RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/91  
 
12 April 2019 
(19-2439) Page: 1/10 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF TH E MEETING HELD ON 26-27 FEBRUARY 2019 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its ninetieth  (90th) regular meeting on  26-27 February  2019 
under the Chairmanship of Ms. D ébora Cumes of Guatemala . 
 
The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/AG/35  was adopted with the following 
modifications:  
• Part 1 (Review Process):  
• B. Article 18.6:  
• Thailand to co-sponsor the question s raised by Japan concerning India's support to 
rice exports (AG -IMS ID 90111)  
• Thailand to co -sponsor the questions raised by  Canada and New Zealand concerning 
European Union 's m odification of agricultural schedules of commitment 
(AG-IMS ID 90087 and 90028)  
• The Secretariat  informed that question AG -IMS ID 90031 was merged with question 
AG IMS ID 90028 concerning European Union's modification of agricultural schedule of 
commitments.    
• C. Counternotifications:  
• Australia to add its name to the counternotification  submitted by Canada and the 
United States  regarding India's market price support to pulses  (G/AG/ W/193 and 
corrigendum) .  
• Part 2 (Other matters within the purview of the Committee ): 
• D. Other business  
• The Inter -American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) to introduce its 
working plan for 2019 as contained in G/AG/GEN/150.  
1  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
1.1  Outstanding responses  to questions raised, 2012 -2018  
1.1.  The Chairperson noted the Secretariat 's document G/AG/W/195 listed outsta nding responses 
for 2012 to 2018 . Since the list was first circulated on 28 May 2018 in document G/AG/W/177, five 
Members ha d provided 13 delayed responses to questions raised during 2012 to 2017. As of 
14 February 2019, 58 questions addressed to 26 Members during 2012 to 2017 remain ed 
unanswered. As for the questions raised in 2018, 48 replies from 21 Members were still outstanding. 
The Chairperson  highlighted  an 18 % reduction in outstanding responses in 2018, compared to the 
period of 2012-2017 and encouraged Members to further reduce the ir outstanding responses. The 
Chairperson invited Members to provide their responses either through the online system, by sending 
these responses to the Secretariat or by providing their responses during the Committee meeting 
under the relevant agenda item . 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/R/91  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.2  Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the reform 
programme: Article 18.6  
1.2.  The 31 implementation -related issues raised as well as the responses provided,  and follow -up 
exchanges were compiled in section 1 of document G/AG/W/ 196. These relate d to: 
a. Egypt's pest control subsidy (raised by the Australia ); 
b. European U nion's intervention policy  (raised by New Zealand ); 
c. India's support to rice exports  (raised by Japan  and Thailand ); 
d. India's import duty protections  (raised by the United States);  
e. India's soymeal export subsidies  (raised by the United States);  
f. India's proposed domestic support measures (raised by the European Union ); 
g. Mexico's Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices (raised by the Canada ); 
h. Republic of Moldova's environmental charge s (raised by Ukraine ); 
i. New Zealand's support to dairy processing facilities (raised by the European Union);  
j. Nigeria's domestic support programmes (raised by Australia)  
k. Russia's increased support to dairy sector (raised by the European Union);  
l. Switzerland's  "Loi Chocolatière " and implementation of the Nairobi Decision on export 
competition (raised by the  European Union);  
m. Thailand's support to palm oil growers (raised by the European Union);  
n. U.S. Farm Bill 2018 (raised by Australia, the European Union and India);  
o. U.S. trade promotion payments (raised by the European Union);  
p. U.S. Boston Bounty Bucks Funds Programme (raised by India);  
q. Canada's new milk ingredient class  (raised by New Zealand and the United States);  
r. Canada's wine sale policy  (raised by the United States);  
s. EU's CAP Reform (raised by Australia);  
t. European Union 's modification of agricultural schedule of commitments (raised by Canada , 
