G/AG/GEN/203  
5 July 2022 
(22-5163) Page: 1/17 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
CoA@100 EVENT  
GENEVA, 17 MARCH 2022  
INFORMAL SUMMARY REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  On the margins of the 100th session of the Committee on Agriculture (CoA), a half -day 
CoA@100 event2 was organized on 17 March 2022 to recall and acknowledge the Committee's 
accomplishments over the last twenty -seven years .  
1.2.  On 4 February 2022, the CoA Chairperson sent an invitatio n letter  to all Members, observer 
governments and International Observer Organizations to participate in the event. The Chairperson 
requested that Members extend the invitation to current and past delegates, in particular former 
CoA chairpersons.  
1.3.  The Secretariat, in consultation with the Chairperson and delegations, prepared a detailed 
programme of the event. The programme was circulated as an official document3 for easy access 
and wider circulation. The programme included two panel discussions, facilitated by a moderator, 
followed by exchanges among participants. The first panel entitled "25 years of the CoA"  recalled 
the evolution of the Committee's Review Process, and provided a n assessment of the CoA's work 
and accomplishments over more than 25 years. The second panel on the theme of "CoA – 25 years 
into the future"  explored the possible role of the Committee in assisting Members to deal with the 
contemporary challenges facing global agriculture and agricultural trade.  
2  OPENING CEREMONY  
2.1.  The opening ceremony was moderated by Edwini Kessie, Director of the Agriculture  and 
Commodities Division and entailed an address by the Director -General Dr. Ngozi Okonjo -Iweala and 
video messages by former CoA chairpersons Ambassador Apiradi Tantraporn of Thailand and 
Ambassador Nestor Osorio Londoño of Colombia.  
2.2.   In her  opening remarks , the Director -General (DG) commended the WTO Secretariat for the 
event and welcomed the presence of several CoA chairpersons and agricultural delegates at the 
event, thanki ng them for the services rendered to the Committee. The DG noted that the CoA had 
undertaken with distinction the important task of facilitating and monitoring Members' 
implementation of undertakings assumed under the Agreement on Agriculture. In so doing,  the 
Committee provided a robust forum for WTO Members to exchange views about compliance with 
existing rules and to address concerns with each other's trade policies before they escalated into 
disputes. The DG also underlined that the Committee had contri buted to WTO's overall efforts to 
promote the rule of law at the international level. She also recalled the Committee's role in 
developing effective, accountable, and transparent farm policies contributing thereby to the 
achievement of public policy goals in areas such as food security and rural development and to help 
ensure that trade in food and farm goods worked to improve people's lives. Recalling how the 
Committee offered a vital forum for discussion and dialogue between Members during the COVID -19 
 
1 This report has been prepared by the Secretariat  solely to keep a record of the discussions held during 
the CoA@100 special event for future reference and is without prejudice to the positions of Members or to their 
rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 The event was organized in a hybrid format with virtual participation via Interprefy.  
3 G/AG/GEN/196/Rev.1.  G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 2 - 
 
  pandemic, the DG encouraged Members to continue to invest in strengthening the Committee's work 
through participating actively in its deliberations and by sharing information about trade measures 
in a timely and transparent manner.  
2.3.  Ambassador Apiradi Tantraporn  of Thailand and Ambassador Nestor Osorio Londoño  of 
Colombia, who chaired the CoA respectively during 1996 -1997 and 1997 -2000, also spoke at the 
opening ceremony. In her  video message , Ambassador Tantraporn emphasized that the conclusion 
of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and its entry into force in 1995 marked a significant milestone 
towards the reform of global agricultural trade. She noted that the role of the CoA to oversee the 
AoA's implementation and as a forum for Members to address agriculture -related concerns had since 
remained crucial, including by monitoring Members' compliance with subsequent Ministerial 
Decisions resulting from agriculture negotiations. She also noted the need for the Committee to 
evolve and have additional tools to effectively deal with newer global agricultural challenges, and 
alluded to the Committee's possible transition to a 'COA 2.0'. Ambassador Tantraporn emphasized 
the importance of addressing agric ultural trade -related challenges for developing and least -
developed countries and to support them towards the achievement of the UN Sustainable 
Development Goals (SDGs). Ambassador Tantraporn also noted that the agricultural trade reform 
process mandated b y Article 20 of the AoA was still outstanding and that the CoA would play a key 
role to implement those new commitments, once agreed.  
2.4.   Ambassador Nestor Osorio, in his  video message , noted that th e AoA was one of the most 
important and politically sensitive achievements of the Uruguay Round, which also gave birth to the 
WTO. The CoA had a colossal task to follow -up on thousands of commitments on TRQs and on 
domestic and export subsidies which the C ommittee, through its rigorous system of notifications, 
had assumed with great responsibility and technical competence. Ambassador Osorio also recalled 
the two -year long "Analysis and Information Exchange" (AIE) process, conducted by the Committee 
during h is Chairmanship with remarkable support by the Secretariat, which provided a robust 
technical foundation for the conduct of the mandated negotiations. He also referred to an important 
organic link which the CoA had maintained with the CoA Special Session, with the responsibility, as 
necessary, of monitoring the implementation of outcomes reached so far, including the 2015 
landmark agreement on the elimination of agricultural export subsidies. Ambassador Osorio 
considered the Committee as an asset for the Me mbership to achieve a balanced, fair and sustainable 
trade in agricultural products and thereby support food security and nutrition.  
3  PRESENTATION BY THE SECRETARIAT  
3.1.  The Secretariat  (Diwakar Dixit, Secretary of the CoA) in its  presentation  noted that, in addition 
to the important political dimension associated with the task of the Committee to follow up on the 
first-ever comprehensive multilateral agreement on agriculture, there had been a critical 
'implementation' dimension of the Committe e's work. With the technical complexity and novelty of 
thousands of numerical 'annual' commitments that Members assumed on TRQs and agricultural 
subsidies within the framework of the AoA, it was imperative to have the institutional framework of 
the Committ ee to provide the confidence that those commitments had been adhered to. The 
Secretariat also shared statistics in respect of the two key mechanisms of notifications and Q&A that 
the Committee bases its work on, and noted the greater reliance by Members in  recent years on 
Article  18.6 and the review of Members' agricultural policy developments compared to the review of 
notifications. The Secretariat also underlined the contribution of the on -line Agriculture Information 
Management System (AG -IMS) platform t o facilitate transparency and Members' participation in 
the CoA.  
4  PANEL I: '25 YEARS OF THE COA' - RECALLING THE EVOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE 
REVIEW PROCESS, AND OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE COA'S WORK AND 
ACCOMPLISHMENTS  
4.1.  The moderator of the first panel, and c urrent CoA Chairperson, Mr. Marcos da Rosa Uranga  
(Uruguay) introduced the discussions by providing a summary of the Committee's work and 
important milestones since its establishment in 1995. Mr. da Rosa noted that Members had engaged 
in extensive discussi ons from the beginning on the implementation of the Uruguay Round agricultural 
commitments, including some that led to consultations and disputes already in 1995. The efforts 
made enabled the Committee, at its second meeting in June 1995, to adopt the deta iled notification 
requirements and formats contained in G/AG/2, which had since played a key role to support the 
Committee's monitoring function. Strong calls were heard in the very early days of the establishment G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 3 - 
 
