RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/74  
 
16 May 2014  
(14-3008)  Page: 1/8  
Committee on Agriculture   
 
 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 MARCH 2014 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture (CoA) held its seventy-third (73rd) regular meeting on 
21 March 2014 under the Chairmanship of Mr Guilherme Marquardt Bayer. 
 The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/4260 was adopted with the following 
modifications: 
  Part 1 (Review Process): 
 The European Union corrected the reference to the domestic support notification on the 
question raised to Norway (ID 73059). The correct notification symbol on which the 
question was based was G/AG/N/NOR/73 instead of G/AG/N/NOR/69/Rev.1 
 Part 2 (Other Matters within the Purview of the Committee): 
 Addition of an item under agenda item 2.D (Other Business) to provide information on 
the agriculture notification workshops planned for 2014 by the Secretariat. 
1  THE REVIEW PROCESS 
1.1  Matters relevant to the implementa tion of commitments under the Reform 
Programme: article 18.6 
1.1.  The 16 implementation-related issues raised as well as the responses provided and follow-up 
exchanges are compiled in section 1 of document G/AG/W/126. These relate to: 
a. Canada's statement on Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture – Best Practices in 
Notification; 
b. Brazil's domestic support programmes (raised by the United States of America); 
c. Canada's proposed changes to tariff schedule (raised by the United States of America); 
d. Canada's dairy policies (raised by New Zealand and the United States of America); 
e. China's cotton domestic support (raised by the United States of America); 
f. Costa Rica compliance with AMS commitments (raised by Canada and the United States 
of America); 
g. Ecuador's domestic purchase requirements (raised by the United States of America); 
h. India's market price support for rice (raised by Pakistan); 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretaria t's own responsibility and is without prejudice to 
the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/R/74 
 
- 2 - 
 
  i. India's national Food Security Bill (rai sed by the United States of America); 
j. India's sugar export subsidies (raised by Au stralia, Brazil, Colombia and the European 
Union); 
k. India's wheat stocks and exports (raised by Canada and the United States of America); 
l. Saint-Lucia's domestic purchase requirements for poultry and pork (raised by the United 
States of America); 
m. Thailand's paddy pledging scheme (raised by Canada and the United States of America); 
n. Turkey's domestic support and export su bsidies (raised by the European Union); 
o. Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale (r aised by the United States of America); 
p. U.S. Farm Bill (raised by Indonesia). 
1.2  Review of Notifications 
1.2.  The Chairperson informed Members that since the January 2014 meeting, the Committee had 
received 48 notifications which had been distributed electronically to all delegations. 
1.2.1  Notifications in respect of which ques tions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram 
1.3.  The questions raised, responses provided as well as Members' follow-up comments in 
connection with the 21 notifications in respect of which questions were raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram2 are fully reflected in sectio n 2 of document G/AG/W/126. 
1.2.2  Notifications subject to review in resp ect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram 
1.4.  The Committee took note of the 37 notifications circulated before 11 March 2014, including 
notifications carried over from the January 2014 meeting but in respect of which no questions had 
been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.3 
1.2.3  Notifications circulated or made av ailable after the issuance of the convening 
airgram 
1.5.  The Committee took note of five notification s circulated after the issuance of the convening 
airgram on 11 March 2014: 
Special safeguard: Volume-based (Table MA:3): 
  Japan: G/AG/N/JPN/190 
Domestic Support Commitments (Table DS:1): 
 
 Guatemala (2013): G/AG/N/GTM/47 
 Macao, China (2013): G/AG/N/MAC/34 
Export Subsidy Commitments (Table ES:1): 
  Macao, China (2013): G/AG/N/MAC/35 
                                               
