RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/92  
 
30 July  2019 
(19-4976) Page: 1/17 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF TH E MEETING HELD ON 25-26 JUNE  2019 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its ninety first  (91th) regular meeting on  25-26 June 2019 under 
the Chairmanship of Ms. Christiane Daleiden  of Luxemburg . 
 
The agenda of the meeting was adopted as set out in WTO/AIR/AG/3 7. 
1  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  
1.1.  The Council for Trade in Goods  (CTG)  adopted the slate of names for the appointment of officers 
to the CTG subsidiary bodies. Consequently, Ms. Christiane DALEIDEN DISTEFANO of Luxemburg 
was nominated as the new Chairperson of the  Regular  Committee on Agriculture. The Committee on 
Agricultur e (CoA) endorsed this decision by acclamation.   
2  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
2.1  Outstanding responses  to questions raised, 2012 -2018  
2.1.  The Chairperson noted the Secretariat 's document G/AG/W/195 /Rev.1  listing outsta nding 
responses for 2012 to 2018 . Since the list was fir st circulated on 11 June 2019,2 the number of 
outstanding replies for questions raised between 2012 to 2017 had reduced  from 71 to 55 
representing a reduction of around 22% . As for the questions raised in 2018, 41  replies from 
16 Members were still outstanding. 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 agend a item  (i.e. Deferred replies to 
questions raised under the review process) . 
2.2  Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the reform 
programme: Article 18.6  
2.2.  There were  42 implementation -related matters  raised  at the 91st CoA meeting  under 
article 18.6.3 Members' responses and follow -up comments are available in Agriculture Information 
Management System (AG -IMS)4 and may be consulted there using the relevant question ID numbers 
(see Table 1 of the Annex to this report ). 
2.3  Review of Notifications  
2.3.  The Chairperson  informed  Members that since the February  2019 meeting the Committee had 
received 177 notifications . These  had been distributed electronically to all delegations.  
 
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 G/AG/W/177 . 
3 WTO/AIR/AG/ 37, Attachment Section A. The full version of the questions raised can be found under 
section 1 of the compilation document G/AG/W/199.  
4 http://agims.wto.org/ . G/AG/R/92  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.3.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram  
2.4.  Table 2 of the Annex  to this report  includes the list of  questions relating to individual 
notifications raised  in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram5. Members' responses and 
follow -up comments  can be accessed through th e AG-IMS.  
2.3.2   Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process  
2.5.  One question was raised by the United States to India under this agenda item.6 India's response 
and follow -up comments  can be accessed through the AG -IMS (See Table 3 of the  Annex to this 
report ). 
2.3.3   Overdue notifications  
2.6.  The Committee took no te of the document summarizing  the current status of Members' 
compliance with notification obligations.7 
2.7.  The Chairperson recognized Members ' efforts to bring their notifications up to date noting that 
a number of Members had recently submitted agriculture notifications covering multiple years. For 
instance,  Côte d'Ivoire notified Table DS:1 covering 2000 -2018; the Republic of Korea submitted 
Table DS:1 notifications for 2012 -2015. Furthermore, Philippines notified Table ES:2  notifications  
covering the period 2014 -2018, Thailand provided  Table ES:1 and Table ES:2 notifications covering 
the period 2014 -2018 and Turkey submitted Table ES:1 and Table  ES:2 notifications covering the 
period 2005 -2009.   
2.8.  Despite these important efforts, t he Chairperson  noted that work 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 8: 
• 34% (828) table DS:1 domestic support notifications  remain ed outstanding ; and 
• 33% (890) export subsidy notifi cations in the Table ES:1 series  remain ed outstanding . 
2.9.  Members had posed questions  to seven  Members under this item .8 Members'  responses and 
follow -up comments can be accessed through the AG -IMS (See  Table  4 of the Annex to this report ). 
2.10.   The Chairperson  highlighted  the importance of transparency and called on Members  to 
increase  their 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 . 
2.3.4   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions hav e been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
2.11.   The Commi ttee took note of the 124 notifications circulated before 14 June 2019, including 
notificat ions carried over from the February  2019 meeting but in respect of which no questions had 
been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.9 
 