  of the CoA to achieve further clarity on T RQ administration methods. Members feared that various 
TRQ administration arrangements employed by Members lacked transparency, and could impede 
trade or impair the value of market access concessions. The CoA Chair had to convene informal 
consultations on this issue already in 1996. A lot had happened on the issue of TRQ administration 
since then until it became an important component of the agriculture negotiations agenda, resulting 
finally in the adoption of the Bali TRQ Decision in 2013, along with an un derfill mechanism whose 
future operation Members had continued to discuss in the CoA, including at the 100th CoA meeting 
in March  2022.  
4.2.   Mr. da Rosa recalled the important role played by the Committee's AIE process agreed by the 
Singapore Ministerial Conf erence. By way of several technical submissions by Members and the 
Secretariat, the AIE process during 1997 -1999 prepared the ground for the launch of the substantive 
negotiations envisaged under Article 20 of the AoA in 2000. He also referred to extensive  discussions 
in the Committee during 1998 -1999 to address several notification -related issues and practices, 
which resulted in a detailed background note prepared by the Secretariat as contained 
in G/AG/W/45. Mr. da Rosa referred to the detailed work progr amme conducted in the CoA during 
2009-2011 to enhance the transparency of the CoA and to improve the timeliness and completeness 
of agriculture notifications in particular, which resulted in several important outcomes, including 
streamlining of CoA documen ts, launch of notification workshops, elaboration of a Notification 
Handbook by the Secretariat, launch of the AG -IMS Q&A in 2012 and of the AG -IMS on -line 
notification system in 2019.  
4.3.  Mr. da Rosa referred to the important role the CoA played in facilitat ing the agriculture 
negotiations and ensuring a proper follow -up of the ministerial outcomes arising from them. He 
specifically referred to the first dedicated discussions on export competition in 2014 after the Bali 
Ministerial Conference and in 2016 afte r the adoption of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export 
competition. The CoA had already concluded two triennial reviews on export competition respectively 
in 2018 and 2022, and agreed on important outcomes4 on the transparency of TRQ administration 
in 2019 during the Bali TRQ Decision review exercise launched in 2017. Mr. da Rosa also recalled 
that the Committee convened a special meeting in June 2020, in the wake of the COVID -19 
pandemic, and since provided an important forum for Members' engagement  on each other's 
COVID -19 agricultural measures based on contributions by Members and observer international 
organizations.  
4.4.  With this introduction, Mr. da Rosa invited panellists5 to share their insights on the evolution 
of the work of the CoA, the Commi ttee's accomplishments, possible avenues for improvements, 
anecdotes about their personal experiences, lessons learned and the role they had played in the 
work of the Committee.  
4.5.  Mr. Chris Carson  (New Zealand) provided background on why and how the Committ ee was 
established and what was the trading environment at the time of the launch of the Uruguay Round 
in September 1986. There were major distortions in international markets resulting from frequent 
recourse to border measures, quantitative restrictions, voluntary restraint agreements, variable 
levies, and heavily price -dependent domestic subsidies. Most agricultural measures were not 
regulated under the GATT and there were two major agricultural subsidy providers, namely the 
United States and the European  Communities, as it used to be called then. This had led to highly 
distorted world markets for agricultural products, giving rise to terminologies like 'wine lakes', 'butter 
mountains', with agricultural products being pushed to world markets with the use of export 
subsidies. This led to global prices being pushed down and effectively forcing other countries to 
subsidize to maintain the income of their farmers. Academic work, including by the OECD, suggested 
that if subsidies by the European Communities and  the United States were to be reduced together, 
the adjustment would be easier facilitating the recovery of depressed global prices.  
4.6.  Mr. Carson considered that the Uruguay Round outcome was ground -breaking for setting aside 
the GATT legality of certain mea sures and for establishing reduction commitments on agricultural 
subsidies. The former had resulted in tariffication, TRQ commitments and a special agricultural 
safeguard (SSG) whereas the latter was manifest in aggregate domestic support commitments and 
product -specific quantity and budgetary outlay limits on export subsidies. The establishment of 
subsidy commitments, effected through extensive data exchange and submission of supporting 
 
4 G/AG/29 . 
5 Please refer to Annex 1 for the composition of Panels.  G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 4 - 
 
  tables, was indeed a novelty which only few experts at that time, incl uding in the Secretariat, had 
deemed feasible, both from practical and legal perspectives.  
4.7.  The period between the conclusion of the Uruguay Round agriculture negotiations in 
December  1993 and the first CoA meeting in 1995 saw intense discussions among Mem bers to 
establish the notification requirements and formats contained in G/AG/2, which were primarily 
derived from the Uruguay Round schedules and supporting tables. Although not without divergences 
and controversy, G/AG/2 and the Committee's procedures fo r the first time allowed a holistic 
discussion on the individual elements of Members' agricultural policies based on the review of 
notifications and under the Article 18.6 process. Despite practical challenges like those related to 
the definition of 'year'  to determine individual start dates of Members' commitments, there was a 
genuine optimism within the CoA. The Uruguay Round was highly instrumental in encouraging both 
the European Communities and the United States to undertake reforms in their agricultur al subsidy 
regimes even before the start of the implementation of the AoA in 1995.  
4.8.  Mr. Carson also alluded to significant technological evolution in handling and processing of 
information by the CoA and the Secretariat since 1995. While currently there is  a digital platform 
like the AG -IMS, back in 1995 computers were seldom used, communication was through phones 
and fax machines, and most information was received and circulated on paper. He referred to the 
cover page of G/AG/2 which advises Members to pro vide notified information in 'diskette' in Lotus 
or Word -Perfect formats.  
4.9.   Ms. Pam Cooper  (Canada) noted that Members had accorded significant importance to the 
framework of rules and disciplines under the AoA, and the binding commitments it anchored on 
market access, domestic support, and export competition. In relation to the establishment of 
the CoA, there had been a critical interest among Members to ensure that rules were fully adhered 
to.  
4.10.   Ms. Cooper noted that the foundation for the Committee had bee n laid during the work 
conducted in 1994 through the Preparatory Committee, including specifically on agricultural 
notification formats. She referred to three documents forming the foundation of the work of the CoA 
and the review process, namely: the 'Term s of Reference'6 of the Committee, agreed at the first 
meeting of the General Council in January 1995; the 'Organization of Work and Working 
Procedures'7, adopted by the CoA at its first meeting in March 1995; and the 'Notification 
Requirements and Formats'8, adopted by the CoA at its second meeting in June 1995. She also noted 
that even before the adoption of the notification requirements and formats by the Committee in 
June 1995, notifications had been submitted, and the first que stions were put to Members already 
at the very first meeting of the Committee in March 1995.  
4.11.   Ms. Cooper also underlined that the three foundational documents adopted by the Committee 
were not limiting, nor specifically prescriptive; they rather offered suf ficient scope and flexibility for 
the Committee to organize  its work. This might be a possible reason why these core organizational 
parameters continued to guide and serve the Committee well t o date.  
4.12.   Ms. Cooper also attributed the success of the Committee  in its early years to the exceptional 
set of people involved in its work. Through the last years of the Uruguay Round and into the first 
few years of the Committee, Members were extremely well supported and advised by the staff of 
the Agriculture and Comm odities Division, led by Frank Wolter as Director and Evan Rogerson, Paul 
Shanahan and Chris Carson as the key officers in the Division. The first chairs, starting from late 
Ambassador Danai Tulalamba, followed by Ambassador Apiradi Tantraporn, both from T hailand, and 
Ambassador Nestor Osorio of Colombia played a key role in leading the Committee in a constructive 
and collegial manner and guiding the subsequent chairpersons to ably steer the Committee. Finally, 
Ms. Cooper recalled the role of first Agricult ure attachés who most often were the veterans of the 
Uruguay Round and brought with them a solid knowledge of domestic and trade policies in 
agriculture, the Agreement itself and Members' commitments; these exceptional individuals had 
approached the work o f the Committee with a practical and pragmatic mindset.  
 
