TN/AG/W/8  
 
21 January 2015  
(15-0432)  Page: 1/22  
Committee on Agriculture 
Special Session    
 
 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 
PUBLIC STOCKHOLDING FOR FOOD SECURITY PURPOSES 
Note from the Secretariat 
As announced in the Chair's fax of 19 January 201 5 convening a dedicated session on the issue of 
Public Stockholding for Food Security purposes, th e Secretariat is sending to all delegations this 
compilation of the proposals and related documents that have been circulated to date in the context of the Special Session's discussions since th e submission of the original G-33 proposal in 
November 2012. The aim is to assist delegations in refreshing their understanding of the proposals 
and of the work that has been done so far. 
 All replies received to the questionnaire on public stockholding for food security purposes and food 
aid programmes of 20 December 2012 that served as a basis for the technical process in the first 
quarter of 2013 are available on the Members' website under "Committee on Agriculture (Special Session)". 
 
The following documents are contained in the current compilation:  
G-33 Proposal on Some Elements of TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 
for Early Agreement to Address Food Security Issues JOB/AG/22, 13 November 2012 
Opening Remarks by Chair (containing the report on 
the technical process related to the G-33 proposal), Informal Meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, 
Special Session, 27 March 2013 JOB/AG/23, 28 March 2013 
G-33 Non Paper JOB/AG/25, 3 October 2013 
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, 
Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013 WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913,  
11 December 2013 
G-33 Proposed Permanent Solution on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes  JOB/AG/27, 17 July 2014 
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, 
General Council Decision of 27 November 2014 WT/L/939, 28 November 2014 
 
 
_______________ 
  
 TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 3 - 
 
  JOB/AG/22  13 November 2012  
 
 
Committee on Agriculture Special Session 
 
G-33 PROPOSAL ON SOME ELEMENTS OF TN/AG/W/4/REV.4 FOR EARLY 
AGREEMENT TO ADDRESS FO OD SECURITY ISSUES 
1. Ministers had agreed at the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha in 2001 that 
"special and differential treatment for developing count ries shall be an integral part of all elements 
of the negotiations and shall be embodied in the schedules of concessions and commitments and 
as appropriate in the rules and disciplines to be negotiated, so as to be operationally effective and 
to enable developing countries to effectively ta ke account of their development needs, including 
food security and rural development".
1 
2. At the Eighth Ministerial Conference (MC8),  Ministers expressed their readiness, "to 
advance negotiations, where progress can be achiev ed, including focusing on the elements of the 
Doha Declaration that allow Members to reach provisional or definitive agreements based on 
consensus earlier than the full conclusion of the single undertaking". 
3. With a view to advance negotiations so as to achieve at least some outcomes in 
agriculture, which lies at the heart of the Doha Development Agenda, it is proposed to focus on 
one of the elements of the Doha Ministerial Declaration (DMD) which is of importance to 
developing countries, viz. food security. 
4. Food security is defined by the World Food Summit at the Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO) as, "Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritiou s food that meets their dietary needs and food 
preferences for an active and healthy life".
2 
5. Significant progress has already achieved in the Doha Round negotiations which recognize 
the serious concerns of food security in developi ng countries. This has assumed the character of a 
global concern in the past few years with a need for urgent action. Accordingly, it is proposed that some of the elements in the Revised Draft Moda lities for Agriculture Text (TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4) 
relating to food security are ta ken up for a decision in accordance with paragraph 47 of the DMD. 
6. Accordingly, without prejudice to the overall conclusion of the Doha Round negotiations 
based on the single undertaking and noting that  there are other elements in the Revised Draft 
Modalities for Agriculture Text
3 which can also partially address food security, it is proposed that a 
decision be taken to include the following elements  of TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 as part of the Ministerial 
Declaration at the Ninth Ministerial Conference: 
A. To amend Annex 2 of the Agreem ent on Agriculture as follows4: 
(i) To add new subparagraph (h) to the exis ting paragraph 2 of Annex 2 of Agreement 
on Agriculture: 
(h) policies and services related to farmer settlement, land reform programmes, rural 
development and rural livelihood security in  developing country Members, such as 
provision of infrastructural services, land rehabilitation, soil conservation and resource management, drought management and flood control, rural employment 
programmes, nutritional food security, issuance of property titles and settlement 
programmes, to promote rural development and poverty alleviation. 
                                               
1 Paragraph 13 of document WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 dated 20 November 2001. 
2 World Food Summit, 1996. 
3 One of such example is in paragraphs 129-145 of TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 dated 6 December 2008. 
4 Drawn from Annex B of document TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 dated 6 December 2008. TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 4 - 
 
  (ii) To modify the existing footnote 5 of Annex 2 of Agreement on Agriculture5 as 
follows: 
 For the purposes of paragraph 3 of this Annex, governmental stockholding 
programmes for food security purposes in developing countries whose operation is transparent and conducted in accordance with officially published objective criteria 
or guidelines shall be considered  to be in conformity with the provisions of this 
paragraph, including programmes under which stocks of foodstuffs for food security purposes are acquired and released  at administered prices, provided that 
the difference between the acquisition price and the external reference price is 
accounted for in the AMS. However, acquisition of stocks of foodstuffs by 
developing country Members with the objective of supporting low-income 
or resource-poor producers shall not be  r e q u i r e d  t o  b e  a c c o u n t e d  f o r  i n  
the AMS. 
 
