RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/90  
 
19 December  2018 
(18-7978) Page: 1/13 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF TH E MEETING HELD ON 26-27 NOVEMBER  2018 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its eighty -ninth (89th) regular meeting on  26-27 November  2018 
under the Chairmanship of Ms. D ébora Cumes of Guatemala . 
 
The agenda of the meeting was adopted as set out in WTO/AIR/AG/ 33. 
1  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
1.1  Outstanding responses  to questions raised, 2012 -2017  
1.1.  The Chairperson stressed the importance of timely response s to questions raised in  the 
Committee's review process . She recalled there had been a steady increase in the number of 
outstanding responses over the last years. The Secretariat had distributed documents listing 
outstanding responses for 2012 to 2017 .2 (see section 2.5 for additional informa tion). In addition to 
the five -year compilation, the c ompilation of questions for the November  meeting3 included a table 
indicating those questions with outstanding responses from 2018 CoA meetings. The Chairperson 
invited those Members with outstanding responses to provide them at their ear liest convenience.  
The Chairperson requested the Secretariat to annually produce a document summarizing the 
outstanding responses for the last five years.  
1.2  Matters relevant to the im plementation of commitments under the reform 
programme: Article 18.6  
1.2.  The 25 implementation -related issues raised as well as the responses provided and follow -up 
exchanges are compiled in section 1 of document G/AG/W/191 . These  relate to:  
a. China's credit pro gramme (raised by the United States);  
b. European U nion's modification of agricultural schedule of commitments (raised by Canada ); 
c. European Union 's drought support to farmers  (raised by Ukraine ); 
d. Ghana's poultry imports  (raised by the United States);  
e. India's dairy loans  (raised by the United States);  
f. India's whey milk powder duty  (raised by the United States);  
g. Japan's export subsidies  (raised by the United States);  
h. Pakistan's import tariffs  for dairy products  (raised by the European Union ); 
i. Sri Lanka's tax on imported milk powder  (raised by New Zealand ); 
j. Canada's new milk ingredient class  (raised by Australia, New Zealand and the United States);  
k. Canada's wine sale policy  (raised by New Zealand and the United States);  
l. India's pulses policies  (raised by Australia , Canada and the United States);  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 G/AG/W/177/Rev.1 . 
3 G/AG/W/190  and G/AG/W/190/Corr.1.  G/AG/R/90  
 
- 2 - 
 
  m. India's sugar policies  (raised by the European Union and Russia n Federation ); 
n. India's merchandise exports from I ndia scheme ( MEIS) (raised by New Zealand ); 
o. India's skim milk powder export subsidies  (raised by the United Sta tes); 
p. Korea's rice imports  (raised by Australia and the United States);  
q. Pakistan's sugar policies  (raised by Australia and Russia n Federation ); 
r. Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  (raised by the United States);  
s. Philippines' rice waiver  (raised by the Austral ia); 
t. Suriname's poultry tariffs  (raised by the United States);  
u. Thailand's sugar policies  (raised by the European Union);  
v. Thailand's import permits for feed wheat (raised by the United States);  
w. U.S. dairy policies  (raised by Canada);  
x. U.S. proposed domestic support measures (raised by Australia and India);  
y. Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive  (raised by the United States).  
1.3  Review of Notifications  
1.3.  The Chairperson  informed  Members that since the September  2018 meeting the Committee 
had receive d 50 notifications . These  had been distributed electronically to all delegations.  
1.3.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram  
1.4.  Section 2 of document G/AG/W/191  reflects the questions concerning individual notifications 
raised  in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram4, the responses provided  and Members' 
follow -up comments . 
1.3.2   Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process  
1.5.  A total of five questions were raised under this agenda item. Section  3 of 
document  G/AG/W/191  reflects the questions raised, responses provided, and Members' follow -up 
comments .5 
1.3.3   Overdue notifications  
1.6.  The Committee took no te of the document summarizing  the current status of Members' 
complianc e with notification obligations.6 
1.7.  The Chairperson recognized Members efforts  to bring their notifications up to date  noting that 
a number of Members had recently submitted agriculture notifications covering multiple years. As 
an example, the Chairperson no ted that Indonesia had recently submitted 28 notifications that 
include d Table DS:1, Table MA:2, table MA :5 and Table NF:1 notifications;  China had submitted 
eight notifications covering four years of Ta ble ES:1 and ES:2 notifications;  Sri Lank a had submit ted 
three  years of Table ES:1  notifications  and two years of Table DS:1  notifications; and  Australia also 
had submitted five notifications, including two years of domestic support notifications. The 
Chairperson also reported that Turkey and Cambodia had recently submitted five (2005 to 2009 ) 
and four years  (2014 to 2017), respectively,  of domestic support notifications .  
1.8.  The Chairperson  highlighted a few numbers with respect to the outstanding notifications. 
For the period 1995 to 201 6: 
• 35% (798 ) table DS:1  domestic support notifications  remain ed outstanding ; and 
                                                
4 WTO/AIR/AG/ 33, Attachment Section B. 
5 WTO/AIR/AG/ 33, Attachment Section C. 
6 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.33 . G/AG/R/90  
 
