  104159  
G/AG/N/CHN/ 66  United States of America, 
Canada, Australia, Japan  China  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Payments based on 85 per 
cent or less of the base 
level of production  104108  
G/AG/N/CHN/67  United States of America, 
Canada, Japan  China  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104111  
G/AG/N/ CHN/67  United States of America, 
Canada, Japan  China  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Article 6.5 (Blue Box)  104117  
G/AG/N/CHN/67  Paraguay, Brazil  China  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Payments based on fixed 
areas or yields  104160  
G/AG/N/CHN/67  United States of America, 
Canada, Japan  China  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Payments based on fixed 
areas or yields  104116  
G/AG/N/CRI/88  Paraguay  Costa Rica  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct payments: payments 
under environmental 
programmes  104149*  
G/AG/N/CRI/88  Paraguay  Costa Rica  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct payments: payments 
under environmental 
programmes  104151  
G/AG/N/EU/81  Paraguay, Brazil, Russian 
Federation  European Union  MA:1 - TQ administration  Transparency issues  104036  
G/AG/N/EU/81  Thailand  Europe an Union  MA:1 - TQ administration  Transparency issues  104072  
G/AG/N/EU/81  Canada  European Union  MA:1 - TQ administration  Country -specific allocation  104059  
G/AG/N/IDN/70  Canada  Indonesia  DS:1 - Exempt and non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104078   
  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 26 - Document Symbol  Question by  Answer by  Notification Format  Keywords  ID number  
G/AG/N/IDN/70  Paraguay, Brazil  Indonesia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104150  
G/AG/N/IDN/70  Paraguay, United Kingdom  Indonesia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  104152  
G/AG/N/IDN/70  European Union  Indonesia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Domestic food aid  104018  
G/AG/N/IDN/70  Paraguay  Indonesia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Domestic food aid  104153  
G/AG/N/ISR/87  Australia  Israel  ES:2 - Total exports  Quantity of total exports  104112  
G/AG/N/MUS/17  United States of America  Mauritius  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104079  
G/AG/N/MUS/19  Canada  Mauritius  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Investment subsidies 
generally available to 
agriculture  104082  
G/AG/N/MEX/56  New Zealand  Mexico  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104086*  
G/AG/N/MNG/11  United States of America  Mongolia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Classification of measures  104083  
G/AG /N/MNG/23  United States of America  Mongolia  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104085  
G/AG/N/NOR/122  Paraguay  Norway  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct payments: payments 
for relief from natural 
disasters  104154  
G/AG/N/NOR/122  Paraguay  Norway  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance 
provided through producer 
retirement programmes  104155  
G/AG/N/NOR/122  Paraguay, Argentina  Norway  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct payments: payments 
under environmental 
programmes  104157  
G/AG/N/NOR/122  Paraguay, Brazil  Norway  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct payments: payments 
under environmental 
programmes  104156  
G/AG/N/NOR/122  European Union  Norway  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Market price support: 
Eligible production  104046  
G/AG/N/PAK/17/Corr.1  United States of America  Pakistan  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  104088*  
G/AG/N/PRY/36  United States of America  Paraguay  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -
poor producers  104095  
G/AG/N/PRY/36  United States of America  Paraguay  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Classification of measures  104091   
  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 27 - Document Symbol  Question by  Answer by  Notification Format  Keywords  ID number  
G/AG/N/PRY/39  Canada, Australia  Paraguay  DS:2 - New or modified DS  General services: 
marketing and promotion 
services  104115  
G/AG/N/SAU/24  New Zealand  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  104089*  
G/AG/N/SAU/24  New Zealand  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Market price support  104092*  
G/AG/N /SGP/40  Australia  Singapore  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance 
provided through 
investment aids  104114  
G/AG/N/SGP/40  United States of America  Singapore  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance 
provided through 
investment aids  104113  
G/AG/N/CHE/119  Canada  Switzerland  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  104074  
G/AG/N/CHE/122  Australia, New Zealand  Switzerland  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104093  
G/AG/N/CHE/122  New Zealand  Switzerland  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct payments: 
decoupled income support  104094  
G/AG/N/CHE/122  Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina  Switzerland  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct payments: payments 
under environment al 
programmes  104158  
G/AG/N/CHE/122  New Zealand  Switzerland  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  104087  
G/AG/N/CHE/122  United Kingdom, Paraguay, 
New Zealand  Switzerland  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  104008  
G/AG/N/TPKM/221  Paraguay  Chinese Taipei  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  104044  
G/AG/N/TPKM/221  Thailand  Chinese Taipei  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  104073  
G/AG/N/TPKM/217  Paraguay  Chinese Taipei  MA:3 - Volume -based SSG  Link with TRQ 
commitments  104143  
G/AG/N/GBR/18  European Union  United Kingdom  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Classification of measures  104048  
G/AG/N/USA/166  Australia, New Zealand  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104090  
G/AG/N/USA/166  Australia, New Zealand  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104104  
G/AG/N/USA/166  Australia, New Zealand  United States o f 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  104106  
G/AG/N/USA/167  Switzerland  United States of 
America  NF:1 - NFIDC Decision  Quantity and 
concessionality of food aid  104084  
 