(iii) To modify the existing footnote 5 and 6 of Annex 2 of Agreement on Agriculture
6 
as follows: 
 For the purposes of paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Annex, the acquisition of 
foodstuffs at subsidised prices when  procured generally from low-income 
or resource-poor producers in developi ng countries with the objective of 
fighting hunger and rural poverty, as well as the provision of foodstuffs at 
subsidised prices with the objective of meeting food requirements of urban and rural poor in developing countries on a regular basis at reasonable prices shall be 
considered to be in conformity with the provisions of this paragraph. This is 
understood to mean, inter alia, that  where such programmes referred to 
in this footnote and paragraph 4 abov e, including those in relation to 
lowering prices to more reasonable levels, involve also the arrangements 
referred to in footnote 5 to paragraph 3, there is no requirement for the difference between the acquisition pric e and the external reference price 
to be accounted for in the AMS. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
                                               
5 Modifications in bold. 
6 Modifications in bold. TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 5 – 
 
 JOB/AG/23  28 March 2013  
 
Committee on Agriculture 
Special Session  
 
INFORMAL MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 
SPECIAL SESSION 
27 MARCH 2013 
Opening Remarks by Chair 
1  As mentioned in the invitation fax, the purpos e of today's meeting is to update Members about 
recent consultations on the G-33 proposal introduced at our 16 November informal meeting 
(JOB/AG/22) and allow delegations an opportunity to exchange further views on this proposal or 
any other issues. 
 
2  But before commencing our discussion of the G-33 proposal, a few brief comments, by way of 
update, of other issues under consideration in the committee under the market access and export competition pillars. First, regarding the G20 proposal  for an understanding on TRQ 
Administration, the consultations I held have high lighted that Members continue to see this as a 
useful one to explore for possible decision in Bali,  even though there are some sensitivities that 
members do not yet seem in a position to settle in relation to some aspects of the proposal. We shall need to return to the proposal in due course. Second,  regarding the request for studies on 
the export competition  pillar as well as on export restrictions , I am glad to inform you that 
the Secretariat has finalized its studies on export competition (TN/AG/S/27) and export restrictions (TN/AG/S/28). Both studies were circulated to the Members on 21 March 2013. Members who 
would still wish to send additional information or who have specific comments are invited to 
contact the Secretariat before 15 April. Changes, if required, will then be incorporated in a revised version of the documents. 
 
 Now, coming to today's main theme, that is, the G-33 proposal , I would like to give you a 
more detailed report on the work that has taken place in this area. 
 As you recall, on 15 February I launched the technical process related to the G-33 proposal. 
Subsequently, I asked Mr. Jonas Skei (Norway) to  lead the process which he kindly accepted 
to do. Therefore, my today's report to you is based on the report I received from Jonas. 
 Based on the report by Jonas, my understanding is that the technical process was successful 
in delivering active participation of Members and for a constructive atmosphere in which 
these meetings took place. I would like to  thank all delegations for their valuable 
contribution to this process.  
 To summarise the factual details . The technical process lasted for almost 4 weeks 
(20 February-15 March) during which 9 technical meetings took place. It was based on the replies received to the questionnaire on public stockholding for food security purposes and food aid programmes I sent out on 20 December 2012. 
 During this process, 28 Members replied the questionnaire, and 8 sets of written questions 
were circulated to the Members. Among those questions were generic ones addressed to all and specific ones addressed to individual Members. Specific questions were addressed to 15 
Members. These were (in alphabetical order): Au stralia, Brazil, China, EU, India, Indonesia, 
Israel, Japan, Korea, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Switzerland, and Saudi Arabia. Written replies were provided by the European Union, Israel, Norway, Singapore, 
and Switzerland. Six Members - Pakistan, India,  China, Indonesia, Brazil, and the Philippines 
made a presentation of their public stockholding and/or food aid policies. 
 In addition, several Members have informed the Secretariat that they are still in the process 
of preparing their replies to the questionnaire. Therefore, during the last technical meeting it 
was agreed that Members would continue submitting their replies -whether to the 
questionnaire or to the written questions addressed to them - as well as their questions concerning those replies to the Secretariat who would then circulate them to all Members. TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 6 – 
 