5 WTO/AIR/AG/ 37, Attachment Section B. The full version of the questions raised can be found under 
section 2 of the compilation document G/AG/W/199.  
6 WTO/AIR/AG/ 37, Attachment Section C. The full version of the questions raised can be found under 
section 3 of the compilation document G/AG/W/199.  
7 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.3 5. 
8 The full version of the questions  raised can be found under section 4 of the compilation 
document  G/AG/W/199.  
9 WTO/AIR/AG/3 7, Attachment Section D.  G/AG/R/92  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.3.5   Notifications circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram  
2.12.   Eight notifications had  been circulated after the issuance  of the con vening airgram 
on 14 June 2019: 
• Morocco  - Table ES:1  for th e years 2012 -2016 ( G/AG/N/MAR/42, G/AG/N/MAR/43, 
G/AG/N/MAR/44, G/AG/N/MAR/45  and G/AG/N/MAR/46) ; 
• Switzerland - Table MA:2  for the year 2017 ( G/AG/N/CHE/92) ; 
• Switzerland - Table NF:1  for the year 2017 ( G/AG/N/CHE/86/Rev.1) ; 
• Colombia - Table MA:2  for the year 2015 ( G/AG/N/COL/59) . 
2.13.   These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with the Committee's working procedures.  
2.3.6   Point s concerning notifications raised at previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: information regarding outcome s where the issue involved is one of  
general interest  
2.14.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
2.3.7   Counternotification s (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture)  
2.3.7.1   Safeguard measures of the Philippines on instant coffee and extracts of coffee  – 
Communication from Indonesia  
2.15.   In presenting its findings from the counter notification contained in  the 
document  G/AG/W/200 , Indonesia noted that  the trigger price of 203.74 pesos per kilogram for 
instant coffee and coffee extracts notified by the Philippines exceed ed Indonesia's estimates. On 
using the same data sources  (coffee imports from Philippine National Statistics and Exchange Rates 
– Banko Sentral NG Pilipinas) and methodology for  calculation as used by the Philippines, Indonesia 
found that the accurate trigger price for coffee was 154.85 pesos per kilogram . Furt her, when 
weighted by the volume of imports of each year, the trigger price amount ed to 115.22 peso s per 
kilogram. Indonesia explained that in its calculations, the Philippines had referred  only to the price 
of extracts, essences or concentrates of coffee & preparations (code: 071.20.00) based on the 
year 1986.  Whereas, Indonesia had calculated the trigger price referring to the average C .I.F import s 
of extracts, essences and concentrates of coffee & preparation s; with a basis of those extracts, 
essences an d concentrates;  roasted Chicory and other roasted code Substitutes and extracts 
(Code:  071.30) with an average of the years  1986-1988. Indonesia noted that between 1980 
and 2010, the coffee price s peaked  in 1986. Hence, t he exclusion of data for 1987 and 1 988 resulted 
in a higher trigger price , compared to what it would have been had the years 1987 and 1988 been 
included . Therefore, Indonesia requested the Philippines to revise its WTO notification to reflect an 
accurate trigger price  for instant coffee and extracts of coffee .  
2.16.   The Philippines responded by noting  that the import and price data used by Indonesia were 
for coffee products of different tariff no menclature  which were not the ones subject to the price SSG 
as notified. In responding to Indonesia's question on omission of import and price data in  1988 in 
its calculation of the average reference price for determining  the trigger price, the Philippines  
reported  that there had been no imports of the products subject to the SSG in the years 1987 
and 1988. The Philippines  noted that Article 5.1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture require d a 
trigger price to be based on the average of 1986 to 1988 . Since the re had been  no importations of 
the subject coffee products in 1987 -1988, the trigger price that the Philippines notified to the 
WTO accounted importation  in 1986.  The Philippines also responded to a specific question10 raised 
by Indonesia . The responses provided by the Philippines which can be accessed through  the AG-IMS 
(See table 5 of the Annex to this report ). 
 
