RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/102  
 
8 August  2022 
(22-5946) Page: 1/22 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27-28 JUNE  2022  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Agriculture (CoA) held its one hundred th and first (101st) regular meeting 
on 27-28 June  2022 under the Chairpersonship of M r. Marcel Vernooij  of the Netherlands . 
1.2.  The agenda contained in the convening airgram WTO/AIR/AG/5 9 circulated on 17 June 2022 
was adopted  with the following additions :  
• Under Agenda item 2 -Review Process:  
− Paraguay co -sponsored the following questions: AG-IMS ID 101004 from the 
European Union (EU) to the United State s of America  (US) regarding U.S. crop 
production support ; AG-IMS ID 101012  and 101006  from the EU to India  concerning 
Table DS:1  notification G/ AG/N /IND/27 ; and AG -IMS ID 101068  from the US to 
Nigeria  regarding Table DS:1 notification s G/AG/N/NGA/19,  G/AG/N/NGA/ 20, and 
G/AG/N/NGA/ 21;  
− Ukraine co -sponsored the question AG -IMS ID 101032 raised  jointly  by the US,  
Canada, Japan, Brazil, Paraguay , EU, and the United Kingdom  (UK) regarding India's  
export restrictions  on wheat ; and  
− Brazil co -sponsored the following questions raised by Paraguay: AG -IMS ID 101018 
to El Salvador on Table MA:2 notification G/AG/N/SLV/82 ; Question 
AG-IMS ID 101085 to the EU regarding  Table MA:2 notification G/AG/N/EU/76 ; and 
question AG-IMS ID 101086 to Japan on Table DS:1 notification G/AG/N/JPN/277 .  
• Chile requested to include a question to New Zealand relating to exports of 
the Zespri  enterprise under Agen da item 3.A – Developments in the field of Export 
Competition.2 
1.3.  Additionally, the Chairperson acknowledged the written submissions by  the Inter -America 
Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) in  G/AG/GEN/201  and the United Nations Food and 
Agriculture Organization (FAO)  in G/AG/GEN/ 202, which were circulated after the issuance of the 
convening airgram , for consideration under Pa rt III of the agenda ( item 3.B –COVID -19 and 
Agriculture ). The chairperson also invited IICA to present its 2022 workplan (document  
G/AG/GEN/200  dated 15  June 2022 ) under agenda  item 3.F -Other Business .  
2  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
2.1.  The Council for Trade i n Goods  (CTG)  at its meeting o n 23 May 2022 agreed on a slate of 
chairpersons of its  subsidiary bodies  for 2022 -23. The Committee on Agriculture (CoA) accordingly 
endorsed , by acclamation, the election of Mr. Marcel V ernooij  of the Netherlands as the chairperson 
of the Committee in accordance with its Rules of Procedure . Several  delegations and the Secretariat 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 AG-IMS ID 101091.  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 2 - 
 
  thanked the outgoing Chair person , Mr. Marcos da Rosa Uranga of Uruguay , for his dedication and 
leadership as Chair person of the Committee.   
3  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
3.1.  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 System (AG -IMS)3 for interested Members to consult.  
3.2.  The Chairperson noted that for th e meeting, as of 9 am, 27 June 2022 , 33 out of the 
88 questions raised had responses available on  the AG -IMS. The Chairperson welcomed Members ' 
practice  of submit ting responses  in advance of CoA meetings  allowing for  deepen ed exchanges 
during meetings.   
3.3.  The Secretariat continued its practice of ascertaining the attendance of Members subject to 
advance questions  prior to Committee meetings . No Member had forewarned the Secretaria t of its 
absence for the June meeting.  
3.1  Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the reform programme 
- Article 18.6  
3.4.  A total of 19 specific implementation matters (SIMs) were raised at the 101st CoA meeting 
under Article 18.6.4 Out of the 19 SIMs, seven  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.  
3.2  Review of Notifications  
3.5.  The Chairperson reported that since the previous Commit tee meeting held on  15-
16 March  2022, 86 notifications had been received. Out of those  notifications , 20 related to market 
access, 27 concerned domestic support, 25 related to export competition,  8 concerned export 
prohibitions or restrictions , and 6 were net food -importing developing country ( NFIDC ) notifications . 
Those notifications had been distributed electronically to all delegations and were available for 
consultation through the  AG-IMS.  
3.2.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been rai sed in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram  
3.6.  Table 2 of Annex 1  to this report includes the list of questions relating to individual notifications 
raised in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram .5 Members' responses and follow -up 
comments can be accessed  directly by clicking on the hyperlinks contained in the table or through 
the AG -IMS using the relevant question ID numbers.   
3.2.2   Overdue notifications  
3.7.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat documen t summarizing the status of Members' 
compliance with notification obligations .6 
3.8.  The Chairperson acknowledged Members' efforts to bring their notifications up to date , noting 
that several Members had submitted agriculture notifications covering multiple years since the March 
2022 meeting, including:  
• Bolivia, Plurinational State of – Table DS:1 covering the years 2019 -2021, and Table ES:1 
covering 2019 -2020;  
 
3 http://agims.wto.org/ . 
4 WTO/AIR/AG/ 59, 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 21. 
5 WTO/AIR/AG/ 59, 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 21. 
6 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.4 5 circulated on 17 June 2022 . G/AG/R/102  
 
- 3 - 
 
  • Côte d'Iv oire - Table DS:1 covering the years 1995 -1999 and 2021;  
• Iceland – Table ES:2 covering the years  2018-2021; and 
• Japan – Table ES:3 co vering the years 2017-2020.  
3.9.  The Chairperson also drew Members' attention to the overall situation with respect to 
outstan ding domestic support and export subsidy notifications for the period 1995 to 20 20: 
• 959 Table DS:1 domestic support notifications  remained outstanding; and  
• 998 export subsidy notifications in the Table ES:1 series remained outstanding.  
3.10.   One question w as raised under this agenda item.7 Members' responses 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 numbers.  
3.11.   The Chairperson emphasized the importance of transparency and timely notifications and 
encouraged Members to fulfil their notification obligations.  
3.2.3   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
3.12.   The C ommittee took note of the 65 notifications circulated before the issuance of the 
convening airgram on 17 June 2022, including notifications carried over from the March 2022  
meeting, but in respect of which no questions had been raised by that date , under p aragraph  9 of 
the Committee's working procedures.8 
3.2.4   Notifications circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram  
3.13.   The Committee took note of the four notifications circulated after the issuance of the 
convening airgram on 17 June 2022 :  
• Vanuatu,  Table DS:1  for 2016 (G/AG/N/VUT/11) ; 
• Hong Kong, China, Table DS:1  for 2021 (G/AG/N/HKG/52) ; 
• European Union, corrigendum to Table MA:2 for 2022 (G/AG/N/EU/72/Corr.2) ; and  
• Canada, Table NF:1  for 2018 (G/AG/N/CAN/152) . 
 