2 WTO/AIR/4260, Attachment Section B. 
3 WTO/AIR/4260, Attachment Section C. G/AG/R/74 
 
- 3 - 
 
   Russia (2012 and 2013): G/AG/N/RUS/3 
1.6.  These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the working procedures. 
1.2.4  Points concerning notificati ons raised at previous meetings 
1.2.5  Counter-notifications (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture) 
1.7.  There were no requests for the floor under the above four agenda items. 1.2.6  Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process 
1.8.  The Chairperson noted that a total of 20 dele gations had outstanding replies in the context of 
the review of notifications. The Chairperson stro ngly advised them to submit the replies to the 
Secretariat in order to enhance the efficiency of the review process.  
1.9.  Under this agenda item, Honduras provided responses to the questions raised by Australia 
and the European Union on the 72
nd Committee on Agriculture Meeting in relation to Domestic 
Support notifications: G/AG/N/HND/34 (Tab le DS:1) and G/AG/N/HND/35 (Table DS:2).4 
1.2.7  Overdue notifications 
1.10.  The Committee took note of document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.17 dated 11 March 2014 
reflecting the current status of Members' compliance with notification obligations. 
1.11.  The Chairperson highlighted  a few numbers with respect to the outstanding notifications. 
For the period 1995 to 2012: 
 14% (83) of notifications in the MA:2 series; 
 14% (80) of notifications in the MA:5 series; 
 42% (765) of notifications in the DS:1 series; 
 39% (804) of notifications in the ES:1 series; and  
 14% (67) of notifications in the ES:2 series remain outstanding. 
1.12.  The Chairperson stated that, in response to the request by the Committee in September 
2013, the Secretariat had updated the documentation guide on the "Improvement of the 
Submission of Notifications" (G/AG/W/112/rev .1). The updated guide now covered relevant 
documents circulated before 1 March 2014. 
1.13.  Argentina noted its continuous interest in the improvement of notifications in the Committee 
of Agriculture, and highlighted the essential role the notifications played in the review process. 
Argentina requested that the following revision to the documentation guide include the documents 
discussed at the informal meetings held on the margins of the 73rd Committee meeting 
(e.g., Review of the list of significant exporters, implementation of Article 18.4, and transparency 
opportunities).  
2  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
2.1  Implementation-related Issues and Concerns (G/AG/16 and Add.1; G/AG/22) 
2.1.  The Chairperson noted that the situation had not changed since the circulation of the 2003 
and 2006 reports to the General Council.5 
                                               
4 The detailed questions and answers have been made directly in the AG-IMS database. G/AG/R/74 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.2.  Argentina stated that without prejudice to the provisions of Article 10.1 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, the establishment of additional and spec ific disciplines on export credits, export credit 
guarantees and insurance programmes remained an  outstanding implementation issue resulting 
from the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. Argentina requested that this item be retained 
on the agenda of the Regular Committee on Agriculture. 
2.2  WTO list of net food-importing deve loping countries (NFIDCs) (G/AG/3 and 
G/AG/5/Rev.10) 
2.3.  The Chairperson recalled that within the fr amework of the Marrakesh Decision, and pursuant 
to the Decision of the Committee (G/AG/3), the Committee was required to review the list NFIDCs, including on the basis of specific requests from Members for inclusion into the list. The Chairperson noted that the Committee has not received any demands from Members to be added to the list 
since March 2012. Therefore, the list contained in the document G/AG/5/Rev.10 remained 
unchanged. 
2.3  Review of the List of "Significant Exporters" for the Purpose of Table ES:2 
Notification requirement (G/AG/W/123) 
2.4.  The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting held on 19 March regarding the review of 
the list of significant exporters. At this meetin g, the Chairperson shared with Members a detailed 
written report, as contained in G/AG/W/123. Th e report described the important progress that 
Members made in the area and simultaneously outlined the issues that could not be resolved preventing a consensus-based adoption of the si gnificant exporters outcome. The Chairperson had 
expressed his hope that Members would explore possi bilities in the future to achieve a consensus 
on a revised list of significant exporters as well some additional transparency elements that were 
considered in the discussions. Similarly, on the proposal for an enhanced transparency in the reporting of export subsidy information that some Members proposed for consideration, which 
some other Members did not believe falling within the significant exporters process, the 
Chairperson had encouraged the interested Members to continue their conversation towards reaching a possible agreement. 
2.5.  The written report contained various elem ents of the discussions where Members had been 
able to achieve convergence. The report included  a table, based on FAO data, identifying Members 
having a share exceeding 5% in total world exports. This information was already circulated to Members at the January meeting of the Committee. Th e list was included in the Chair's report in 
the interest of full transparency and inclusiven ess. The written report also summarized a number 
of additional transparency elements that  Members discussed for incorporation in the 
ES2 notification, for example, to use a revised ES2 notification format, to disaggregate information 
in the ES2 Table, or to have a common product definition based on the Harmonized System (HS) 
to enhance the comparability of total exports information for a product across all significant exporters.  
2.6.  The Chairperson had also made it clear that the report was made on his own responsibility, 
and it did not imply any change in Members' existing notification obligations. In the absence of an agreed outcome on significant exporters in the Committee, and without prejudice to the positions 
of Members, the Chairperson encouraged Member s to consider a pragmatic approach on Table 
ES:2 notifications informed by the progress that Members have made so far in the significant 
exporters process: 
 For Members who were required to submit an annual ES2 notification based on the 1995 list 
of significant exporters, and who no longer appear in the list annexed in the Chair's written 
report of Members holding a share exceeding 5% in world agricultural trade of particular products based on recent data, the Chairperson suggested that those Members might simply 
inform the Committee about their decision to make (or not to make) a Table ES:2 
notification in view of their current share in world agricultural trade. 
 Similarly, in the interest of transparency, th ose Members, who were included in the list 
contained in the chair's written report, but who did not appear in the 1995 list of significant 
                                                                                                                                               
