RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/88  
 
18 July  2018 
(18-4514) Page: 1/10 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF TH E MEETING HELD ON 11-12 JUNE  2018 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its eighty -seventh  (87th) regular meeting on 11-12 June 2018 
under the Chairmanship of Ms. D ébora Cumes of Guatemala . 
 
The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/AG/ 28 was adopted with the following 
modifications:  
 
 Part 1 (Review Process):  
 Article 18.6:  
 Brazil and Thailand to co -sponsor questions from Australia and the E uropean Union 
regarding India's sugar policies.  
 Brazil and Thailand to co -sponsor questions from Australia regarding Pakistan's sugar 
policies.  
1  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  
1.1.  The Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods ha d been carrying out informal consultations 
on a slate of names for appointment as chairpersons to the subsidiary bodies of the Council for 
Trade in Goods , in accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to 
WTO bodies (contained in document WT/L/510).  On the basis of the understandings reached, the 
Council for Trade in Goods agreed to the election of Ms. D ébora Cumes  of Guatemala as the new 
Chairperson of the Regular Committee on Agriculture.  
2  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
2.1  Outstanding responses  to questions raised, 2012 -2017  
2.1.  The Chairperson note d that the  Secretariat docume nt G/AG/W/177 dated 30  May 2018 
contained details of outstanding responses under the Committee on Agriculture  review process 
from 2012 until 2017. According to the document, a  total of 31 delegations ha d 71 responses  that 
remain ed outstanding . This number  covered  new questions and did not take into account repeated 
questions. The figures suggest ed a steady increase in the number of outstanding responses over 
the last years.  
2.2.  In order to assist Members in identifying the progress made in addressing outstanding 
questions, the Chairperson invited the Secretariat to circulate at the last meeting in 2018 a revised 
list of outstanding responses for 2012 to 2017. In addition to this fi ve year compilation, the 
Secretariat w ould update the list of outstanding responses in 2018 at each Committee meeting to 
reflect the cumulative number of outstanding responses for this year.  
2.3.  The Chairperson urged Members with outstanding responses to prov ide them at their earliest 
convenience. This include d responses that may have already been provided bilaterally or questions 
that may have found an answer through recently submitted notifications. Members can provide 
                                                