10 The full version of the questions raised can be found under entry 5 of the compilation 
document  G/AG/W/199.  
 G/AG/R/92  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.17.   Indonesia further clarified that their focus product was 'instant coffee'. In highlighting 
substitute produc ts, Indonesia noted that roasted chicory has the same texture, colour and flavour 
as that of coffee which makes it a substitute of , and blend in , coffee. Indonesia referred to studies 
that ha d found that producers and consumers increasingly preferred insta nt coffee blended with 
chicory. Furthermore, Indonesia noted that inaccurate trigger prices could distort fair markets and 
requested the Philippines to revise its WTO notification based on accurate reference price.   
2.18.   The Philippines reiterated that this mat ter fell outside of the p urview of this  agenda item and 
welcomed further discussions with Indonesia at a bilateral level.  
3  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN  THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE  
3.1  WTO list of net food -importing developing countries  
3.1.  The Chairperson noted that accor ding to Paragraph 3 of G/AG/3  that contain ed the Committee's 
Decision on the establishment of a WTO List of Net Food -Importing Developing Countries, the List 
was to be reviewed by the Committee at its regular March meetings. Within this framework, the 
Comm ittee was required to review the list of NFIDCs including on the basis of specific requests from 
Members for inclusion in the List.  The Chairperson noted that since the Committee ha d not received 
any new demands from Members to be added to the list of NFIDCs, the list contained in 
document  G/AG/5/Rev.10 remain ed unchanged.  
3.2  Developments in the field of Export Competition  
3.2.  The Chairperson reminded Members that the Nairobi Ministerial Dec ision on export competition 
of 19 December 2015, in its paragraph 4, state d that the "Committee on Agriculture shall monitor 
the implementation of the Decision by Members in accordance with existing notification requirements 
under the Agreement on Agricult ure, as complemented by the provisions set out in the Annex to this 
Decision".  
3.3.  The Chairperson noted a communication circulated on 25  October  2018 which informed 
Members that the fourth annual examination process since the Nairobi Decision would be held du ring 
the June  2019 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture. Based on replies to the questionnaire 
circulated by the Secretariat and relevant notifications received by the Committee on Agriculture 
and the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises until 26 April 2019, as well as information 
already contained in document G/AG/W/125/Rev.9 and its addenda, the Secretariat circulated 
on 10 May a new revised background document , G/AG/W/125/Rev.10 , with its four addenda on 
export subsidies, export finance, interna tional food aid and agricultural exporting State Trading 
Enterprises. This document incorporate d the 29  replies received by the Secretariat (with the 
European Union counting for one). The Chairperson further noted the replies of  four Members that 
had been received  after the deadline would  be incorporated in the next version of the background 
document. The Chairperson highlighted  an increase in responses compared with last year and urged 
Members  to make all possible efforts to abide by their commitments and to provide their responses 
before 12 July 2019.   
3.4.  Further, the Chairperson took note of the document G/AG/W/1 98 circulated on 11 June 2019 
that contain ed the questions raised by Members in the context of the 201 9 annual discussion on 
export competition that were received by 28  May 2018. The issues raised as well as the responses 
provided and follow -up exchanges can be accessed through the AG-IMS (See  Table  6 of the Annex 
to this report ).  
3.5.  New Zealand, on behalf of  the Cairns group, presented its document G/AG/W/201  noting that 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition paved the way towards a level  playing field 
for agricultural markets. With regards to schedule amendments, New  Zealand noted the progres s 
made by Members in amending their schedules in accordance with the Decision. Of the sixteen 
Members with export subsidies entitlements at the time of MC10, nine ha d since amended their  
schedules . In fact, six Members  had seen their changes certified sinc e the last Export Competition 
Review.  The European Union, Canada, and Iceland were pending certification. New Zealand called 
upon the remaining four Members to provide detailed updates on their domestic processes.  G/AG/R/92  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.6.  In terms of the response rate to the ques tionnaire, New  Zealand noted that only 29 Members  
(counting the EU as a single entity ) responded to the questionnaire. Although this was a slight 
increase in response rate from the previous year, it remain ed lower than the first two years following 
the implementation of the Nairobi Decision. Therefore, New  Zealand encourage d the Membership to 
support the fundamental monitoring function of the Committee by submitting overdue notifications, 
outstanding question naire responses, and updating the Committee on domestic implementation 
progress.  
3.7.  New Zealand informed that a t the time of the Nairobi Decision, there were 23  product -level 
commitments for dairy, pig meat and processed products held by Developed Members , of which  
12 had been  eliminated with immediate effect ; and 11 could continue to be used until 2020 subject 
to strict conditions under the footnote  4. Of these 11  products , only eight product -level commitments 
remain ed in use until the end of 2020, and the e limination of these commitments was indicated in 
the Members ' amended schedule. Further, there were 222  product -level commitments for 
Developing Countries which c ould still be used until 2022, provided they had notified export subsidies 
for those products in one of the last three notifications examined by th e Committee. In this context, 
New Zealand shed light on the need for accurate and up -to-date regular notifications to the CoA  to 
demonstrate Member s' compliance with commitments to enable the Committee t o uphold its 
monitoring duties. New Zealand reiterated that there was high  value in Members proactively 
providing information on destination markets for products receiving export subsidies in order to 
assess compliance with the requirement, as per footnote  4 of the Decision, to not to apply export 
subsidies to new markets.  
3.8.  Highlighting  some of the information gaps in the analysis of Members' compliance with their 
commitments, New  Zealand urged Members to provide clear information on whether their export 
credits, credit guarantees,  and insurance programmes were self -financing under the Decision.  The 
Secretariat questionnaire d id not include this question . New Zealand noted that this was one of the 
condition s of the Nairobi Decision . Noting that four Members already voluntarily provide d this 
information, New Zealand  encourage d Members to include information on self -financing. With 
respect to food aid, New  Zealand noted the lowest response rate and lack of det ail in some 
responses, including whether aid was tied or un -tied. Similarly,  New Zealand noted the lack of 
information to conduct analysis on trade effects of state trading enterprises. Concluding, 
New Zealand encouraged Members to engage in the Secretaria t’s questionnaire and to provide as 
comprehensive responses as possible to  enhance monitoring through appropriate transparency  
mechanisms .  
3.9.  Japan expressed  its appreciation to the Secretariats ' background document and thanked  the 
Cairns Group for their comprehensive review . Regarding references to Japanese food aid  in the 
Cairns Group's submission , Japan noted that its food aid was cash based and procurement based on 
needs and requirements of the recipient countries.  
3.10.   Australia  called upon  those Members that were yet to initiate the process to make the required 
changes to their schedules to do so as soon as possible.  In terms of flexibilities for Developing 
Members, with the approaching  phase -in deadlines, Australia  remind ed Developing country Members 
of the need to commence the preparatory work that will be required to comply with their 
commitments under the Decision. Australia stressed that the flexibilities offered in the 
Nairobi  decision must not be used to circumvent any other constituent p art of the Decision. Australia 
expressed its concerns on the use of flexibilities  such as the continued use of provisions under 
Article  9.4 of the AoA, as being justification for measures that would ordinarily be non -exempt.  
3.11.   Australia  highlighted that Members made a commitment not to seek to raise export subsidies 
beyond the average level of the past five years on a product basis. Australia reported that a few  
Members were not taking this approach when implementing export subsidy programmes or 
incentives.   
3.12.   Furthermore, Australia highlighted that t ransparency remain ed an issue of concern since o nly 
one fifth of Members responded to the annual questionnaire circulated on 25  October  2018. 
Additionally , overdue export subsidy notifications ma de it difficult for  Members to ascertain whether 
export subsidy commitments were being complied with.  Australia encouraged Members to provide 
responses to the annual questionnaire and  remind ed Members of their commitments to participate 