3.14.   These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the working procedures.  
3.2.5   Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: information regarding outcome where the issue involved is one of 
general interest  
3.15.   There were no requests for the floor under this agend a item.  
3.2.6   Counter -notifications under Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture  
3.16.   No counter -notifications under Article 18.7 were made for this Committee meeting.  
3.3  Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process  
3.17.   The Secretariat document G/AG/W/204/Rev. 6 lists questions raised under the CoA  review 
process from 2013 to 202 1 where responses remain outstanding.  As of 15 June 2022, a total of 14 3 
questions still had outstanding responses  from 36 Members  for the period 2013 -2020. For the 
questions posed in 202 1, 51 responses from 17 Members were pending as of  15 June  2022.  
 
7 The details of the question  raised can be found under Section 3 of the compilation document  in 
G/AG/W/2 21. 
8 WTO/AIR/AG/ 59, Section C of Attachment  1. G/AG/R/102  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.18.   The Chairperson urged Members to make dedicated efforts to shorten, and eventually close, 
the list of pending responses. To assist Members in this endeavour, the Sec retariat ha s introduced 
a feature in the AG -IMS to generate automatic reminders to Members with outstanding responses.  
3.19.   Brazil reminded Nigeria of  outstanding responses to its several questions  raised at previous 
CoA meetings . Nigeria committed to upload t he responses to the AG -IMS as soon as they became 
available.  
4  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE  
4.1  Developments in the Field of Export Competition  
4.1.  The Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition of 19 December 2015, states in its 
paragraph  4, that the "Committee on Agriculture shall monitor the implementation of the Decision 
by Members in accordance with existing notification requirements under the Agreement on 
Agriculture  (AoA) , as com plemented by the provisions set out in the Annex to this Decision".  The 
Chairperson recalled that the current (seventh) export competition dedicated discussion  exercise 
had been  launched on 3 December 2021 when his predecessor  had invited delegations to re ply to 
the export competition questionnaire  (ECQ). The original deadline of 29 April  2022 to submit replies 
to the ECQ had later been extended to 6 May 2022.  
4.2.  A total of 34 replies to the ECQ, counting the EU as one , had been submitted  prior to the 
deadline . The Secretariat 's revised  background document , incorpora ting Members' replies to the ECQ 
as well as relevant information from their notifications , was circulated on 30 May 2022 in document 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.1 6 and its 4 addenda . Two ad ditional replies to the ECQ were received after the 
deadline bringing the total number of such replies to 36. One Member  replied to the questionnaire 
for the first time this year and 19 Members out of total 36 ECQ respondent s had replied every year 
in the last 5 years.  For the 2022 ECQ exercise , the Secretariat took t he initiative to directly contact 
those Members who ha d replied to the ECQ at least once previously.  
4.3.  While the 2022 annual ECQ exercise represented the best  response rate to the questionnaire 
since the first edition of the dedicated discussions in 2014 , this was only a limited i mprovement  
compared to 2021 when all Members were required to reply to the ECQ following the expiry of the 
grace period pursuant to footnote 17 of the Nairobi Decision . In terms of trade share, the 36 
Members who had replied this year represented around 70 per cent of world agricultural exports , a 
significant decrease compared to 2021 due to the absence of replies from some major exporters  for 
2022.  
4.4.  The Chairperson underlined the need for further improvement of the ECQ reply rate and 
informed Members that the Secretariat , pursuant to paragraph 40 b) and c) of the report of the 
second  triennial review (G/AG/33), would  continue providing support to Members to fulfil their export 
competition requirements.  Such support could include  information sessions, technical assistance and 
capacity -building, based on the challenges identified , in pa rticular  by developing country Members.  
4.5.  The Chairperson , on behalf of the Secretariat, updated the Committee o n the progress of the 
ECQ IT project that w ould enable online replies to the  ECQ and online data extraction and reporting . 
He reported that the first module of the project comprising the online submission  feature  was now 
ready for testing and seven  Members had expressed interest in participating in the testing phase . 
A demo session prior to the launch of the testing phase  would  take place in the week following the 
Committee meeting and further i nformation sessions w ould be organized at a later stage for the 
whole Membership once the ECQ IT tool was fully operational.  
4.6.  Canada  and Switzerland suggested that the Secretariat track Memb ers who had replied to  the 
ECQ each year. Such information could be added as an annex to the background document. 
The Secretariat noted  that it intended  to include  this information in the document that reflects  
Members'  compliance with notification  obligat ions (G/AG/GEN/86 series ).  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 5 - 
 
  4.7.  Four questions were raised by Members in the context of the export competition dedicated 
discussion  exercise .9 Members' responses and follow -up comments can be accessed directly using 
the hyperlinks contained in Table 4 of Annex 1 to this report  or through the AG -IMS using the 
relevant question ID numbers.  
4.8.  Concerning the modification of Schedules pursuant to the N airobi Ministerial Decision,  the 
situation had not changed since the March 2022 meeting: out of the 16 Members with export subsidy 
reduction commitments at the time of adoption of the Nairobi Decision, 13 had their revised 
schedules certified10; two Member s, namely Canada and the EU, had circulated their draft schedule 
in 2017 where  certification is ongoing; and the remaining Member, namely the Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela, had yet to circulate its draft schedule.  
4.9.  The Chairperson urged  all Members who had not replied to the ECQ to make all possible efforts 
to do so by no later than COB on 15 July 2022. A revised version of the Secretariat's background 
document would be circulated later in the year to include all additional replies received by that date 
to conclude the 2022 exercise.   
4.2  COVID -19 and Agriculture  
4.10.   The Committee acknowledged the written submissions by the IICA11 and the FAO12.  
4.11.   The IICA briefed  the Committee  that since 2020 it had been promot ing the development of 
virtual business roundtables at the hemispheric, sub -regional and national level s to cement trade 
links and business networks between companies in the region and their main trading partners, as 
well as to consolidate and diversify export markets to facilitate economic reco very from the 
COVID -19 pandemic . The IICA also provided details of the participating governments and other 
entities, including from the private sector, at these round tables. The IICA considered that such 
round tables could act as supply and price stabiliz er in the Latin American and Caribbean countries 
and support the food security needs of the region especially during the current high prices of food, 
inputs and fertilizers, and rising logistics and transport costs .  
4.12.   The FAO  underlined that global food sec urity and nutrition  risks had been significantly 
exacerbated  by the COVID -19 pandemic . It noted that the pandemic and the measures to contain 
its spread had caused a deep global economic recession, eroded incomes,  and livelihoods, and 
affected people's ability to purchase food. In 2021, according to the Global Network Against Food 
Crises report, at least 193 million people were acutely food insecure , which represented a  38 million 
increase since  2020 and the highest level in six years . The FAO also referred to a downward 
projection in global economic growth forecasts by the International Mone tary Fund (IMF) and the 
World Bank as a consequence of the war in Ukraine.  
4.13.   The FAO  added that the food price index  had reached the highest level ever (159.7 points) in 
March  2022, potentially leading to an all-time high world food import bill  in 2022 . The FAO also 
noted that the pandemic ha d demonstrated the critical role of trade and the importance of open and 
well-functioning global markets for food security and nutrition.  The FAO recommended that countries 
pay particular attention to long -term food security and sustainability objectives , consider the 
potentially damaging effects of trade restrictive measures on international markets  and avoid 
measures that could  jeopardize world  food security . The FAO specifically cautioned against  the use 
of export restrictions  as these could exacerbate price volatility, limit the buffer capacity of global 
markets, and have negative impacts over the medium to longer term.  The FAO underlined the 
importance of strengthening  market transparency and policy dialogue and referred to the important 
role played in this regard by the G20 Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) . The FAO also 
alluded to the proposal it had developed for a global Food Import Financing Facility (FIFF)  to assist 
countries to mitigate the rising food import and input costs. The FAO's other policy recommendations 
 