  In the last session on 15 March, while it was felt that some more technical work might be 
necessary, Members showed willingness to move on and start discussing the substance, 
meaning the proposal itself. In its statement the G-33 highlighted the need for "further 
technical guidance" from CoA SS should Members wish to continue with the technical process. 
 Now, some words on the proposal itself . 
 It was generally felt by the proponents that their policy space has been reduced by 
increasing market prices and therefore - higher  administered prices. As result, the AMS limit 
is considered to be much more constraining now than it was when the Uruguay Round was 
concluded. However, the proponents find themselves in different situations regarding whether the risk of breaking their bindings is imminent or future. 
 Proponents consider that public stockholding for food security is the most suitable policy 
instrument at their disposal to address the food security issue given their current level of 
economic development. It is therefore felt  that the current rules prevent them from 
adequately taking care of the food security of their populations. The main limitation is 
reported to stem from the AMS calculation methodology that in their views does not 
adequately reflect the economic value of subsidies. 
 The AMS constraint steps in for programmes under which public stocks are acquired at 
administered prices. Proponents consider that administered prices are necessary for 
following reasons: 
1. to guarantee that the government would be able to buy when competing with private 
sector; 
2. to stimulate production in order to guarantee adequate availability of food; 
3. to ensure adequate remuneration for some segments of farmers; and/or  
4. to shield farmers from effects of price volatility. 
 It is generally considered by the proponents that when helping farmers for the above-
mentioned reasons, the final beneficiaries of these policies are the consumers. Hence this policy tool allows addressing two elements of the food security that are availability and 
access to food. 
 Therefore, proponents said they considered it essential to be able to use policies that contain 
at least some "Market Price Support characteristics" in order to achieve food security both for poor producers and consumers. 
 Based on the information provided and presentations made, several questions/concerns  
were raised by other Member s during different meetings. 
 First, concerns were raised about the lack of in-built policy constraints and of adequate 
targeting of some programmes to limit the potential distortiveness of the measure. It was 
notably felt that in some cases procurement would be allowed to continue even when stocks were enough to achieve the stated policy objectives. In addition, in some cases the 
procurement does not benefit only low income and resource-poor farmers, but also larger 
producers. 
 Second, while in certain cases the procurement was constrained by factors such as lack of 
adequate quantity, lack of sufficient storage, or producers unwillingness to sell, it was 
questioned whether these de facto constraints could justify the lack of de jure constraints. 
 Third,  it was also questioned whether the existing rules would allow to reach the current 
objectives by - among other - optimizing the use of AMS through better targeting. It was 
also inquired whether the objectives could not be  reached by market forces and if not, what 
the factors were preventing market forces doing their job. 
 Members were also interested about the future plans for those policies and potential 
reforms. One of the main questions was whether policies were evolving in a direction where 
the policy space was only of a temporary concern. Another related issue was whether the current and/or future disciplines actually encourage this policy direction. 
 Finally, the last but not least question raised was about the systemic impact of loosening the 
AoA disciplines in general, and the Green Box disciplines in particular. 
 At the end of the process, Members did not close the door for further technical work  while 
showing their willingness to take the process to the next level. The G-33 stated however TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 7 – 
 
 that should Members wish to continue technical discussions, further guidance would be 
needed from CoA (SS). 
 Building on the knowledge acquired from the technical meetings, I held informal 
consultations  over the last ten days with different groupings of Members to seek further 
feedback from delegations on the proposal itself. As this implied some matching of our new 
knowledge about the existing policies with different elements of the proposal, raising 
therefore both technical and political questions,  I considered that these discussions would be 
most efficiently handled through an integrated (i.e. Ambassador plus 1) process. 
 My take from these consultations is that there is a willingness to engage on the proposal to 
explore where convergence may be found. I thank delegations for their constructive participation and encourage them to continue in this spirit. This will be necessary because we are not yet close to agreement - in fact the substantive discussion of the proposal is only 
beginning. My intention is therefore to continue with these consultations in different formats, 
seeking to identify areas where some conver gence might be found and build incrementally 
out from there. Following this meeting I will also want to take account of the further 
comments made by members on the G33 proposal – and I would encourage members to me 
very clear with me as well as to each other on their various perspectives, objectives, concerns and questions. 
 While not excluding further technical work should Members wish to do so, I consider we 
have reached the stage where involvement at the ambassadorial level is essential. I will be in touch with delegations as necessary and as usual I am always available for any of you who wish to meet with me. I will report on our process so far to the Chair of the TNC in 
advance of the TNC meeting scheduled for 11 April, and I will convene another meeting of 
the Special Session before long to maintain transparency. 
 