6 WT/L/43.  
7 G/AG/1.  
8 G/AG/2.  G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 5 - 
 
  4.13.   Ms. Cooper  noted that the Committee had also contributed to two other core functions of 
the WTO, namely, the process of resolving differences between Members, and laying the foundation 
for future neg otiations as mandated by Article 20 of the AoA. Many of the issues raised at the 
Committee were under Article 18.6 discussions, and some ended up in dispute settlements, while 
others were settled through a process of seeking additional information on polic ies and practices in 
the Committee. She also specifically alluded to the constructive  role of the Chairperson s, including 
the use of their good offices, drawing on paragraph 13 of the working procedures,  informal meetings 
and consultations during the early  years of the Committee.   
4.14.   Ms. Cooper  recognized the significant changes introduced over the years by the Secretariat in 
the organization of the Committee's work towards increased transparency to streamline the process 
of submitting and distributing notifi cations, questions and answers, tracking outstanding 
notifications and deferred replies, and to make the information easily accessible to Members and the 
general public. Recalling a highly contrasting situation in early years of the Committee, when most 
of the information was shared and processed manually on paper, she welcomed the existing 
automation and efficient information management tools facilitating the Committee's work. 
Ms. Cooper considered that these data automation related changes had improved  the organization 
and mechanics of the Committee and  its information management , evolving to support  the 
fundamental purpose and nature of the review process.  
4.15.   Referring to the presentation by the Secretariat on the work of the Committee, Ms.  Cooper  
took sati sfaction in the growing level of activity in the Committee, characterized by a high volume 
of incoming notifications and an increasing number of issues being raised under Article  18.6. 
Ms. Cooper considered this a reflection of good health of the Committee  and Members' confidence 
in the utility of its deliberations. She recalled the contrasting situation prior to and during the 
Uruguay Round, when several of the then-existing GATT Committees had become relatively inactive, 
with quite a few countries choosin g not to submit notifications for several years. Similarly, the 
number of cases that went to dispute settlement in the last years of the GATT dropped noticeably - 
as Contracting Parties had lost confidence that the dispute settlement process, in being poss ibly 
blocked by another Contracting Party, would provide a satisfactory resolution to their specific 
concerns. The growing number of notifications and matters raised at the Committee, as shown by 
the Secretariat, was therefore a good indicator of the conti nuing vitality of the Committee  and 
engagement of Members in its work.  
4.16.   Mr. Magdi Farahat (Egypt), who chaired the CoA during 2002 -2004, believed that the CoA 
was the preeminent body of the WTO and the functioning of the CoA had been the barometer to 
gauge the overall health of the WTO. He noted that for many developing and least -developed 
countries, the AoA had been the major achievement of the overall Uruguay Round outcome, and 
several of these countries assessed the success of the Round by reflecting on w hat was achieved in 
the domain of agriculture.  
4.17.   Mr. Farahat  highlighted that, for Egypt, as was for several other developing countries, food 
security issues had remained central, more so after the global food crisis of 2007 -08. These countries 
had consistently looked to the CoA in its Regular and Special Sessions to assist them in addressing 
food security challenges. He also considered that the distinction between the CoA Regular and the 
CoA Special Session was artificial; these two bodies were rather indivisible and should accordingly 
maintain the necessary synerg y and interaction.  
4.18.   Mr. Farahat echoed previous speakers and commended the professionalism and the 
camradery among agriculture colleagues both within and especially outside of the CoA meetings, 
which greatly facilitated the work of the Committee. He also u nderlined the key role of the 
Chairperson towards efficient and productive CoA meetings. He gave the example of the first 
discussions at the CoA within China's Transitional Review Mechanism under his chairmanship. There 
were engaged discussions and the mat ter entailed high sensitivity. His decision to suspend 
deliberations and organize an informal conversation among key Members had finally allowed the 
Committee to smoothly undertake the exercise. Referring to the Secretariat presentation on the 
evolution of  the review process, Mr. Farahat pointed that, while the number of questions raised by 
Members at the CoA had been increasing, the situation in respect of the rate of outstanding replies 
was concerning and needed to be remedied.  
4.19.   Somewhat akin to the sugge stion by Ambassador Tantraporn for a 'CoA 2.0', Mr. Farahat 
argued that the time was ripe for an 'AoA 2.0'. The idea would be to address the concerns of most G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Members which would, inter alia , allow to develop new ways of transparent interactions. While 
acknowledging the sensitivity of agriculture for virtually all Members, as pointed out by 
the Director -General, Mr. Farahat hoped that both the Regular and Special Sessions of the CoA would 
play their due roles and bear the responsibili ty towards the goal of an AoA 2.0.  
4.20.   Ambassador Julie -Ann Guivarra (Australia) recalled that, prior to the Uruguay Round, 
international agricultural trade had been amongst the most distorted sectors of international trade. 
The Uruguay Round negotiations dev eloped effective rules for agricultural trade, and the 
establishment of the AoA was indeed a game changer at that stage. Similarly, the CoA had played 
a vital role to follow up on the implementation of the agreed rules and commitments. Ambassador 
Guivarra mentioned that, over the years, the transparency of the review of notifications had 
remained one of the greatest strengths of the CoA, as it allowed visibility of policies and measures 
used by countries to support their agricultural production. The CoA pro cesses had facilitated a better 
understanding of individual policy settings and circumstances of various Members. Ambassador 
Guivarra also considered that the development of the AG -IMS had been a huge step forward in terms 
of greater accessibility to the C ommittee's information and notifications.  
4.21.   Ambassador Guivarra noted that the Committee had also contributed to advancing agriculture 
trade reform. She gave the example of the preparatory process for the 9th Ministerial 
Conference  (MC-9) in Bali in 2013, w here she highlighted the work of the Committee to promote 
transparency around several issues. After the adoption of the relevant ministerial decisions, 
follow -up on these issues had now become a part of CoA regular processes, including the enhanced 
transpa rency around TRQ administration, Public Stockholding programmes and Export Competition 
measures.  
4.22.   Ambassador Guivarra referred to the Export Competition questionnaire and the annual 
dedicated process at the CoA, which had been first established through the  MC-9 Bali process, and 
later became part of the agreement at MC -10 in Nairobi in 2015 to eliminate export subsidies. In 
her view, the processes of transparency provided all Members with a greater understanding and 
assurance that governments had continued to remain on track in their collective efforts to reduce 
trade distorting measures in agriculture. She also commended the Secretariat's background 
documents and data collection efforts on export competition. As the Secretariat's infographics 
suggested, Mem bers' increased number of questions recently towards improved adherence to 
commitments, including under the export competition outcomes since 2013, suggested a robust 
review process. This also reflected a genuine interest among Members to learn about the p olicies 
and practices of their trading partners, especially with a view to organizing domestic agricultural 
interventions and assisting farmers in less trade -distorting ways.  
4.23.   Ambassador Guivarra also reminded the audience about the serious challenges face d by 
Members to further the agricultural reform agenda. Noting that political drivers to maintain distortive 
support to farmers still existed, she referred to data from major UN agencies estimating current 
global support to agriculture at around USD 540 bi llion, 87% of which was deemed trade -distorting, 
inequitable and generally harmful to the environment. She wondered whether the current domestic 
support rules would be deemed fit -for-purpose in the next thirty years. On market access reforms, 
Ambassador Gu ivarra noted that, despite significant market access improvements achieved through 
free trade agreements (FTAs), results were not delivered in a multilateral setting for all Members, 
especially for those who lacked relative trading and bargaining power to gain market access via  FTAs.  
4.24.   Ambassador Guivarra noted that the work of the Committee might also assist in dealing with 
some of the greatest contemporary agricultural challenges, such as climate change and related 
supply chain issues, as well as food secu rity, by examining Members' current practices and a better 
appreciation of the challenges. She specifically referred to the WTO 2021 World Trade Report, which 
recognized the importance of trade in addressing economic and environmental resilience, and talke d 
about the varied effects of climate change on countries, including in terms of yields and crops. She 
further added that it was important for the CoA to be abreast of agricultural reforms that were 
occurring outside of the WTO to suitably reflect those in  its work.  