9 WTO/AIR/AG/ 59, Section D of Attachment  1. The full version of the questions raised can be found 
under section 4 of the compilation document  G/AG/W/2 21. 
10 Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Iceland, Indonesia, Israel, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, 
Turkey, United States of America, and Uruguay.  
11 G/AG/GEN/201 . 
12 G/AG/GEN/ 202. G/AG/R/102  
 
- 6 - 
 
  emphasized the importance of agricultural Information and Communication Technologies  (ICT) and 
targeted social protection programmes . 
4.14.   The WFP expressed gratitude to the WTO for the Minis terial Decision to exempt  its 
humanitarian food purchases from export restriction s and conveyed special appreciation towards  the 
delegation of Singapore and the WTO Secretariat for their longstanding coordination and negotiation 
efforts, as well as to Brazil for their facilitation role last year. The WFP reiterated the statement  by 
its Executive Director  that, this historic decis ion, taken by WTO Members  when the global food 
security was facing unprecedented challenges, w ould ensure that critical relief reaches the most 
vulnerable populations when and where needed.  The WFP looked forward to its continuing 
collaboration with the WT O. 
4.15.   Several Members noted their appreciat ion of  the work and respective reports and 
interventions by the FAO, the IICA and the WFP.  
4.16.   Ukraine referred to the intervention by the FAO and expressed concern with the 
unprecedented challenges the global food markets , including of cereal s, were facing . It referred  to 
reports by the FAO, the World Food Programme (WFP), the World Bank, and the International 
Monetary Fund (IMF)  identif ying the war in Ukraine as a key factor that had contributed to the 
disruptions of global  food markets and economy  and magnified the global economic slowdown.  It 
stated that the Russian Federation's unprecedented, illegal,  and immoral war against Ukraine had 
posed threat to global stability and security,  including food security , had put the future and 
prosperity of the world  in jeopardy  and had caused a large -scale humanitarian crisis in the world.  
Ukraine considered that despite the reports by reputed international organizations, the Russian 
Federation h ad been spreading misinformation about the consequences of the war . Ukraine noted 
that any attempt by the Russian Federating to absolve itself of the responsibility and shift the blame 
on others would be unacceptable. Ukraine  appreciated  the work of the UN Global Crisis Response 
Group on Food, Energy and Finance  and echoed the statement by the UN Secretary General  that the 
war must end. Ukraine called on  WTO Members to increase the political and economic pressure on 
the Russia n Federation  to stop the war and destruction, and to unblock its seaports to allow Ukrainian 
grains to re -enter the international market .  
4.17.   Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, New Zealand , Paraguay, the UK, and the US joined 
Ukraine in condem ning the Russian Federation's attack on Ukraine as being fundamentally in breach 
of international law and  incompatible with the values and principles of the multilateral trading system 
of the WTO.  Those Members referred to the severe impact of the war on agricultural activities and 
critical agricultural infrastructure in Ukraine and the resulting negative repercussions for global food 
security , including  via the soaring food prices, given  Ukraine's prominent role in the trade of several 
agricultural  commodities . These Members urged the Russian Federation to remove its forces from 
the Ukrainian soil and to end the  existing trade  disruptions . It was noted that the actions by the 
Russian Federation were fundamentally inconsistent with the values and principles of t he WTO which 
were predicated on respect of rules, reciprocity,  and transparency. Several of th ose Members  also 
underlined the detrimental effects export restriction measures could have on global food security 
and food price stability and made a strong call  for Members , including the Russian Federation , to 
avoid recourse to unjustified agricultural export restrictions.  
4.18.   The Russian Federation stated that the statements made by several Members were beyond 
the scope of the current agenda item and of the Ministerial Declaration  on food insecurity . 
The Russian  Federation disagreed with the statements of several Members who sought to attribute 
the looming food crisis and others agricultural market deficiencies to actions by Russia. It stated 
that roots and drivers of the current crisis would need to be understood  without emotions and 
political prejudice. The Russian Federation underlined that  the restrictive measures taken by some 
Members aga inst it were the actual cause of the current food and fertilizer shortage on international 
markets  and of the logistical bottlenecks, which the FAO had referred to in its report to the CoA.  
Referring to the FAO's June 2022  monthly brief which stated that t he volume of world grain 
production and stock s in 2021/22 were higher than those in the previous year ( 2019/20), 
the Russian Federation  considered  that the rise in prices of agricultural  products in recent years was 
not due to the shortage of agricultural  products  but to other fundamental and systemic factors . 
Russia noted that the jump in global food prices and the announcement by the UN of a looming 
world food crisis were already witnessed in 2020, hence, were not a consequence of the Russian 
Federation's action.  The main drivers of the current food crisis and price rise rather included the 
COVID -19 pandemic , disruptions to  logistical chains , global inflation  and sharp increases of financial G/AG/R/102  
 
