G/AG/33  
 
17 March 2022  
(22-2382) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
REPORT ON THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE MINISTERIAL DECISION  
OF 19 DECEMBER 2015 ON EXPORT COMPETITION  
1  MANDATE AND PROCESS  
1.  Paragraph  5 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition adopted on 
19 December  20151 (the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition) provides that: " The regular 
sessions of the Committee on Agriculture shall review every three years the disciplines contained in 
this Decision, with the aim of enhancing disciplines to ensure that no circumvent ion threatens export 
subsidy elimination commitments and to prevent non -commercial transactions from being used to 
circumvent such commitments ". 
2.  The first triennial review of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition took place in 2018 and 
concluded with the adoption of the report by the Committee on Agriculture  (CoA) on 
26 September  20182. 
3.  Members discussed the second triennial review in seven informal meetings of the  CoA 
on 29 March 2021, 17 June 2021, 23 September 2021, 2 February 2022, 18 February 202 2, 
4 March  2022 and 15 March 2022, complemented by several consultations held by the Chair of 
the CoA. 
4.  The Chair reported on these meetings in the formal meetings of the CoA on 29 -30 March 20213, 
17-18 June 20214, 23-24 September 20215 and 15 -16 March 20226. 
5.  It was noted from the outset that the second triennial review would be undertaken in parallel 
with two other export competition related tracks:  
a. First, the annual dedicated discussion process in the CoA to monitor the implementation 
of the disciplines contained in the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. As was 
highlighted by Members, 2021  was a significant year since for the first time all Members 
were expected to reply to the questionnaire, following the expiry of the grace period 
foreseen in footnote 17 of the Decision.  
b. Second, the agricultural negotiations undertaken in the framework of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Special Session (CoA -SS) with a view to reaching an outcome on agriculture 
at the 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12).  
6.  Members expressed the view that the triennial review and the negotiation process on export 
competition should be complementary and mutually supportive. It was noted that the review could 
help highlight unfinished business on export competition, while some M embers considered that both 
the review and the negotiations could contribute to an outcome on agriculture inclusive of 
transparency elements at MC12.  
 
1 Document WT/MIN(15)/45 - WT/L/980, dated 21 December 2015.  
2 Document G/AG/28, dated 26 September 2018.  
3 See report G/AG/R/98, paragraph 4.22 and annex 3.  
4 See report G/AG/R/99, paragraph 5.23 and annexes 3 and 4.  
5 See report G/AG/R/100, section 4.4.2 and annex 3.  
6 See upcoming report G/AG/R/101 . G/AG/33  
 
- 2 - 
 
  7.  The Chair presented, during the informal meeting held on 17 June 2021, a detailed report on the 
issues add ressed during the first half of 20217. It was stressed (see section 3 below) that several 
issues identified in this report were also being considered in the agriculture negotiations in advance 
of MC12.  
8.  As a result, Members agreed during the September 2021  CoA meeting to conclude the second 
triennial review after MC12, at the March 2022 CoA meeting, to ensure complementarity in the 
review and the negotiation tracks.  
9.  Following the postponement of MC12 at the end of 2021, Members reconvened their discussions  
during the 2 February and 18 February 2022 informal CoA meetings to reassess the situation and 
possible way forward. During these meetings, most Members supported the completion of the 
triennial review at the March 2022 CoA meeting. They acknowledged that  this would require realism 
and pragmatism in their approach to possible conclusions or recommendations, and that these would 
need to relate to issues that had been clearly identified in the discussions in the context of the 
triennial review.  
10.  The Chair sub sequently circulated on 24 February 2022 a draft report that was discussed during 
the 4 March 2022 informal CoA meeting. Some drafting suggestions were made during the meeting 
in the concluding section. Following further consultations, the Chair circulated  on 11 March 2022 a 
revised version that was discussed during the 15 March 2022 informal CoA meeting.  
11.  Following the meeting, the Chair circulated a final draft version for Members' consideration and 
this report was adopted by the Committee on Agriculture o n 16 March 2022.  
2  CONTENT OF DISCUSSIONS  
12.  Members stressed in the discussions the importance of transparency to ensure an effective 
monitoring of the Nairobi Decision and to ensure that no circumvention threatens export subsidy 
elimination commitments contai ned therein.  
13.  It was emphasized on several occasions that 2021 was the first year during which all Members 
were expected to reply to the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) and that it would be important 
to draw from this experience, including potential  challenges faced by some Members, to explore 
ways to enhance transparency. In this vein, some Members underscored that the results of the 2021 
annual dedicated process showed that there was room for improvement both in terms of quantity 
and quality of ECQ  replies.  
14.  Members also welcomed the compilation of issues raised under the monitoring of the 
Nairobi  Decision on Export Competition8 that was circulated by the Secretariat on 11  May 2021, 
following a request made by one Member during the discussions. One Member suggested that the 
Secretariat prepare an analytical study of the questions and replies compiled in this document as a 
possible next step.  
15.  The rest of this section summarizes the discussions held during the second triennial review 
based on the list of nine issues identified by the Chair of the CoA in its June 2021 report9. Members 
noted in the course of the discussions that many transparency -related items included in these nine 
issues were also being considered in the agriculture negotiations and in cluded in several submissions 
presented by Members in this context10. 
16.  First, several Members considered that, in light of the new export competition landscape 
resulting from the adoption of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, Members should consider 
a comprehensive review to update and streamline the notification requirem ents and formats in 
relation to Export Subsidies and total exports in Tables ES:1 and ES:2, as well as international Food 
 