4.25.    Ambassador Guivarra emphasized that she was a true believer in the work of the Committee. 
She urged both the CoA and the CoA -SS, joined by experts from other relevant international 
organisations, to work together to tackle contemporary issues l inked to agricultural trade.   G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.26.   Ambassador Yoichi Suzuki (Japan),  the fourth chairperson of the CoA (2000 -2002), shared 
the sentiments expressed by previous speakers about the importance of the CoA and its critical role 
in the WTO. Ambassador Suzuki recalle d that, during the early years of the Committee, delegations 
were dealing with a new reality after the successful Uruguay Round, which had brought agriculture 
comprehensively within the multilateral trading system. There was a renewed optimism and 
expectat ion among Members for the achievement of fair and market -oriented agricultural trade.  
4.27.   One major preoccupation in the CoA discussions at that time was to deal with agricultural 
subsidization. The important enabling factor for having disciplines on agricult ural subsidies under 
the AoA was that the then two major subsidizers, namely the United States and the European 
Communities, themselves were finding it difficult to continue with heavy subsidization and were 
interested to seek avenues for collective reform s. Trading partners at the receiving end of such 
distorting subsidies naturally were interested in such an effort.  
4.28.   The second major element of discussions in the CoA in the early 2000 related to elements in 
the market access pillar associated with tariffic ation and TRQ administration. There was a serious 
desire among Members to understand the various administration arrangements employed to 
administer TRQs. The task of the Chair and the Committee was to develop a good fact -finding 
database of information thr ough notifications and Committee's records of discussions under Article 
18.6 to facilitate full transparency about these measures. Here, Members were already conscious of 
the then imminent negotiations under Article 20, which were mandated to commence in 2 000. 
4.29.    Ambassador Suzuki noted that Members attributed great importance to notifications and their 
collective review by the Committee in order to ensure full transparency. In the event of no or delayed 
submission of notifications, Members were often willing  to explain the reasons for such delay. He 
hoped that Members still considered timely submission of agricultural notifications to be important 
for the work of the CoA.  
4.30.   Ambassador Suzuki indicated that, after more than a quarter of a century of work of the  CoA, 
Members' priorities seemed to have changed, with possibly a greater focus on domestic support and 
export competition rather than on market access. It may be because regional trade agreements 
were increasingly dealing with agricultural market access. while market access negotiations at 
the WTO had been stagnating. This may pose a broader question for Members to see if this type of 
division of labour between the multilateral and FTA -based negotiations was more permanent. 
Ambassador Suzuki noted that imp roved transparency and predictability were the basis for fair and 
market -oriented agriculture trade, both to importers and exporters. He concluded by asking whether 
current agricultural markets were functioning properly to support the objective of sustaina ble 
agricultural trade.  
4.1  Q&A and Final comments by the panellists  
4.31.   Mr. Jorge Riaboi  (Argentina), who also chaired CoA meetings on a few occasions 
during  1995-1997, commented that the AoA should be deemed as just the first instalment of the 
agricultural refo rm agenda, as agriculture was still subject to several distortions and exclusions from 
the full reach of the multilateral trading system. He also cautioned against adopting measures which 
could circumvent or bypass existing WTO agricultural rules. Mr. Riab oi expressed concerns on 
regulatory protectionism where some countries effectively sought to enforce their domestic rules 
onto their trading partners in granting market access. He considered that domestic legislations 
should ideally adapt to internationall y agreed rules.  
4.32.   With regards to sustainable development and climate change, Mr. Riaboi indicated that 
environmental concerns were already part of the Marrakesh Agreement, the Agreement on 
Agriculture, the SPS Agreement and other disciplines of the WTO. Su stainability objectives should 
not be used as a pretext to engage in trade distortionary policies. Recalling the 1996 World Food 
Summit organized by FAO, which conceptualized that trade was a key element to achieving food 
security, Mr. Riaboi called for a holistic and conceptual discussion on the notion of food security. Mr. 
Riaboi also expressed concerns with the use of Annex 2 of the AoA, especially in relation to the 
provision of 'income support', where, in the absence of required adjustments in the desi gn of the 
policies, such income support could de -facto become price support.  
4.33.   The panellists, in their final observations, noted that:  G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.34.   The AoA resulting from the Uruguay Round was indeed, using Mr. Riaboi's expression, the 
'first instalment' of the agricult ural reform outcome. This is explicitly acknowledged in the 
continuation clause in Article 20 of the AoA.  
4.35.   Policy -specific windows in the AoA's Annex 2 were oriented towards the policy priorities and 
concerns prevailing at the time of the Uruguay Round. It may be worthwhile to examine those 
provisions to see if they were fit -for-purpose in the current circumstances and the associated 
challenges (e.g. climate change and sustainable agriculture).  
4.36.    The CoA, while not being the forum for negotiations, could pla y a key role to incorporate 
discussions on contemporary issues and good practices to tackle the current challenges and also to 
suitably inform the ongoing agriculture negotiations in the Special Sessions of the CoA.  
4.37.   The moderator ( Mr. da Rosa ) thanked all  panellists and participants for their insights and for 
recalling the illustrious journey of the CoA over more than 27 years. The discussions reaffirmed the 
critical role and the continuing relevance of the Committee. Mr. da Rosa also considered that looki ng 
at the past of the CoA was important to understand the present and to project into the future, 
bearing in mind that work in the CoA should evolve in parallel with challenges faced in order for it 
to remain relevant and responsive to emerging realities a nd challenges.  
5  PANEL II: '25 YEARS INTO THE FUTURE' - POSSIBLE ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE IN 
ASSISTING THE MEMBERSHIP TO DEAL WITH THE CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES FACING 
GLOBAL AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL TRADE  
5.1.  Mr. Christian Häberli  (Switzerland), who was the CoA Chair during 2005 -07, moderated the 
second panel, which explored the role of the Committee into the next 25 years in dealing with the 
challenges to agri -food trade, and trade and investment rules. He particularly referred to  two such 
biggest challenges respectively in the form of addressing alarmingly high food prices and global food 
security, and the growing contribution of agriculture to greenhouse gas emissions and global 
warming.  
5.2.  On food security related challenges, Mr. Häberli referred to the global food price crisis 
of 2007-2008, the COVID -19 pandemic and the existing food price rise, which is expected to further 
worsen by the ongoing situation in the Black Sea region. Mr Häberli noted that, despite the CoA and 
the revi ew process, there had been a pattern of government's limited adherence to WTO rules during 
past crises. The WTO COVID -19 Tracker recorded that, out of a total 405 notifications, 92 measures 
had hit agricultural products by September 2021. Mr Häberli  identi fied the second challenge as being 
the contribution of agriculture to global warming given that greenhouse gas emissions, according to 
the International Energy Agency (IEA), had reached their highest level ever in 2021.  
5.3.  Mr Häberli invited the panellists t o comment on the role that the CoA could play in addressing 
these two major challenges, as well as any other challenge that they would wish for the Committee 
to deal with. He invited the panellists to look at the existing CoA processes and working procedur es 
and the 'leeway' that the Chair and the delegates could exercise to addressing those challenges, and 
specifically alluded to the following seven examples: i) I mplementation of commitments and the 
CoA's review process under AoA Article 18:5 taking into a ccount normal growth in world trade, 
broader agricultural policy developments and the AG -IMS; ii) Counter -notifications under AoA 
Article  18:7; iii) Special and differential treatment under AoA Article 15; iv) Monitoring of the follow -
up to the NFIDC Decis ion under AoA Article 16; v) Prevention of circumvention of export subsidy 
commitments under AoA Article 10; vi) Possible role of Trade Policy Review (TPR) reports in the CoA 
review process; and vii) Conciliation and mediation by the Chair pursuant to Arti cle 5 of the DSU.  
5.4.  Mr Häberli  urged the panellists to engage in discussions without being necessarily bound by 
respective national positions. He also made it clear that the objective of the discussion was not to 
suggest changes to the existing rules, a task assigned to the Special Ses sion of the CoA.  
5.5.  Ambassador Miriam Chaves (Argentina),  the chairperson of the CoA during 2014 -15, noted 
the current critical challenges facing global agriculture and agricultural trade were hard to envisage 
twenty years ago. Simultaneously, the AoA and the  terms of reference of the CoA offered sufficient 
flexibility to Members to explore any pertinent matter related to the implementation of the 
agricultural reform process.  G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 9 - 
 