- 7 - 
 
  stimulation packages in western countries, increase in  energy  and fertilizer  prices, rapid and 
ill-considered  transition  by the EU and North American  countries to green energy  (including th e 
introduction  of biofuel  technologies), under -investment  in agricultural sectors , trade restrictions , 
adverse weather conditions , as well as unilateral  restrictive  measure s on the Russian  Federation  and 
Belarus  disrupting financial and commodity transfers . The Russian Federation clarified that  it had 
not prevented exports from the Black Sea  ports and noted that Ukraine had placed hundreds of 
mines in the area , including in the Black  Sea region . The Russian Federation underlined its role as a 
significant and responsible exporter  and committed to fulfil all its contractual obligations in good 
faith to continue expo rts of food , fertilisers  and energy resources . According to available estimates, 
the Russian Federation could potentially supply 2 5 million tonnes of grains and 22 million tonnes of 
fertilizers  to the world market  by the end of the year. The Russian Federa tion also provided 
humanitarian assistance to those in need and several countries benefitted from the Russian food 
assistance both via the WFP and through bilateral channels.  
4.19.   The US  rejected the Russian Federation 's claim  that the measures taken by itself, and other 
countries were responsible for global food insecurity. It stressed that the sanctions and export 
controls by the US and its partners targeting key sectors of the Russian economy such as defence, 
aviation and technology were part of the overall strategy to hold the Russian Federation accountable 
for its pre -meditated an illegal war and to strengthen  Ukraine's hand on  the battlefield and a t the 
negotiation  table.  The US  also clarified that  these economic measures were not meant to impede  
trade in food, medicine,  and telecommunications . It was Russia's war in Ukraine , rather than 
economic sanctions by the US and other partners , which had been responsible for the  strain in global 
food security.  Contrary to the false claims by the Russian Federation, disruptions to agricultural 
exports were caused by Russia's actions to damage Ukrainian ports in the Black Sea and undermin e 
shippers' confidence in the region, as well as by imposing export restrict ions on food commodit ies. 
Russia's destruction of critical agricultural land and infrastructure in Ukraine and blockade of access 
to sea w ere key factor s responsible for disrupting world agricultural markets.  
4.20.   The EU also voiced strong disagreement with the  Russian Federation's statement.  The EU 
noted that the Russian government was directly responsible for blocking exports from Ukrainian 
ports, destroying agricultural facilities in Ukraine and adopting export -limiting policies for food and 
fertilizer. The E U listed several export restriction  measures imposed by the Russian Federation since 
2021, including an export  tax on wheat,  an export quota  on cereals, as well as export quota s and 
bans on fertilizers. The EU stressed that its sanctions  against Russia did not prohibit import s, transit 
or payments in respect of Russian agricul tural products . The EU's import  quota  for some fertilizers 
from the Russian Federation  were based on average past imports data  and maintained regional and 
international  market s stability . The EU member states c ould access Russian -flagged vessels and 
road carriers for importing or transporting agricultural products and fertilizers. Further, t he EU's 
sanctions had had no extra-territorial effect on third countries and their decisio n to trade with the 
Russian Federation.  
4.21.   Several Members  welcomed the adoption  of the Ministerial Declaration on the WTO Response 
to the Pandemic and Preparedness for Future Pandemics13, the Ministerial Decision on WFP Food 
Purchases Exceptions from Export Prohibition  or Restrictions14, and the Ministerial Declaration on 
the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity15 at the recently concluded 12th Ministerial Conference  
(MC12) .  
4.22.   The EU appreciated the adoption at MC -12 of the Ministerial Declaration on the Emergency 
Response to Food Insecurity  which acknowledges the importance of open markets, respect of WTO 
rules, restraint on export restrictions and transparency, as well as supports developing countries' 
production capacities and takes on board the concern s of LDCs and NFIDCs. The adoption of  the 
Declaration along with the Decision on WFP was a strong message to the world and demonstrat ed 
that WTO Members  could collectively respond to acute challenges  in today 's agricultural  market s. 
The EU looked forward t o commencing the common reflection  on how to operationalize the 
Declaration on the WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic . 
4.23.   Canada also welcomed the MC-12 Declaration on food insecurity  and the Decision on WFP 
which underline the importance of the keeping markets open and predictable to respond to the 
 
13 WT/MIN(22)/31 - WT/L/1142 . 
14 WT/MIN(22)/29 - WT/L/1140  
15 WT/MIN(22)/28 - WT/L/11 39.  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 8 - 
 
  current or any future crisis. Canada underscored its commitment to being a reliable global food 
producer and exporter,  and play its part t o feed the world. It would honour its supply commitments , 
and noted that it had not and would not impose export restriction s. Canada also highlighted its 
donations to the W FP and the support given to the FAO , including its financial support to the G20 
AMIS database , which  it had doubled  recently.   
4.24.   The US, c oncerned with the increased volatility in agricultural markets which in turn 
undermined food security, noted  the statement by the FAO  and its recommendation s that open and 
well-functioning  global agricultural  markets were critical for f ood security  and nutrition . The US noted 
that food security was a complex issue which required a holistic and comprehensive approach. Steps 
should be taken to enhance the long -term resilience of agricultural markets to  feed the world. The 
US considered that there were several  ways in which  the CoA and the CoA in Special Session  could 
contribute  to achieving the objective  of food security and nutrition , such as  (1) avoid ing exacerbating 
market vol atility  through introduc tion of distortive measures in all areas including export restrictions , 
tariffs and trade-distortive domestic support; (2) i ncreas ing transparency through providing timely, 
accurate and complete agricultur al notifications  and through  open policy dialogues  in the CoA ; 
(3) promoting  policies  that are targeted  and non -distortive and that facilitate the ability of markets 
to meet demand and to  ensure the accessibility  and affordability  of food.  
4.25.   South Africa  looked forward to discussions on how WTO rules could support Members during 
the COVID -19 pandemic and the role such rules could play in future pandemic and supply shocks. 
South  Africa agreed that food security was a multifaceted challenge requiring a comp rehensive policy 
response , and expressed satisfaction that the MC12 Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food 
Insecurity  acknowledge d that, along with trade, domestic policies play ed an important role in 
improving global  food security and  welcome d Memb ers' commitments  to "cooperate with a view to 
ensuring enhanced productivity and production, trade, availability and accessibility and affordability 
of food for those who need it". South Africa emphasized the importance of long-term resilience  of 
the agric ultural sector , especially  for developing e conomies and African countries , and added that 
investments and improved produc tive capacity in agriculture in those countries were equally 
important . South Africa noted that disproportionate reliance on imports to access  basic food products 
by several poor countries, from a limited number of source s, would continue to pose systemic 
challenges to food security in th ose countries .  
4.26.   Nigeria supported South Africa's intervention  on the importance of unlocking  production 
capacities in developing countries, especially in Africa . While recognizing the war in Ukraine as one 
of the factors that contributed  to the current food security  crisis as indicated in the report by the 
FAO, Nigeria considered  that countries'  dependence  on import ed food  and the  concentration in the  
sources of  food exports  was the root cause of the issue . Nigeria  agreed that trade was an important 
contributor to food security objectives and echoed the call by South Africa to focus on improv ing 
productive capacity  in developing  countries . Nigeria requested  the FAO to include  recommendations 
in its future  reports on what  could  be done to strengthen the production aspect  of food security  in 
developing countries , including  on how the WTO could contribute .  
4.27.   Brazil welcomed FAO's work on the monitoring  of food prices and agricultural markets and 
noted  the significance of FAO policy recommendation s for the work undertaken at the WTO to fulfil 
the Ministerial mandate on food security . Referri ng to paragraph 12 of the Ministerial Declaration on 
the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity , Brazil commended  the FAO's important contribution 
towards enhanced transparency of agricultural markets, including through the AMIS.  Brazil 
reaffirmed its  commitment to  the multilateral  trading system for open agricultural trade , a 
commitment that had been echoed in statements16 by Brazil on several occasions, as well as its 
policy commitment not to impose export restrictions, even whe n facing domestic shortages , recently, 
for example,  of fertilizers.  
4.28.   Korea expressed concerns with the continuing trade blocka de in the Black Sea  due to the 
ongoing war in Ukraine  and noted that any temporary or short -term solution to lift that blocka de 
would greatly assist in addressing current food security challenges.  
4.29.   Egypt highlighted  paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Ministerial Declaration on the WTO Response 
to the Pandemic and Preparedness for Future Pandemics  which attributes significant importance to 
food security in responding to current and future pandemics and  propose s a comprehensive approach 
 