 G/AG/R/105  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Table 3  - Questions raised under agenda item "Overdue notifications"  
Question by  Answer by  ID Number  
Paraguay, United States of America  Egypt  104107*  
Table 4 - Questions raised under agenda item " Deferred replies " 
Question by  Answer by ID Number  
Uruguay  South Africa  104162*  
 G/AG/R/105  
 
- 29 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
 
REPORT BY THE WORKING GROUP COORDINATOR  
AGENDA ITEM 2 B(II)  
As you may all recall, the Committee at its meeting on 21 -22 November 2022 established a Work 
Programme pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food 
Insecurity, a long with the thematic areas to be examined thereunder. The agreed work programme 
in G/AG/35 also set up a Working Group for the conduct of discussions on various thematic areas 
based on Members' contributions.  
 
The Working Group held its first meeting on 7 December 2022 and collectively finalized a 
questionnaire on the needs and challenges of LDCs and NFIDCs and their utilization of flexibilities 
based on a draft prepared by the Secretariat in RD/AG/99. The finalized questionnaire in 
G/AG/GEN/214 was circu lated to all Members on 8 December 2022 requesting their responses by 
3 February 2023.   
 
Considering the strong emphasis in the agreed Work Programme on both trade finance and finance 
for agricultural production, production inputs, and infrastructure to b olster agricultural resilience, 
the Secretariat, in consultation with the myself and delegations, organized a workshop on financing 
on 28 February 2023. The workshop entailed the participation of relevant international organizations 
and agencies, regional and corporate financial institutions, and also heard from some Members on 
their experiences and challenges in the sphere of agriculture financing.   
 
The second meeting of the Working Group was held on 1 March 2023 where Members provided 
feedback on the di scussions at the Financing Workshop, and also considered Members’ responses to 
the questionnaire based on a compilation prepared by the Secretariat in RD/AG/103. The Secretariat 
has set up a webpage1 on the work programme hosting all relevant documents is sued till date and 
other practical details, including dates of meetings and workshops. A similar webpage2 is also 
functional on the 28 February Workshop on Financing; the presentations made at the Workshop may 
be consulted and downloaded on that webpage. The secretariat document in the RD/AG/100/ series 
tracks the chronology of discussions and the progress made thus far under the Work programme 
and is regularly updated.  
 
The next meeting of the Working Group is scheduled for 17 April 2023. The meeting will be preceded 
by a workshop on productivity and resilience on 12 April to inform discussions under the third 
thematic area of the agreed Work Programme. Members who would like to contribute to the 
productivity workshop and share experiences are invited to contact the Secretariat early towards 
efficient logistics and planning of the event.   
 
Finally, the financing workshop of 28 February and Members' responses to the questi onnaire have 
raised several matters for Members' consideration and further examination. Both these items would 
also be on the agenda of the next Working Group meeting on 17 April, in addition to the follow -up 
on the productivity workshop.  
  