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/88  
 
- 2 - 
 
  their responses through various channel s including the online system, by sending these responses 
to the Secretariat or by providing their responses during the Committee meeting under the 
relevant agenda item (Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process) , which would 
then be  made available in the AG IMS.  
2.2  Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the reform 
programme: Article 18.6  
2.4.  The 27 implementation -related issues raised as well as the responses provided and follow -up 
exchanges are compiled in section 1 of document G/AG/W/ 181. These relate to:  
a. European Union 's amendments to income stabilization tool  (raised by India);  
b. India's sugar policies  (raised by Australia, Brazil, the European Union and Thailand ); 
c. India's rice procurement  (raised by  the European Union ); 
d. Indonesi a's import restrictions on horticultural products  (raised by  the United States ); 
e. Moldova's draft regulation on amendments to law on internal trade  (raised by Ukraine ); 
f. Norway's export subsidy for butter  (raised by  New Zealand ); 
g. Switzerland -Liechten stein's new support policy for dairy and cereals  (raised by the 
European  Union);  
h. Switzerland's levies on imports of certain agricultural goods  (raised by the 
European  Union);  
i. United States' Commodity Credit Corporation funds  (raised by Canada);  
j. Brazil's do mestic support programmes (raised by New Zealand and the United States);  
k. Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  (raised by Australia, New Zealand and the  
United  States ); 
l. Canada's wine sale policy  (raised by  New Zealand and the United States ); 
m. European Union's sugar policies (raised by Australia ); 
n. European Union's intervention stocks of skim milk powder (raised by New Zealand)  
o. India's minimum support prices for wheat  (raised by Australia);  
p. India's pulses policy (raised by Australia, Canada, the European Union, the 
Russian  Federation, Ukraine and the United States);  
q. Indonesia's dairy import system (raised by New Zealand and the United States);  
r. Indonesia's soybean import (raised by the United States);  
s. Korea's rice imports (raised by Thailand);  
t. Mong olia's quota regime for importation (raised by the Russian Federation);  
u. Pakistan's sugar policies (raised by Australia, Brazil and Thailand);  
v. Pakistan's wheat export subsidies (raised by the United States);  
w. Philippines' rice waiver (raised by Australia);  
x. Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  (raised by Ukraine and the 
United  States);  
y. Suriname's poultry tariffs (raised by the United States);  
z. United States' dairy policies (raised by Canada);  
aa. United States' support to cotton sector (raised by Brazil ) 
2.3  Review of Notifications  
2.5.  The Chairperson  informed Members that since the February  2018 meeting the Committee had 
received 84 notifications . These  had been distributed electronically to all delegations.  G/AG/R/88  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.3.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been  raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram  
2.6.  Section 2 of document G/AG/W/181  reflects the questions raised, responses provided, and 
Members' follow -up comments in connection with the notifications on which questions had been 
raised in  advance of the iss uance of the convening airgram.2 
2.3.2   Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process  
2.7.  Two notifications were highlighted under this agenda item.  The questions and the 
corresponding answers can be found in Section 3 of G/AG/W/181 .3  
2.3.3   Overdue notifications  
2.8.  The Committee took no te of document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.31  circulated on  30 May 2018, 
reflecting the current status of Members' compliance with notification obligations.  
2.9.  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. As 
an example, the Chairperson noted that Bahrain had notified a Table ES:1 and Table DS:1 
covering  four and five implementation years, respectively;  Mongolia had submitted a Table ES:1 
notification covering nine implementation years ; Cuba had submitted a Table ES:1 and Table ES:3 
notifications, both covering six implementations years ; and Panama had submitted a Table ES:1 
notification covering 14 implementation years.  
2.10.   The Chairperson  highlighted a few numbers with respect to the outstanding notifications. 
For the period 1995 to 201 6: 
 36% (827 ) Table DS:1 domestic support notifications  remain ed outsta nding ; and 
 33% (856 ) export subsidy notifi cations in the ES:1 series  remain ed outstanding . 
2.11.   Members had raised three  question s under this agenda item. The question s, corresponding 
answer s and Members' follow -up comments can be found in section 4 of document  G/AG/W/181 . 
2.12.   The Chairperson  noted the importance of transparency and echoed some of the Members ' 
calls for increase d efforts to get up to date with notification obligations . The Chairperson  also 
brought into attention various  databases that  could  help manage informati on in order to facilitate 
the work of Committee . 
2.3.4   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
2.13.   The Commi ttee took note of the 70  notifications cir culated before 30 Ma y 2018 , including 
notificat ions carried over from the February  2018 meeting but  in respect of which no questions had 
been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.4 
2.3.5   Notifications circulated or made available after th e issuance of the convening 
airgram  
2.14.   Three  notifications had  been circulated after the issuance  of the convening airgram on 
30 May 2018 : 
 Australia  - Table MA:2 for 2016 /17 (G/AG/N/AUS/114 ); 
 Canada  - Table DS:1 for 2014  (G/AG/N/CAN/122 ); 
 Mongolia - Table DS:1 for 2007 through 2015 (G/AG/N/MNG/9 ). 
2.15.   These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with the Committee's working procedures.  
                                                