5 G/AG/16/Add.1 and G/AG/22. G/AG/R/74 
 
- 5 - 
 
  exporters, might consider making a Table ES:2 notification in respect of the relevant 
products on a voluntary basis. 
2.7.  Members had shared the Chair's assessmen t contained in the report and expressed their 
disappointment in being unable to achieve a consensus on the outcome despite making significant 
progress in the discussions. Some Members also expressed a desire to continue their efforts to 
achieve an agreement on the list of significant exporters and the related transparency elements 
building on the progress already made. Members also expressed their support to the pragmatic 
approach outlined by the Chairperson in the absenc e of an agreed outcome and offered to consider 
positively the recommendations to start implementing on a voluntary basis the progress already achieved towards enhanced transparency of Table ES:2 notifications. 
2.8.  There were no follow-up comments to the Chair's report. 
2.4  Implementation of Bali Outcomes 
2.9.  The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting held on 19 March regarding the 
implementation of the Bali outcomes. On this  topic, the Committee had discussed two papers 
submitted by the Cairns group: (i) Export competition questionnaire (RD/AG/27); and 
(ii) Implementation of the Bali Ministerial Decision on "Understanding on Tariff Rate Quota Administration Provisions of Agricultural Products" (RD/AG/28). 
2.10.  Regarding the paper covering the Export Competition questionnaire, the Chairperson had 
reminded participants that the Ministerial Declaration on export competition called for dedicated discussions in this area based on notifications and a questionnaire to be circulated by the 
Secretariat. In the January meeting Members had supported the idea that the CoA would hold the 
annual discussion on export competition during the June CoA meeting in 2014. In addition, 
Members had agreed to invite the Secretariat to circulate the questionnaire in the weeks following 
the January CoA meeting. The questionnaire ha d been circulated on 10 February 2014 and 
delegates were invited to submit their responses by 28 March 2014. By the time of the informal 
meeting, three responses had been received from Members. 
2.11.  The Cairns group had presented their document regarding the Export Competition 
questionnaire (RD/AG/27) noting the importance th e answers to this questionnaire had in the June 
review on export competition. The document wa s the outcome of deliberations made within the 
group and it contained conclusions aimed at supporting Members in responding to the questionnaire as efficiently and effectively as possible. The document provided general comments 
applicable across all sections of the Export Competition pillar. The Cairns group recognized the 
wide range of policies applied by Members and welcomed any further views on the questionnaire. 
2.12.  Several Members welcomed the document submitted by the Cairns group, and supported 
the efforts made. They noted that the paper contributed to a better understanding of the 
questionnaire and could enhance the comprehensiveness of responses. Members noted the potential of this exercise to bring value to the Committee's work in the annual review on Export 
Competition mandated by the 9th Ministerial Conference which largely depended on the answers 
provided to the questionnaire. 
2.13.  A number of Members noted that parallelis m of transparency with the export competition 
pillar was essential. Some Members had also stat ed that while transparency was important, the 
final goal should be the elimination of all forms of export subsidies.  
2.14.  Regarding the Implementation of the Bali Ministerial Decision on "Understanding on Tariff 
Rate Quota Administration Provisions of Agricultural Products", the Chairperson had recalled that 
the Committee on Agriculture was expected to re view and monitor the implementation of the 
Understanding. The monitoring to be conducted in the context of the TRQ underfill mechanism 
would depend on Members' submissions. In the January CoA meeting, some Members had 
indicated that they planned to take advantage of this mechanism.  
2.15.  The Cairns group presented the document submitted regarding Implementation of the Bali 
Ministerial Decision on TRQ Administration (RD/AG/28). They recalled that the decision required a review of the operation of the Decision to comme nce no later than 4 years following the adoption G/AG/R/74 
 