_______________ 
 
 TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 9 – 
 
  RESTRICTED  
  
JOB/AG/25  
 
3 October 2013  
(13-5340)  Page: 1/6  
Committee on Agriculture 
Special Session  Original: English  
G-33 NON PAPER1 
The following non-paper, submitted by Indonesia on behalf of the G-33 is being circulated for 
consideration by Members.  
_______________ 
 
 The G-33 had submitted a proposal (Job/AG/22 dated 30 November, 2012) to deal with Food 
Security concerns of Developing Countries. The proposal envisages that a decision be taken to 
include certain elements of WTO document TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 as part of the Ministerial Declaration at the Ninth Ministerial Conference. The prop osal involves amendment to Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture on the basi s of the following three elements: 
 
i. To add to new sub-paragraph (h) to the existing Paragraph 2 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture with a view to include certain policies and services 
designed to promote rural development and poverty alleviation adopted in 
developing countries in the Green Box. 
ii. To modify the existing footnote 5 of Anne x 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture so as 
to provide that acquisition of stocks of foodstuffs by developing country Members 
with objective of supporting low-income or resource-poor producers shall not be required to be accounted for in the AMS. 
iii. To modify the existing footnote 5 and 6 of  Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
with a view to reinforce and supplement the proposed modification to footnote 5 and 
also strengthen the existing footnote 5 and 6 further so also as to cover the programmes designed to lowering pr ices to more reasonable levels. 
The G-33 reiterates its proposal contained in Job/AG/22 dated 30 November 2012 and requests 
that a decision be taken in the forthcoming Ministerial Conference, as suggested in this proposal.  
However, the G-33 notes that even after a decision is taken, as suggested in the G-33 proposal, 
the prescribed procedure for amending the Agreement on Agriculture will have to be gone through. Experience shows that this process may take a long time. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that 
the developing countries' need for Food Security is adequately responded to by the WTO, in the 
interregnum, i.e. till the Agreement on Agriculture is amended, as proposed by the G-33.  In this connection, the G-33 proposes that a su pplementary decision to the decision proposed 
earlier by the G-33 be taken in the forthcoming Ni nth Ministerial Conference on the basis of the 
following options:  
Option A: Understanding on "Governmental Stockh olding Programmes for Food Security Purposes" 
as Defined in Footnote 5 of Paragraph 3 of Anne x 2 ("Green Box") of the Agreement on Agriculture 
(AoA). 
                                               
1 Extensive consultations are still underway in Pakistan and its circulation is without prejudice to 
Pakistan's final position. TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 10 – 
 
  
Option B: Decision Pursuant to Article 18.4 
 
Option C: Peace Clause  
It may be pointed out that the three options in dicated above will not involve any amendment to 
the Agreement on Agriculture and can be implem ented on the basis of a Ministerial decision. 
Therefore, these options will safeguard the Food Security needs of developing countries till the 
Agreement on Agriculture is amended as proposed by the G-33. 
 The details of the three options are as follows:  
OPTION A: UNDERSTANDING ON "GOVERNMENTAL STOCKHOLDING PROGRAMMES FOR 
FOOD SECURITY PURPOSES" AS DEFINED IN FOOTNOTE 5 OF PARAGRAPH 3 OF ANNEX 2 ("GREEN BOX") OF THE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE (AOA) 
Members, 
  Reaffirm the critical importance of "public stockholding programmes" in securing and 
ensuring food security in developing countries; 
  Note the "public stockholding for food security purposes" under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of 
the AoA or the procurement and disposal at "market prices" remains a key policy objective and 
challenge for the majority of developing countries; 
  Note further  that any substantive deviation from the disciplines under paragraph 3 of 
Annex 2 in the conduct of public stockholding by a Member is to be accounted for in its Aggregate 
Measure of Support (AMS).  
 Recall that footnote 5 of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA in the Uruguay Round was 
meant to provide special and differential treatm ent (S&DT) flexibility for developing country 
Members involving purchases and sales of stocks of  foodstuffs at "administered prices" subject to 
additional disciplines. Specifically, footnote 5 provides that: 
 
"For the purposes of paragraph 3 of this Annex, governmental stockholding programmes for food security purposes in developing countries whose operation is 
transparent and conducted in accordance with officially published objective criteria or 
guidelines shall be considered to be in conformity with the provisions of this paragraph, including programmes under which stocks of foodstuffs for food security 
purposes are acquired and released at administered prices, provided that the 
difference between the acquisition price and the external reference price is accounted 
for in the AMS." 
 Note  that unlike in the market price support (AMS) calculation under paragraphs 8 and 9 of 
Annex 3 which is "the gap between a fixed external reference price and the applied administered 
price multiplied by the quantity of production eligible to receive the applied administered price", 
footnote 5 of Annex 2 refers to an undefined  "external reference price" while the former 
specifically refer to the "fixed" external reference price which is the average1986-88 price in the 
Uruguay Round or as defined in the accession agreement of a Member.  
 Note further  that there have been debates as to whether the S&DT flexibility under 
footnote 5 of Annex 2 follows the MPS calculation under paragraphs 8 and 9 of Annex 3. There is 
also ambiguity as to whether any substantive deviation from paragraph 3 of Annex 2 in the conduct of public stockholding constitutes MPS mechanism in the context of paragraphs 8 and 9 of 
Annex 3; 
  Recognise  that footnote 5 above cannot be interpreted or construed as a form of 
"reverse-S&DT" or as an additional requirement for developing countries on top of the generally 
applicable disciplines on "public stockholding for food security purposes" in paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA; 
 TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 11 – 
 