2 WTO/AIR/AG/ 28, Attachment Section B. 
3 WTO/AIR/AG/ 28, Attachment Section C. 
4 WTO/AIR/AG/ 28, Attachment Section D. G/AG/R/88  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.3.6   Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings w hich have been 
pursued bilaterally: information regarding outcome where the issue involved is one of  
general interest  
2.16.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
2.3.7   Counter -notifications (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture)  
2.17.   The Chai rperson noted that Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture establishe d that 
"Any Member may bring to the attention of the Committee on Agriculture any measure which it 
considers ought to have been notified by another Member ". Under the Committee's agr eed 
working procedures, "Counter -notifications under Article 18:7 of the Agreement shall be 
considered by the Committee at the earliest opportunity" . The Chairperson stated that the agenda 
of the Committee on Agriculture had routinely included counter -notifications as a standing item.   
2.18.   The United States presented its document G/AG/W/174 dated  9 May 2018, in pursuant to 
Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The document addressed certain measures of India's 
market pric e support to rice and wheat during marketing years 2010/11 through 2013/14 , covered 
by India's Table DS:1 notifications G/AG/N/IND/10 and G/AG/N/IND/11.  The United States had 
also posed questions under this item. The questions, corresponding answers and Me mbers' follow -
up comments can be found in section 5 of document G/AG/W/181 .  
2.19.   The United States highlighted that the counter -notification  was submitted to facilitate  a 
discussion on India's implementation and notification of its policies. The United States noted  that 
since 2011 India ha d submitted three domestic support notific ations covering marketing 
years  2004/2005 to 2015/2016. The United  States stressed that India was the second largest 
agriculture producer in the world and had been growing significantly since 2001 , with more than 
200% increase in value of agriculture production.  Further, India's exports ha d grown more th an 
500% since 2001 and now India was  among the top ten largest agriculture exporters. With respect 
to rice ex ports, India was the largest exporter since 2011, accounting for one -third of global rice 
exports. In addition  from 2012 -14, India was also a leading wheat exporter coinciding with 
government export sales that amounted to about three million tonnes in 2012 .  
2.20.   The United States' stated that it had been conducting research on India's domestic support 
and highlighted several specific concerns regarding  India's domestic support notifications and 
market price support for rice and wheat , including but not limited to, issues with changing 
currencies, level of production , exclusion of state level benefits in applied administered prices and 
exclusion of total value of production in its notifications. The United States concluded by noting 
that according to their counte r-notification  India's notification had substantially underreported 
support for rice and wheat.  
2.21.   In response to the U S counter -notification, India stated that it ha d been transparent in 
submitting its domestic support notifications up to  2015/16. India hig hlighted its competitiveness 
in rice exports and noted that the administered price for rice under its public stockholding 
programme was USD  324.79 in 2013/14 while the international price was USD 481. Therefore, 
India was an exporter because the internatio nal prices  were higher than domestic prices . India 
noted  that due to prevailing issues of poverty ; hunger  and insecure land tenure , the current 
schemes on food security would continue.  
2.22.   India informed Members  that it ha d been consistently notifying its domestic support policies 
in US dollars since 1995. Regarding the use of currencies, India emphasised  that the Agreement 
on Agriculture d id not place a binding requirement to notify in a particular currency . Further, India 
cited that several Members ha d different currencies in their schedules than in their  notifications 
and several other Members had no currency or more than one currency used in their notification s.  
2.23.   In response to the U S question regarding India's  volume pur chased under the MPS  
programmes, India clarified that the production eligible to receive the applied administered price 
had not been defined under the Agreement on Agriculture nor had it mandate d specific 
methodology for determining the constitution of eli gible production to receive applied administered 
price. India noted that only a part of the marketable surplus  meeting the requisite quality 
parameters which was actually offered by the farmers to the government agencies for G/AG/R/88  
 