- 3 - 
 
  • 32% (838 ) export subsidy notifi cations in the ES:1 series  remain ed outstanding . 
1.9.  Members had posed questions  to six Members under this item . The question s, corresponding 
answer s and Members' follow -up comments can be found in section 4 of document G/AG/W/191 . 
1.10.   The Chairperson  highlighted  the importance of transparency and called for increase d efforts 
to get up to date with notification obligations . The Chairperson  also highlighted  the various  databases 
that could  help Members  manage informati on and facilitate the work of Committee . 
1.3.4   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
1.11.   The Commi ttee took note of the  38 notifications circulated before 16 November  2018, 
including notificat ions carried over from the September  2018 meeting but  in respect of which no 
questions had been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.7 
1.3.5   Notifications circulated  or made available after the issuance of the convening 
airgram  
1.12.   Two notifications had  been circulated after the issuance  of the convening airgram on  16 
November  2018: 
• Iceland –Table ES:1 and Table ES:2 (2017). 
1.13.   These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with the Committee's working procedures.  
1.3.6   Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: informa tion regarding outcome where the issue involved is one of  
general interest  
1.14.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
1.3.7   Counternotification s (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture)  
1.3.7.1   Certain measures of India providing market price support to cotton – 
Communication from the United States  
1.15.   The United States introduced its counternotification8, noting that it continued to be concerned 
with the lack of sufficient responses by India regarding  the disparities between how it implemented 
market price support  and how it had notified these measures. Since 2011, India had submitted four 
domestic support notifications covering marketi ng years 2004 -2005 through  2016-2017. Since May 
2018, Members had raised approximately 90 questions regarding Indi a's agricultural policies on 
domestic support measures, as well as  import restrictions , tariff increases and export subsidies. The 
United States noted that the counternotification  only covered  India's market price support 
programmes in favour of India's cotton pro ducers for marketing years  2010-2011 through 2016 -
2017.  
1.16.   The United States  had identified several areas of potential concern  in India’s notifications of 
market price support for cotton . These  concerns include d issues with currencies  used, eligible 
production volumes and the exclusion of total value of production in India's notification. For each of 
these concerns the U S counternotification  explained  the basis for the information in data reported 
in its counternotification s calculations.  The United States further noted that  when taking this 
information into account and applying  it in a manner consistent with the methodology of the  
Agreement on Agriculture , the US counternotification  found that India appear ed to have substantially 
underreport ed its market price su pport for cotton and exceeded  its allowable levels of support.  
                                                