  5.6.  Ambassador Chaves emphasized that food security, enhancing productivity and satisfyin g food 
demand of a 7.5 billion global population, which could grow to nearly 10 billion by 2050, without 
harming the environment, represented the greatest agricultural challenge of the coming decades. 
She noted that agricultural production had always been a risky activity, however, frequent extreme 
weather events and climate disruptions exacerbated those risks. Considering the varied natural 
resource endowment among countries, Ambassador Chaves emphasized the importance of 
functioning international trade an d markets in food and agricultural products and recourse to 'smart' 
production systems and practices to find a balance between increasing food demand and 
environmental preservation.  
5.7.  Ambassador Chaves noted that reconfiguring agricultural policies and prac tices had been 
increasingly debated in various countries. Several countries had already successfully imbibed 
transformative agriculture production technologies, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, 
remote sensing and blockchain technologies , while other countries faced technological and 
budgetary impediments to do so.  
5.8.  Ambassador Chaves proposed a holistic and inclusive vision of sustainable agricultural policies 
and measures at the national level, and their possible coordination at the regi onal and multilateral 
levels. She considered that Green Box under Annex 2 of the AoA could usefully anchor national 
policies related to food security and the environment.  
5.9.  In addition to new challenges, Ambassador Chaves emphasized that recourse to governme ntal 
support in the agriculture sector, currently in the range of USD 700 billion. with more than 40% of 
it linked to production incentives, continued to be a major contemporary challenge. It was important 
for the work of the Committee that Members submitt ed complete notifications in a timely manner. 
Underlining that price and production incentives and support often ran counter to sustainable 
agriculture, she emphasized the need for an urgent realignment of domestic agriculture subsidies to 
cope with contem porary challenges without disrupting production and trade.  
5.10.    Regarding the possible role of the Committee to assist the Membership in dealing with 
contemporary challenges faced by global agriculture and agricultural trade, she recommended for 
the Committee  to organize informal sessions to: (i) recognize and discuss national agricultural 
policies and approaches to deal with contemporary challenges; (ii) identify the scope of policies 
within Annex 2 of the AoA to meet the growing demand for food and protectio n of the environment; 
and (iii) catalogue from among the diversity of national policies and practices, those that resulted in 
positive environmental externalities. Ambassador Chaves clarified that this exercise was not 
suggested to be in the setting of exa mining legal compliance of various policies and practices with 
the relevant AoA disciplines, but rather to establish a repertory of best practices to address food 
security and environmental sustainability.  
5.11.   Mr. Charles Bertsch  (United States) commended the important work by the Secretariat in 
supporting the CoA, as well as the contribution of Geneva -based agriculture attachés to the work of 
the Committee. He underlined that transparency remains the core of the Committee's work, and 
made three specific sugges tions for the Committee's possible future tasks: i) The Committee could 
review and update the notification requirements to better reflect the current realities of agricultural 
trade and to improve its functioning; ii) Systematic efforts should be made towa rds enhancing 
participation of significantly more Members at the CoA. To this effect, the Secretariat could align its 
training programmes to enable Members to realize the utility of their participation at the CoA; and 
iii) An effort should be made towards synchronous organization of CoA and CoA -SS meetings to have 
an improved synergy between these two organically linked WTO bodies.  
5.12.   In response to specific questions by the moderator, Mr. Bertsch noted that global food security 
had been an important issue we ll before the establishment of the WTO, and that open trade formed 
a critical component of assuring global food security. Mr. Bertsch noted that food supply chains had 
been severely threatened first by the COVID -19 pandemic, and subsequently aggravated fur ther by 
the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. He referred to the recent G -7 Agriculture Ministers meeting where 
ministers expressed their commitment to safeguarding global food security and nutrition while 
maintaining open markets and restraining the use of exp ort-limiting policies. On the latter, 
Mr. Bertsch underscored the importance of timely notifications and referred to the discussions at the 
100th CoA meeting, where Japan had specifically raised questions on non -notified agricultural export 
restrictions.  G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 10 - 
 
  5.13.   On climate change, Mr. Bertsch considered that the CoA could help inform the negotiations 
and increase transparency. The Committee could provide a forum for sharing national experiences 
on efficient policies with least negative spill -over effects and hence  could assist in developing a set 
of 'best practices', as was mentioned earlier by Ambassador Chaves, to help mitigate the negative 
impact of climate change.  
5.14.   Mr. Guilherme Bayer  (Brazil), who chaired the CoA during 2013 -2014, commented on the 
unique role a nd situation of the CoA within the WTO architecture as being the only multilateral body 
where Members could deliberate on agricultural policies and their impact on trade. By facilitating an 
informed understanding of Members' agricultural policies, the CoA' s work was essential for 
meaningful negotiations. Mr. Bayer simultaneously argued for a careful separation between the CoA 
and the C oA-SS to maintain the value of the CoA as a robust platform for data -driven dialogue, and 
not to contaminate it with 'negoti ating logic'.  
5.15.    On possible improvements to the functioning of the CoA, Mr. Bayer noted that, while the 
Q&A function of the Committee was effective and functioning well, there might be a value to establish 
a separate mechanism to raise 'concerns', as for ex ample was done under the 'specific trade concern' 
window of the SPS Committee. Currently, it was not always possible to distinguish a 'question' 
seeking additional information and clarification from a 'concern' with a particular measure. Mr.  Bayer 
also sug gested to create an effective 'consultation mechanism' under the CoA, akin to the Good 
Offices mechanism9 already established under the SPS Committee. He considered the proposed 
consultation mechanism within the ambit of the CoA to be especially important  keeping in mind the 
current challenges to the functioning of the DSU.  
5.16.   On agriculture and climate change, Mr. Bayer underlined the need to fight food insecurity 
while reducing environmental footprints of agricultural activities. He also believed that agri culture 
was more a victim of climate change rather than the cause. He also considered that the CoA might 
currently lack the tools necessary to monitor the environmental dimension of agricultural activities, 
as there existed no specific multilateral agreeme nt within the WTO to rely on. Mr. Bayer also 
lamented that developing countries, who relied heavily on agriculture for income and livelihood, had 
been increasingly subject to disguised protectionist policies on the pretext of those being 
environmentally fa ir.  
5.17.   Mr. Bayer underlined that climate change was a fundamental challenge of the current time, 
which needed to be tackled responsibly based on multilaterally agreed norms and principles. He also 
noted that there could possibly be room for the WTO to develo p tools that would help improve the 
carbon footprint of international trade, however, in the absence of a prior agreement on what and 
how to monitor, this task would currently appear to lie beyond the scope of the CoA.  
5.18.   Ambassador Valeria Csukasi (Uruguay), who served as the Chair of the CoA 
during  2007-2011, noted that the biggest challenge in the domain of agriculture had been, was, and 
would remain the 'reform' of agricultural trade, which was the responsibility of the COA -SS and not 
the CoA. Sh e cautioned against 'mixing' the tasks of the two bodies and believed that the success 
of the CoA had been achieved primarily by focussing on improving the enforcement of the existing 
rules.  
5.19.   In response to the call for AoA or CoA 2.0 by previous panellist s, Ambassador Csukasi advised 
to avoid over -ambition and to focus on tasks which could realistically be delivered by the CoA. In 
this context, she noted that the CoA could undertake the important task of analysing the state of 
agriculture around the world,  and access to this information and record of Committee's deliberations 
and Secretariat reports should be deemed as prized possessions for most resource -constrained 
developing countries, in order to appreciate various 'best practices' and to also enable th eir informed 
participation in future agriculture debates, including in the negotiations.  
5.20.   Ambassador Csukasi suggested that any improvements in the functioning of the CoA should 
be effected via existing transparency mechanisms like timely notifications and  committee debates. 
This information can then usefully feed into the negotiations, which would always be the biggest 
challenge for Members to successfully conclude. This did not mean that Members should be 
 