- 5 - 
 
  procurement at the market suppo rt price was eligible for procurement which  explain ed actual 
procurement as eligible production. Furthermore, with respect to the findings in Korea Beef case 
referred to by the United States , India stated that the se were applicable to specific circumstance s 
that did not apply to India.  
2.24.   Regarding the e xclusion of state level bonuses from India' s calculation of applied 
administered price , India noted that it took into consideration one nationa lly applied administered 
price per crop declared by its Ministry of Agriculture. In addition, o nly some states occasionally  
announce d bonuses and even if they were taken into account there would be no substantial impact 
on the overall market price support tha t had already been notified.  Furthermore , India noted no 
obligation to notify the value of production data  and that the value of production  was available in 
the public domain that would facilitate de minimis  verification. Further , India reported on the 
verification of its data on value of production with the National Accounts Statistics of 2016.  India 
also expressed its willingness to notify the data on value of production if this  requirement would be 
applicable to the entire Membership.  
2.25.   India disagreed  with the findings of the U S counter -notification and reiterated that the 
methodology used by India was consistent with the provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
India further noted that it would provide several websites in its written response as re ference for 
various legal instruments underpinning  its market price support for wheat and rice. India also 
stated that it ha d followed the  AGST  methodology and that it had calculated the product specific 
support for rice rather than paddy.  
2.26.   Australia, Cana da, Ukraine, New Zealand, Paraguay and the European Union welcome d the 
counter -notification submitted by the United States.  Several Members noted the discrepancies 
highlighted between the information provided in India's domestic support notifications and t he 
information provided in the US counter -notification.  
2.27.   Several Members highlighted concerns regarding India's MPS calculation. Australia and the 
EU considered that regardless of whether or not the eligible production ha d actually received the 
applied admi nistered price, it should be included in the MPS calculation. Canada also noted that 
the eligible production accounted in the calculation of MPS should be the total production, unless 
there was a limit on the volume that was eligible for the applied admini stered price. Australia 
further questioned India 's change  in its calculation methodology after its first domestic support 
notification from considering total production to actual quantities purchased by the government . 
Paraguay emphasised that the MPS calc ulation should be in accordance with the Annex  3 
provisions and highlighted the need to harmonise Members' interpretation of the variables in the 
MPS formula. Ukraine joined the United States, Australia and Canada's view that uniform 
information of MPS was  critical in domestic support notifications.  
2.28.   A few Members also commented on the way that India treated state bonuses in the 
calculation of MPS . Australia requested India to  re-submit  its domestic support notification s to 
reflect the inclusion of all state  bonuses or all incentives to all commodities , including rice and 
wheat,  as part of market price support , with the appropriate  eligible production for all 
commodities. Canada also stressed that the domestic support data should include data at the 
national and subnational levels , including state level bonuses and incentives.  
2.29.   Several Members stressed the importance of having up to date information on value of 
production.  Australia and Canada emphasised that the data on value of production was an 
important tool to maintain transparency and to determine whether  the domestic support was 
within de minimis  limits . Australia and the EU requested India to provide value of production data 
for all commodities in its resubmitted notifications. New Zealand echoed India's  suggestion that all 
Members notify value of production data.  
2.30.   Canada noted that the currency in India's AGST tables was in Indian Rupees whereas the 
domest ic support notification was in US D ollars which could have an impact on the notified levels 
of speci fic support.  
2.31.   The United States highlight ed that the counter -notification methodology  used all the 
production in India as eligible production as it was unable to identify any quantitative limit of 
geographical limitations on procured production. The United  States noted  that in India, states and G/AG/R/88  
 