7 WTO/AIR/AG/33, Attachment Section D . 
8 G/AG/W/188 . G/AG/R/90  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.17.   India stated that India’s  minimum support price was intended to ensure that the poor farmers 
did not have to resort t o distress sales.  India noted  that the average annual procurement of cotton 
in the  last two  years had  been less than 2% of the total production. India further noted that the 
Agreement on Agriculture did not place a binding obligation on India to notify in a particular currency . 
India had  been notifying  its domestic support in US dollars since 1995 -1996.  
1.18.   On the issue of eligible production , India pointed out that the Agreement on Agriculture d id 
not mandate any specific methodology to Members for determining what constitutes production 
eligible to receive the applied administrative price. In India , only th e part of the cotton production 
meeting specific  quality parameters and which is actually of fered by the farmers to the designated 
government agencies of procurement at the market support price was eligible for procurement. India 
stated that the findings on the Korea -Beef case we re not automatically applicable in every case.  
1.19.   On the issue of the conversion factor, India noted that the minimum support price wa s 
declared for raw cotton . Since  cotton lint was the traded commodity , the minimu m support price for 
raw cotton wa s converted into cotton lint in India's  domestic support notifications. India’s calculation  
considered  various parameters like the MSP of cotton, cotton turnout, the issue of lint to seed cotton, 
ginning and pressing costs, wasted, realization received from seed cotton, etc. The ca lculation of the  
conversion factor used by the Unite d Stated had  been arrived at by considering only one parameter , 
the cotton turnout.  
1.20.   On the issue of the value of production data , India noted that there wa s no obligation to 
provide data on the value of production and therefore India had  not been notifyin g it. Moreover, 
India stated that the value of production data wa s in the public domain. India had provided value of 
product ion data from modified crops in the meetings of the CoA.  
1.21.   Finally, India stated that linking its cotton exports with domestic support was not justified 
noting that  India has a huge t extile industry which created  a large domestic market for cotton and 
that about 85% of the production wa s consumed locally. India ha d been among the top five importers 
of cotton in the period 2007 -2016. India had import ed 2.7 million bales comprising  7.2% of global 
imports in 2016. Therefore, India net exports were decreasing. India concluded by noting that the 
US counternotification  was based on incorrect assumptions, faul ty interpretations and flawed 
analysis leading to erroneous conclusions. India reiterate d that the methodology used by India wa s 
consistent with its obligations under the AoA.  
1.22.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, New Zealand . Paraguay  and Ukraine  welcomed 
the US counternotification. Members  noted the importance of having  clarity on the policies 
implemented by a major producer  of cotton , such as India,  as they could distort  production and 
trade and could have a negative  impact on other countries, p articularly developing countries  and 
more specifically least developed countries . Members placed a priority on addressing the trade 
distorting aspects of market price support . Members raised concerns regarding India's methodology  
for the calculation of mar ket price support , in particular how it defined eligible production . Members 
highlighted that t he methodology for market price support calculation  was defined in Annex  3, 
paragraph 8 of the AoA and that t he Appellate Body had  issued findings to this regard in the Korea -
Beef panel.  Some Members stated that transparency was a valuable part of the work the CoA and 
stressed the importance of having  a common understanding of Members' WTO obligations , of 
relevant agricultural  rules and how  rules were to be implemented.  
1.23.   The United States conclud ed by noting that market price support o f large producer s and 
trader s could  affect and distort the global agricultural economy in several ways, including by 
impacting domestic and international agric ultural prices and thus incentives for resource allocation . 
The United States noted that market price support had  direct and clear impact on prices that we re 
felt across the economy even when governments only purchase d limited quantities due to farmers 
perceived reduced risk of falling prices.   
1.24.   The United States recalled that the issue of switching currencies had  been raised in the CoA 
repeatedly noting that currency conversions could  impact the level of support reported. The 
United  States encouraged India to consider including value of production data  in future  notification s.  G/AG/R/90  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.3.7.2   India's measures to provide market price support to sugarcane – Communication 
from Australia  
1.25.   Australia introduced its counter notification9, noting  that o ver recent months global sugar 
prices had  been below the cost of production in Australia and that  85% of Australia's sugar 
production being exported each year. Australia stated that as a major sugar producer and exporter, 
dynamics in India's sugar market had serious implications o n global sugar prices. Australia expressed 
concerns that India's sugar subsidies had  contributed to the global sugar glut and negatively 
impacted sugar prices. A number of these subsidies appear ed inconsistent with India's 
WTO obligations. India had  not in cluded sugarcane or its derived products in any of its domestic 
support notifications since 1995 -1996. By doing so, India continued  to assert that since 1995 -1996 
it had  provided no subsidies to its sugar industry. Australia's  counternotification  provided  a 
conservative calculation of domestic support provided by India to its sugar industry in the form of 
market price suppo rt.  
1.26.   Australia stated that p rior to the start of each sugar -planting seas on, the g overnment of India 
set a fair and remunerative price (the FRP ) for sugarcane  in accordance with legislation,  the 
Sugarcane Control Order of 1966. This FRP was an appli ed administered price which acted  as a floor 
price for sugar mills to pay sugarcane farmers. Australia stated that this had  significant impacts  on 
commercial operations of both su gar mills and sugarcane farmers, and disrupted  the price signals 
and market forces of supply and demand.  
1.27.   Australia stated that Annex 3, paragraph 8 defined  market price support to be calculated as 
the gap between a fixed external reference price and the applied administered price multiplied by 
the quantity of eligible production to receive the applied administered price. For sugarcane in India, 
the relevant applied administered price  was the FRP determined by the g overnment of India under 
the sugar control order. Additionally, paragraph 9 of Annex 3 of the AoA stated  that the fixed external 
reference price shall be based on the years 1986 to 1988. The fixed e xternal reference price 
published by India in its agriculture  supporting tables was 156.1  rupees per tonne.  
1.28.   India's Sugar Control Order of 1966 did  not limit the amount of sugarcane eligible to receive 
the FRP. Therefore,  in Australia's view, the total qu antity of producti on eligible to receive the FRP 
was all Indian sugarcane production and not just the sugarcane used to produce sugar. Furthermore, 
Australia stated that in the Korea - Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh and Chilled Frozen Beef, the 
AB defi ned eligible production as fit or entitled to be chosen.  
1.29.   Australia added that p ursuant to Article 6.4 of the AoA, the de minimis  provision allowed  
exclusion from the AMS of product -specific and non -product specific support not exceeding 10% of 
the total v alue of production in the relevant year. In addition, un der Article 7.2, if a Member had  no 
AMS, such as India, the Member shall not provide support in excess of the de minimis limit set out 
in Article 6.4. Australia's counter notification asserted  that ove r the period 2011 -2012 
and 2016-2017, India provided AMS via sugarcane market price support vastly in excess of India's 
10% de minimis limit. According to Aus tralia's calculations, India had  provided market price support 
of between 77.1% and 99.8% for suga rcane  over that period.  
1.30.   Australia had  categorized the counternotification as conservative as it include d only MPS 
provided by the g overnment of India under the benchmark FRP of 2,750 rupees per tonne or 
approximately USD 37  per tonne . The counternotification  did not include calcu lations for additional 
premium  subsidies the Indian g overnment provided  for highe r sugar recovery rates, for s tate-level 
support , nor for other me asures the Indian g overnment had  implemented to provide domestic 
support for its sugar industry.   
1.31.   India stated that the Australian counter notification was based on the premise that India 
provided  domestic support for sugarcane and that various measures had  been built under this 
premise. India disagreed  that the market pric e support for sugarcane in the form of fair and 
remunerative price s was a domestic support and must be included in India's sugarcane AMS. India 
emphasized that it had  notified market price support for all the crops  where government  agencies 
had made procur ement on their applied administered price. In the case of sugarcane , no support 
had been  notified as no procurement was ordered by the government.  Concerning other issues such 
as the use of currency and inclusion of other type s of state -level support, Indi a was of the view that 
                                                