9 G/SPS/61.  G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 11 - 
 
  dissuaded from discussing 'new' issues; however, t hat should rather be done in the setting of 
seminars or information sessions separate from the formal CoA meetings.  
5.21.   Ms. Gitanjali Brandon  (India) highlighted the importance of the CoA in contributing to a 
rules-based trading system and alluded to the foll owing four broad points:  
5.22.   The role of the CoA was to oversee the implementation of the AoA and to afford Members the 
opportunity to consult on their agricultural trade policies. For the CoA to assume this role effectively, 
Members had to comply with their n otification obligations in accordance with G/AG/2. Several WTO 
Members were often late in submitting notifications on their very sizeable domestic support 
disbursements and market access polices10. Ironically, three to four Members, who contribute to 
about  50-60% of the total questions raised in a CoA  meeting, had not achieved full notification 
compliance with respect to their own notification obligations; their compliance for domestic support 
notifications rather ranged between 88 and 92%. Further, it migh t not be deemed as constructive 
and equitable for the CoA to encounter a situation of some Members with large delegations and 
better capacity focus exclusively on the scrutiny of agriculture policies of a few Members, often in a 
seemingly coordinated manne r. She suggested that the CoA meetings could instead be used to 
understand the overall macroeconomic and policy environment of Members and why they adopted 
particular policies.  
5.23.   The COVID -19 pandemic should not only be treated as a crisis to be managed, but  also as an 
opportunity to identify and address the structural barriers to global food and agriculture systems. 
The FAO food price index of February 2022 reached an all -time high of  140.7 despite world food 
production across commodities being also at recor d levels. Exceptionally high food inflation had 
resulted from higher costs arising from global supply chain limitations during the pandemic, 
buttressed further recently by the geopolitical situation in the Black Sea region. Governments were 
naturally conce rned by the destabilizing impact of rising food prices on vulnerable consumers, who 
often incur a disproportionate amount of total spending on food. It might be useful to examine the 
policies of countries that have successfully managed to contain food infl ation domestically, and fully 
appreciate the underlying rationale of their policy choices to develop what some previous panellists 
referred to as 'best practices'.  
5.24.   The founding principles of the Marrakesh Agreement provide that trade and economic 
endeavou rs should be conducted with a view to raising standards of living, ensuring full employment 
and steadily growing volume of real income. There was a need for positive efforts designed to ensure 
that developing countries, and especially LDCs, secured a share  of growth in international trade that 
would be commensurate with their economic development needs. The work of the WTO and the CoA 
should not lose sight of these founding principles of the Marrakesh Agreement.  
5.25.   In order to make the work of the CoA more rel evant and useful in the spirit of the founding 
principles of the WTO, the following steps may be considered: (i) technical assistance and capacity 
building of Geneva -based as well as capital -based delegates, especially from developing countries 
and LDCs on  data collection, and improved understanding of agriculture notifications; (ii) continued 
digital progress to enable enhanced participation of developing country delegations at Geneva -based 
meetings and deliberations (e.g. via Interprefy); and (iii) renewe d focus on seeking outcomes in the 
agriculture negotiations, which is also crucial for the continued relevance and utility of the work of 
the CoA. The negative impact of the pandemic on food and livelihoods security had naturally led to 
a renewed focus on the mandated negotiations on public stockholding (PSH) for food security 
purposes.  
5.26.   Ms. Brandon also believed that to be able to address these critical challenges, Members would 
need to look beyond the narrow mercantilist prism and focus on the structural s upport required to 
help combat the depression in agricultural wages on account of the pandemic, especially in 
developing countries and LDCs. She also considered that food security related safety -net schemes 
instituted by countries to protect the livelihood  of hundreds of millions of their vulnerable population 
in these challenging times needed to be considered as successful 'best practices'.  
 
10 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.44.  G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 12 - 
 