16 Refer , for example , to WT/MIN(22)/17  - JOB/AG/236.  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 9 - 
 
  in dealing with food security -related issues. The framework in MC -12 outcomes provide d a good 
basis for Members to  put forward ideas  for the CoA  to deal with food security challenges. Egypt 
noted that the Ministerial Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity  emphasize d 
the importance of trade , domestic production , and productivity  to improve global f ood security and 
gave special consideration  to the need of LDCs and NFIDCs  as outlined in paragraph  8 of the 
Declaration . Egypt recalled the discussions at the Committee's informal meeting o f 27 June  2022 on 
the elaboration of a dedicated  work programme mandated by paragraph 8 of the Declaration  and 
alluded to past submissions by Members on th at matter. Egypt emphasized the importance of the 
implementation of current flexibilities under the existing agriculture rules and supported the 
sugge stion for the WTO Secretariat to compil e the list of such flexibilities available to NFIDCs and 
LDCs, including the difficulties they faced  in implementing th em. Egypt  also cautioned  that th e 
proposed compilation should not repeat previous reports and comp ilations  and should be easy to 
use.  
4.30.   The Chairperson noted that discussions  highlighted the critical importance that Members 
attach to dealing with food security. The Chairperson also recalled  the suggestion by its predecessor 
to slightly reorganize th e agenda item on "COVID -19 and Agriculture " to acknowledge the current 
food security challenges  and the fact that some Members , at the  informal meeting , had asked for  
more time to consider th at sugges tion. The Chair said that he would report on the discussions during 
the informal meeting under agenda item of 3.C (ii) on Implementation of Other Ministerial Outcomes . 
The Chairperson also welcomed the contributions by observer  international  organizations  for 
enriching the conversation on food security at the CoA while also cautioning that discussions on food 
security at the WTO should not be duplicative  and be conducted within the respective mandates.  
4.3  Implementation of Ministerial outcomes  
4.31.   The Chair indicated that starting from the next meeting of the Committee  in September  2022, 
the agenda  item on the "Implementation of Ministerial Outcomes " would additionally include the 
relevant outcomes reached at MC -12. The discussions held during the i nformal CoA meeting on 27 
June 2022  on some aspects of MC -12 outcomes would also be taken into account.  
4.3.1   First triennial review of the operation of the Bali TRQ  decision ( WT/MIN(13)/39 ) 
pursuant to paragraph 3 of G/AG/29; tariff rate quota underfill mechanism - Secretariat 
tracking register ( RD/AG/83/ Rev.1), including chair report on the informal meeting   
4.32.   Paragraph 3  of the recommendations of the Review of the Operation of the Bali Decision on 
TRQ Administration17 approved by the General Council at its meeting on  9-10 December 2019 
instructs the Committee to undertake regular reviews of the operation of the Bali TRQ Decision every 
three years. At the informal meeting of the Committee  on 27 June  2022, Members exchanged v iews 
on what specific issues they wish to consider during the first triennial review and what outcomes 
they seek to accomplish from it. Members also examined the revised draft underfill Tracking Register 
circulated by the Secretariat in document RD/AG/83/REV.1. Under this agenda item, t he Chairperson 
provided an oral report on the discussions  at the informal meeting . His oral report is  contained in 
Annex 2  to this report.  
4.3.2   Implementation of other Ministerial outcomes  
4.33.   Paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity18 
adopted at MC-12 provides for the establishment of a specific work programme under the auspices 
of the Committee. At the informal meeting of 27 June 2022, Members  shared initial thoughts on the 
elaboration of the work programme and how further discussions m ight be organized.  At the formal 
meeting, t he Chairperson presented an oral report on the discussions. The oral r eport can be found  
in Annex  3 to this report .  
4.34.   Australia, Canada, Japan, Paraguay, Thailand, Uruguay,  and the US, informed the Committee 
that, in accordance with paragraph 6 of the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food 
Security Purposes  (PSH) , they had invited India to engage in a technical dialogue regarding  the 
operation  of its PSH programmes . The seven Members expressed concern with  India's lack of full 
transparency in taking recourse to the Bali Decision  as required under both the Agreement on 
 
17 Contained in Annex  2 to G/AG/29 .  
18 WT/MIN(22)/28 - WT/L/11 39. G/AG/R/102  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Agriculture and the Decision , including in replies to certain questions raised  in the Committee . Those 
Members  considered that receiving further information on this matter would facilitate engagement 
and a meaningfu l policy dialogue. Those Members  stated that they had already informed India of 
the request for consultations , in writing on 13 May 2022 , and committed  to keep the Committee 
informed of the progress of the consultations.  India acknowledged  the receipt  of the letter  and said 
that a n agreeable date would be decided for the requested consultations  
4.35.   The Chairperson  noted that while these consultations pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Bali 
Decision on PSH would be organized in bilateral or plurilateral settings, th e Committee  was the body 
mandated to monitor the implementation of the Decision and therefore participating Members should 
keep the Committee fully updated on the progress made in th ose consultations.  The Chairperson 
noted his readiness  to assist should th e participating  Members deem  it useful. In response to a 
question by India, the Chair clarified that the matter on consultations under paragraph 6 of the Bali 
Decision on PSH was raised under agenda 3 (C) (ii) on "Implementation of Other Ministerial 
Outcomes ". The Chair a lso suggested that in view of the latest  development, a clearer identification 
of matter on the agenda of future  CoA meetings  might be considered.  
4.4  Chair report on the informal meeting of 27 June  – Other issues  
4.36.   During the i nformal meeting of 27 June  2022, the Committee continued its deliberations on 
enhancing transparency and the Committee's review process. At the formal meeting, 
the Chairperson provided an oral report on the discussions . The oral report is contained  in Annex 4 
to this report .  
4.5  Implementation -related issues (G/AG/16, G/AG/16/ADD.1, G/AG/22)19 
4.37.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
4.6  Other Business  
4.6.1   Information from the IICA  
4.38.   The IICA presented its work plan20 for the second half of  2022 which include d several activities 
developed jointly with the WTO Institute  for Training and  Technical Cooperation  (ITTC)  and the 
Committee on Agriculture . These activities  include d trade policy courses for Latin American countries 
to be held with other org anizations such as  the FAO, as well as technical  assistance  to address the 
challenges and opportunities faced by some  countries in the region  in complying with agriculture 
notification obligations and in participating  in the CoA review process .  
4.6.2   Notification workshop, September 2022  
4.39.   The Secretariat briefed Members on the upcoming notification workshop scheduled  for 
13-16 September 2022  which wo uld be carried out in -person in Geneva . The Secretariat noted that 
this workshop constitute d the second phase of th e two-phase annual advanced agriculture 
notification workshop  launched last year. The first phase of the workshop , due to the COVID -19 
pandem ic, was delivered virtually during  20-22 October  2021. Twenty -nine government officials 
from developing and least developed country Members benefitted from it. In the first phase , 
participants had an overview of the notification requirements in the domain of agriculture with an 
in-depth look at th e notification  requirements in the area of domestic support. Participants were able 
to practice the preparation of notifications using the online agriculture notifications system under 
the AG -IMS and learned  about the transparency requirements emanating from the Nairobi Decision 
on Export Competition . 
4.40.   The Secretariat stated that the second phase of the workshop would cover the remaining 
notifications requirements and w ould include a "notification clinic " where participants w ould be able 
to interact one -on-one with WTO Secretariat staff to discuss their draft notifications and their specific 
notification -related issues. Phase II , organized back-to-back with the September 2022 CoA meeting , 
would also focus on th e Committee's  review process in response to Members' call for an increased 
 