9 G/AG/W/189 . G/AG/R/90  
 
- 6 - 
 
  these were irrelevant since  the government had not procured any sugar on FRP. Various m easures  
had been taken by the g overnment of India to address the concerns related to unpaid sugarcane 
dues of farmers and the liquidity crisis aff ecting sugar mills. India had  exported only about 
0.62 million tonnes of sugar accounting for less than 1 % of global exports in 2018. India reject ed 
Australia's counternotification and reiterated  that the methodology used by India wa s consistent 
with its obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture.  
1.32.   Brazil, Canada, Colombia, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Mexico, New Zealand, 
Paraguay, Russia n Federation , Thailand , Ukraine and the United States welcome d Australia's 
counternotification.  Membe rs highlighted depressed prices in international market of sugar  and 
noted the impact that policies could have on m arket conditions for sugar . Members remained 
concerned about the WTO  consistency  of India's  domestic sugarcane and sugar policies  which 
appea red to qualify as market price support  since the  measures influenced  domestic producers ' 
decisions and could  encourage overproduction . Some Members noted that market price support 
could take place by government action in the absence of procurement. Some Me mbers  expressed 
concerns  that India was also implementing other measures of support including support from mills 
to cane growers . Members added that the Agreement on Agriculture required Members to notify all 
support and benefits to producers whether provi ded at the national or subnational level, and that 
the exclusion of subnational support provided an inaccurate picture of the agricultural policy. Some 
Members agree d with the methodolog y used  by Australia to calculate the market price support for 
sugar , including the use of India's total production as eligible production .  
1.33.   Australia disagreed with India's  assertion  that India was  not providing any market price 
support because it was not procuring sugar. Australia noted that the g overnment of India d id not 
need to be procuring  sugar to provid e market price support  and that India was  setting a minimum 
price that mills must pay for sugar (the FRP ) and that it combined that with payments to mills . 
Australia stressed that there wa s a strong correlation betw een India's domestic surplus or deficit 
situation  and in the global situation.  
2  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN  THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE  
2.1  Annual monitoring exercise on the follow -up to the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision under 
Article 16.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture  
2.1.  The Chairperson recalled that Article 16.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture mandated  the 
Committee on Agriculture to monitor, as appropriate, the follow -up to the Marrakesh Ministerial 
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Re form Programme on Least -
developed and net food -importing developing countries (the NFIDC Decision) . A reminder to this 
effect was circulated to Members on 31 October 2018 in WTO/AIR/AG/32.   
2.2.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat's addendum to its backg round note on the 
implementation of the NFIDC Decision to facilitate Members' consideration of this agenda item.10  
2.3.  The Secretariat recall ed that the complete background note had been  distributed early 
in 2018.11 The addendum provided some updates since then. The addendum included the annual 
commitment level of the Republic of Korea , who had become a new Member to the Food Assistance 
Committee in 2018,  and other parties for the year 2018 .  
2.4.  The addendum also include d an update on the issue of food aid shipments data.  For a number 
of years, the Secretariat background note had included data on global food aid shipments sourced 
from the WFP's INTERFAIS data  system.  Since the discontinuation of INTERFAIS in 2016 the FAO 
had been developing a food aid data collection system to monitor and report on global food aid 
transactions.  Under the new Food Assistance Convention 2013, the annual commitments on food 
assistance by all donor parties, as well as the reporting on these co mmitments, were in monetary 
terms . Additionally,  information on  food aid and other associated policy aspects  was also collected 
under the review and the monitoring process of the Committee on Agriculture . The Secretariat noted 
that it regularly collaborate d with the relevant international organizations including FAO, WFP, and 
the International Grains Council to enhance transparency of global food aid deliveries. The 
                                                