- 6 - 
 
  central government participate d in the procurement of rice and wheat to MPS and bonuses, 
therefore all the support from all levels of government had to  be accounted for in India's domestic 
support notification  as state level bonuses provided in wheat and rice producing states play ed a 
critical role , which was significant enough to crowd out private sector due to the high level of 
procurement by the government.  Regarding the use of currencies, the United States high lighted 
that the issue of switching currencies ha d been raised in the Committee repeatedly with currency 
conversions having an impact on the levels of support provided which explain ed the need for 
consistency amongst Members in notified levels of support. The United States welcomed India's  
proposition to provide value o f production  data. The United States considered that  announced 
MPSs had an impact on production decisions of farmers which c ould lead to negative effects in 
trade. In conclusion, the United S tates welcomed the constructive discussion on India's policies 
which are of keen interest to many Members in the Committee.  
3  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN  THE PURVIEW OF THE C OMMITTEE  
3.1  Developments in the field of export competition (G/AG/W/176, 
G/AG/W/125/R ev.8, G/ AG/W/125/R ev.8/Add.1, G/AG/W/125/R ev.8/Add.2, 
G/AG/W/125/R ev.8/Add.3 AND G/AG/W/125/R ev.8/Add.4) 
3.1.  The Chairperson reminded Members that the agenda item on developments in the field of 
export competition ha d been included in the Committee Meetings  since June 2014 . This was a 
result of the Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition of 7 December 2013 , in which  
Ministers agreed to hold dedicated discussions on an annual basis in the Committee on Agriculture , 
in order to enhance transparency a nd improve monitoring in relation to all forms of export 
subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect. The Chairperson noted Paragraph  4 of 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export competition of 19 December 2015  according to which 
"the Commi ttee on Agriculture shall monitor the implementation of the Decision by Members in 
accordance with existing notification requirements under the Agreement on Agriculture, as 
complemented by the provisions set out in the Annex to this Decision".  Further, The  Chairperson 
noted a communication circulated on 16 November 2017 that informed  Members  of the third 
annual examination process since the Nairobi Decision which would  be held during the June 2018 
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  
3.2.  The Chairperson to ok note of the revised background document G/AG/W/125/Rev.8 
circulated by the Secretariat on 24 April 2018 with its four addenda on export subsidies, export 
finance,  international food aid and agricultural exporting State Trad ing Enterprises. This document  
incorporate d the 25 replies received by the Secretariat (with the European Union counting for 
one). A response by o ne Member which was received after the deadline would  be incorporated in 
the next version of the background document..  
3.3.  The Chairperson note d that ha lf of the Members ha d replied at least once to the 
questionnaire on export competition since its inception in 2014.  However, in 2018 there were only 
25 replies compared to  more than 30 in previous years.  The Chairperson urged Members to make 
all possible efforts to provide a reply  to the questionnaire  as soon as possible after this meeting in 
order to improve the response rate in the next version of the background document.  
3.4.  Further, the Chairperson took note of the d ocument G/AG/W/176 circulated on 29  May 2018 
that contain ed the questions raised by Members in the context of the 2018 annual discussion on 
export competition that were received by 28 May 2018.  
3.5.  The 17  issues raised as well as the responses provided and follow -up exchanges were 
compile d in section X of document G/AG/W/18 2.  
3.6.  New Zealand thanked the Secretariat for preparing the background document 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.8 which contributed to the discussion on the implementation of the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition. New Zealand, on behalf on the Cairns Group , presented its 
document G/AG/W/180.  New Zealand highlighted that since the Nairobi Ministerial , seven 
Members ha d submitted their draft schedules ; with A ustralia, Norway and Israel having  their draft 
schedules certified. Further,  four Members were on the  certification s process and eight of the 
remaining nine  Members  had expressed their intent to submit their draft schedules.  However,  
New Zealand expressed concerns regarding the low response rate with only 25 Members G/AG/R/88  
 