  5.27.   Ms. Brandon also considered it useful to explore if the trade policy review (TPR) reports by 
governments and the Sec retariat could usefully feed into the discussions of the CoA (and other 
relevant bodies).  
5.28.   On the question raised by the moderator in relation to the contribution of agriculture to climate 
change, Ms. Brandon advised to proceed with caution, as these discu ssions would be beyond the 
ambit of the CoA. She reminded that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change  (UNFCCC) 
was the relevant forum for exchanges on all climate change -related issues, including the role of 
agriculture in contributing to climate ch ange.  
5.29.   Mr. Michael Wamai  (Uganda), who was the chairperson of the Committee during 2015 -2016, 
noted that the CoA had been allocated a central role in the monitoring of Members' commitments 
under the AoA and other decisions agreed as a part of the agricultu re negotiations. Mr. Wamai 
considered that inclusive participation of all WTO Members in CoA deliberations was key for the CoA 
to fulfil its mandate.  
5.30.   Mr. Wamai further  noted that the AoA  had provided for a range of notification obligations 
which formed the basis of the work of the CoA. Simultaneously, many African countries had 
difficulties in fulfilling their notification obligations, primarily due to human resources and 
institutional ca pacity constraints. Since the ability to fulfil notification obligations depended on 
Members' levels of development and availability of resources, Mr. Wamai suggested that Members' 
notifications burden should be commensurate with their share in agriculture  trade11. Developed 
Members should also lead by example in submitting comprehensive, timely, and accurate 
notifications.  
5.31.   Mr. Wamai referred to the statistics from the AG -IMS on the participation of African countries 
in the CoA, and noted that these countri es had thus far posed only 20 questions since the inception 
of the Committee processes twenty -seven years ago, with 2015 being the latest year when this 
group of countries posed a question at the CoA12. These statistics should not lead to the conclusion 
that African countries did not have trade concerns to raise at the CoA. Mr. Wamai gave the example 
of the latest question raised by South Africa in 2015 concerning underfill of TRQs by the European 
Union on grape juice; while no questions were raised subsequ ently on this theme, the EU's fill rate 
for the grape juice TRQ remained low for subsequent implementation years.  
5.32.   Mr. Wamai hinted that there could be other impediments for developing countries to 
effectively use the CoA's review process, which should be probed and addressed. He elaborated that 
the ability of African countries to process and make use of the information submitted in agricultural 
notifications remained slim. Mr. Wamai suggested that discussions to improve transparency and 
efforts towards ins titutional reform of the CoA should consider the challenges often faced by 
developing countries in their participation in the Committee's deliberations. He applauded the efforts 
of the Secretariat towards the provision of technical assistance and capacity building, and through 
the development of digital tools like the AGIMS (and e -Ping in the area of SPS measures).  
5.33.   Regarding new challenges such as climate change, Mr. Wamai noted that relevant discussions 
were already on -going in other fora such as the UNFC CC, where governments had been discussing 
climate adaptation and mitigation plans, and the means of implementing those plans. He added that 
many countries were already undertaking voluntary 'Nationally Determined Contributions' to address 
climate change. I n this background, Mr. Wamai wondered whether the CoA had the expertise and 
the competence to deal with the challenge of climate change, and what could the envisaged outcome 
of the CoA process be. In terms of the future agriculture agenda, Mr. Wamai emphas ized that the 
task was already set up under Article 20 of the AoA to deal, inter alia , with domestic support and to 
eliminate the existing barriers to trade in agriculture. He cautioned against introducing new issues 
on the agenda of the WTO agriculture di scussions. On global food security challenges, Mr.  Wamai 
referred to the intervention of the previous panellist Ms. Brandon of India.  
5.34.   Ms. Agata Galinska  (European  Union) highlighted the complementarity between the CoA -SS 
and the CoA, where both bodies need ed to work side by side synergically influencing each other's 
work. The CoA needed to implement the current agreement and prepare the ground for future 
 
11 Africa contributes to approximately 3.4% and 5.1% of world's agricultural exports and imports 
respectively.  
12 African countries had received around 450 questions from other WTO Members at the CoA.  G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 13 - 
 
  negotiated agreements as, for example, was ably demonstrated during the negotiations of 
agricultural out comes at Bali and Nairobi. She also underlined the need for Members to invest their 
efforts and commitments for fuller implementation of the agreements reached in the negotiations.  
5.35.   Ms. Galinska noted that the agenda and activities of the CoA are entirely i n the hands of 
Members. Simultaneously, the reality remained that the ability of the CoA to respond to current and 
future challenges would depend on the progress and outcomes in the negotiations. Members needed 
to deliver outcomes in the negotiations which  the CoA could usefully follow -up on. Ms. Galinska also 
believed that increasing reliance on Article 18.6 in the agenda of the CoA might be a reflection of 
the reality that the negotiations were not delivering on current challenges facing agricultural trad e.  
5.36.   Ms. Galinska also considered that the peer review system of the CoA could be an important 
driver and catalyst to change and shape policies; however, to realize the full potential of the CoA, 
Members would need to submit comprehensive notifications, tho roughly examine notifications, 
participate in the Committee's Q&A process, and undertake a timely follow -up on deferred or partial 
replies.  
5.37.   Ms. Galinska  acknowledged that reviewing bulky notifications and other CoA documents and 
preparing questions and replies constituted a demanding undertaking, especially for smaller 
delegations. In this context, she shared the concerns expressed by the previous panelli st Mr.  Wamai 
about the need to diversify the CoA discussions to a wider group of Members, including especially 
smaller and developing Members, rather than it being limited to only few Members, as currently. 
She recalled some efforts having been made in the  past by a group of Members in facilitating a wider 
participation of the membership at the CoA. She also considered that Geneva -based delegates could 
play an important role in sharing their knowledge and experience, especially with newly arrived 
CoA delega tes. 
5.38.   Ms. Galinska also commended the Secretariat for facilitating Members' participation at 
the CoA, in particular by developing useful digital tools, including the AG -IMS. She considered it 
highly impressive from the transparency perspective that delibera tions of the CoA had been made 
publicly accessible via the AG -IMS. She also wondered whether all governments and other 
stakeholders, including the private sector, were fully aware of their access to this rich source of 
information.  
5.1  Q&A and Final comments by panellists  
5.39.   The moderator, Mr. Häberli, acknowledged the issue raised by some panellists about the 
participation of smaller delegations in the work of the CoA. He noted that some smaller delegations 
had done an exemplary task in the past in effectively raising issues of critical importance to them at 
the WTO. He specifically referred to the role of small LDC delegations from the C -4 who had been 
able to place the issue of cotton at the centre of the WTO agriculture agenda.  
5.40.   Ambassador George Mina  (Austra lia) commended the enormous utility of the CoA in 
offering a highly democratic monitoring tool to Members, which should be cherished and preserved. 
He also shared the concern expressed by earlier speakers about the limited participation of African 
countrie s in the CoA, with no questions raised in the last six years. He considered it important to 
remedy that shortcoming in order to make the work of the Committee useful for all. On the issue of 
climate change, where differing perspectives were heard among the  panellists, Ambassador Mina 
noted that the role of the CoA would not be to contest nationally determined contributions. At the 
same time, it was not possible for the CoA to ignore the imperative of climate change. In fact, 
the CoA had already been contrib uting to dealing with climate change by continuously shedding an 
important light on the potential negative effects of extensive global distorting support on climate 
change, which should in turn usefully inform the negotiating conversation among Members.  
5.41.    Mr. Alamgir Kabir  (Bangladesh) lamented at some startling statistics facing global 
agriculture and food systems where 1.3 billion tonnes of food were wasted every year, obesity levels 
had tripled since 1975, half a billion people were undernourished, anoth er three quarter of a billion 
people might face hunger by 2030, and almost USD  700 billion distorting subsides had been 
disbursed globally every year. Mr. Kabir exhorted the panellists and the audience to make sincere 
efforts so as not to pass these challe nges to future generations, which he believed was a collective 
moral imperative.  G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 14 - 
 