 
1 WTO | Work programme on food security for LDCs and NFIDCs  
2 WTO | Committee  on Agriculture Work Programme on Food Security - Workshop on Financing  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 30 - 
 
  ANNEX 3  
 
CHAIR  REPORT ON THE INFORMAL MEETING ON 'ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY  
AND THE COA REVIEW PROCESS' OF 27 MARCH 2023  
(AGENDA ITEMS 2.C AND 2.D)  
Under the agenda item on 'Enhancing transparency and the CoA Review Process' , Members 
continued their  consideration of  the joint submission by a group of Members on the 'Functioning 
of the CTG Subsidiary Bodies' in JOB/AG/238/Rev.1 containing suggested elements and practices, 
which could practically be applied horizontally across the CTG and its subsidiary  bodies. Members 
broadly shared my view to target possible improvements in respect of i) training and assistance to 
agriculture delegates on the work of the CoA; ii) role of digital tools, including AG -IMS; and iii) 
scheduling of meetings. Some additional suggestions for improvements made during the meeting, 
inter alia , included  reliance on 'interactive meetings calendar' as a possible one -stop-shop for hosting 
documents and other relevant information on formal and informal meetings, systematic reliance on 
E-registration system for the Secretariat mailing lists, harmonization of digital tools, annotated 
agenda, and availability of analytical reports on notified information particularly in the pillar of 
domestic support. Some caution was also expressed agains t seeking complete harmonization of 
committee practices or integration of digital tools across WTO bodies. The Secretariat agreed to 
collate all suggestions by Members on the functioning of CoA and possible improvements which could 
then form the basis for further discussions among Members. Several Members also acknowledged 
that the CoA was already an efficiently functioning committee within the WTO.  
The European Union non -paper on  “Better Tools for Sharing Information on Policies in 
Agriculture ” was also ta ken up during the meeting. The EU favored a pragmatic step -by-step 
approach to improve and simplify the existing transparency requirements. Considering the 2015 
Nairobi Decision and the ongoing discussions on food security, the EU suggested to first focus on 
transparency in the domain of export competition including international food aid and export 
restrictions. The EU also proposed that discussions on these issues might be organized within the 
setting of a technical expert group open to all Members. These  ideas were also seconded from the 
floor. Simultaneously, there were questions on the chosen prioritization across issues and exclusion 
of market access and domestic support pillars. Reservations were also expressed on the suggestion 
to set up an additiona l forum for deliberations when it was already challenging for Members to deal 
with existing bodies and associated meetings; expectedly busy negotiating calendar in the second 
part of the year was also cited.  
China presented its submission on the theme of 'Streamlining Agricultural Notifications and 
Improving Transparency'  in G/AG/W/232. The submission focussed on overlapping and 
redundant notification requirements across WTO bodies as well as within the CoA. Specific 
suggestions to streamline and simplify notification requirements were proposed in the domain of 
TRQ administration and export competition without compromising the existing level of transparency. 
The underlying emphasis on streamlining of transparency requirements found broad support in 
Members'  preliminary comments who also expressed their willingness to examine the specific 
suggestions in a technical setting while also involving other relevant committees and bodies 
mentioned in the submission.  
  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 31 - 
 