- 6 - 
 
  of the Decision, and that it would take into account experience gained up to that time. This in turn 
would inform the 12th Ministerial Conference to decide on whether paragraph 4 of Annex A should be re-affirmed or modified. Since the process listed in the under-fill mechanism would take more than three years to complete, the Cairns group st ressed the importance of Members initiating this 
mechanism to facilitate trade of agriculture products subject to TRQs. They noted that the paper 
highlighted the need for Members to fully resp ect and implement three requirements under the 
Decision: (i) notification of administration changes, (ii) timeliness of notifications, and (iii) 
completeness of notifications. 
2.16.  Several Members had welcomed the paper noting that it was a positive step towards 
clarifying important procedural aspects of the Decision. Various Members had been of the view 
that the implementation of the decision should  not be retroactive. Additionally, Members had 
underlined the importance of timely and complete notifications for the correct implementation of 
the Decision. The importance of taking into account S&D in the implementation of the Decision was noted by one Member.  
2.17.  Several Members had welcomed the fact that one Member had started including TRQ fill 
rates in its recent notifications (implementation year 2013); and another Member had already changed its domestic regulations on TRQ administration. A number of Members had noted that 
guidelines on how fill rates should be reported in order to ensure uniformity in the notifications 
would be useful. 
2.18.  There were no follow-up comments to the Chair's report. 2.5  Chair Report on Informal Meetings  
2.19.  The Chairperson reported on the remainin g informal meetings held on 19 and 20 March on 
the following topics:  
 US farm bill presentation; 
 US experiences with domestic food security; 
 Transparency opportunities: Export restrictions; 
 Implementation of Current Agricult ural Market Access Commitments; 
 Trends in Domestic Support; and Trade trends in agricultural products. 
2.20.  On the US Farm Bill presentation, the Un ited States of America provided a preliminary 
report on the 2014 Farm Bill to facilitate an exchange  of views on this topic. The United States of 
America specifically referred to the key changes introduced in the US farm support under the 
2014 Farm Bill compared to the previous farm  legislation. Members had appreciated the 
US initiative to offer transparency with regard to the latest farm support legislation. Members had also sought additional clarifications on a number of issues related to existing and new support 
programmes.  
2.21.  On the US experiences with domestic food security, the United States of America introduced 
their written submission contained in G/AG/W/121 describing US's experience with domestic food 
security. A number of Members thanked the US for sharing the experience with regard to its 
domestic food security policy. Some Members note d that differing food security circumstances in 
various countries might require varied policy responses adapted to those circumstances. Some Members sought clarification from the United States of America about the expected outcome from 
the food security submission. These Members believe d that the submission on food security did not 
fit within the Committee's mandate. Some other Members considered that the Committee should be able to pursue a discussion on topics which were covered under the Agreement on Agriculture 
and further noted that a number of measures describ ed in the submission were already included in 
US's domestic support notifications to the Committee.  
2.22.  On transparency opportunities: Export rest rictions, building on CoA discussions that have 
taken place both in the formal and informal settings on notification issues related to enhanced G/AG/R/74 
 