  Recognise  further the need to address the above ambiguity and provide certainty in the 
implementation of the S&DT flexibility under footno te 5 so as not to compromise the food security 
concerns of developing countries, 
 Hereby agree that : 
 
1. For purposes of footnote 5 of Annex 2 of the AoA, the "external reference price" shall be 
understood to mean differently from or less pre scriptive than the specified "fixed external 
reference price" in the calculation of AMS under paragraphs 8 and 9 of Annex 3. 
2. That the "external reference price" above shall be  expressed or derived from either or of the 
following: 
a. "a three-year average [FOB or CIF price
2] based on the preceding five-year period, 
excluding the highest or the lowest entry" or  "Olympic average" [the same formulation 
as under paragraph 7(a) of Annex 2]; or 
b. Last-year's average producer/farm-gate price in the 1-3 largest suppliers of a foodstuff 
in the country. 
 
_______________ 
 
 OPTION B (DECISION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18.4 OF AOA) 
Elements of the draft decision 
Article 18.4 of the AoA requires WTO Members to give due consideration to the influence of 
excessive rates of inflation on the ability of any Member to abide by its domestic support commitments. However, what could constitute excessive rates of inflation has not been elaborated 
in the AoA. Further, the Agreement does not specify the outcome after Members have given due 
consideration to "the influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability of any Member to abide by its domestic support commitments". 
 
a. Defining excessive rates of inflation 
An annual increase of inflation at the rate of X % can be considered to be normal inflation. Any 
rate of inflation in excess of X % can be considered to be the threshold of excessive rates inflation. 
 
b. Who determines the rates of inflation 
Rates of inflation as determined by the national authorities would be considered relevant for the 
Decision. 
 
c. Outcome of the due consideration 
i. For any year, using the actual rate of inflation an index would be determined, taking 
1986-88 as the base period. In parallel, for each year a comparator index for the normal level of inflation would be determined using X % as the rate of inflation on 
1986-88 as the base period. 
ii. A country would be considered to have faced excessive rate of inflation in a 
particular year, if the index based on the actual rate of inflation (with base year 1986-88) exceeds the comparator index for the normal rate of inflation (with base 
year 1986-88) for the particular year. 
iii. For a given year, the difference between the indices for the actual rate of inflation 
and the comparator normal rate of inflation would be calculated. 
                                               
2 FOB if a country is a net exporter an d CIF if a country is a net importer. TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 12 – 
 
 iv. The country would have the flexibility to reduce the administered prices at which 
foodstuffs are acquired or released by a factor based to the difference between the 
indices for the actual rate of inflation and the comparator normal rate of inflation. 
v. The obligations under paragraphs 3 and 4 and footnotes 5 and 6 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture will apply to the reduced administered price. 
Illustration 
To give an example of how this would work, let us assume that the normal inflation is 4%. 
 
Year (I) Index for 
Comparator 
Normal rate of 
inflation using 
4% rate (II) Index for 
Actual level of 
inflation (III) Difference 
between the 
Index for 
Actual rate of 
inflation and 
Comparator 
Index for 
Normal rate of 
inflation 
(III)-(II) = 
(IV) Actual 
Administered 
Price (V) Reduced 
Administered 
Price after due 
consideration 
of excessive 
rates of 
inflation* (VI) 
1986-88 100 100 0   
1989 104 104 0   
1990 108 107 -1   
1991 112 112 0   
1992 117 120 3   
1993 122 125 3   
1994 127 133 6   
1995 132 145 13 3,800 3,363 
1996 137 150 13 5,350 4,735 
1997 142 160 18 5,100 4,322 
1998 148 165 17 5,500 4,701 
1999 154 176 22 5,800 4,754 
2000 160 178 18 6,100 5,169 
2001 167 201 34 6,200 4,627 
2002 173 220 47 6,200 4,218 
2003 180 231 51 6,300 4,172 
2004 187 245 58 6,400 4,051 
2005 195 255 60 7,000 4,375 
2006 203 269 66 8,500 5,120 
2007 211 288 77 10,000 5,650 
2008 219 301 82 10,800 5,934 
2009 228 318 90 11,000 5,789 
2010 237 327 90 11,700 6,158 
2011 246 340 94 12,850 6,624 
*Reduced Administered Price = Actual Administered price X 100/ (100+(Index for Actual Inflation 
– Index for Comparator Normal Inflation)) 
 TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 13 – 
 
 To elaborate further, assume that in a particular year the actual index of inflation is 300 and the 
index for comparator normal inflation is 200, then  the excess inflation is 100. This would imply 
that the administered price would be reduced by 50%. 
 Explanation 
1.  This alternative seeks to define what would constitute excessive rates of inflation and how 
developing countries can reduce the administered price for acquisition and release of stocks of foodstuffs undertaken with the objective of meetin g food requirements of urban and rural poor. It 
may be noted that the administered prices would be reduced not to the full extent of inflation, but 
only to the extent of inflation beyond the normal rate of inflation (which has been assumed in the illustration as 4% per year). The table below provides details of CPI as available on World Bank website. In this data CPI is determined using 2005 as the base period. This has been used to 
convert the data with 1986-88 as the base period. 
 