10 G/AG/W/42/Rev.19/Add.1 . 
11 G/AG/W/42/Rev.19 . G/AG/R/90  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Secretariat was also looking in to organizing  an information session for WTO Member s in 2019  to 
report on these efforts.  
2.5.  Based on the request made earlier by the NFIDC group of Members, the addendum also look ed 
at some aspects of commercial imports of foodstuffs by LDCs and NFIDCs. The addendum provided 
information on the proportion of  cereal s in the import basket of LDCs and NFIDCs , the trends in  
cereal imports , food ai d levels , and prices  over the recent period . In addition to the price 
developments, rising and volatile international freight rates were also believed to have affected 
import bi lls. 
2.6.  The Chairperson welcome the idea of an information session on food aid in 2019 noting that 
during recent discussions on export competition in the CoA S pecial Session  some Members had 
emphasize d the importance of enhanced transparency of international food aid transactions. The 
Chairperson considered that since the Committee would undertake the next annual dedicated 
discussions on export competition at its June 2019 session, the planned information session on food 
aid could usefully be organized as a si de-event of the June CoA meeting.   
2.7.  The European Union welcomed the Secretariat's updated report and welcomed the accession 
of the Republic of Korea to the Food Assistance Convention. The European Union noted that the 
usual Annex  1 to the report provided a record of compliance with Table NF:1 notification 
requirements and that  it would also be useful to give an overview and summary of th e content of 
the notifications in the NFIDC report . 
2.8.  Egypt, o n behalf of the NFI DCs Group, stated  that the implementation of  the NFIDC Dec ision 
had bee n unsatisfactory and that there had been no comprehensive assessment of the Agreement 
on Agriculture's impact on the se countries. The Group believed  that the Marrakesh Decision 
presented an important mean s for delivering improved  food security and agriculture productivity in 
NFIDCs. Egypt was of the view that having an updated comprehensive view of the evolution of the 
status of NFIDCs from 1995 to date would give a different perspective of the implement ation of the 
Marrakesh Deci sion. Egypt requested  the Secretariat to  prepare an updated factual presentation of  
NFIDCs including the evolution of the number of countries, the value and volume of imports, main 
importing products, agriculture activities for these products, population  and per capita income  
among others . Egypt noted that the group would  welcome an information -sharing session proposed 
for 2019. Additionally, the Group urged  Members to engage in the review of the Ministerial Decision 
on NFIDCs to establish a mechanism to f ully implement the provisions of the decision that includes 
the level of technical and financial assistance promised under it.  
2.9.  Pakistan supported the  statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of  the NFIDC s group . Pakistan 
believed  that coordinated approaches to technical assistance to address hunger, malnutrition and 
agriculture productivity enhancement were very important for NFIDCs. A predictab le agricultural 
trading regime wa s also critical for ensuring global food security and particularly access for durab ility 
and availability for net -food-importing developing countries. Pakistan noted that it wa s imperative 
that in any future agricultural reforms substantial flexibility should be provided to NFIDCs that could 
help them in creating domestic production and responding to chronic food security problems.  
2.10.   Norway stated that in 2017 the total Norwegian food assistance was close to USD  250 million 
or close to USD 50 per inhabitant. Due to  the worsened hunger situation in the world over the last 
years. the Norwegi an contribution to the World Food Programme  had increased by 46% in 2017. 
Norwegian long -term bilateral aid for agriculture, fishery and forestry had also increased by 39% 
in 2017. Increased aid in 2017 was directed towards alleviating  acute hunger crisis in Yemen, Chad 
region, Somalia, South Sudan and the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh. In addition,  some  food 
assistance to Syria and neighbouring countries. Norway underline d the important work carried out 
by the World Food Programme and encourage d WTO Member s to facilitate the work of this 
Organization.  
2.1.1   Contributions by Members, including Table NF:1 notifications circulated since the 
February 2018  monitoring exercise  
2.11.   Thirteen Table NF:1 notifications that had been circulated (including corrigend a) since the 
February  2018 monitoring exercise. These included:  
• Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/119) ; G/AG/R/90  
 
- 8 - 
 
  • European union (G/AG/N/EU/42) ; 
• Indonesia  (G/AG/N/IDN/48, G/AG/N/IDN/48/CORR.1, G/AG/N/IDN/49, 
G/AG/N/IDN/49/CORR.1, G/AG/N/IDN/50, G/AG/N/IDN/51);  
• Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/229) ; 
• Norway  (G/AG/N/NOR/100) ; 
• Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/20) ; 
• Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/85, G/AG/N/CHE/86) . 
2.1.2   Contributions by observer International Organizations  
2.12.   The International Grain Council (IGC) and the  Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on 
Agriculture ( IICA) submitted contributions under this item .12 The IICA provide d a summary of the 
issues raised in their contribution  noting that it provided information on technical cooperation 
activities carried out by IICA in 2018  to support Latin American and Caribbe an (LAC) countries in 
the area of food and nutrition security (i.e., access to food, availability, stability and utilization). 
The IGC submission contained information on the work of the Food Assistance Convention including 
the minimum annual commitments o f food assistance of its 16 parties.  
2.13.   The FAO noted that the Committee on Commodity Problems (CCP) had an ongoing item to 
discuss food aid data collection for the Consultative Sub-Committee on Surplus Disposal  (CSSD ). 
FAO noted that  the suspension of the WF P's INTERFAIS  and the fact that the amount of food aid 
data available were  in monetary values  created a scarcity of global level data t hat did not  adequately 
serve the CSSD's functions. The FAO, in collaboration with the WF P and OE CD, was evaluating the 
possibility of  establish ing a questionnaire -based system targeting the primary food aid donors of the 
governments. The questionnaire was currently being tested and it would be further modified based 
on the responses from the selected  donors  to ensure that the requested data can be provided and 
that requests are clear to respondents.  
2.1.3   Review of the International Food Aid provision of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on Export Competition  
2.14.   In paragraph 32 of the Nairobi Decision on Expor t Competition Members had agreed to review 
the provisions on international food aid forming part of the Decision within the regular 
CoA monitoring of the implementation of the NFIDC Decision.  
2.15.   The Chairperson recalled that a t the 2015 exercise Members had suggested includ ing a 
separate sub -agenda item on the review of international food aid within the standing agenda item 
on the annual NF monitoring. Th us, th e convening airgram of th e November  meeting reflect ed this 
suggestion by scheduling food aid review under agenda item 2 B(iii). At the February 2018 exercise, 
Members had continued to reflect on the international food aid review process mandated in the 
Nairobi Export Competition Decision Exercise. A number o f Members had noted that the food aid 
chapter in the Secretariat's background document used for the export competition annual dedicated 
discussion would be a good basis for this review. Another Member had noted the need to address 
the data gap concerning f ood aid, particularly from other international organizations.  
2.16.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
2.2  Annual consultation under Article 18.5 – Members' participation in the normal growth 
of world trade  
2.17.   The Chairperson recalled that A rticle 18:5 provided for Members to consult annually with 
respect of their participation in the normal growth of world trade in agricultural products within the 
framework of commitments on export subsidies. The Chairperson added that Members' compliance 
with their notification obligations in the export subsidy area was crucial to enable the Committee to 
                                                