in this process as mandated by the annex of the Nairobi Decision.  G/AG/R/92  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.13.   In addition, Australia reported ambiguities with respect to the disciplines for export financing 
under the Decision , noting  a lack of ambition in  other parts of the Decision, which Canada ha d 
previously identified in a paper submitted in May 2016 (JOB/AG/68). Australia noted that t he ability 
to provide financing below commercial rates within a period not exceeding 180  days provide d an 
avenue to pro vide significant amounts of export financing.   
3.14.   With regards to food aid, Australia recognized the importance of humanitarian assistance 
through food aid  but stressed the need for transparency . Members should provide  detailed reporting 
on their food aid ass istance, both in -kind and cash -based support. Th ese efforts  would ensure other 
Members can confirm such activities do not circumvent the Decision, nor impact negatively on the 
farmers and consumers of other Members, particularly developing Members.  
3.15.   Austra lia also expressed its concerns on the possible use of State Trading Enterprises to 
dispose of excess commodities that ha d been purchased at administered prices onto global markets. 
Such measures were inconsistent with the disciplines contained within the Nairobi Decision, and 
were distorting trade and displacing agriculture exports of Members.  
3.16.   Canada , Norway  and the European Union  joined other Members in thanking the Secretariat 
for preparing the background document and the Cairns Group  for their submissio n. Canada 
encouraged Members to reply to the questionnaire with comprehensive information to monitor the 
implementation of the Nairobi Decision.  
3.17.   Norway noted that the review w ould also  be compulsory for Developing Members  five years 
after the Nairobi Deci sion and hoped  this w ould enable a marked increase in the number of 
responses, to at least the level of achieved in 2015.  Norway noted that e xport subsidies including 
generous export credits were the most trade distorting elements of trade in agricultural products  
and noted most of them were not reported to the committee . Norway informed Members that it 
would phase out the remaining export subsidies by the end of 2020. In addition, Norway reported 
cash-based (and in fully grant form)  financial contribution to food aid , absence of  STEs and export 
credits for agricultural products.  Norway highlighted adjustment s of production challenges facing 
dairy farmers who would  have to reduce their production by roughly 6 % in a very short period  and 
that t hese challenges ha d been exacerbated by drought and low yields of grass and cereals  in 2018 . 
Norway concluded that agricultural production in Norway would decrease in volume in the next two 
years.  
3.18.   The European  Union noted that o ver three years ha d passed sin ce Members agreed to abolish 
export subsidies . The European Union reported that it  had not applied any export subsidy  since 
July 2013 and that it had already started reducing its export subsidies  prior to th e Decision. The 
European Union noted concerns reg arding t he implementation of the elimination of export subsidies 
due to the lack of draft schedules by some Members  and urged the remaining Members to provide 
updates on the ir domestic processes. The E uropean  Union also noted that export subsidies had to 
be eliminated not only de jure but also de facto. The European  Union a ppreciated the dedicated 
discussion on export subsidies as it enable d transparency that could facilitate negotiations in the 
CoA Special Session . The European  Union also highlighted the importance of the Secretariat's 
questionnaire as a  transparency tool in the area of unfinished business,  particularly addressing 
export credits ; STEs and food aid . In highlighting the lack of response rate and compreh ensive 
information, the European  Union urged Members to provide updated information , particularly on 
export financing ; STEs and export subsidies provided under Article 9.4 of the AoA. With respect to 
the submission by the Cairns  Group, the European Union c larified that eight Members had indic ated 
nil responses and only one Member did not provide a response.  
3.19.   In highlighting the current state of play, the Chairperson  reported that out of the sixteen  
Members with export subsidy reduction commitments at the ti me of adoption of the Nairobi Decision, 
ten Members now had their revised schedule certified . Two Members, namely Canada and the 
European  Union had circulated their draft schedule in 2017 but these had not  yet been certified . 
Turkey circulated its draft re vised schedule a few days ago in document G/MA/TAR/RS/588 and three  
Members (Brazil, Indonesia and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ) had yet to circulate their draft 
schedules. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia and Brazil had already updated Members of the 
Committee on their internal process es for the revision of their schedules when replying to questions 
raised by other Members . G/AG/R/92  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.20.   The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela noted that it would provide an update upon receiving 
more information from its capital . 
3.21.   With regards to the next steps, the Chairperson noted that Members who ha d not responded 
to the questionnaire or who wish ed to update their replies were invited to do so by 12  July 2019. 
This also include d Members that d id not use measure s covered by the questionnaire and c ould submit 
a "nil" reply. Further, Members who replied orally were invited to send written responses. The 
Chairperson informed Members that an updated version of the background document w ould be 
circulated concluding th e fourth dedicated discussion exercise.  The next dedicated discussion on 
export competition would take place during the June  2020 meeting of the Committee.  In the 
meantime, Members w ould also have the possibility to raise questions during other meetings of  
the CoA as part of the monitoring of the Decision.   
3.3  Implementation -related  issues  (G/AG/16, G/AG/16/ADD.1, G/AG/22)  
3.22.   There was no request for the floor u nder this agenda item.  
3.4  Implementation of Ministerial outcomes  
3.4.1   Review of the Bali Ministerial Decision on TRQ administration  
3.23.   The Chairperson noted that the Committee had continued its deliberations on the review of 
the operation of the Bali TRQ decision in its informal meeting on 24 June. The discussion had been  
principally based on the revised draft Report of the Review that the Chairperson had sent to all 
Members prior t o the meeting. The revised draft incorporated inputs from the informal CoA meeting 
on 29 May and the Chair's consultations with Members on 14 June.  
3.24.   In view of the agreed process and timelines contained in G/AG/W/171 to conclude the review 
at scheduled Jun e CoA meetings, the informal meeting on 24 June had aimed at finalizing the report 
of the Review. The Chairperson stated that  Members had made some progress with regard s to the 
bracketed text in the descriptive section of the Report and  that they had  also agreed on some other 
drafting improvements. Members had  also agreed to include in the report an updated list of all 
written documents considered during the review discussions as was done in the first draft report 
prepared by the Secretariat contained in do cument G/AG/W/192 dated 21  December  2018. In the 
section dealing with the recommendations for the General Council, there appeared to be an 
agreement, in principle, among Members that with regard s to paragraph  4 of the underfill 
mechanism, they were seeking  to only extend the timeframe for an additional two years 
(i.e. December  2021) in order to reach an agreement on recommendations on the application of this 
paragraph.  
3.25.   Prior to the meeting, one Member had submitted drafting suggestions for the recommendati on 
dealing with the extension of the timeline. However, it had not been possible to reach an agreement 
on the proposed language for the extension of the timeline. Further, the Chairperson noted that on 
the recommendation relating to the discussions in the CoA on harmonized notification practices, 
Members had agreed to the language suggested in paragraph  2 (b) of the draft revised Report and 
to remove the strikethrough text reflected in paragraph  2 (c). The Chairperson reported divergent 
views on paragraph  3 dealing with the proposed examination by the Committee o n the reasons why 
the underfill mechanism had not yet been invoked. A suggestion was also made to consider shifting 
this paragraph to the descriptive section of the report.  
3.26.   The Chairperso n indicated that there would be a need to organize additional informal meetings 
and consultations to assist Members in their efforts to finalise the report of the review and the 
associated recommendations. The Chairperson also informed Members that a revis ed draft Report 
incorporating Members' comments and the discussions during the 24  June informal meeting would 
be circulated by the Secretariat in due course.  
3.27.   In light of the discussions at the informal meeting, the Committee agreed to extend the 
deadline f or the Committee to finalize , and to seek to adopt , the report of the Review at the 
October  2019 CoA meeting. The Chair will organize additional consultations and informal meetings 
of the Committee as appropriate prior to the CoA  meeting in October.  A revi sed draft Report G/AG/R/92  
 