Year 
China 
India 
Indonesia 
Malaysia 
Mexico 
Philippines 
Singapore 
Sri Lanka 
Thailand 
USA 
France 
1986-88 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100  
1989 135 112 115 105 216 118 104 124 109 109 106  
1990 139 123 124 107 273 133 107 151 115 115 110  
1991 144 140 136 112 335 158 111 169 122 120 114  
1992 153 156 146 117 387 171 113 189 127 123 116  
1993 176 166 160 122 425 183 116 211 131 127 119  
1994 218 183 174 126 455 199 120 229 138 130 121  
1995 255 202 190 130 614 212 122 246 146 134 123  
1996 276 220 205 135 825 228 123 286 154 138 125  
1997 284 235 218 139 995 241 126 313 163 141 127  
1998 282 267 346 146 1,153 263 125 342 176 143 128  
1999 278 279 416 150 1,345 278 125 358 176 146 128  
2000 278 290 432 152 1,472 289 127 380 179 151 130  
2001 280 301 482 154 1,566 305 128 434 182 156 133  
2002 278 314 539 157 1,645 313 128 476 183 158 135  
2003 282 326 574 159 1,719 320 129 506 187 162 138  
2004 292 338 610 161 1,800 336 131 544 192 166 141  
2005 298 353 674 166 1,872 358 131 607 201 172 143  
2006 302 374 762 172 1,940 377 133 668 210 177 146  
2007 317 398 811 175 2,017 388 135 774 215 182 148  
2008 335 431 890 185 2,120 420 144 949 226 189 152  
2009 333 478 933 186 2,232 438 145 982 224 188 152  
2010 344 536 981 189 2,325 455 149 1043 232 192 155  
2011 362 583 1034 195 2,404 476 157 1113 240 198 158  
2012 372 638 1078 198 2,503 491 164 1189 248 202 161  TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 14 – 
 
  
OPTION C (PEACE CLAUSE) 
Decision on Acquisition and Release of Food stuffs by Developing Countries for Food 
Security Purposes 
Ministers 
 
Recognizing  the state of the developing countries and the continued challenges being faced by 
them and the need to ensure their effective participation in the world trading system: 
 
Recognizing  that developing countries require flexibility for addressing the food security needs of 
their population in a manner that is consistent with their development priorities;  
1.  Notwithstanding the provisions of the Ma rrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
Organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994 (GATT 1994), the Agreement on Agriculture, in respect of acquisition of stocks of  foodstuffs by developing country Members and its 
subsequent release at administered prices, undertaken with the objective of meeting food 
requirements of urban and rural poor in developing countries (the "measure"),  decide t he 
following: 
 
a. The measure shall be exempt from action s based on Article XXII and XXIII of GATT 
1994; Article 19 of the Agreement on Ag riculture and Article 4 and 6 of the 
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes; Part III 
of Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures involving domestic market of 
the Member seeking the exemption. 
b. Such an exemption shall be valid for a period till a final mechanism is established to 
address the food security concern of the de veloping countries under Doha development 
agenda. 
2.  Agree that the follow-up to this Decision shall be monitored, as appropriate, by the Committee 
on Agriculture. 
 
_______________ 
 
 TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 15 – 
 
    
  
WT/MIN(13)/38  
WT/L/913  
 
11 December 2013  
(13-6827)  Page: 1/4  
Ministerial Conference 
Ninth Session 
Bali, 3-6 December 2013    
PUBLIC STOCKHOLDING FOR FOOD SECURITY PURPOSES 
MINISTERIAL DECISION OF 7 DECEMBER 2013 
 The Ministerial Conference, 
 
Having regard to paragraph  1 of Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization; 
 
Decides  as follows: 
 
1.  Members agree to put in place an interim mechanism as set out below, and to negotiate on an 
agreement for a permanent solution1, for the issue of public stockholding for food security 
purposes for adoption by the 11th Ministerial Conference. 
2.  In the interim, until a permanent solution is  found, and provided that the conditions set out 
below are met, Members shall refrain from challenging through the WTO Dispute Settlement 
Mechanism, compliance of a developing Member with its obligations under Articles 6.3 and 7.2 (b) 
of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) in relation to support provided for traditional staple food crops
2 in pursuance of public stockholding programmes for food security purposes existing as of 
the date of this Decision, that are consistent wi th the criteria of paragraph 3, footnote 5, and 
footnote 5&6 of Annex 2 to the AoA when the deve loping Member complies with the terms of this 
Decision.3 
NOTIFICATION AND TRANSPARENCY 
3.  A developing Member benefi ting from this Decision must: 
a. have notified the Committee on Agriculture that it is exceeding or is at risk of exceeding 
either or both of its Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) limits (the Member's 
Bound Total AMS or the de minimis  level) as result of its programmes mentioned above; 
b. have fulfilled and continue to fulfil its domestic support notification requirements under 
the AoA in accordance with document G/AG/2 of 30 June 1995, as specified in the 
Annex; 
c. have provided, and continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by 
completing the template contained in the Annex, for each public stockholding 
programme that it maintains for food security purposes; and 
d. provide any additional relevant statistical information described in the Statistical 
Appendix to the Annex as soon as possible af ter it becomes available, as well as  any 
information updating or correcting any information earlier submitted. 
                                               