- 7 - 
 
  responding to the Secretariat's questionnaire. Therefore New Zealand encouraged Members to 
respond before the end of 2018 in order to prepare an updated background document.  
3.7.  New Zealand also noted that Members , particularly developed countr y Members we re obliged 
to provide the information laid out in the Annex to the Nairobi Decision. Furthermore, New Zealand 
highlighted the role of the Committee in monitoring export subsidies especially because 
notifications covering the period since the Nairobi Decision  (also including marketing years 
encompa ssing part of 2015 are included) account ed for total  outlays of USD 165  million.  In 
particular, there were 23 product level commitments for developed country Members for dairy, pig 
meat and processed products which could still be used subject to strict condition. In addition there 
were 222 product level commitments for developing countr y Members  which c ould still be used 
until 2022, subject to similar constraints  that were detailed in the Decision. New Zealand also she d 
light on the review document which look ed at the implementation of disciplines of the Decision, in 
particular the obligation to keep the export subsidies within the five year average of the previous 
years at a product level. The document identified that at least two Members ha d exceeded their 
previous five year average . New Zealand emphasised the importance of examining  the factors  that 
could explain the lack of compliance despite Members'  efforts . New Zealand also highlighted the 
need to monitor the requirement for Members  to ensure that any export subsidies have at most 
minimal trade distorting effects and the standstill set -forth in footnote 4 products . New Zealand 
noted  another information gap in  the monitoring of Members' compliance regarding the 
requirement not to subsidise new products exported to new markets  and self-financing .  
3.8.  The United States, the European Union, Australia, Ukraine, Japan, Norway, Switzerland and 
Brazil welcome d the Secretariat  and the Cairns Group background documents.  
3.9.  On the basis of its review of the responses, the United States noted common concerns 
including non-responsiveness of many Members to the questionnaire;  a 'nil' response without an 
explanation;  discrepancie s in Members ' responses to the questionnaire with their  trade policy 
reviews as well as publically available information and lack of transparency regarding their Nairobi 
Decision obligation. The United States further noted  its full agreement with the conclusions of the 
Cairns Group review document regarding th e low rate of response to the questionnaire  and urged 
Members to enhance their responsiveness as agreed in the Decision.  
3.10.   The European Union joined the United States and the Cairns Group in encouraging Members 
to enhance their response rates to the question naire to cover  all the elements of the measures on 
export subsidies, export credits, food aid and state trading enterprises. The European Union added 
that as of 1 January 2018, all European Union member States respect ed the eighteen month limit 
as agreed i n Nairobi and requested that the revised version of the background document prepared 
by the Cairns Group  reflect  this. 
3.11.   Australia drew  Members'  attention to the fact that since the Nairobi Decision, three 
Members ha d amended their scheduled commitments while four Members ha d initiated the 
procedure to amend their schedules. Further, five of the eighteen Members with export subsidy 
commitments ha d respond ed to the questionnaire . Australia reinforced the concerns raised in the 
Cairns Group background paper  that the response rate was low and falling, particularly the case of 
programmes under Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Australia expressed concerned 
regarding some Members using the flexibilities granted in the Nairobi Decision to obscure expo rt 
subsidies. Further, Australia expressed concerns  on the possible use of STEs to dispose -off excess 
commodities that ha d been purchased at administered prices onto global markets which was 
inconsistent with the Nairobi Decision.  
3.12.   Ukraine encouraged Membe rs to enhance their effort s through necessary actions  and 
transparency mechanisms for the  June 2019 discussion on Export Competition.  
3.13.   Canada also echoed concerns regarding the low rate of response to the export competition 
questionnaire. Canada noted its support to phase out the export subsidies for dairy products by 