- 8 - 
 
  incorporating Members' comments and the discussions during the 24  June informal meeting would 
be circulated by the Secretariat in due course.  
3.5  Report on the informal meeting held on 24 June, Remaining issues  
3.28.   Two issues had been highlighted in previous Committee's discussions on the topic of 
enhancing transparency and the CoA Review Process: (i) improving timeliness and completeness of 
notifications and (ii) the monitoring of outstanding responses to questions in the Committee's 
Review.  
3.29.   With respect to (i) improving the timeliness and completeness of notifications, the Committee 
had considered in previous informal meetings Members' notification practices vis -à-vis the 
notification requirements contained in G/AG/2. Norway had previously submitt ed a couple of papers 
on this subject (G/AG/W/185 and RD/AG/67 and RD/AG/69) for discussion in our informal meetings. 
These papers contained information on the timing of selected Members' submission of Table  DS:1 
and MA:2 notifications in terms of the numb er of months after end of the reporting year.  
3.30.   Norway introduced a new room document, RD/AG/71, noting that it built on a previous room 
document, and that it included more Members in some of the tables. In this version, Norway had 
listed members that were more than two years behind in the submission of their DS1  notifications 
and considered this aspect to be relevant to a proposal on transparency put forward by some 
Members in the Council for Trade in Goods. Norway noted that the situation on pending Table  DS:1 
and MA2 notifications had slightly improved when compared to last year. Table DS:1 outstanding 
notifications were down from 36% to 34% and Table MA:2 outstanding notifications were down 
from 9% to 8%. There was, however, room for improvement. Norway s pecifically alluded to potential 
improvement in G/AG/2 with regard to reporting of the value of production (VoP), where enhanced 
transparency would also assist the future negotiations on domestic support.   
3.31.   Some Members welcomed Norway's submission and note d their readiness to engage on 
discussions on this topic. Some of them agreed with Norway that the existing G/AG/2 notification 
timeframes were unrealistic. One Member expressed its preference to revisit G/AG/2 in its entirety, 
including the list of signif icant exporters contained in G/AG/2/Add.1.   
3.32.   Some other Members were not convinced that extending G/AG/2 timelines would improve 
transparency. They believed that such a step might send negative signals with regard to the 
continuing efforts by Members to enh ance transparency.  One Member was of the view that there 
might be technical reasons behind Members' failure to meet G/AG/2 deadlines and that it would be 
advisable to examine those technical issues rather than discussing a modification to the deadlines. 
Finally, one Member urged developed country Members with AMS beyond de minimis  to submit their 
Table  DS1 notifications as per existing timelines.  
3.33.   With respect to monitoring outstanding responses to questions in the CoA Review Process, 
the Chair noted that th e Secretariat had produced a document for this CoA updating the table on 
outstanding responses from 2012 to 2017 and including now the outstanding responses for  2018 
(G/AG/W/195/Rev.1). This document showed that Members had continued to make progress in 
addressing outstanding responses, especially for the most recent years. For example, Members had 
provided responses to more than a half of the questions posed in 2017 that still had outstanding 
responses as of May 2018.  
3.34.   The Secretariat was also taking steps to improve Members' ability to track repeat questions 
in the AG -IMS and to introduce features to the system that would allow Members to more easily 
identify which questions still have pending responses. These enhancements to the system were 
expected to be completed by the second half of 2019.  
3.6  Other business  
3.6.1   On-line submission of notifications  
3.35.   The Secretariat provided an update on the on -line submission of notifications. The Secretariat 
reminded Members that the on -line system went live for a group of pilot Members in April  2019. All 
of the ten pilot Members ha d started using the system to draft  notifications while five ha d already G/AG/R/92  
 
- 9 - 
 
  submitted notifications online. The Secretariat thanked the pilot Members  for their constructive 
engagement in this process.  
3.36.   The Secretariat also expressed its appreciation for the valuable feedback provided by the pi lot 
Members and highlighted that the purpose of th e testing phase was to identify errors and to improve 
the functioning of the system. As some  improvements to the system were still underway, the 
Secretariat noted an extension of the pilot phase till the th ird quarter  of 2019 . The date for launching 
the system to all Members w ould be announced at a later stage. The Secretariat thanked the 
Members for their understanding and patience with the slower pace of notification process ing due to 
the time required to  find and fix errors in the system.  
3.37.   The Secretariat noted the possibility  to carry out one-on-one training sessions upon request, 
including remote trainings to capital -based notification experts through video conference facilities or 
Skype sessions, and  invited Members to contact  the Secretariat  if they had  questions.   
3.6.2   2019  Technical Assistance, including the 2019 Notification Workshop  
3.38.   The Secretariat noted that the advanced workshop on agriculture notifications  for 2019 had 
been held from 20  April to 3  May. The participation from th irty government officials from thirty  
developing country Members  had been  funded by the WTO;  six of the participants came from Net 
Food Importing Developing Countries and three  from Least Developed Countries. In addition, thre e 
government officials participat ed in the workshop on a self -financed basis . The workshop covered  
the prescriptions and models for notifications in the area of agriculture  and highlighted  the 
importance of transparency and the review process of the CoA. Participants also had the opportunity 
to practice the pre paration of notifications using the new online submission of agriculture 
notifications.  
3.39.   In conclu ding, the Secretariat remind ed developing country Members that national workshops 
on agricultural notif ications c ould be requested from the Secretariat through the WTO Institute for 
Training and Technical Cooperation.  
3.6.3   Date of next regular meetings  
3.40.   The Chairperson proposed that the ninety -second  (92nd) regular meeting of the Committee 
on Agriculture be held on 30-31 October  2019. On this basis, the airgram convening the meeting 
would be issued on 1 8 October  2019.   G/AG/R/92  
 
- 10 - 
 
  ANNEX  
The Annex includes the full list of questions raised under 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.  Question IDs where replies  were yet to be submitted  into 
the A G-IMS as of 29 July 2019  have been identified with the symbol "*". Members are invited to 
provide outstanding replies through the AG -IMS at the earliest opportunity.  
 
