RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/W/185  
 
17 September 2018  
(18-5733) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
REVISITING G/AG/2 – TIME FOR REVIEW AFTE R TWENTY -THREE YEARS  
SUBMISSION BY NORWAY  
The following submission, dated 15 September 2018, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Norway . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  As already introduced in the informal CoA meeting in June, Norway sees value in discussing how 
to improve the notification compliance in the Committee on Agriculture.  
2.  G/AG/2 includes the notification requirements and formats for the Committee on Agricultu re. The 
Committee adopted this document June 30th1995.  
3.  As pointed out by the US in the communication JOB/CTG/10/Rev. 1, it is now time to review and 
update G/AG/2. The Committee on Agriculture can do this on its own initiative.  
4.  There are at least two diffe rent reasons to look into this document:  
5.  Firstly, we now have Ministerial Decisions from Bali and Nairobi that may have an impact on the 
content of G/AG/2. More  precisely, this refers to the Ministerial D ecision on tariff quota 
administration from Bali and  the Ministerial D ecision on export competition from Nairobi.  
6.  In Norway´s view, the S ecretariat should look into th e possible impact of these two Ministerial 
Decisions with regard to the reporting on import quotas, but also regarding the reporting on expor t 
competition.  
7.  Secondly, G/AG/2 came into force at a very early stage and without any experience concerning 
the workload to produce notifications.  
8.  Some deadlines for notifications in G/AG/2 are unrealistic and thus counterproductive to 
enhancing transparen cy. 
9.  To increase transparency and improve notifications, we must set ambitious but doable deadlines 
for notifications.  
10.  One important deadline in G/AG/2 is the deadline for submitting DS 1 notifications. Members 
could for instance reflect on enhancing the d eadline for providing DS 1 notifications from 3 -4 months 
to 10 -12 months. This would be doable, but still ambitious compared with current practi ce among 
Members.  
11.  Members should ask themselves how to reduce their own delay in notifications and exchange 
experience of best practice, especially with the Members with the shortest delay in notifications.  
12.  During the June informal CoA meeting, only one M ember reacted to Norway 's idea of 
revisiting  G/AG/2. The Member was open to talk about the concerns of other Members regarding the 
deadlines, but not open to revisit G/AG/2.   G/AG/W/185  
 
- 2 - 
 
  13.  Norway disagrees with this view. Having deadlines that no Member is able to respect, 
undermine s the work to increase transparency through notifications. Even the Member mentioned 
is far from re specting the deadline of 3 - 4 months for DS 1 notifications.  
14.  It is simply not possible for national authorities to do the necessary administrative reporting 
within such a short deadline.  
15.  A quick review of present practice among Members as per September 20 18 gives roughly this 
picture concerning the submission of the most recent DS :1 notification from selected Members 
(different market years for different products are reflected in the figures):  
New Zealand  9 months  
India 10 months  
Norway  11 months  
Russian Federation  17 months  
Brazil  19 months  
United States of America  19 months  
Japan  21 months  
European Union  21 months  
Australia  24 months  
 
16.  The figures show that all these Members are far from adhering to the unrealistic deadli ne of 
3-4 months. Some other M embers even have a more substantial delay in DS 1 notifications.  
17.  To sum up:  
• Ministerial D ecisions from Bali and Nairobi could have an i mpact on a revised G/AG/2. The 
Secretariat should look into  the possible impact of these two decisions on a revised G/AG/2.  
• Members should ask themselves how to reduce their own delay in notifications and exchange 
experience of best practice. To secure timely notifications,  Norway believes M embers should 
discuss whether revised but still ambitious deadlines in G/AG/2, can help to increase 
transparency.  
 
 
__________