New Zealand  and Thailand ); 
u. Ghana's poultry imports (ra ised by the United States);  
v. India's pulses policies  (raised by Australia, Canada , the Russia n Federation , Ukraine and the 
United States);  
w. India's sugar policies  (raised by  Australia ); 
x. India's skim milk powder export subsidies  (raised by the European Union ); 
y. Mongolia's quota regime for importation  (raised by the Russia n Federation) ; 
z. Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  (raised by the United States);  
aa. Sri Lanka's tax on imported milk powder (raised by New Zealand);  
bb. Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board (r aised by the European Union),  
cc. U.S. proposed domestic support measures (raised by Australia);  
dd. U.S. support to cotton sector (raised by India);  
ee. Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive (raised by the United States).  
1.3  Review of Notifications  
1.3.  The Chairperson  informed  Members that since the November  2018 meeting the Committee had 
received 82 notifications . These  had been distributed electronically to all delegations.  G/AG/R/91  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.3.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram  
1.4.  Section 2 of document G/AG/W/ 196 reflects the questions concerning individual notifications 
raised  in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram2, the responses provided  and Members' 
follow -up comments . 
1.3.2   Deferred replies to questions  raised under the review process  
1.5.  A total of three  questions were raised under this agenda item.3 Section  3 of 
document  G/AG/W/ 196 reflects the questions raised, responses provided, and Members' follow -up 
comments.  
1.3.3   Overdue notifications  
1.6.  The Committee took note of the document summarizing  the current status of Members' 
compliance with notification obligations.4 
1.7.  The Chairperson recognized Members ' efforts to bring their notifications up to date noting that 
a number of Members had recently submitted agricultur e notifications covering multiple years  as an 
important effort in addressing outstanding notifications . Since the November  meeting, a number of 
Members ha d submitted agriculture notifications covering multiple years. For instance, China  had 
submitted their Table  DS:1 notification  covering the years 2011 to 2016; Turkey had notified a Table 
DS:1 notification  for the years 2006 to 2009; and Japan had notified  Table ES:3 notifications 
covering the years 2013 to 2016.  
1.8.  Despite these important efforts, t he Chairperson  noted that worked remained to be done in the 
area of transparency and highlighted a few numbers with respect to outstanding notifications. 
For the period 1995 to 201 6: 
• 36% (798 ) table DS:1 domestic support notifications  remain ed outstanding ; and 
• 34% (838 ) export subsidy notifi cations in the Table ES:1 series  remain ed outstanding . 
1.9.  Members had posed questions  to four Members under this item . The question s, corresponding 
answer s and Members' follow -up comments can be found in section 4 of document G/AG/W/ 196. 
1.10.   The Chairperson  highlighted  the importance of transparency  and called on Members  for 
increase d efforts to get up to date with their notification obligations . The Chairperson  also highlighted  
the various  databases that  could  help Members  manage informati on and facilitate the work of 
Committee . 
1.3.4   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
1.11.   The Commi ttee took note of the 52 notifications circulated befor e 15 February  2019, including 
notificat ions carried over from the November  2018 meeting but in respect of which no questions had 
been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.5 
1.3.5   Notifications circulated after the issuance of the convenin g airgram  
1.12.   Thirteen  notifications had  been circulated after the issuance  of the convening airgram 
on 15 February 2019: 
• European Union : Table ES:1 and ES:2 for 2017 (G/AG/N/EU/51 and G/AG/N/EU/52);  
• European Union : Table  ES:3 for the years 2010 until 2017 (G/AG/N/EU/53);  
• European Union : Table MA:2 for 2018  (G/AG/N/EU/50);  
• Two corrigenda from the European Union : G/AG/N/EU/38/C orr.1 and G/AG/N/EU/44/C orr.1; 
                                                