Table 1- Article 18.6 issues  
Article 18.6 issue  Question by  ID Number  
Brazil's wheat quota  Ukraine  91001  
Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  Australia  91002  
European Union  91018  
Canada's support to canola producers  European Union  91019  
India 91060  
Ukraine  91003  
Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  United States  91132  
Canada's wine sale policy  United States  91137  
China's rice policies  United States  91133  
United States  91134  
United States  91135  
United States  91136  
Egypt's export subsidy and Arrears Program  United States  91138* 
European Union - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  Canada  91015  
The EU's malting barley HS code  United States  91142  
The EU's fruit juices TRQ  United States  91176  
The EU's support package to Irish beef farmers  Australia  91004  
The EU's coupled payments  India 91061  
India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  Australia  91006  
India's pulses policies  Canada  91075  
Canada  91076  
Canada  91077  
Russian Federation  91008  
Ukraine  91009  
United States  91140  
India's wheat public stockpiling  United States  91141* 
India's skim milk powder export subsidies  United States  91151  
India's support to rice exports  United States  91153  
India's Maharashtra State export subsidies  United States  91155  
India's pulses policies  Australia  91005  G/AG/R/92  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Article 18.6 issue  Question by  ID Number  
India's National Food Security Mission  United States  91157  
India's increased budget on agriculture and rural development  European Union  91020  
India's PM-KISAN income guarantee scheme  New Zealand  91007  
India's short -term crop loans  United States  91147  
India's Dairy Loans  United States  91149* 
India's transparency with Green Box measures  United States  91150  
India's National Dairy Plan Phase I  United States  91152  
India's Transport and Marketing Assistance  (TMA)  United States  91154  
India's Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY)  United States  91156  
Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS478  New Zealand  91010  
Japan's export subsidies  United States  91158  
Mexico's Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices  Canada  91084  
United States  91159  
Mongolia's quota regime for importation  Russian Federation  91011  
Pakistan's wheat export subsidies and domestic support  United States  91160  
Philippines' rice waiver  Japan  91012  
Russia's support to exporting industry in east of the country  European Union  91021  
Russia's Resolution #1104  United States  91161  
Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  United States  91162  
Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  European Union  91022  
U.S. tariff rate quotas  Russian Federation  91026  
U.S. Proposed domestic support measures  
  Canada  91080  
Australia  91013  
China  91023  
European Union  91024  
India 91063  
New Zealand  91014  
New Zealand  91016  
Ukraine  91027  
U.S. disaster bill  European Union  91025  
U.S. 2018 Farm Bill  India 91062  
Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive  United States  91163* 
 G/AG/R/92  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Table  2- Questions raised in connection with individual notifications   
Notification number  Question by  Answer by  Notification 
Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/BRA/49  European  Union  Brazil  MA:2  Transparency  issues  91029  
G/AG/N/CAN/120, 
G/AG/N/CAN/128  European Union  Canada  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91030  
G/AG/N/CAN/128  Australia  Canada  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91031  
G/AG/N/CAN/128  New Zealand  Canada  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91017  
G/AG/N/CAN/128  Russian  Federation  Canada  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91032  
G/AG/N/CRI/72  Australia  Costa Rica  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91033  
G/AG/N/CRI/72  Russian  Federation  Costa Rica  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91034  
G/AG/N/EU/50  Australia  European Union  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91035  
G/AG/N/EU/50  Canada  European Union  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91081  
G/AG/N/EU/50  Russian Federation  European Union  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91037  
G/AG/N/EU/50  Russian Federation  European  Union  MA:2 Country -specific 
allocation  91036  
G/AG/N/IND/14  European Union  India MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91038  
G/AG/N/JPN/238  Australia  Japan  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91039  
G/AG/N/JPN/238  Canada  Japan  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91082  
G/AG/N/JPN/238  European Union  Japan  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91040  
G/AG/N/KAZ/6  Australia  Kazakhstan  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91041* 
G/AG/N/KAZ/6  Canada  Kazakhstan  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91083* 
G/AG/N/NOR/104  European Union  Norway  MA:2 Transparency issues  91043  
G/AG/N/NOR/104  Australia  Norway  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91042  
G/AG/N/NOR/104  Russian Federation  Norway  MA:2 Country -specific 
allocation  91044  
G/AG/N/PAN/49  Australia  Panama  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91045  
G/AG/N/PHL/54, 
G/AG/N/PHL/55, 
G/AG/N/PHL/56  European Union  Philippines  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91046  
G/AG/N/PHL/55, 
G/AG/N/PHL/56, 
G/AG/N/PHL/54  Australia  Philippines  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91047  
G/AG/N/RUS/23  Australia  Russian 
Federation  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91048  
G/AG/N/RUS/23  Canada  Russian 
Federation  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91085  
G/AG/N/RUS/23  European Union  Russian 
Federation  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91049  
G/AG/N/THA/83  Indonesia  Thailand  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91128  
G/AG/N/USA/125  European Union  United States  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  91050  
G/AG/N/BWA/34  United States  Botswana  DS:1  Article 6.2 (Special 
and Differential 
Treatment / 
Development  
Programmes)  91164* 
G/AG/N/BRA/52  United States  Brazil  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91165  
G/AG/N/TPKM/173, 
G/AG/N/TPKM/174, 
G/AG/N/TPKM/175  United States  Chinese Taipei  DS:1  Market price 
support  91166  
G/AG/N/CIV/19, 
G/AG/N/CIV/20, 
G/AG/N/CIV/21  Australia  Côte d'Ivoire  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91051* 
G/AG/N/CIV/21  European Union  Cote d'Ivoire  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91052* G/AG/R/92  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Notification number  Question by  Answer by  Notification 
Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/CIV/3, 
G/AG/N/CIV/4, 
G/AG/N/CIV/5  Canada  Côte d'Ivoire  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  91086* 
G/AG/N/CIV/4, 
G/AG/N/CIV/5, 
G/AG/N/CIV/6  United States  Côte d'Ivoire  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91139* 
G/AG/N/EU/46/CORR.2  Thailand  European Union  DS:1  Public stockholding 
for food security 
purposes  91074  
G/AG/N/EU/46/CORR.2  Canada  European Union  DS:1  Direct payments: 
payments under 
regional assistance 
programmes  91089  
G/AG/N/EU/46  New Zealand  European Union  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91053  