12 IGC communication under G/AG/GEN/147; IICA communication  under G/AG/GEN/148 . G/AG/R/90  
 
- 9 - 
 
  undertake its consultations. The revised compliance document reflected the state -of-play of 
Members' compliance with their notification obligations includin g in the export subsidy area.13 The 
document showed that for the implementation period 1995 -2016, 838 Table ES:1 notifications and 
52 Table ES:2 notifications remained outstanding.  
2.18.   The Committee took note of the background note prepared by the Secretariat f or this 
exercise.14 The updated background note include d data series on export volumes or values and 
export shares in world exports for the ten -year period of 2008 to 2017.  As in the last revision of the 
background note, the export data included in the note  had been sourced from UN COMTRADE 
database. Most of the  values  were in quantity terms, except for fruits and vegetables and live animals 
which were in value terms . The note cover ed all 22 products or group of products listed on page 24 
of G/AG/2 that were used in the Committee's monitoring of export subsidy commitments .  
2.19.   The European Union welcomed the Secretariat's report and noted that agricultural trade had 
increased by more than 6% in 2017 according to the Secretariat's document. The European Union 
further added that increases were seen in both developing countries and developed countries. 
Developing countries were also increasing their share of overall trade and South -South trade was 
still on an upward trend.  
2.3  Implementation  issues  (G/AG/16, G/AG/16/ADD .1, G/AG/22)  
2.20.   There was no request for the floor under this agenda item.  
2.4  Implementation of Ministerial outcomes  
2.4.1   Review of the Bali Ministerial Decision on TRQ administration  
2.21.   The timeline stipulated in the Bali Decision on TRQ administration  indicated that the 
Committee ha d two years to complete the review of the Decision to be able make recommendations 
to the General Council. The Chairperson recalled that the CoA had adopted at its February 2018 
meeting the process for the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ  administration.15 The review would 
initially be conducted through open -ended informal meetings of the Committee scheduled back -to-
back with the regular meetings of the Co A. The first informal session of this process had been held 
on 11 June 2018 .16  
2.22.   The Com mittee continued its deliberations on the review of the operation of the Bali TRQ 
decision in its informal meeting held on 26 November. The  informal meeting benefitted from the 
thematic discussion on TRQ administration and underfill where three industry re presentatives shared 
their perspective and experience of TRQ administration. The thematic discussions had emphasized 
the role and value of enhanced transparency of TRQ administration including with regard to fill rates. 
Specific concerns had been expressed  with regard to the application of country -specific TRQs and 
their potential discriminatory effect among the various exporting Members. The need to have a 
reallocation mechanism with regard to such TRQs was also emphasized quoting the legal obligations 
in GATT Article XIII. On TRQ underfill cases and the associated causes, the point was made to 
distinguish between the situations of burdensome administration requirements and those of genuine 
market circumstances. A suggestion had been  made to explore the way s of effective dissemination 
of TRQ administration and fill rate information available in Members' notifications.  
2.23.   Members had also continued their discussions on other issue s raised in the TRQ review 
exercise. The Chairperson had reminded Members of the t imeline to finalize the review so as to 
enable the General Council to take a decision on the recommendations no later than 31 December 
2019. Three broad themes ha d emerged in the review discussions, namely i) effective 
implementation and follow -up of the s ubstantive obligations arising out of the Bali TRQ Decision; ii) 
TRQ transparency requirements ; and iii) issues related to the Underfill Mechanism.   
                                                