2 WTO/AIR/AG/ 35, Attachment Section B. 
3 WTO/AIR/AG/ 35, Attachment Section C. 
4 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.3 4. 
5 WTO/AIR/AG/3 5, Attachment Section D.  G/AG/R/91  
 
- 4 - 
 
  • Japan : Table DS:1 for 2015 and 2016 (G/AG/N/JPN/235 and  G/AG/N/JPN/236);  
• Mongolia : Table DS:1 for 2014 and 2015 (G/AG/N/MNG/10);  
• Switzerland : Table ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3 for 2017 (G/AG/N/CHE/89, G/AG/N/CHE/90 and 
G/AG/N/CHE/91); and  
• Tunisia : Table DS:1 for 2017  (G/AG/N/TUN/56).  
 
1.13.   These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with the Committee's working procedures.  
1.3.6   Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: informa tion regarding outcome where the issue involved is one of  
general interest  
1.14.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
1.3.7   Counternotification s (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture)  
1.3.7.1   Certain measures of India providing market price sup port to cotton – 
Communication from the United States  
1.15.   Canada , the United States and Australia presented their counternotification  addressing certain 
measures by India providing market price support to pulses  including chickpeas, pigeon peas, black 
matpe, m ung beans and lentils.6 Canada highlighted that the  data on the five varieties of pulses 
discussed in the counternotification  had been obtained  from publicly available sources. Canada noted 
that the counternotification  contained an explanation of the methodology used. With regards to 
eligible production , Canada stated that there was jurisprudence from the Korea – Beef case that  
clarifie d that this referred to the production that was fit or entitled to be purchased rather than the 
production that was actually purchased.  Canada further noted that i n marketing year 2016 -2017, 
India had not limit ed the quantity of chickpeas , pigeon peas , mung beans , black matpe or lentils. 
Therefore, all Indian production of each pulse constitute d eligible production for calculating market 
price support for each pulse. Canada stated that India's AGST set the external reference price for 
each pulse except for  lentils  and further noted that India notified its market support price  as an 
aggregate which raised some issues with the calculation methodology used as India did not have an 
external reference price for lentils . Canada further added that India announced MSP for pulses at 
different rates for each pulse type. While India ha d provided value of production data w hen requested 
by Members during the review process, Canada stated that India  had not provided this information 
as best practice in its 2016 -2017 domestic support notification. Therefore, this data had to be 
sourced from India's national accounts statistics . Finally, Canada stated that the counternotification 
showed that the apparent market price support ranged from 31.7% to 85.3%  of the value of 
production for these pulses.  
1.16.   The United States stated that the c ounternotification was intended to contribute to robust 
discussions on how India implement ed and notifi ed its domestic support policies.  The United States 
highlighted  the lack of sufficient responses by India with regards to disparities between how it 
implement ed market price support for pulses and how i t notifie d these  measures.  The United States 
argued  that the agricultural policies in India were relevant components of the global agricultural 
landscape , particularly in the pulse market  where India was the largest producer, consumer and 
importer . The Uni ted States noted that in addition to market price support, India ha d also made use 
of a variety of other trade policy instruments including other domestic support measures, increased 
tariffs, quantitative restrictions, export controls and export subsidies to achieve various policy 
objectives with respect to pulses.  
1.17.   Australia noted that the issues raised in the counternotification were not limited to pulses and 
it applied to other commodities such as cotton, sugarcane, rice and wheat  as evidenced in previous 
counternotifications . Australia noted that  while the counternotification related to the marketing year 
2016/2017 there were similar concerns regarding other years. Australia questioned the fact that 
India had aggregated a series o f pulses into a single product category  while it  maintain ed separate 
and distinct minimum support prices for specific pulses . Australia was of the view  that India's  
excessive market price support for pulses ha d led to domestic overproduction and the need t o 
introduce a series of trade restrictive measures since late 2017 to deal with th is oversupply. 
                                                