G/AG/N/EU/46  Canada  European Union  DS:1  Direct payments: 
payments under 
environmental 
programmes  91090  
G/AG/N/EU/46  Paraguay  European Union  DS:1  Direct payments: 
payments under 
environmental 
programmes  91113  
G/AG/N/EU/55  Russian Federation  European Union  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91079  
G/AG/N/EU/55  Australia  European Union  DS:1  Direct payments: 
payments under 
environmental 
programmes  91058  
G/AG/N/EU/55  Australia  European Union  DS:1  Direct payme nts: 
payments under 
regional assistance 
programmes  91054  
G/AG/N/EU/55  New Zealand  European Union  DS:1  Market price 
support  91078  
G/AG/N/EU/55  Canada  European Union  DS:1  Non-product -
specific AMS  91091  
G/AG/N/EU/55  Brazil  European Union  DS:1  Classification of 
measures  91059  
G/AG/N/EU/55  Paraguay  European Union  DS:1  Classification of 
measures  91116  
G/AG/N/IND/12, 
G/AG/N/IND/13 , 
G/AG/N/IND/15  Canada  India DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91098  
G/AG/N/IND/12, 
G/AG/N/IND/13, 
G/AG/N/IND/15  European Union  India DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91092  
G/AG/N/IND/12, 
G/AG/N/IND/13, 
G/AG/N/IND/15  European Union  India DS:1  General services: 
infrastructural 
services  91093  
G/AG/N/IND/12, 
G/AG/N/IND/13, 
G/AG/N/IND/15  European Union  India DS:1  Direct payments: 
structural 
adjustment 
assistance provided 
through 
investment  aids 91087  
G/AG/N/IND/12, 
G/AG/N/IND/13, 
G/AG/N/IND/15  European Union  India DS:1  Direct payments: 
structural 
adjustment 
assistance provided 
through 
investment  aids 91094  G/AG/R/92  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Notification number  Question by  Answer by  Notification 
Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/IND/12, 
G/AG/N/IND/13, 
G/AG/N/IND/15  Japan  India DS:1  Direct payments: 
structural 
adjustment 
assistance provided 
through 
investment  aids 91145  
G/AG/N/IND/12, 
G/AG/N/IND/13, 
G/AG/N/IND/15  Thailand  India DS:1  Direct payments: 
structural 
adjustment 
assistance provided 
through 
investment  aids 91096  
G/AG/N/IND/12, 
G/AG/N/IND/13, 
G/AG/N/IND/15  Australia  India DS:1  Market price 
support  91099  
G/AG/N/IND/12, 
G/AG/N/IND/13, 
G/AG/N/IND/15  Canada  India DS:1  Market price 
support: Eligible 
production  91101  
G/AG/N/IND/12, 
G/AG/N/IND/13, 
G/AG/N/IND/15  Canada  India DS:1  De minimis  91100  
G/AG/N/IND/12, 
G/AG/N/IND/13, 
G/AG/N/IND/15  European Union  India DS:1  De minimis  91095  
G/AG/N/IND/15  Russian Federation  India DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91171  
G/AG/N/IND/15  United States  India DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91168  
G/AG/N/IND/15  United States  India DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91170  
G/AG/N/IND/15  United States  India DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91174  
G/AG/N/IND/15  United States  India DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91177  
G/AG/N/IND/15  Australia  India DS:1  Direct payments: 
structural 
adjustment 
assistance provided 
through 
investment  aids 91088  
G/AG/N/IND/15  United States  India DS:1  Direct payments: 
structural 
adjustment 
assistance provided 
through 
investment  aids 91169  
G/AG/N/IND/15  United States  India DS:1  Input subsidies 
available to low -
income or resource -
poor produce rs 91173  
G/AG/N/IND/15  United States  India DS:1  Market price 
support  91175  
G/AG/N/IND/15  United States  India DS:1  Non-product -
specific AMS  91179  
G/AG/N/IND/15  United States  India DS:1  De minimis  91178  
G/AG/N/ISR/66  Canada  Israel  DS:1  Scheduled 
commitment level  91102  
G/AG/N/JPN/235, 
G/AG/N/JPN/236  United States  Japan  DS:1  Payments based on 
85% or less of the 
base level of 
production  91180  G/AG/R/92  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Notification number  Question by  Answer by  Notification 
Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/JPN/236  India Japan  DS:1  Payments based on 
85% or less of the 
base level of 
production  91146  
G/AG/N/KOR/60, 
G/AG/N/KOR/61, 
G/AG/N/KOR/62  Canada  Korea, Republic of  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91103  
G/AG/N/KOR/60, 
G/AG/N/KOR/61, 
G/AG/N/KOR/62  United States  Korea, Republic of  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91184  
G/AG/N/KOR/60, 
G/AG/N/KOR/61, 
G/AG/N/KOR/62  United States  Korea, Republic of  DS:1  Market price 
support  91183  
G/AG/N/KOR/61, 
G/AG/N/KOR/62, 
G/AG/N/KOR/63  Australia  Korea, Republic of  DS:1  Investment 
subsidies generally 
available to 
agriculture  91148  
G/AG/N/KOR/63  Australia  Korea, Republic of  DS:1  Public stockholding 
for food security 
purposes  91193  
G/AG/N/KOR/63  Australia  Korea, Republic of  DS:1  Direct payments: 
decoupled income 
support  91192  
G/AG/N/KOR/63  Australia  Korea, Republic of  DS:1  Market price 
support  91172  
G/AG/N/KOR/63  European Union  Korea, Republic of  DS:1  Non-product -
specific AMS  91189  
G/AG/N/MYS/43, 
G/AG/N/MYS/44, 
G/AG/N/MYS/45  United States  Malaysia  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91186* 
G/AG/N/MYS/43, 
G/AG/N/MYS/44, 
G/AG/N/MYS/45  United States  Malaysia  DS:1  Direct payments: 
decoupled income 
support  91185* 
G/AG/N/MNG/10  Australia  Mongolia  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91194  
G/AG/N/MNG/10  United States  Mongolia  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91188* 
G/AG/N/TJK/1, 
G/AG/N/TJK/6  Canada  Tajikistan  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91104* 
G/AG/N/TUN/52, 
G/AG/N/TUN/56  United States  Tunisia  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91195* 
G/AG/N/TUN/52, 
G/AG/N/TUN/56  United States  Tunisia  DS:1  Market price 
support: Eligible 
production  91191*  
G/AG/N/TUN/52, 
G/AG/N/TUN/56  United States  Tunisia  DS:1  Excessive rates of 
inflation  91190* 
G/AG/N/TUN/56  Canada  Tunisia  DS:1  Excessive rates of 
inflation  91105* 
G/AG/N/TUR/21  United States  Turkey  DS:1  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91196  
G/AG/N/CHN/48, 
G/AG/N/CHN/49  European Union  China  DS:2  Transparency issues 
(including 
Table  DS:2)  91199  
G/AG/N/CHN/48, 
G/AG/N/CHN/49  Brazil  China  DS:2  Payments based on 
85% or less of the 
base level of 
production  91197  
G/AG/N/CHN/49  Canada  China  DS:2  Payments based on 
fixed areas or yields  91106  G/AG/R/92  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Notification number  Question by  Answer by  Notification 
Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/NOR/103  Canada  Norway  DS:2  Payments based on 
85% or less of the 
base level of 
production  91108  
G/AG/N/BRA/50  European Union  Brazil  ES:1  Export subsidies 
subject to reduction 
commitments 
(Article 9.1)  91201  
G/AG/N/CAN/125  New Zealand  Canada  ES:1  Export subsidies 
subject to reduction 
commitments 
(Article 9.1)  91204  
G/AG/N/MEX/39  United States  Mexico  ES:1    91198  
G/AG/N/NOR/106  European Union  Norway  ES:1  Export subsidies 
subject to reduction 
commitments 
(Article 9.1)  91205  
G/AG/N/TUR/22, 
G/AG/N/TUR/23, 
G/AG/N/TUR/24  United States  Turkey  ES:1, ES:2  Transparency issues  91187  
G/AG/N/TUR/26, 
G/AG/N/TUR/28, 
G/AG/N/TUR/30  Thailand  Turkey  ES:1    91097  
G/AG/N/TUR/26, 
G/AG/N/TUR/30  Canada  Turkey  ES:1  Export subsidies 
subject to reduction 
commitments 
(Article 9.1)  91107  
G/AG/N/TUR/28, 
G/AG/N/TUR/29, 
G/AG/N/TUR/30  Australia  Turkey  ES:1  Transparency issues  91206  
G/AG/N/TUR/35  European Union  Turkey  ES:2  Transparency issues  91207  
 