the end of 2020. Canada further informed Members of its modification  of export subsid y 
commitments carried  out on 11 December 2017 and encouraged other Members to submit their 
revisions .  G/AG/R/88  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.14.   Japan clarified that it provide d food aid as cash based. Japan noted that beneficiary 
countries remonetize the food that they purchase with the fund which was different from 
monetization of aid in kind. Japan noted that its efforts in providing food aid contri buted to 
address ing food shortages and overall socio -economic development of the beneficiary countries.  
3.15.   Norway  emphasised that the number of answers provided ha d decreased considerably and 
expressed their concern regarding the lack of submission of draft schedules by some Members. 
Regarding the  lack of compliance by some Members with  the five year average  provision , Norway 
pointed out that there was a difference between a legal entitlement in a revised and certified 
schedule and a best endeavour effort.  
3.16.    Switzerland also expressed concerns regarding the low response rate to the questionnaire 
and therefore invited all the Members to submit and update their responses at the earliest.  
3.17.   Brazil stated that  the Cairns' Group document could be used as a basis for further discussion 
on export competition.  
3.18.   The Chairperson called on Members to submit their responses  to the questionnaire , 
including th ose Members w ho wish ed to update their responses by end of June 2018.  This include d 
Members that d id not use mea sures c overed by the questionnaire and c ould therefore reply with a 
"nil" reply. These efforts would facilitate the process of updating the background document which 
would  conclude the fourth dedicated discussion exercise. The Chairperson requested Members who 
provided an oral response to send written replies to the Secretariat which would be compiled into a 
single document. The Chairperson informed Members that t he next dedicated discussion on export 
competition would  take place next year during the June 2019 mee ting of the Committee.  
3.2  Implementation  issues  (G/AG/16, G/AG/16/ADD.1, G/AG/22)  
3.19.   The Chairperson  reminded Members that i n the Doha Ministerial Decision on 
implementation -related issues and concerns, the Committee was required to  follow up on three 
issues:  development of disciplines to govern the provision of export credits, export credit 
guarantees or insurance programmes i n accordance with Article 10.2; examination of the possible 
means of improving the effectiveness of the implementation of the Ma rrakesh NFIDC Decision and 
continued review of the administration of TRQs and the submission of addenda to Table  MA:1 
notifications on tariff rate quota regimes.  
3.20.   There was no request for the floor under this agenda item.  
3.3  Implementation of Ministerial outcomes  
3.3.1   Review of the Bali Ministerial Decision on TRQ administration  
3.21.   The Chairperson noted that at the Meeting of February 2018, the Committee adopted the 
process for the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ administration contained in G/AG/W/171.  The 
Chairperson furth er reminded Members that as per the adopted process, the review  of the Bali 
Ministerial Dec ision on TRQ administration would  initially be conducted through open -ended 
informal meetings of the Committee followed by the regular Committee meetings .  
3.22.   The Chair person reported on the informal session held on 11 June 2018 to discuss  the 
review of the operation of the Bali TRQ decision . The Chairperson noted that two written 
submissions circulated prior to the meeting respectively from the Cairns Group  (in 
document  G/AG/W/179) and the EU (in document G/AG/W/175) had assisted the discussions. 
Many Members had emphasized t he importance of enhanced transparency of TRQ administration 
including through complete and timely notifications. Some Members also re called that th e scope of 
the review exercise was to improve the utilization of the existin g TRQs as provided in paragraph  13 
of the Bali Decision and that the exercise should not be confused with market access negotiations.   
3.23.   A number of Members had suggested that the Co mmittee examine the reasons the underfill 
mechanism had not yet been invoked. The issue of less than universal application of the underfill 
mechanism as well as differing obligations among the Members that it entails was also raised. One 
Member had pointed  out that Annex B of the underfill mechanism, which sought to exempt some G/AG/R/88  
 