- 7 - 
 
  transparency in the application of export restrict ions on foodstuffs, the United States of America 
submitted two papers: an addendum to a pape r they first submitted in the September 2013 
CoA meeting (G/AG/W/113/Add.1) and a second paper (G/AG/W/117). 
2.23.  The United States of America presented its documents and thanked Members for the 
interest shown in improving transparency on export restrictions. The United States of America 
noted that the addendum related to the discussions and Members' follow-up comments on the original submission during the January informal session. The United States of America continued to 
believe that the OECD database was useful to demonstrate the gap that existed between export 
restrictions being implemented and those reported to the WTO. 
2.24.  The second paper submitted by the United States of America discussed two issues related to 
Members' determination of net food-exporters st atus in the context of the notification and 
consultation mechanism in Article 12 of the Agreem ent on Agriculture. These were the 'time-period 
of data' to be used and the "data source". The United States of America noted that no common understanding existed among Members about what time-period and data sources should be used 
to determine whether a country was a Net Food Exporter of the specific food stuff concerned. 
Thus, Members had adopted diverse approaches in the application of the notification requirement under the Agreement on Agriculture. The goal of th is exercise, according to the United States of 
America, was to improve transparency, and transparency predictability of export restrictions. 
2.25.  Several Members had welcomed the papers submitted by the United States of America and 
noted the importance of ensuring transparency in  the implementation of export restrictions. Net 
food importing Members stressed the need of a consistent application of Article 12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture during the application of export restrictions. Several technical points 
were also discussed including various options for time series of data to be used for determining net exporters. Some Members also referred to the scope of measures that are subject to Article 12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture and the ER notificati on process. Members expressed their willingness 
to explore various issues towards improving the ER notification process. 
2.26.  On the implementation of current agricu ltural market access commitments, the United 
States of America presented its paper on this topic (G/AG/W/120), noting that the CoA had done 
little work on issues in the market access pillar relating to Members' experiences with tariffs. The United States of America was of the view that the CoA could undertake analytical work on this area 
to provide a common understanding of the longer term trends related to the implementation of 
market access commitments. The United States of America suggested that this analytical work 
could include, among others, bound and applied agricultural tariffs and trade profiles and flexibilities exercised by Members.  
2.27.  Several Members welcomed the paper submitted by the United States of America as well as 
the proposal for analytical work. However, some Members were also of the view that there was a lot of information already produced by the Secretariat in this regard, and that duplication of work 
should be avoided. A number of Members also prop osed that the analytical work should include 
information on Non-Tariff Measures, as these played an important role in market access. 
2.28.  The Chairperson proposed that the Secretariat produced a document with a list of the 
information already produced by the Secretariat, th e type of information, the data source, and its 
location. Some Members suggested that it would be useful to discuss this further in future informal 
meetings. 
2.29.  On trends in domestic support, the Cairns Group Members circulated a room document 
(RD/AG/29) on trends in domestic support with respect of ten Members chosen by the proponents 
based on their shares in world agricultural trade in the year 2012. The data used in depicting those trends covered domestic support expenditures fo r the period 2001-2012 covering the full range of 
domestic support under the Agreement on Agriculture, namely the Green Box, AMS with further 
disaggregation at product specific, non-product-specific and de minimis  levels, Blue Box and 
Article 6.2 development box. The data was sourced from the relevant Members' notifications complemented by other sources in cases where the data for the period covered in the document 
was not yet notified. G/AG/R/74 
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.30.  A number of Members appreciated the information included in the paper and considered the 
exercise useful towards achieving an enhanced transparency in the Committee as well as to assist the review process. At the same time, strong diverging views were heard from some Members 
especially on the categorization and presentation of certain domestic support categories that these 
Members considered as conflicting with the struct ure of the Agreement on Agriculture as well as 
the Doha agriculture mandate. One Member indicated that the data coming from non-WTO sources appeared inflated. Some suggestions were also made to expand the coverage of the analysis to all 
WTO Members. The proponents took note of the observations made by other Members and also 
noted that the intention behind the analysis in the pillar of domestic support was for enhancing the transparency and was without prejudice to the Doha negotiating process and Members' positions therein. During the discussions, Members were encouraged to fulfil their outstanding notification 
obligations particularly in the area of domestic support. 
2.31.  On trade trends in agricultural products, based on a submission from Pakistan and Paraguay 
(RD/AG/31), the Committee considered the trends in agricultural trade over the past 12 years with 
respect to 6 agricultural products: corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, sugar and frozen beef. Data on 
imports and exports were presented in value term s. The data was sourced from the ITC's trade 
map database. 
2.32.  Members appreciated the analysis that was presented, noting that it clearly portrayed 
emerging trends in agricultural trade. Some Members suggested that the analysis could be enhanced by reporting data in addition on a volu me basis and expanding the coverage of products 
and countries. Pakistan and Paraguay noted that th ey would be providing an updated document on 
this topic. 
2.33.  Argentina welcomed the chair's report and noted its support to the improvement of 
transparency in notifications. Argentina stated  that the issue of transparency was not only 
applicable to one type of measure, but to all th e measures within the scope of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. As such, this issue should be approached by the CoA in a horizontal manner. 
2.6  Other Business 
2.6.1  Secretariat Briefing on Upco ming Notification Workshops in 2014 
2.34.  The Secretariat noted that the dates of th e notification workshop had changed to the week 
of 9 June due to logistical issues. The letters of invitation for the workshop went out on 17 March, with an application deadline of 4 April. 
2.6.2  Date of next regular meetin g and reminder of upcoming agenda 
2.35.  The Chairman proposed that the next (74
th) regular meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture would be held on Friday 6 June 20 14. The Airgram convening the meeting would be 
issued on Tuesday 27 May 2014. The Chairman also  proposed to schedule an informal meeting 
immediately prior to the formal meeting to discuss, among other issues, the continuing follow-up on the Bali outcomes.
6 
 
 
__________  
                                               
6 The date for the June meeting was subsequently  changed to 5 and 6 June and the date for the 
issuance of the convening airgram was adjusted to 26 May.