13 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.33 . 
14 G/AG/W/32/Rev.17 . 
15 G/AG/W/171 . 
16 Details of this discussion may be found in the report of the June 2018 CoA meeting in 
document  G/AG/R/88.  G/AG/R/90  
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.24.   In the ensuing discussions, many Members emphasized the point of less -than-universal 
applicability of the underfill mechanism and differing obligations of Members under the 
mechanism and considered this to be the central issue to be addressed in possible recommendations 
for the General Council or the Ministerial Conference. Issues associated with the usability,  duration 
and the resulting benefits of the underfill mechanism and why it ha d not yet been invoked were also 
noted. A proposal had been  made to have a deeper discussion on some of these aspects of the 
underfill mechanism in 2019 based on specific question s. Specific suggestions had also been made 
to streamline some of the procedural requirements under the various stages of the underfill 
mechanism.  
2.25.   One Member had noted  that an important reason why it had so far been reluctant to invoke 
the underfill mechanism was that one major Member was not subject to its full obligations. 
Expressing concerns on the S&D aspect of the Decision where developing Members may decide to 
opt out of the obligations, this Member had emphasized that the review recommendations should 
provide for a uniform application of the underfill mechanism for all Members which would then permit 
it to agree to eliminate Annex B of the TRQ Decision. Another Me mber had expressed reservations 
about  any dilution of the S&D.  
2.26.   Some Members had noted that the TRQ review discussions to improve tariff quota underfill 
should not be confused with market access negotiations. Many also stressed t he importance of 
enhanced t ransparency of TRQ administration including the provision of fuller information in 
Members' TRQ notifications. Members had noted that t here should be specific consideration of issues 
around the reallocation requirements, especially when country -specific al locations were involved. 
This point also came up during the thematic discussions. One Member had also stated the need to 
examine the linkage between the notifications requirements in the area of agriculture and those 
applicable under the agreement on impor t licensing procedures.   
2.27.   The Chairperson recalled that according to document G/AG/W/171 which indicated the 
process for the Review of the Bali Decision, the Secretariat would circulate a first draft report before 
the end of the year. Members would then have opportunity to comment on th e report and to discuss 
it at the next Committee meeting.  The Chairperson would carry out consultations w ith Members to 
identify possible next steps for the Committees' discussions in the February meeting.  
2.4.2   Follow -up on the Na irobi Decision on export competition including prepara tion for 
the June 2019 Export Competition Dedicated Discussion.  
2.28.   The Chairperson stated that Committee concluded its third dedicated discussion on export 
competition since the Nairobi Decision at the last June  meeting . Questions and responses provided 
during those discussions were circulated in document G/AG/W/182. The Secretariat background 
document was revised after the June CoA meeting and circulated in document G/AG/W/125/rev.9 
and addenda on 23 July  2018. A corrigendum was ci rculated on 21 November 2018 
in G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2/Corr .1 to include an update of Canada's response to the questionnaire 
on export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes.   
2.29.   The Chairperson noted that a s part of the monitoring of th e Decision, Members also had the 
possibility to raise questions during other meetings under this agenda item. In this context, the 
Unite States had posed questions to India and Turkey. The questions , responses and follow -up 
comment s can be found in section 5 of document G/AG/W/191 . 
2.30.   The Chairperson invited those Members who had submitted changes to their export subsidy 
schedules to inform the Committee on their submissions. Canada noted that its draft schedule had 
been submitted to the WTO and that some concerns had been expressed by some Members; Canada 
informed that it was working with these Members to resolve their concerns. South Africa stated that 
it had submitted a revised schedule for cotton and that they would be submitted a revised schedule 
for the remaining tariff lines before the end of December. Colombia took the floor to inform Members 
that its schedule had been certified.  
2.31.   The Chairperson also invited other Members with export subsidies reduction commitments 
incorporated in their schedules to inform the Committee on the process of revising their schedules 
for export subsidies. Brazil  stated that they were f inalizing the adjusted  schedule to be sent to 
congress in the coming weeks. Iceland  noted that they were currently  preparing the revised sched ule G/AG/R/90  
 
- 11 - 
 
  which would be submitted to the WTO in the next few weeks . Mexico noted that they were currently 
reviewing the ir revised scheduled for submission to the WTO. The European Union also noted that 
they were currently working on thei r schedule. Indonesia, Turkey and Venezuela were not in a 
position to provide additional updates to the ones provided in previous meetings.  
2.32.   New Zealand and the European Union welcomed the opportunity given by the  Chairperson for 
Members to provide an upda te on the status of their implementation of the Nairobi Decision on 
Export Competition.  
2.33.   The Chairperson  noted that out the 16 members with export subsidies reduction commitments 
in their schedules at the time the Nairobi decision was adopted, seven Member s had their revised 
schedules fully certified, one had it partially certified and two more Members had their revised draft 
schedules circulated but not yet certified.  
2.34.   The Chairperson remind ed Members that an email had been circulated on 25 October 2018 to  
initiate the next dedicated discussion on export competition scheduled for the June 2019 meeting. 
The email contained the questionnaire and noted a deadline for subm issions to the questionnaire 
of 22 March 2019.  
2.4.3   Implementation of other Ministerial outcome s 
2.35.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
2.5  Chair report on remaining issue from informal meeting - Enhancing transparency and 
the CoA Review Process.  
2.36.   In the informal meeting held on 26 November the Committee had  had the opportunity to 
continue to reflect on ideas for improvements. During th e informal meeting,  the Chairperson  had 
reminded Members of two of the main issues that had been highlighted in previous discussions on 
this subject in past informal meetings of th e Committee: the monit oring of outstanding responses 
to questions in the Committee's Review Process and the improving of timeliness and completeness 
of notifications.  
2.37.   With respect to the monitoring of outstanding responses, the Secretariat had produced a 
document summarizing ou tstanding responses from 2012 to 2017 for the June meeting and 
subsequently revised the document indicating new responses. The revised document shared in 
September had shown Members' recent efforts to reduce the number of outstanding responses which 
had be en reduced by 11 %. Unfortunately, as no additional responses had been received before the 
issuance of the convening airgram for  the November meeting, the Secretariat had not been able to 
issue a revised document of outstanding questions from 2012 -2017. The Chairperson had expressed 
her view that the Committee should strive for a higher response rate.  
2.38.   During the informal meeting, Norway had introduced its room document noting that the 
intention of this document was to promote transparency in the CoA.17 Norway had noted that the 
figures contained therein described how many months after the end of the reporting year Members 
submitted their most recent Table DS:1 notification. Norway had noted that members with current 
total AMS commitments were far away from adhering to the notification deadline of 90 days; on the 
other hand, more than half of the listed de minimis  members had submitted their notification within 
a year after the reporting year.  Norway had also noted that the new deadlines proposed for 
agricult ure in the proposal “Procedures to enhance transparency and strengthen notification 
requirements under WTO agreements” of more than three years and three months might in fact 
reduce members' efforts to notify in a timely manner. Norway was of the view that  the objective 
should be that all Table DS:1 notifications be submitted within one year  after the end of the 
reporting  year.  
2.39.   Members  had welcomed the opportunity to discuss possible ways to improve transparency 
and called for further discussions on this m atter. A number of Members had supported Norway's 
suggestion to modify the deadlines set forth in G/AG/2 noting that the collection of data was complex 
thus the deadlines set forth in the notification requirements were unrealistic. Another Member had 
                                                