- 9 - 
 
  listed Members from the application of paragraph 4 of the mechanism, was not yet operational and 
it would rather trigger only when there was no consensus on the recommendations of th e General 
Council with regard to the specific paragraph.  
3.24.   The importance of S&D and the need to avoid additional notification burden on developing 
Members was also stressed. One Member suggested having  a fuller discussion on the issue of 
reallocation of TR Q quantities as covered in the Bali Decision. The issue of the linkage between the 
agriculture notification obligations and notification obligations under the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures also came up in the discussions. A specific suggestion w as also made to 
develop a clearer understanding of the implications of paragraphs 13 -15 of the Bali TRQ Decision.  
3.25.   The Chairperson noted Members ' request for the  Secretariat to present updated  background 
information in the document  TN/AG/S/26/Rev.21  on the application of TRQs , sourced from 
Members TRQ notifications to the Committee and from additional information by Member s as 
needed . The Chairperson confirmed that the Secretariat was working on the background note and 
that it would be distributed to  Members in July as per the review timeline in 
document  G/AG/W/171.  
3.3.2   Review of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition  
3.26.   The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting held on 20 February 2018 on the review 
of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  The Chairperson noted that the Nairobi Decision 
requires that the Committee conduct ed a review of the Decisions' disciplines to be held every three 
years. The Chairperson informed that the Committee held its second informal discussion on the 
review of the  Nairobi Decision on Export Competition on 11 June 2018. Since  the Chair's report on 
informal discussions held on 20 February 2018 had not attract ed any additional comment by 
Members , she suggested to conclude the review at the September 2018 CoA meeting.  
3.3.3   Other implementation on Ministerial Outcomes  
3.27.   Members provided an update regarding changes to their export subsidies schedules based 
on the Nairobi Decision on export competition. Switzerland informed the Committee that they had 
submitted their modified sch edules.  
3.28.   Brazil, the United States, Indonesia, Iceland, Mexico, Turkey, Uruguay and the Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela informed the Members that they remain fully committed to amend their 
export subsidy schedules and that the necessary efforts to modify t heir export subsidy schedules 
were underway. Iceland informed the M embers that the Ministry of Agricult ure has prepared the 
draft bill that would  remove the legal position that allows the Ministry to pay very limited export 
subsidies. Iceland also noted th at they have not provided outlays since the 90's and that they 
expected to submit an amended schedule in the fall of 2018. Colombia stated that its notification 
would be submitted to the WTO in due course.  
3.4  Chair report on informal meeting held on 11 June, remaining issues  
3.29.   The Chairperson reported on the discussions held at the informal meeting on 10 June 2018 
regarding  transparency and the Committee's review process. The Chairperson had noted that 
timely and complete responses were essential for the Committee to deliver on one of its key 
mandates, to review the progress in the implementation of commitments negotiated under the 
Uruguay Round reform programme. A number of Members had called for improved transparency 
and welcomed suggestions for monitori ng the outstanding responses to questions raised in the 
context of the CoA review process.  
3.30.   The Chairperson stated that a couple of Members had noted their concern over the large 
number of overdue notifications and encouraged Members to address this issue. One Member had 
noted that there was a need to understand the obstacles faced by some Members in preparing 
their notifications. This Member suggested that the Secretariat organize an information session on 
transparency to provide an opportunity for Members to share their experiences and challenges 
faced in complying with their notifications obligations.    G/AG/R/88  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.31.   A couple of Members had highlighted the usefulness of the AG IMS noting that this online 
tool could assist Members in complying with their transparency obl igations. Some Members had 
suggested that the early submission of questions and answers through the AG IMS would improve 
Members' interaction during Committee meetings. One Member also suggested that Members who 
regularly pose questions during the review p rocess could share their experiences to encourage 
other Members to engage in the review process. Another Member had highlighted the document 
produced by the Cairns' group on " what to look for when reviewing a notification " available at the 
Cairns group web site (http:// www.cairnsgroup.org ). 
3.32.   One Member had suggested reviewing and updating document G/AG/2 which contained the 
notification requirements and formats for notifications relevant to the AoA. The Member noted  that 
G/AG/2 was formulated before Members had had any experience concerning the work required to 
produce notifications. This Member considered that the timeframes specified were unrealistic and 
thus counterproductive to enhancing transparency and that, as  export subsidies were about to be 
phased out, the relevant part of G/AG/2 regarding export subsidies would need to be updated. The 
Member noted that to increase transparency and improve notifications, ambitious but doable 
deadlines for notifications shoul d be set. Another Member had noted that they were sceptical that 
modifying G/AG/2 would be an effective way to increase transparency.   
3.5  Other business  
3.5.1   On-line submission of notifications  
3.33.   The S ecretariat recalled the announcement made at the last Committee meeting on a few 
improvements introduced to the on -line notification  system based on Members' feedback and the 
Secretariat's own experience. The Secretariat noted that these initiatives were still on -going and 
were estimated to be completed in 2018. The Se cretariat informed that a training session would  be 
organized as soon as the project is completed in order to help Members better understand  the how 
to use  the tool.  
3.34.   The S ecretariat encouraged Members to continue exploring the test site of the on -line 
system and Members who have not yet requested login details for the test website are invited to 
approach them to obtain usernames and passwords . 
3.5.2   Technical Assistance, including the 2018 notification workshop  
3.35.   The Secretariat informed the Committee that the advanced workshops on notifications in 
agriculture scheduled in 2018 was held on April 24 -27; and as expected, a total of 25 government 
officials from developing country M embers were selected for funded participation. The secretariat 
also informed the Comm ittee of the national courses requested by Members on agriculture 
notifications. In May 2018, a workshop on agriculture and MSF notifications was held in La Paz, 
Plurinational State of Bolivia. The Secretariat informed Members about an application for 
workshops on agriculture notifications received from the Republic of Moldova, Peru and the 
Dominican Republic and noted that they hope to address these requests as soon as possible.  
3.5.3   Date of next regular meetings  
3.36.   The Chairperson proposed that the eighty -eighth (88th) regular meeting of the Committee 
on Agriculture be held on 2 5-26 September 2018. On this basis, the airgram convening the 
meeting would be issued on 14 September 2018.  
 
 
__________