  ANNEX 4  
 
CHAIR REPORT ON THE INFORMAL COA MEETIN GS OF 13 FEBRUARY AND  
13 MARCH 2023  
The issue of the first triennial review of the Bali TRQ Decision  and the draft report of the review 
was taken up at both the Informal CoA meetings respectively on 13 February and 13 March 2023. 
The focus of discussions on this matter was primarily on the two sub-paragraph s 3.1 (d) and (e) of 
the draft report in RD/AG/95  and revisions.   
On paragraph 3.1 (d) deal ing w ith enhanced transparency of MA:2 notifications in respect of TRQs 
where quota is allocated to supplying countries , Members broadly converged around an agreement 
that Members implementing such TRQs should present import data in their annual MA:2 notifications 
disaggregated by quota -holder supplying  countries, along with total in -quota imports . This was with 
the understanding that the requirement should be: i) limited to TRQs with country allocations in the 
schedule ; ii) voluntary; and iii) applicable to TRQs which are 'open' or implemented in a given year. 
One Member also wondered whether the scope o f this enhanced transparency on the reporting of 
imports could be expanded to all TRQs implemented with country -specific allocations rather than 
limited to only those quotas where country allocations were inscribed in the schedule; similarly, a 
few Members  also favored a stronger commitment -type language in the proposed recommendation 
to provide disaggregated import data in MA:2 notifications for the relevant TRQs rather than 
requiring it only on a voluntary basis.  
The discussions under paragraph 3.1 (d) a lso considered the issue of presentation of import data by 
origin in respect of quota quantities accessible on an erga omnes  basis. Members' views were 
divergent on this matter, including specifically on whether the suggestion would cover only residual 
erga omnes  component of TRQs with country allocations covered under the first sentence of 
paragraph 3.1 (d) or rather all erga omnes  TRQs in Members' schedules. Some Members preferred 
the inclusion of recommendations in respect of erga omnes  TRQs in the repor t; paragraph 2 (e) of 
the 2019 IDB Decision in G/MA/367 was also cited in support and for possible inspiration in this 
regard. Some other Members favored further reflection on the matter; they highlighted the need for 
a balance between desired data and tra nsparency, and the burdensomeness and readability of MA:2 
notifications. At the end, the Chair suggested that this element might perhaps be considered for 
inclusion in the descriptive section of the report for further discussions.  
Paragraph 3.1 (e) of the  draft report sought to acknowledge the remaining issues raised during the 
first triennial review where additional examination would need to precede any eventual agreement 
among Members. A detailed written submission by Costa Rica in G/AG/W/230 on enhanced  
transparency of MA:1 notifications and the implementation of Members'  obligations in paragraphs 
2-5 of the Bali TRQ Decision  facilitated agreement on the language of the first sentence of paragraph 
3.1 e). Remaining outstanding issues listed in paragraph 2.1 of the draft report were acknowledged 
in the second sentence of paragraph 3.1 e) for further discussions among Members.  
The European Union non-paper on  “Better Tools for Sharing Information on Policies in 
Agriculture ” was also taken up during the Info rmal CoA meeting on 13 February 2023. The paper 
focused on three specific elements for furthering transparency, namely, export restrictions, export 
competition, and international food aid.  Several Members supported enhanced transparency in 
respect of these  elements and also favored the EU's suggestion to organize targeted technical 
discussions on these matters in a small group  setting. A number of other Members, however, 
questioned the need of picking up only select issues for transparency discussions while  excluding 
other important elements including in the domain of domestic support. The idea of setting up a small 
group was also questioned by some others by highlighting the availability of already existing forums, 
including the recently established CoA Wor king Group on food security, and avoiding multiplicity of 
forums and meetings. Diverging views were also heard on whether transparency improvements 
should be furthered in the CoA or the CoASS.  G/AG/R/105  
 
- 32 - 
 
  At the Informal CoA meeting on 13 March 2023, Members also had an initial exchange of views on 
the joint submission by a group of Members on the 'Functioning of the CTG Subsidiary Bodies'  
(JOB/AG/238 /Rev.1 and other symbols). The submission relied on a 'co mparison matrix' prepared 
by the CTG Secretariat in G/C/W/824/Rev.1 on various committee practices. Based on the joint 
submission, Members looked at possible further improvements in the functioning of the CoA. Three 
specific elements came out in the discus sions dealing with i) training and assistance to agriculture 
delegates on the work of the CoA; ii) role of digital tools (AG -IMS) and iii) scheduling of meetings. 
Several Members appreciated the already highly efficient functioning of the CoA and the impor tant 
work of the Secretariat to support the work of the Committee. The Secretariat indicated that it had 
already started looking at the comparison matrix with a view to exploring possible additional 
improvements in the CoA practices and announced its inten tion to organize, starting 2023, annual 
information sessions for agriculture delegates on the functioning of the CoA. The Secretariat also 
reported on its ongoing work on the AG -IMS domestic support reporting functionality and sought 
additional time to pre sent it prior to the June 2023 CoA meeting.  
 
 
__________