17 RD/AG/67 . G/AG/R/90  
 
- 12 - 
 
  been of the view that relaxing the deadlines could have the opposite effect to the one intended by 
Norway.  Another Member had highlighted the possibility for members to prepare preliminary 
notifications and later to notify a revised version as an option to help  reduce the delay in notifications.  
One Member had been of the view t hat if the G/AG/2 was to be revisited, other aspects should be 
considered, such as the inclusion of relevant modifications relating to Ministerial Decisions. Another 
Member had been of t he view that other issues with regards to Members' notification practices 
deserved attention such as the fact that some Members didn't provide VoP data, and that some 
others aggregated various support programmes. According to this Member, w  clarification o f these 
issues in a revised G/AG/2 could provide for improved notification practices and eliminate 
unnecessary repeat questions in the Committee. Finally, one Member had suggested that a step by 
step approach would help the CoA clarify what aspects of G/AG /2 should be considered.     
2.6  Annual report to the Council for Trade in Goods  
2.40.   The Chairperson recalled that the Chairs of regular WTO bodies provide d reports of the 
activities of their committees to the Council for Trade in Goods for consideration in the November 
CTG meeting. The Chairperson would thus prepare a brief, factual annual report as Chair of the 
Committee on Agriculture, under her own respon sibility, on the activities of th e Committee. Since 
the Council for Trade in Goods had held its last meeting for 2018 on 12 -13 November 2018, th e 
report w ould be  submitted directly to the General Council for consideration at its 12 -13 December 
2018 meeting.  
2.7  Observer Organizations  
2.7.1   Renewal of IICA ad hoc observer status  
2.41.   The Chairperson recalled that at its March 2012 meeting, the  Committee had agreed to 
invite  IICA to its regular meetings as an ad hoc observer on an annual basis in order to expedite 
procedures unless the issue was to be specifically placed on the agenda by a Member in the 
intervening meetings. IICA had accordingly been invited to participate in the  Committee's regular 
meetings since 2012.  
2.42.   The Committee considered and agreed to the renewal of the ad hoc observer status of the 
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) for the formal meetings of the 
Committee to be held in 2019.  
2.8  Other business  
2.8.1   On-line submission of notifications  
2.43.   The Secretariat informed the Committee that  the launch of the on -line system for notifications 
was set for beginning of 2019. The Secretariat would establish a pilot group to use the system to 
submit noti fications online. An email  would be sent to ag -attaches in the following  days to 
communicate details about the pilot group. The Secretariat would  organize training on the system 
and that  Members were welcome to contact the Secretariat  to arrange one -on-one training sessions. 
Trainings to capital -based notification -experts were also available via conference calls or skype 
sessions.  
2.8.2   2019  notification workshop  
2.44.   The advanced workshop on notifications in agriculture scheduled for 2019 would be held from 
30 April  to 3 May 2018. A total of 30 government officials from developing country Members would 
be selected for funded participation. The selection process for 2019 would include interviews with 
pre-selected candidates. The invitation letter with details of the p rogramme and the selection process 
would be soon distributed.  
2.8.3   Date of next regular meetings  
2.45.   The Chairperson proposed that the ninetieth (90th) regular meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture be held on 26 -27 February 2019. On this basis, the airgram  convening the meeting would 
be issued on 15 February 2019.  G/AG/R/90  
 
- 13 - 
 
  2.46.   Before concluding the meeting, the Chairperson reminded the Committee  of the various 
aspects achieved by the Committee on Agriculture in 2018 which included:  
 
• Approval of the Triennial Review of  Export Competition ; 
• Enhanced transparency, including the monitoring of the pending questions from 2012 -2017. 
Next year the monitoring w ould continue and w ould include pending responses for 2018. In 
each committee meeting in 2019, the Secretariat w ould circulate a five -year summary. The 
objective w ould be to con tinue this monitoring annually ; 
• Informal discussions on the Review of the Bali TRQ Decision and yesterday's dedicated 
session ; 
• Update of the Secretariat's background document on TRQ administration ; 
• Initiated discussions on the review of international food aid ; 
• Implementation of the Nairobi Decision on export competition, including modification of 
schedules for 16 members;  
• Country presentations by Republic of Korea, Colombia and Brazil ; 
• Side events , including  FAO presentation on State of Agricultural Commodities report , 
presentation by Lars Brink on reviewing domestic support notifications ; and the June 
symposium on the Agriculture Policy Landscape ; 
• Work on the improve ment of  the online notification sy stem which w ould be launched in 2019 ; 
and  
• Notification workshop in 2018 which trained 25 developing country officials.  
 
 
__________