7 See report G/ AG/R/99, annex 4.  
8 Document G/AG/W/211 and G/AG/W/211 /Add.1. 
9 See report G/AG/R/99, annex 4.  
10 See in particular documents JOB/AG/184, JOB/AG/211 and JOB/AG/213.  G/AG/33  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Aid in Tables ES:1, ES:3 and NF:1, read in conjunction with the transparency requirements under 
the ECQ.  
17.  Another Member notably sugges ted updating the list of Members required to submit export data 
in Table ES:2, as well as the current list of products and groups of products and the related tariff 
lines.  
18.  Several Members noted that such a comprehensive review could enhance the effectivene ss of 
the transparency requirements, by reducing unnecessary, burdensome or redundant requirements 
while preserving the accuracy and completeness of data provided by Members. Some Members 
emphasized that future transparency requirements should take due acc ount of the capacity 
constraints faced by developing Members, and particularly LDCs.  
19.  In this regard, one Member suggested that the CoA should develop proposals for practical 
arrangements on streamlining and simplifying current export competition notificati on obligations 
towards a better overall compliance and quality of the transparency. This Member considered that 
the document JOB/AG/213 could be used as a basis for these reflections.  
20.  Second , while several Members considered that it would be useful to upda te the content of 
the ECQ to improve the accuracy and relevance of data provided by Members, other Members were 
of the view that this would be premature and that priority should rather be given to efforts aimed at 
improving the monitoring process based on the existing requirements.  
21.  Third , several Members considered that there was a need to clarify or explain the scope of 
some of the questions contained in the ECQ, based on the experience acquired so far. It was noted 
that an "illustrative list" approach cou ld be useful in this regard. However, no concrete proposals 
were made in this respect.  
22.  Fourth , while some Members supported the integration of the ECQ information requirements 
into the document G/AG/2, including as part of a process to update and streamlin e the export 
competition transparency requirements (see first item), other Members did not consider this to be 
a priority. Some Members stressed the need to assess the consequences of such a change on the 
existing monitoring process, and the need for a com prehensive approach.  
23.  Fifth, some Members considered that the Secretariat could usefully provide additional trade 
data to complement Members' replies to the ECQ. Some other Members expressed reservations 
about the Secretariat providing data that would not b e submitted or validated by Members.  
24.  In relation to these first elements, several Members considered that the triennial review should 
focus on ways to improve the existing monitoring practices and obligations, including the rate of 
replies to the existing ECQ, rather than exploring possible new requirements, especially in light of 
the fact that all Members were expected to answer the ECQ for the first time in 2021.  
25.  One Member stressed in this regard that any new proposal, including clarifications on the kind 
of information to be presented or the addition of new questions to the ECQ, should be thoroughly 
discussed and supported by the whole Membership in order to be approved.  
26.  Sixth , several Members welcomed, during the discussions, th e efforts made by Members with 
export subsidy reduction commitments at the time of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition to 
modify their schedules pursuant to the Decision. They also encouraged the remaining Members to 
do so as quickly as possible.11 
27.  Seventh, Members supported concrete initiatives aimed at enhancing the existing monitoring 
process as well as the rate of replies to the ECQ, including by assisting Members that are not yet 
accustomed to replying to the ECQ.  
 