1 The permanent solution will be applicable to all developing Members. 
2 This term refers to primary agricu ltural products that are predominant staples in the traditional diet of 
a developing Member. 
3 This Decision does not preclude developing Members from introducing programmes of public 
stockholding for food security purp oses in accordance with the releva nt provisions of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 16 – 
 
 ANTI-CIRCUMVENTI ON/SAFEGUARDS 
4.  Any developing Member seeking coverage of programmes under paragraph 2 shall ensure that 
stocks procured under such programmes do not distort trade or adversely affect the food security 
of other Members. 
5.  This Decision shall not be used in a manner that results in an increase of the support subject to 
the Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis  limits provided under programmes other than 
those notified under paragraph 3.a. 
CONSULTATIONS 
6.  A developing Member benefiting from this De cision shall upon request hold consultations with 
other Members on the operation of its public  stockholding programmes notified under 
paragraph 3.a. 
MONITORING 
7.  The Committee on Agriculture shall monitor the information submitted under this Decision. 
WORK PROGRAMME 8.  Members agree to establish a work programme to be undertaken in the Committee on 
Agriculture to pursue this issue with the aim of making recommendations for a permanent 
solution. This work programme shall take into account Members’ existing and future submissions. 
9.  In the context of the broader post-Bali agenda, Members commit to the work programme 
mentioned in the previous paragraph with the aim of concluding it no later than the 11
th Ministerial 
Conference. 
10.  The General Council shall report to the 10th Ministerial Conference for an evaluation of the 
operation of this Decision, particularly on the progress made on the work programme. 
 
_______________ 
  TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 17 – 
 
 ANNEX 
Template 
 
[Developing Member's name] 
 
General information 
1. Factual information confirming that DS:1 no tifications and relevant supporting tables 
for the preceding 5 years are up-to-date (e.g. date and document details) 
2. Details of the programme sufficient to identify  food security objective and scale of the 
programme, including: 
a. Name of the programme 
b. Traditional staple f ood crop(s) covered 
c. Agency in charge of implementation 
d. Relevant laws and regulations 
e. Date of commencement of the programme 
f. Officially published objectiv e criteria or guidelines 
3. Practical description of how the programme operates, including: 
a. Provisions relating to the purchase of stocks, including the way the administered 
acquisition price is determined  
b. Provisions related to volume and accumula tion of stocks, including any provisions 
related to pre-determined targets and quantitative limits  
c. Provisions related to the release of st ocks, including the determination of the 
release price and targeting (eligibi lity to receive procured stocks)  
4. A description of any measures aimed at mi nimising production or trade distortive 
effects of the programme 
5. Statistical information (as per the Statistical Appendix below) 
6. Any other information considered rele vant, including website references  
 TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 18 – 
 
 Statistical Appendix (per crop) (data for the latest three years) 
 Unit [Year 1] [Year 2] [Year 3]  
[Name of the crop]     
a. Opening balance of stocks     
b. Annual purchases under the programme 
(value)     
c. Annual purchases under the programme 
(quantity)     
d. Annual releases under the programme 
(value)     
e. Annual releases under the programme 
(quantity)     
f. Purchase prices     
g. Release prices     
h. End-year stocks     
i. Total production (quantity)      
j. Total production (value)     
k. Information on population benefiting from 
the release of this crop and quantities 
released:     
- Estimated number of beneficiaries at 
national level and, if possible, at sub-
national level     
- Quantity released to the beneficiaries 
at the national level and, if possible, at 
the sub-national level     
- Other     
l. In the case of government aid to private 
storage, statistics on the support granted 
and any updated statistics     
m. Total imports (value)     
n. Total imports (quantity)     
o. Total exports (value)     
p. Total exports (quantity)     
 
 
_______________ 
  TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 19 – 
 
  RESTRICTED  
  
JOB/AG/27  
 
17 July 2014  
(14-4161)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Agriculture 
Special Session  Original: English  
G-33 PROPOSED PERMANENT SOLUTION ON PUBLIC STOCKHOLDING 
FOR FOOD SECURITY PURPOSES1 
The following non-paper, submitted by Indonesia on behalf of the G-33 is being circulated for 
consideration by Members.  
_______________ 
  