19 See the Ministerial Decision of 14 November 2001 as contained in WT/MIN(01)/17.  
20 G/AG/GEN/200.  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 11 - 
 
  participation by developing country Members in the work of the CoA. Participants may also be invited 
to share their experiences of the workshop during an Information Session contemp lated to be 
organized in the margins of the September CoA meeting.  
4.41.   Twenty -five participants  would be selected for funded participation in Phase II  from among 
the participants who had successfully completed  phase I of the workshop, and those who had 
prepared a draft of at least one outstanding notification (or furnish ed the data/information necessary 
for the preparation of such a notification) would  be eligible to participate in the second phase.  
4.6.3   Date of next  regular meetings  
4.42.   The next (102nd) regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be held on 
14-15 September  2022.21 On that basis, the reminder airgram w ill be issued on  15 August  2022 and  
the convening airgram w ill be distributed to Members on Monday 5 September  2022.  
4.43.   The Chair also announced that , in the coming days  following the meeting,  he would be sending 
out an invitation to interested delegations to consult with him, especially on the issue of the work 
programme under paragraph 8 of Ministerial Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food 
Insecurity , and on the organization of future discussions on COVID -19, in order to prepare for the 
next CoA meeting in September.  
  
 
21 A written email communication was sent to Members on 22 July informing them about a small change 
in the pre-announced dates of the September CoA meeting  (new dates being 14-15 September instead of 15 -16 
September) .  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 12 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
Annex 1 includes the full list of que stions raised under the various agenda items of the Committee. 
Members' responses and follow -up exchanges (if applicable) can be accessed through the AG -IMS 
(http://agims.wto.org/ ) by selecting the function "Search Q&A  Submitted Since 1995" and inputting 
the ID number of the question concerned. This information can also be accessed directly by clicking 
on the relevant hyperlinks in the last column  ("ID number") of  tables 1-4 below . Question IDs where 
replies were yet to be submitted into the AG -IMS as of 7 August  2022 have been identified with the 
symbol "*".  Members are invited to submit outstanding replies through the AG -IMS at the earliest 
opportunity.  
Table 1 - Specific Implementa tion Matters (Article 18.6)  
Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID number  
Argentina's export restrictions  Switzerland  101015  
Argentina's export restrictions  United States of America, United Kingdom, Japan  101030  
Canada's review of the TRQ system  Australia, United Kingdom  101016  
Canada's Special Milk Class Scheme  New Zealand  101013  
Canada's dairy policies  New Zealand, United Kingdom  101014  
China's  agricultural inputs subsidies  Canada  101043  
Egypt's import requirement  European Union  101003*  
Italy's "local content"  requirement  Brazil  101017  
EU's deforestation and forest 
degradation strategy  Brazil, Paraguay  101033  
EU's agricultural policies funded by 
national resources  Brazil  101031  
India's other support for rice  United States of America, Australia, Canada, 
Thailand, Paraguay, Japan, Brazil, European 
Union, Uruguay  101037  
India's export restrictions on  wheat  United States of Americ a, Canada, Japan, Brazil, 
Paraguay, European Union, United Kingdom, 
Ukraine  101032  
India's export restrictions on  wheat  Australia  101019  
India's export restrictions on wheat  Switzerland  101057  
India's public stockpiling  United States of America, Japan, Brazil, Cana da, 
European Union, Uruguay, Australia, Thailand, 
Paraguay  101028  
India's public stockpiling  United States of America, Japan, Brazil, Canada, 
Uruguay, Australia, Thailand, Paraguay, European 
Union  101038  
India's oilseeds policies  United States of America, Paraguay, Canada, 
European Union  101044  
Indonesia's palm oil export restrictions  United States of America, Japan  101058  
Malaysia's chicken export prohibition  Switzerland  101059  
Malaysia's chicken export prohibition  United States of America, Japan  101060  
Philippines - Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Import Clearance 
(SPSIC) permits  United States of America  101061*  
Türkiye 's export restrictions on 
agricultural  products  Switzerland  101063  
Türkiye's export restrictions on 
agricultural products  United States of America, Japan , United Kingdom  101042  
U.S. crop production support  European Union, Paraguay  101004  
U.S. Conservation Reserve Program  Brazil  101035  
  