6 G/AG/W/193.  G/AG/R/91  
 
- 5 - 
 
  According to Australia, i n addition  to raising tariffs, India had imposed q uantitative restrictions  and 
had failed to explain the WTO  basis in the various WTO Committees. Australia stated that India's 
measures had had significant negative impacts  on Australian pulse exporters. In the case of 
chickpeas, Australian exports had decline d by almost 99%. Similarly, Australia's pea exports to India 
had fallen  from USD 60 million to USD 7 million in the same period.  
1.18.   India noted that  India's m inimum price support for pulses was intended to ensure that poor 
farmers did not have to resort to distress sale s. Small quantit ies of pulses  had been  procured by the 
government agencies at administered prices since 1995 -1996 and that the average annual 
procurement of pulses within the last five notified years (2011-2012 to 2016 -2017) had been less 
than 1.5% of the total production.  With regards to the issue raised on external ref erence prices for 
only four of the five pulses in  its original AGST document  (chickpea, pigeon pea, mung beans and 
black matpe ), India noted that despite not having notified lentils in the AGST document it had notified  
domestic support provided to lentils since 2001 -2002. India had been notifying aggregated product 
specific support for pulses since its first domestic support notification for the year 1995 -1996. On 
the issue of currency, India reiterated that the A oA did not place a binding obligation on Ind ia to 
notify in a specific currency . India ha d been notifying its domestic support in USD since 1995 -1996.  
Concerning eligible production , India noted that the term "production eligible to receive  the applied 
administered price " had not been defined under the AoA. In India, only that part of marketable 
surplus meeting the  required quality parameters,  and which was offered by farmers to the 
designated government agencies for procurement at market support price was eligible for 
procure ment.  India added  that the findings in the Korea – Beef case were specific to certain 
circumstances  and that the findings of the Appellate Body should not be treated as precedence 
providing jurisprudence and creating new rules. India noted that there was no obligation to provide 
data on the value of production and expressed its willingness to do so should this requirement be 
applicable to all Members . In conclusion, India reiterated that the methodology used by India was 
fully consistent with its obligation s under the AoA.  
1.19.   Various Members welcomed the counternotification. The E uropean Union highlighted the 
importance of completeness  and accuracy of information in the notifications including the use of a 
correct basis for its calculations. The European Union  supported the call for India to change  its 
methodology for future notifications. According to the European Union, t he methodology used by 
India in the Table DS:1 notification  did not align  with the outcome of the Korea – Beef case which 
was relevant to  India's market price support for pulses.  
1.20.   The European Union , echoed by New Zealand, recognized Members' right to provide support 
to their farmers and made a call to Members to reduc e trade distorti ng support  and to adopt  more 
effective policies to support  farm income.  Ukraine noted its interest in Members following a common 
methodology in their notifications to achieve comparable data results. Paraguay also echoed the 
need for increased transparency and noted the potential global imbalances caused by  this type of 
policy .  
1.21.   The United States reminded Members that their commitments and the currency used to 
measure those commitments were set out in the Schedule of commitments in AGST documents. In 
India's case, the AGST document s provide d domestic support commitments and minimum support 
prices in Indian rupees.  Regarding India's use of an aggregated all -pulse market price support , the 
United State s noted  that no change in India's market support price programme had been identified 
after the  AGST that could justify a switch to the use of an aggregated market price support for the 
five pulses. Therefore, in the counternotification market support price for five separate prices  had 
been calculated  rather than the aggregated support price that India used. Canada further  noted that 
the market price support provided  by India to producers of the se variet ies of pulses was significant 
and that it affect ed global production and trade.  
2  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN  THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE  
2.1  Implementation  issues  (G/AG/16, G/AG/16/ADD.1, G/AG/22)  
2.1.  There was no request for the floor under this agenda item.  G/AG/R/91  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.2  Implementation of Ministerial outcomes  
2.2.1   Review of the Bali Ministerial Decision on TRQ administration  
2.2.  The Chairperson provided her report o n the informal me eting regarding the review of the Bali 
Decision on TRQ administration held on 25 February 2019. The Chairperson  stated that discussion s 
on the informal meeting were principally based on the first draft of the report of the review prepared 
by the Secretaria t.7 Some Members had submitted written comments on the draft report in advance 
of the meeting which were subsequently circulated to all Members to facilitate discussions.  
2.3.  The Chairperson had underlined that the draft report by the Secretariat reflect ed the elements 
that came up in the discussions,  but it d idn't, in any way , prejudge the final report of the review and 
the relevant recommendations that Members w ould collectively adopt in the Committee for 
transmission to the General Council.  Some Members had observed that the listing of specific 
elements in the draft report should not imply agreement. Among the various elements, the issues 
of improving TRQ transparency including harmonization of Members' notification practices, 
reallocation requirements, S&D aspects, and practical applicability of the underfill mechanism had 
been raised in a number of interventions. About  improving TRQ transparency, there had been  a 
broad support to target this aspect as a possible outcome of the review; some Members had pointed 
out that the on -line agriculture notification system w ould also support the transparency objectives. 
On some of the specific elements, Members had expressed contrasting positions. For example, some 
Members had made the point that S&D should not be diluted whereas some others  had emphasized 
that S&D should not lead to exemptions from obligations for select Members. On TRQ reallocation, 
some Members had wanted to focus the discussions on the reallocation of unused licences whereas 
some others had emph asized the importance of such reallocation requirements for country -specific 
TRQs.   
2.4.  Some Members had again made the point about the scope of the ongoing review and the need 
to distinguish it from the market access negotiations. Retaining paragraph 4 of the underfill 
mechanism and ensuring applicability of the Bali TRQ decision to all Members had also been 
emphasized. Another Member had alluded to its possible exclusion from Annex B provided the 
obligations in paragraph 4 of the underfill mechanism applied uniformly to all Members. One Member 
had renewed its demand that the Secretariat should seek Members' views on the practical 
applicability of the underfill mechanism based on a questionnaire.  
2.5.  The Chairperson had emphasized the need and the urgency to focus the review discussions on 
the framing of possible recommendations for the consideration of the Gener al Council. Various  
Members had also emphasized that the review of the Bali TRQ decision would need to continue 
beyond the stipulated deadline of 31 December 2019 and that this should be acknowledged in the 
Committee recommendations. A suggestion had been made to have a regular review of the Bali TRQ 
Decision at an agreed frequency. In response to a specific question by the Chairperson on the 
timeline of review by the CoA, a preference had been expressed for the Committee to finalize its 
report and recommen dations by June 2019 as per the agreed process and timelines. The Chairperson 
had indicated that she would consult with Members and organize additional informal meetings to 
assist them towards the finalization of the report of the review and the associated  recommendations. 
A compilation document based on Secretariat's draft report incorporating Members' comments and 
the discussions during the February informal meeting w ould also be made available to Members to 
facilitate the discussions.   
2.2.2   Follow -up on the N airobi Decision on export competition including prepara tion for 
the June 2019 Export Competition Dedicated Discussion.  
2.6.  The Chairperson noted that the Committee concluded in June 2018 its third dedicated 
discussion on export competition since the Nairobi D ecision. Questions and responses provided 
during those discussions were circulated in document G/AG/W/182. The Secretariat background 
document was revised after the June CoA meeting and circulated in document G/AG/W/125/rev.9 
and addenda on 24 July 2018.  
                                                