1. We recall the Decision entitled "Public stockholding for Food Security Purposes" of the 9th 
Ministerial Conference (MC) at Bali in December 2013 as reflected in the document WT/MIN(13)/38, WT/L/913. 
2. Special attention is invited to paragraphs 8-10 of the above Decision. The same are 
reproduced below: 
"8. Members agree to establish a work programme to be undertaken in the Committee 
on Agriculture to pursue this issue with the aim of making recommendations for a 
permanent solution. This work programme shall take into account Members' existing 
and future submissions. 
9. In the context of the broader post-Bali agenda, Members commit to the work 
programme mentioned in the previous paragraph with the aim of concluding it no later 
than the 11th Ministerial Conference. 
10. The General Council shall report to the 10th Ministerial Conference for an 
evaluation of the operation of this Decision, particularly on the progress made on the 
work programme." 
3. Members may recall that the G-33 had submitted a proposal (JOB/AG/22 dated 
30 November 2012) to deal with some specific concerns on food security in developing countries. 
The proposal involved amendments to Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture on the basis of the 
following three elements: 
3. To add new sub-paragraph (h) to the existing Paragraph 2 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture with a view to include certain policies and services 
designed to promote rural development and poverty alleviation adopted in developing countries.
2 
4. To modify the existing footnote 5 of Anne x 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture so as 
to provide that acquisition of stocks of foodstuffs by developing country Members with objective of supporting low-income or resource-poor producers shall not be required to be accounted for in the AMS. 
                                               
1 Without prejudice to the position of Pakistan. 
2 This element was agreed and adopted by the 9th Ministerial Conference in Bali as reflected in the 
document WT/MIN(13)/37, WT/L/912. TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 20 – 
 
 5. To modify the existing footnote 5 and 6 of  Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
with a view to reinforce and supplement the proposed modification to footnote 5 and 
also strengthen the existing footnote 5 and 6 further so as also to cover the 
programmes designed to lowering pr ices to more reasonable levels. 
4. Finally, the G-33 reiterates its proposal under  items (ii) and (iii) above of JOB/AG/22 dated 
30 November 2012, and requests other Members to make submissions, if they so desire, to 
facilitate discussions on these issues. The Group also urges the Members to start early on the work programme with the aim of arriving at a "permanent solution" no later than the 11th WTO 
Ministerial Conference. 
 
_______________ 
 
 TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 21 – 
 
    
  
WT/L/939  
 
28 November 2014  
(14-6939)  Page: 1/2  
General Council   
PUBLIC STOCKHOLDING FOR FOOD SECURITY PURPOSES 
DECISION OF 27 NOVEMBER 2014 
The General Council, 
 Having regard  to paragraph 1 of Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization (the "WTO Agreement");  
 Conducting  the functions of the Ministerial Confer ence in the interval between meetings 
pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article IV of the WTO Agreement; 
 Recognizing the importance of public stockholding fo r food security purposes for developing 
countries; 
 Noting  the Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013 on Public Stockholding for Food Security 
Purposes (WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913) dated 11 December 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 
"Bali Decision"); 
Decides  that: 
1. Paragraph 2 of the Bali Decision shall be read as follows: Until a permanent solution1 is 
agreed and adopted, and provided that the condit ions set out in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the Bali 
Decision are met, Members shall not challenge through the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, 
compliance of a developing Member with its obligations under Articles 6.3 and 7.2(b) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) in relation to support provided for traditional staple food crops2 in 
pursuance of public stockholding programmes for food  security purposes existing as of the date of 
the Bali Decision,3 that are consistent with the criteria of paragraph 3, footnote 5, and footnote 5 
and 6 of Annex 2 to the AoA. 
2. If a permanent solution for the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes is not 
agreed and adopted by the 11th Ministerial Conference, the mechanism referred to in paragraph 1 
of the Bali Decision, as set out in paragraph 1 of this Decision, shall continue to be in place until a 
permanent solution is agreed and adopted. 
3. In accordance with paragraph 1.11 of the Bali Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(13)/DEC) 
dated 11 December 2013, the negotiations on a permanent solution on the issue of public 
stockholding for food security purposes shall be pursued on priority. 
4. Members shall engage constructively to negotiate and make all concerted efforts to agree 
and adopt a permanent solution on the issue of pub lic stockholding for food security purposes by 
                                               
1 The permanent solution will be applicable to all developing Members. 
2 This term refers to primary agricu ltural products that are predominant staples in the traditional diet of 
a developing Member. 
3 This Decision does not preclu de developing Members from intr oducing programmes of public 
stockholding for food security purposes in accordance  with the relevant provisions of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. TN/AG/W/8 
 
- 22 – 
 
 31 December 2015. In order to achieve such perman ent solution, the negotiations on this subject 
shall be held in the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session ("CoA SS"), in dedicated sessions 
and in an accelerated time-frame, distinct from the agriculture negotiations under the Doha 
Development Agenda ("DDA"). The three pillars of the agriculture negotiations, pursuant to the DDA, will continue to progress in the CoA SS. 
5. The TNC/General Council shall regularly review the progress of these dedicated sessions. 
__________