  5.42.   Mr. Magdi Farahat (Egypt)  opined that, as a way forward to address some of the highly 
protracted issues, small informal brainstorming conversations outside the setting of for mal 
WTO meetings, under Chatham House rules, should be considered to gather more ideas towards 
eventual collective agreements and progress. The moderator, Mr. Häberli,  commented that this 
was precisely the approach followed by the first CoA Chair, late Amb assador Tulalamba (Thailand), 
who had regularly convened informal small groups in various settings involving Members with 
extremely divergent positions on issues at hand.  
5.43.   Mr. Jorge Riaboi  (Argentina) referred to several panellists highlighting the monitor ing and 
implementation aspect of the AoA, and reminded that monitoring of Article 20 of the AoA should not 
be lost sight of. He expressed concerns on efforts being made by some governments to impose 
carbon border taxes and wondered how those measures would  reconcile with the existing WTO rules 
and the jurisprudence. Mr. Riaboi underlined the need to resist efforts to de facto  export national 
rules and regulations via domestic trade regulations. He also cautioned against giving space to 
various regional lobb ying groups who might seek to influence the WTO deliberations and water down 
disciplines.  
5.44.   The panellists, in their final observations, noted that:  
5.45.   Efforts should be made to strengthen and institutionalize informal consultations among 
Members and the office s of the CoA Chair, akin to the approach under Article 12.2 of the SPS 
Agreement, to promote free discussions. The agenda of such informal discussions should be balanced 
and reflective of the global challenges faced collectively by the Membership.  
5.46.   Article 20 of the AoA enshrines the wisdom of the Uruguay Round negotiators to set the future 
agricultural reform agenda for next decades. This might also allow to have free discussions, not 
necessarily under the formal CoA agenda, to deal with contemporary challe nges of food security and 
environment. Some aspects were already dealt with in formal meetings under Article 18.6.  
5.47.   The CoA should strengthen its collaborations with other relevant organizations, like the  FAO 
and OECD, to promote informed discussions on imp ortant themes such as food security.  
5.48.   Serious efforts should be made to widen the participation of Members at the CoA. The 
Secretariat could play an important role through its training and capacity building programmes.  
5.49.   The CoA responded effectively in the monitoring effort stemming from the COVID -19 
pandemic, and this transparency template could be improved and replicated to deal with future 
crises.  
5.50.   Feeding the world and addressing hunger are the fundamental challenges which should not 
be lost sight of in w hatever we do at the WTO under the agriculture stream.  
5.51.   The moderator (Mr. Häberli) considered that, in a scenario where the DSU and the CoA -SS 
had been facing functional challenges, the monitoring role and responsibility of the CoA had further 
increased. H e noted that the trade aspects of the two challenges that he referred to in his opening 
remarks, namely, record high world food prices and all -time high contribution of agriculture to 
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, should be looked into by th e CoA. Mr. Häberli also 
paid special tribute to the first CoA Chair, late Ambassador Danai Tulalamba of Thailand, for his 
enormous contribution in setting up the foundation of the Committee.   
6  CLOSING STATEMENT  
6.1.  WTO Deputy Director -General  Mr. Jean -Marie Paugam  in his closing remarks  acknowledged the 
highly enriching and lively debate  involving several CoA chairpersons and current and past 
agriculture delegates. He agreed that the CoA had been able to successfully monitor the 
implementation of, in Ambassador Osorio's words, 'one of the most politically sensitive Agreements' 
ever reached  within the multilateral trading system. In doing so, the CoA had dealt with both 
quantitative and qualitative challenges. The ever -increasing number of notifications and questions 
and answers was a good reminder of the quantitative aspect of the CoA's wor k. At the same time, 
the challenge of participation of smaller delegations and the longstanding absence of African 
countries from the CoA's Q&A process should be remedied. The monitoring of highly sensitive policy G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 15 - 
 
  matters, such as the provision of subsidie s, which noticeably impacted important governmental 
policy objectives, should reflect the important qualitative challenges that the Committee had 
successfully dealt with. He also recalled the interventions by several panellists in appreciating the 
monitori ng role of the CoA during the COVID -19 pandemic as a solid bulwark when sudden shocks 
had severally impacted global agricultural markers.  
6.2.  DDG Paugam noted that, while the first panel offered fascinating insights about the 
Committee's work to lay the founda tion of the agricultural trade monitoring architecture that existed 
today, the second panel had provided plenty of "food for thought" on how the Committee could 
evolve to address current and new challenges. Varying perspectives were also heard on some issu es, 
including the relationship between 'negotiation' and 'implementation' functions of the Committee.  
6.3.  DDG Paugam thanked and congratulated the CoA team, the entire Agriculture and Commodities 
Division, the Conference Office, colleagues responsible for medi a and communications, interpreters 
and all other relevant WTO colleagues for organizing the special event to commemorate the 
impressive journey of the CoA.  
7  PARTICIPATION OF COA CHAIRS AT THE COA@100 EVENT  
7.1.  The CoA@100 event benefitted from the active parti cipation of and guidance from several 
chairpersons of the Committee. These Chairs welcomed the idea of organizing a special event to 
mark the occasion of the 100th CoA meeting and shared messages on this occasion. The messages 
by Apiradi Tantraporn (Thaila nd, 1996 -1997), Nestor Osorio Londoño (Colombia, 1997 -2000), 
Yoichi  Suzuki (Japan, 2000 -2002), Magdi Farahat (Egypt, 2002 -2004), Roald Lapperre 
(Netherlands,  2004-2005), Christian Häberli (Switzerland, 2005 -2007), Valeria Csukasi 
(Uruguay,  2007-2011), Guil herme Bayer (Brazil, 2013 -2014), Miriam Chaves (Argentina, 
2014-2015), Michael Wamai (Uganda, 2015 -2016), Garth Ehrhardt (Canada, 2016 -2017), 
Debora  Cumes (Guatemala, 2018 -2019), Christiane Daleiden Distefano (Luxembourg, 2019 -2020), 
Maria Escandor (Philip pines, 2020 -2021) and Marcos da Rosa Uranga (Uruguay, 2021 - ) are 
accessible at the  CoA@100 event page  on the WTO website. Several of these chairpersons, including 
Alf Vederhus (Norw ay, 2017 -2018), participated in the event in person.  
  G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 16 - 
 
  ANNEX  
COA@100 – PROGRAMME  
10:00 -10:15  
Opening Ceremony  
• Opening Address by  Dr Ngozi OKONJO -IWEALA , WTO Director -General  
• Remarks by  Ambassador Apiradi TANTRAPORN (Thailand), Former CoA Chair (1996 -1997)  
• Remarks by  Ambassador Nestor OSORIO LONDOÑO  (Colombia), Former CoA Chair (1997 -2000)  
10:15 -10:25  
A brief look at the work of the CoA  
• Diwakar DIXIT, Counsellor, Secretary of the CoA,  WTO Secretariat  
10:25 -11:40  
Panel I: 25 years of the CoA  
Recalling the evolution of the Committee Review Process, and overall assessment of the CoA's work and 
accomplishments.  
Moderator : Marcos DA ROSA URANGA  (Uruguay), Current CoA Chair (2021 - ) 
Panellists:  
• Chris CARSON (New Zealand), Counsellor (Agriculture), New Zealand Permanent Mission in Brussels, and 
former WTO Secretariat  
• Pam COOPER  (Canada), Former Agriculture Attaché  
• Magdi FARAHAT  (Egypt), Former CoA Chair (2002 -2004)  
• Ambassador Julie -Ann GUIVARRA  (Australia), Group Manager, Strategic Policy Group, National 
Indigenous Australians Agency, and former Agriculture Attaché  
• Ambassador Yoichi SUZUKI  (Japan), Former CoA Chair (2000 -2002)  
11:40 -12:55  
Panel II: CoA – 25 years into the future  
Possible role of the Committee in assisting the Membership to deal with the contemporary challenges facing 
global agriculture and agricultural trade.  
Moderator : Christian HÄBERLI  (Switzerland), Former CoA Chair (2005 -2007)  
Panellists:  
• Guilherme BAYER  (Brazil), Former CoA Chair (2013 -2014)  
• Charles BERTSCH  (United States), Senior Director, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)  
• Ambassador Miriam CHAVES  (Argentina), Former CoA Chair (2014 -2015)  
• Ambassador Valeria CSUKASI  (Uruguay), Former CoA Chair (2007 -2011)  
• Agata GALINSKA  (European Union), Deputy Head of Unit, DG AGRI, European Commission, and former 
Agriculture Attaché  
• Michael WAMAI  (Uganda),  Former CoA Chair (2015 -2016)  
• Gitanjali BRANDON  (India), Deputy Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, and former Agriculture Attaché  
12:55 -13:00  
Closing statement  G/AG/GEN/203  
 
- 17 - 
 
  • Jean -Marie PAUGAM , WTO Deputy Director -General  
__________