7 G/AG/W/192 . G/AG/R/91  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.7.  The Chairperson noted that as part of the monitoring of this Decision, Members also had the 
possibility to raise questions during other meetings under this agenda item. In this context, the 
United States had posed questions to India, Thailand and Turkey.8 The questions, responses and 
follow -up comments can be found in section 5 of document G/AG/W/ 196.  
2.8.  Concerning updates on the implementation of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, the Chairperson 
noted that out of the 16 Members with export subsidies reductio n commitments in their schedules, 
eight Members had their revised draft export subsidies schedule fully certified pursuant to the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition (Australia, Norway, Israel, Switzerland, Colombia, Uruguay, the 
United States and South  Africa). Two Members had submitted their draft revised Schedules,  but 
these were not certified yet (the European Union and Canada). The Chairperson noted that Mexico 
had circulated on 10 January its draft revised schedule.  
2.9.  The Chairperson invited the remaining Members with scheduled export subsidy commitments 
to provide an update on their implementation of the Nairobi Decision. Brazil stated that due to the 
change in administration, it had not been able to conclude the admin istrative  proceedings to 
implement th e Nairobi Decision . Brazil clarified that t he time it was taking to implement the Decision 
was due only to administrative issues as Brazil had not provide d export subsidies  for several years.  
Indonesia  stated that it ha d finished drafting the presi dential  decree that would fully implement the 
Nairobi Decision and that i t had been postponed due to presidential election s. Indonesia stated that 
it would continue with the process on ce the general election was over  but that i t was no t yet able to 
set a fixed timeline. Indonesia stated that it had not provided export subsid ies on rice up to 2017 as 
stated in its table ES notification s. Iceland  informed Members that it would formally su bmit on 26 
February 2019 the changes to its Schedule for circ ulation to the Membership . Finally, Turkey  
informed the Committee that its ministry of trade wa s revi ewing the final version of its Schedule and 
that it planned to submit it to the WTO soon.  
2.10.   Regarding the preparation for the 2019 June Dedicated Discussion, the Chairperson reminded 
Members that an email was circulated on 25 October 2018 to initiate the next dedicated discussion  
on export competition  scheduled for the June CoA 2019 meeting. A reminder had been subsequently 
submitted on 8 February. The deadline for replies to the questionnaire was 22 March 2019  and two 
submissions had been received thus far.   
2.11.   The Chairperson noted that the proper implementation of this Decision require d a well -
functioning monitoring mechanism based upon tra nsparency. The Chairperson strongly encourage d 
all Members to reply to the questionnaire at their earliest convenience.  This was critical to ensure 
the success of the next annual dedicated discussion on export competition.  The Chairperson also 
reminded Mem bers that while replies were expected first and foremost from Members who use 
export subsidies or export measures covered by the Decision, Members who d id not use such 
measures were also invited to reply to the Secretariat with a quick "nil" reply.  
2.2.3   Impleme ntation of other Ministerial outcomes  
2.12.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
2.3  Chair report on remaining issue from informal meeting - Enhancing transparency and 
the CoA Review Process.  
2.13.   At the informal meeting that took place on 25 Febru ary regarding transparency and the CoA 
Review Process, t he Chairperson had reminded Members the two issues that had been highlighted 
in previous  Committee's discussions on this topic: (i) improving timeliness and completeness of 
notifications and (ii) the monitoring of outstanding responses to questions in the Committee's 
Review.  
2.14.   With respect to (i) improving the timeliness and completeness of notifications , the Chairperson 
had noted that the Committee had considered in previous informal meetings Members' notification 
practices, particularly how the timing of Members' submissions related to the guidance on notification 
requirements contained in G/AG/2. In this regard, Norway had previously submitted a couple of 
papers on this subject for discussion in the i nformal meetings held in September and November  2018 
                                                