  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 13 - Table 2 - Questions raised in connection with individual notifications  
Document symbol  Question by  Answer by  Notification Format  Keywords  ID 
number  
G/AG/N/EU/72  United States of 
America  European Union  MA:1 - TQ administration  Country -specific allocation  101062  
G/AG/N/CAN/149  Australia  Canada  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101020  
G/AG/N/CAN/149  Brazil  Canada  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101036  
G/AG/N/CHN/3  United States of 
America  China  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101064*  
G/AG/N/SLV/82  Paraguay, Brazil  El Salvador  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101018  
G/AG/N/EU/76  Brazil  European Union  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101045  
G/AG/N/EU/76  Paraguay, Brazil  European Union  MA:2 - Imports unde r TQs  Tariff quota fill  101085  
G/AG/N/KAZ/13  United States of 
America  Kazakhstan  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101065*  
G/AG/N/PAN/60  Australia  Panama  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101021*  
G/AG/N/PAN/60  European Union  Panama  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101005*  
G/AG/N/THA/121  Australia  Thailand  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101022  
G/AG/N/THA/121  Brazil  Thailand  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101046  
G/AG/N/USA/162  Brazil  United States of America  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Transparency issues  101047  
G/AG/N/USA/162  Australia  United States of America  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101026  
G/AG/N/USA/162  Brazil  United States of America  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101048  
G/AG/N/USA/162  New Zealand  United States of America  MA:2 - Imports under TQs  Tariff quota fill  101079  
G/AG/N/CAN/151  United Kingdom  Canada  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101077  
G/AG/N/CAN/151  Thailand  Canada  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Non-product -specific AMS  101002   
  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 14 - Document symbol  Question by  Answer by  Notification Format  Keywords  ID 
number  
G/AG/N/CAN/151  Türkiye  Canada DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Non-product -specific AMS  101039  
G/AG/N/CIV/34  United States of 
America  Côte d'Ivoire  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101066*  
G/AG/N/IND/27  European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101007  
G/AG/N/IND/27  European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101010  
G/AG/N/IND/27  European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101029  
G/AG/N/IND/27  European Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101011  
G/AG/N/IND/27  European Union, 
Paraguay  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101012  
G/AG/N/IND/27  Paraguay, United States 
of America  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101087  
G/AG/N/IND/27  United Kingdom  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101078  
G/AG/ N/IND/27  Brazil  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  101050  
G/AG/N/IND/27  Brazil  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Direct payments: decoupled 
income support  101049   
  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 15 - Document symbol  Question by  Answer by  Notification Format  Keywords  ID 
number  
G/AG/N/IND/27  European Union, 
Paraguay  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor 
producers  101006  
G/AG/N/IND/27  United Kingdom  India DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  101080  
G/AG/N/JPN/276  Brazil  Japan  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  General services: marketing 
and promotion services  101051  
G/AG/N/JPN/277  Paraguay, Brazil  Japan  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101086  
G/AG/N/JPN/277  Türkiye  Japan  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101040  
G/AG/N/JPN/277  Brazil  Japan  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Non-product -specific AMS  101052  
G/AG/N/JPN/277  Thailand  Japan  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Non-product -specific AMS  101001  
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)  101067  
G/AG/N/NGA/19  United States of 
America  Nigeria  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101069*  
G/AG/N/NGA/19  United States of 
America  Nigeria  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101070*  
G/AG/N/NGA/19  United States of 
America, Paraguay  Nigeria  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101068*   
  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 16 - Document symbol  Question by  Answer by  Notification Format  Keywords  ID 
number  
G/AG/N/PAN/61  United States of 
America  Panama  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101072*  
G/AG/N/PAN/61  Paraguay, United States 
of America  Panama  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Scheduled commitment level  101088*  
G/AG/N/PAN/61  United States of 
America  Panama  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Scheduled commitment level  101071*  
G/AG/N/PRY/34  United Kingdom  Paraguay  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Classification of measures  101081  
G/AG/N/CHE/114  United Kingdom  Switzerland  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  101082  
G/AG/N/GBR/11  Brazil  United Kingdom  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101053  
G/AG/N/GBR/11  Paraguay  United Kingdom  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101089  
G/AG/N/GBR/11  New Zealand  United Kingdom  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  Livestock payments made on 
a fixed number of head 101083  
G/AG/N/USA/157  Brazil  United States of America  DS:1 - Exempt and non -
exempt support - Current 
total AMS  General services: 
infrastructural services  101054  
G/AG/N/GBR/9  Brazil  United Kingdom  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101055  
G/AG/N/GBR/9  United States of 
America  United Kingdom  DS:2 - New or modified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  101073  
G/AG/N/CAN/148  Australia  Canada  ES:2 - Total exports  Transparency issues  101023   
  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 17 - Document symbol  Question by  Answer by  Notification Format  Keywords  ID 
number  
G/AG/N/EU/75  United States of 
America  European Union  ES:2 - Total exports  Quantity of total exports  101074  
G/AG/N/JPN/270  Australia  Japan  ES:3 - Food aid  International food aid  101024  
G/AG/N/USA/161  Australia  United States of America  ES:3 - Food aid  International food aid  101025  
G/AG/N/EU/77  Australia  European Union  ER:1 - Export  restrictions  Transparency issues  101027  
G/AG/N/EU/77  Paraguay  European Union  ER:1 - Export restrictions  Transparency issues  101090  
G/AG/N/EU/77  United States of 
America  European Union  ER:1 - Export restrictions  Transparency issues  101075  
 
 G/AG/R/102  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Table 3  - Questions raised under agenda item "Overdue notifications"  
Question by  Answer by  ID Number  
United States of America  Canada  101076  
Table 4 - Questions raised under agenda item " Developments in the field of Export 
Competition " 
Question by  Answer by  ID number  
European Union  Australia  101008  
European Union  India 101009  
Chile New Zealand  101091  
Brazil  United Kingdom  101056  
 
 
  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 19 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
CHAIR REPORT ON THE INFORMAL MEETING OF 27 JUNE  ON  
THE BALI DECISION ON TRQ ADMINISTRATION  
(AGENDA ITEM – 3.C (i)) 
At the informal CoA meeting on 26 June, the Committee considered two issues related to the 
implementation of the Bali TRQ Decision, namely the triennial review of the operation of the Bali 
TRQ Decision as provided for in paragraph 3 of the agreed recommend ations in G/AG/29, and the 
Secretariat Underfill Tracking Register based on the draft contained in RD/AG/83/Rev.1.  
 
Several Members welcomed the agreement reached at the CoA in March 2022 leading to the adoption 
of the decision by the General Council on t he future operation of paragraph 4 of the underfill 
mechanism.  
 
On the possible issues that Members would like to take up in the first triennial review of the operation 
of the Bali TRQ Decision, several suggestions were made including by reference to the written 
submissions made during the 2017 -2019 review exercise as reflected in Annex 1 to G/AG/29. These 
specific suggestions included the following:  
1. Examining the link and exploring the synergy between notifications on TRQ administration 
under the Agreemen t on Agriculture and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures;  
 
2. Improving and harmonizing the MA:2 notifications by  
i. presentation of imports data disaggregated by exporting countries in cases of TRQs 
that comprise both an erga omnes component and country -specific allocations,  
ii. inclusion of applied in -quota and out of quota duties for tariff lines comprising a TRQ, 
and 
iii. presentation of imports or fill rate data on a tariff line rather than aggregate basis;  
 
3. Update of the Secretariat background note in  the G/AG/W/183/ series; and include therein, 
inter alia,  a review of Members' MA:1 notifications on changes to TRQ administration 
arrangements made in response to obligations in paragraphs 2 -5 of the Bali TRQ Decision 
as well as compliance with paragraph 6 of the Decision dealing with the notification of fill 
rates.  
 
4. Approval of the Secretariat Underfill Tracking Register.  
 
The issue of the Secretariat Underfill Tracking Register was considered specifically to explore if 
Members would be in a position to a pprove the draft Register circulated by the Secretariat in 
document RD/AG/83/Rev.1 at the formal meeting. While several Members supported the draft and 
expressed their willingness to approve it at the June formal meeting, some others proposed that the 
matter be put before the next meeting of the Committee in September. A suggestion was also made 
to acknowledge and recognize upfront that the Register once approved might be subject to review 
and adjustments by the Committee based on the experience gained on i ts implementation.  
 
The Chair (and my predecessor) indicated that further consultations would be necessary to make 
progress on both the triennial review as well the Secretariat Tracking Register.  
 
This concludes the report on the informal meeting convene d yesterday on issues related to the Bali 
TRQ Decision.  
  G/AG/R/102  
 
- 20 - 
 
  ANNEX 3  
CHAIR REPORT  ON THE INFORMAL MEETING OF 2 7 JUNE  2022  ON FOLLOW -UP TO THE 
MINISTERIAL DECLARATION ON THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO FOOD INSECURITY AND 
REORGANIZATION OF THE STANDING AGENDA ITEM ON "COVID -19 AND AGRICULTURE " 
(AGENDA ITEM – 3.C (ii)) 
At the informal meeting of 27 June conducted by my predecessor, Members exchanged preliminary 
thoughts on the elaboration of a dedicated work programme mandated by Paragraph 8 of the 
recently adopted Ministerial Declaration on the Emergency Response to Foo d Insecurity to examine 
ways for the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision to be made more effective and operational and how further 
discussions could be organized under this work programme.  
 