Table  3- Questions raised under agenda item " Deferred replies to questions raised under 
the review process"   
Notification 
number  Question by  Answer  by Notification 
Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/IND/11  United  States  India DS:1  Market  price support  91167  
 
Table  4- Questions raised under agenda item " Overdue notifications"  
Question by  Answer by  ID 
United States  Ghana  91131* 
United States  India 91143  
United States  Kenya  91144* 
Australia  Morocco  91208* 
United States  Morocco  91182* 
Australia  Pakistan  91209  
United States  Pakistan  91181  
Australia  Tunisia  91203* 
Australia  Ukraine  91202  
 
Table  5- Questions raised under agenda item "Counter -notifications"  
Question by  Answer by  ID 
Indonesia  Philippines  91210  G/AG/R/92  
 
- 17 - 
 
   
Table  6- Questions raised in the context of the 2019 Annual review o n Export 
Competition Decision  
Question by  Answer by  ID 
United States  Argentina  91111  
European Union  Australia  91028  
European Union  Brazil  91055  
European Union  Canada  91057  
United States  Canada  91112  
European Union  China  91064  
European Union  China  91070  
United States  China  91114  
United States  China  91115  
United States  China  91117  
United States  European Union  91118  
United States  European Union  91119  
United States  Hong Kong, China  91120  
European Union  India 91072  
European Union  India 91073  
United States  India 91121  
European Union  Indonesia  91071  
United States  Korea, Republic of  91123  
European Union  Malaysia  91069* 
United States  Malaysia  91124* 
European Union  New Zealand  91068  
United States  Pakistan  91125  
United States  Russian Federation  91126* 
United States  Russian Federation  91127  
European Union  Switzerland  91067  
United States  Thailand  91130  
United States  Thailand  91110  
European Union  Turkey  91066  
European Union  Turkey  91065  
European Union  United States  91056  
United States  Uruguay  91122  
United States  Viet Nam  91109* 
 
__________