8 WTO/AIR/AG/35, Attachment Section E.  G/AG/R/91  
 
- 8 - 
 
  where Members had exchanged views on Norway's suggestion that revised deadlines in G/AG/2 
could help to increase transparency.9 During these discussions, some Members had supported 
Norway's suggestion to  modify the deadlines set forth in G/AG/2 noting that the collection of data 
was complex thus the deadlines set forth in the notification requirements were unrealistic, while 
others had been of the view that relaxing the deadlines could lead to reduced tra nsparency. In 
general, many Members had noted that a continued exchange on best practices would be useful to 
understand the obstacles Members faced in preparing notifications. Members also had highlighted 
the role that capacity building and the new on -line notification system could play in tackling some 
of the problems faced when preparing notifications.  
2.15.    The Chairperson noted that a t the informal meeting held on 25 February, Norway had 
introduced its room document RD/AG/69/Rev.2 noting that the intention o f the document was to 
continue pushing for reduced backlog regarding notifications in agriculture. Norway had highlighted 
that its new document had been expanded in three ways: (i) it included all Members with current 
total AMS commitments that had submitt ed at least one Table DS:1 notification ; (ii) it included a list 
of Members that had still not notified a Table DS:1 notification for 2015 ; and (iii)  it covered Table 
MA:2 notifications from all 40 members with WTO import quota commitments.  
2.16.   Norway had noted that ambitious, but doable deadlines for notifications in agriculture were 
only one element in a broader transparency picture. Other important elements were promoting 
electronic notifications, improving the quality of notifications and answering question s raised in the 
CoA review process, preferably in advance of the meeting.   
2.17.   Norway had underlined that other notifications included in  G/AG/2 were ad hoc notifications. 
Furthermore, some notifications were gradually becoming less relevant due to the phasing  out of 
export subsidies. This meant that when discussing deadlines for notifications in G/AG/2, Table DS:1 
and MA:2 notifications were the two most important notifications to look into.  Norway had 
highlighted that 9 out of 31 members with current total AM S commitments submitted Table DS:1 
notifications within 12 months. For the 22 selected Members in table 2 with no current total AMS 
commitment, 13 had submitted Table DS:1 notifications within 12 months. This meant, according 
to Norway, that 12 months was an ambitious, but doable deadline. Norway had further noted that 
to improve notification practices, it was also important to look at the 17 Members that still had not 
notified a Table DS:1 for 2015. These Members were almost three years behind the deadline s 
specified in G/AG/2 .  
2.18.   Norway had stated that focusing in best practices would yield better transparency results than 
introducing financial penalties for Members with a substantial notification backlog. Norway had noted 
that continued technical assistance  from the Secretariat targeting the 29 members who had never 
submitted a Table DS:1 notification would be helpful. The sharing of experiences among Members 
on how to improve notification practices would also be helpful.  
2.19.   Regarding Table MA:2 notifications, Norway had noted that while some Members only had a 
few quotas to notify and others had numerous quotas, most members with TRQ commitments were 
not able to notify within 60 days, as required by G/AG/2, but that it should be doable to notify a 
Table MA:2 no tification within six months.  
2.20.   The Chairperson noted that M embers had welcomed Norway's submission. In response to a 
question raised concerning developed -country Members' failure to comply with deadlines set forth 
in G/AG/2, a number of these Members had noted the practical challenges faced when collecting 
data necessary for the preparation of notifications. One Member had recognized the need to modify 
the G/AG/2 deadlines, while another  had noted that if G/AG/2 was to be revised, Members should 
also conside r revising the list of significant exporters contained in G/AG/2/Add.1. Some Members 
had noted that while timeliness was important, completeness of notifications was equally important. 
One Member  had called for positively framed discussions on some of the aspects raised, including 
the use of electronic systems to help better implement the AoA transparency requirements and the 
possibility of submitting provisional notifications.  
2.21.   With respect to the (ii) monitoring of outstanding responses to questions in the  CoA Review 
Process , the Chairperson had  noted that the Secretariat had produced a document for th e February 
2019 CoA meeting summarizing outstanding responses from 2012 to 2018 (G/AG/W/195). This 
                                                