Some Members indicated that they would work on specific ideas to be consider ed under the work 
programme. One Member suggested that paragraph 8 should be examined in the context of the 
current food security challenges faced by NFIDCs and LDCs rather than looking at it from the 
perspective of the routine implementation of the 1994 M arrakesh Decision by the CoA. Reference 
was made to some submissions made in the run up to the twelfth Ministerial Conference (MC12), 
which included ideas that could be further explored according to some Members, as well as to 
paragraph 9 of the Ministeria l Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity.  
 
Several Members supported the idea by one Member that the Secretariat compiles a list of existing 
flexibilities available to NFIDCs and LDCs under existing agriculture rules. Another Member wonde red 
how this exercise would be different from the existing background note prepared by the Secretariat 
on S&DT provisions under the auspices of the Committee on Trade and Development and suggested 
that the Secretariat in its compilation should also refer t o the difficulties faced by LDCs and NFIDCs 
in implementing those flexibilities. Another delegation suggested that the Secretariat could prepare 
a questionnaire for LDCs and NFIDCs to explain the difficulties they faced in that regard. A few other 
Members considered that the MC12 Declaration addresses the issue of food security in a holistic 
manner and the same approach should be pursued in furthering work in the CoA on the specific 
elements of the Declaration, including in paragraph 8.  
 
Several Members sh ared their views on how the agenda on the dedicated work programme should 
be organized. Members expressed wide ranging views on this aspect. These included suggestions 
for a dedicated session process, or working group of select Members, or a separate item under the 
overarching agenda item on the implementation of Ministerial outcomes. Several Members pointed 
out that the Declaration didn't not establish a new committee/ sub -committee or a dedicated session 
process to undertake work on paragraph 8 and that t he dedicated work programme would need to 
be pursued in the CoA itself; one of these Members also referred to the French and Spanish 
translation of the work "dedicated " to support its view. Some delegations requested the Chair to 
undertake consultations in order to deepen discussions on this issue.  
 
My predecessor clarified that the mandate was to have a dedicated work programme in the 
Committee on Agriculture, and that the content of such work programme would be based on 
Members’ contributions. He concluded the discussions by noting that this had been an initial 
discussion and that Members would need additional time and further discussions to reflect on the 
format and th e scope of the work programme.  
 
At the informal meeting yesterday, Members based on a suggestion by my predecessor also 
considered whether the title of the standing agenda item of "COVID -19 and Agriculture " could be 
readjusted so that the discussions under  this item could be suitably informed by the current food 
security challenges. As a context to raising this issue, my predecessor also noted that the Committee 
in its consideration of the agenda on COVID -19 would need to look at Paragraph 24 of the Ministe rial 
Declaration on the WTO Response to the COVID -19 Pandemic and Preparedness for Future 
Pandemics as contained in WT/MIN(22)/31 - WT/L/1142. The relevant WTO bodies, including the 
CoA, are required to analyse the lessons learned and challenges experience d during the COVID -19 
pandemic and submit reports on their work to the General Council to feed into the annual stocktaking 
exercise to be undertaken by this body until the end of 2024.  
 G/AG/R/102  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Several Members supported the idea to reorganize the agenda item whil e some other Members 
requested additional time to consider it. One of the latter Members also expressed the concern that 
the proposed new title could risk broadening the scope of the agenda item and leading to discussion 
on issues such as climate change wh ich are beyond the mandate of the CoA.  
 
My predecessor noted the discussions on COVID -19 would always be organized within the overall 
mandate and scope of discussions within the CoA. He also concluded that there appeared to be no 
common view on the issue of reorganizing the agenda item on COVID -19 and agriculture, and 
therefore this would be maintained as currently at the next meeting.  
 
This ends my report.  
 G/AG/R/102  
 
- 22 - 
 
  ANNEX 4  
 
CHAIR REPORT ON THE INFORMAL MEETING OF 27 JUNE 2022 ON ENHANCING 
TRANSPARENCY  AND THE C OA REVIEW PROCESS'  
(AGENDA ITEM 3.D) 
During yesterday's informal meeting on how to enhance transparency and the Committee's 
review process, the Chair (and my predecessor) noted that the issues of overdue notifications, 
especially in relation to domestic su pport and export subsidies, and outstanding responses to 
questions raised under the CoA Review Process had frequently figured under this agenda item 
in the past informal CoA meetings.  
 
The Chair also recalled the importance of transparency in the field of export competition and the 
development by the Secretariat of the ECQ IT tool to facilitate on -line replies to the ECQ and 
on-line data extraction and reporting by referring to report of the second triennial review of the 
Nairobi Decision (G/AG/33) . 
 
A group of Members presented the room document contained in RD/AG/92 entitled "Improving 
Access to Information Contained in Members' Notifications: A Domestic Support Database". The 
cosponsors emphasized that the development of the database would improv e the capacity of 
Members, especially those with limited resources, to analyse domestic support notifications and 
facilitate their access to the officially notified domestic support data. The cosponsors also 
underlined that the proposed database didn't ent ail any new transparency obligations and should 
primarily be based on Member's domestic support notifications. In consultation with Members, 
the Secretariat may include other data, for example, on exchange rates sourced from the 
International Monetary Fund  (IMF) in order to present support amounts in a common and 
comparable metric. Drawing parallel from other Secretariat databases like the Integrated 
Database (IDB), the cosponsors also noted the contents of the database would not be ascribed 
any legal statu s. The cosponsors requested the Secretariat to prepare a methodological note for 
the database for the September CoA meeting.  
 
Several Members welcomed the proposal and noted that the database would be a helpful tool 
for Members, especially for smaller del egations and those with limited resource, to access and 
analyse domestic support information. Some of these Members also considered that access to 
the proposed database would assist their informed participation in the agriculture negotiations.  
 
Some Membe rs requested additional time to examine the proposal before the Secretariat 
commences any work on the proposed methodological note. Some of these Members expressed 
concerns that the proposed database might entail administrative burden on Members and could 
even pave the way for counternotifications. These Members preferred the database to be 
populated solely with the data notified to the CoA. One Member was of the view that the 
methodology for the database should be balanced and that support data should also  be organized 
on a per capita and per hectare basis.  Another Member noted that any effort to launch a new 
database  should be preceded by a review of the existing WTO data and information systems.  
 
One Member underlined the need to examine and streamline the existing agriculture notification 
templates and deadlines in order for these notifications to effectively support the monitoring of 
Members' implementation of commitments while avoiding unnecessary burden for notifying 
Members. Another Membe r opined that transparency obligations of a Member should be 
proportional to the expenditure it incurs.  
 
The Secretariat informed Members that the AGIMS On -line Notification System includes reporting 
functions, including in the domain of domestic support, and that the Secretariat had recently 
launched work to improve the structure of those reports and address the discrepancies therein.  
 
The chair noted that some delegations were still studying the proposal to work on a domestic 
support database and consider ed that further conversation would be required among Members 
in order to define the way forward.  
 
__________