11 At the date of circulation of this report, out of the 16 Members with export subsidy reduc tion 
commitments at the time of the Nairobi Decision, 15 Members have circulated their draft revised schedules. 
Revised schedules of 13 of these Members are already certified.  G/AG/33  
 
- 4 - 
 
  28.  Initiatives such as informatio n sessions12, mentoring by more experienced Members, or 
technical assistance by the Secretariat were mentioned in this regard.  
29.  The on -going development by the Secretariat of a new IT tool under AG -IMS for online 
submission of replies to the ECQ and online  data extraction and reporting has also been welcomed 
in this context. The Secretariat has regularly informed Members about the progress of this project 
and committed to consult Members and obtain their feedback in the early phase of development 
before the  project is operationalized.  
30.  Several Members also stressed the importance of undertaking an analysis of the implementation 
of the Nairobi Decision so far, including a proper assessment and feedback of the actual difficulties 
encountered by Members in repl ying to the ECQ, as a prerequisite for being able to address them 
effectively.  
31.  Eighth , some Members expressed concern that some export subsidies under Article 9.4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, that benefitted from a longer phasing -out period pursuant to  the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition, were not being notified in a timely manner. These Members 
highlighted, during the discussions, the importance of enhanced transparency in that regard.  
32.  Several Members considered that it would be useful in this c ontext for the Secretariat to compile 
data on the use of such subsidies, as contained in Members' ES:1 notifications (Supporting 
Table  ES:2) in the annual background document on export competition.  
33.  It was noted that this could be done following the same pr actice used so far for notified 
scheduled export subsidies, namely tables in Addendum 1 reflecting the annual use in quantity and 
budgetary outlays, and summary charts by Members in the main document.  
34.  One Member suggested that the Secretariat could also in clude, in the background document, 
the average levels of export subsidies under article 9.4 for the past five years on a product basis, 
keeping in view paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
35.  Another Member considered that this issue, a nd more broadly the role of the Secretariat's 
background document on export competition, would also depend on the outcome of the suggested 
holistic review of all relevant export competition related notification requirements.  
36.  Ninth and last, several Members  noted during the discussions that the ECQ information 
requirements for agricultural exporting State Trading Enterprises are by design almost identical to 
those contained in the questionnaire of the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises.  
37.  Many Members considered in this context that, in order to avoid redundant requirements, it 
would be useful to confirm that Members can use their reply to the questionnaire of the Working 
Party on State Trading Enterprises to reply to the ECQ section on exporting agricu ltural State Trading 
Enterprises.  
38.  It was stressed, however, that the notification frequency was different under the two exercises: 
annual in the case of the ECQ, and every two years in the case of the Working Party on State Trading 
Enterprises questionnair e. 
39.  It was considered that Members should therefore ensure that information contained in the reply 
to the ECQ in relation to their exporting agricultural State Trading Enterprises is fully up to date for 
the years during which no notification is provided to  the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises.  
3  CONCLUSIONS  
40.  The following conclusions, building upon Members' inputs and comments throughout the 
process, were agreed by the Committee as a result of the second triennial review of the Nairobi 
Decision on Ex port Competition:  
 
12 An information session on how to reply to the ECQ was organized on 29 March 20 21, with a 
presentation by the Secretariat and the sharing on national experiences by Brazil, Canada and Indonesia.  G/AG/33  
 
- 5 - 
 
  a. The Committee emphasizes the importance of transparency on all areas under export 
competition to ensure an effective monitoring of the implementation of the Nairobi 
Decision by the Committee on Agriculture.  
b. Recalling that 2021 was the fi rst year when all Members were required to reply to the ECQ, 
the Committee encourages all Members to provide timely and comprehensive replies to 
the ECQ and invites Members facing difficulties to comply with this requirement to reach 
out to the Secretariat  for technical assistance or capacity building.  
c. The Committee invites the Secretariat to pursue its efforts to provide support to Members 
as appropriate and upon request, through activities such as information sessions, technical 
assistance and capacity -building, based on the challenges identified by developing country 
Members.  
d. The Committee confirms that Members can use the reply to the questionnaire of the 
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises for the section on agricultural exporting STEs 
of the EC Q, while acknowledging the need to update it, where relevant in the years during 
which no notification is provided to the Working Party on STEs.  
e. The Committee invites the Secretariat to pursue the development of an ECQ IT tool project 
to ensure online rep lies to the ECQ and online data extraction and reporting. The 
Committee takes good note of the WTO Secretariat's intention to inform and seek feedback 
from the Membership during the development phase of this project.  
f. The Committee acknowledges existing dis cussions on how export competition 
transparency requirements could be updated and streamlined and invites Members to 
continue these evidence -based discussions in light of the experience acquired in 
implementing the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition an d the challenges and needs 
identified by Members.  
g. The Committee commits to implement the relevant elements of an outcome on export 
competition that may result from the ongoing agriculture negotiations.  
 
__________