9 G/AG/W/185 and RD/AG/65  G/AG/R/91  
 
- 9 - 
 
  document had shown that Members had made good progress in a ddressing outstanding responses, 
especially from the most recent years (2016 and 2017). For those two years more than a third of 
the responses that were outstanding at the beginning of 2018 had been provided.  
2.22.   The Chairperson had also highlighted the enhan cements foreseen in the current AG -IMS. The 
Secretariat had been taking steps to improve Members' ability to track repeated questions in 
the AG-IMS, a modification that had initially been proposed by Ukraine in their document "Proposal 
for exploring potent ial AG -IMS improvements".10 In addition, the Secretariat had been exploring 
modifications that would allow Members to more easily identify which questions had pending 
responses. These enhancements to the system were expected to be completed by the second ha lf 
of 2019.  
2.4  Other business  
2.4.1   On-line submission of notifications  
2.23.   The Secretariat reminded Members that at the end of 2018 the Secretariat had circulated to 
Members an invitation to join the pilot group to test the function for the online submission of 
agriculture notifications. A total of ten Members had expressed inter ests in participating in the pilot 
phase. It was expected that these Members would be able to submit notifications online starting in 
April and that the system would be available to all Members by the June Committee meeting. The 
Secretariat would organize an information session on the margins of that meeting to highlight 
important features of the system and to provide additional information to all Members on how to 
access and use the system. The Secretariat was also working on updating the existing datasets  of 
notified information with new notifications and migrating those data to the new system. The 
Secretariat reminded Members that it was available for questions and noted that one -on-one training 
sessions on the new system could be scheduled upon request; these sessions could also be provided 
via skype or video conference to capital -based notification experts.  
2.4.2   2019  notification workshop  
2.24.   The Secretariat informed the Committee that the 2019 advanced workshop on notifications in 
agriculture would be held from  30 April to 3 May. The selection process had recently concluded and 
a total of 30 government officials from 30 developing country Members had been selected for funded 
participation. Four of these participants come from least developed countries and six fr om net food 
import ing developing country Members . The workshop would address the prescriptions and models 
for notifications in the area of agriculture, the importance of transparency and the review process of 
the Committee on Agriculture. Participants woul d also practice the preparation of notifications using 
the new function for the online submission of agriculture notifications of the AG -IMS. The Secretariat 
reminded developing country Members that national workshops on agricultural notifications could 
be requested to the Secretariat through the WTO Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation. 
Finally, the Secretariat noted that a symposium on agriculture was being organized to be held during 
the week of  the June 2019 CoA meeting and that more detaile d information would  soon be provided.  
2.4.3   Information from the IICA  
2.25.   The IICA presented its  work plan for 201 9 as contained in G/AG/GEN/150 . The IICA  
highlighted the activities developed in relation to the work of the CoA which included the participation 
and attendance of meetings of the Committee on Agriculture ; preparation of a paper on the IICA's 
contribution to the Marrakesh Decision and food security; support to technical cooperation activities 
related to agricultural trade; monitoring of  areas of common interest to the WTO and the IICA; 
compliance by countries with agriculture notification requirements; and preparation of technical 
documents.    
                                                
10 G/AG/W/167.  G/AG/R/91  
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.4.4   Date of next regular meetings  
2.26.   The Chairperson proposed that the ninety -first (91st) regular mee ting of the Committee on 
Agriculture be held on 2 5-26 June 2019. On this basis, the airgram convening the meeting would be 
issued on 1 4 June 2019.  
 
 
__________