RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/80  
 
13 May 2016  
(16-2688)  Page: 1/9  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 9 MARCH 2016 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its seventy-ninth (79th) regular meeting on 9 March 2016 under 
the Chairmanship of Mr Michael Wamai of Uganda. 
 The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/AG/10 was adopted with the following 
modifications: 
 
 Part 1 (Review Process): 
 Article 18.6: 
 Addition of questions from Brazil with respect to U.S. soybean programmes; and 
 Addition of questions from Brazil with respect to Peru's price band system. 
1  THE REVIEW PROCESS 
1.1  Matters relevant to the implementa tion of commitments under the reform 
programme under the Reform Programme: Article 18.6 
1.1.  The 26 issues raised as well as the responses provided and follow-up exchanges are compiled 
in document G/AG/W/151. These relate to: 
a. European Union's statement on consultations under Article 5.7; 
b. Australia's Farm Insurance Advice Scheme (raised by India); 
c. Brazil's domestic support programmes (raised by the United States of America); 
d. Canada's new milk ingredient class (raised by New Zealand); 
e. Canada's wine sale policy (raised by the United States of America); 
f. China's agriculture policy (raised by Canada); 
g. China's maize subsidies (raised by the European Union); 
h. Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments (raised by the United States of 
America); 
i. European Union's dairy policies (raised by New Zealand); 
j. France's amendment No. 367 to the proposed law on biodiversity (raised by Indonesia); 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. G/AG/R/80 
 
- 2 - 
 
  k. India's importation of apples (raised by New Zealand); 
l. India's new crop insurance scheme (raised by Canada and the European Union); 
m. India's export assistance programmes (raised by the United States of America); 
n. India's sugar export subsidies (raised by Australia and the European Union); 
o. Japan's MARUKIN Stabilization Programme (raised by Canada and the European Union); 
p. Peru's price band system (raised by Brazil); 
q. Russian Federation's trade measures affecting Ukrainian transit of agricultural products 
to Kazakhstan (raised by Ukraine); 
r. Thailand's rice policies (raised by the United States of America); 
s. Turkey's domestic support and export su bsidies (raised by the European Union); 
t. Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale (r aised by the United States of America); 
u. Turkey's support scheme to certain agricultural sectors (raised by the European Union); 
v. Turkey's rice support (raised by the European Union); 
w. Turkey's fruit and vegetable export subs idies (raised by the European Union); 
x. U.S. farm support programmes (raised by India); 
y. U.S. soybean programmes (raised by Brazil). 
1.2  Review of Notifications 
1.2.  The Chairperson informed Members that since the September 2015 meeting the Committee 
had received 74 notifications which had been di stributed electronically to all delegations. 
1.2.1  Notifications in respect of which ques tions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram 
1.3.  Section 2 of document G/AG/W/151 reflects the questions raised, responses provided, and 
Members' follow-up comments in connection with the 28 notifications on which questions had been raised in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram.
2 
1.2.2  Notifications subject to review in resp ect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram 
1.4.  The Committee took note of the 52 notifi cations circulated before 29 February 2016, 
including notifications carried over from the Se ptember 2015 meeting but in respect of which no 
questions had been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.3 
1.2.3  Notifications circulated or made av ailable after the issuance of the convening 
airgram 
1.5.  Nine notifications had been circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram on 
29 February 2016: 
                                               
2 WTO/AIR/AG/10, Attachment section B. 
3 WTO/AIR/AG/10, Attachment Section C. G/AG/R/80 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Imports under Tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): 
 Japan (2014): G/AG/N/JPN/210 
Export Subsidy Commitments (Table ES:1-ES:3): 
 Costa Rica's Table ES:1 and ES:2 for 2015: G/AG/N/CRI/54 
 Fiji's Table ES:1 (2012-2015): G/AG/N/FJI/12 
 Mali's Table ES:1 (2014-2015): G/AG/N/MLI/6 
 Seychelles' Table ES:1 (2015): G/AG/N/SYC/1 
Domestic Support Commitments (Table DS:1): 
 Fiji (2010-2015): G/AG/N/FJI/13 
 Mali (2014-2015): G/AG/N/MLI/7 
NFIDC Decision (Table NF:1): 
 Australia (2013): G/AG/N/AUS/98 
 European Union (2014): G/AG/N/EU/27. 
1.6.  These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the working procedures.  
1.7.  Additionally, there were five notification s pending for finalization and circulation from 
Australia, Kyrgyz Republic, Malawi and Mongolia. 
1.2.4  Points concerning notifications rais ed at previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: information regarding outcome where the issue involved is one 
of general interest 
1.8.  There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item. 
1.2.5  Counter-notifications (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture) 
1.9.  There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item. 1.2.6  Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process 
1.10.  The Chairperson noted that a total of 18 de legations had outstanding replies in the context 
of the review process. The Chairperson strongly advised them to submit the replies to the Secretariat in order to enhance the efficiency of the review process. There were no requests for 
the floor. 
1.2.7  Overdue notifications 1.11.  The Committee took note of document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.23 dated 24 February 2016 
reflecting the current status of Members' compliance with notification obligations. 
1.12.  The Chairperson highlighted  a few numbers with respect to the outstanding notifications. 
For the period 1995 to 2014: 
 10% (71) of notifications in the MA:2 series remain outstanding; 
 12% (75) of notifications in the MA:5 series; G/AG/R/80 
 
- 4 - 
 
   37% (769) Table DS:1 domestic support notifications ; 
 35% (805) export subsidy notifications in the ES:1 series; and  
 11% (58) Table ES:2 notifications. 
1.13.  One question was raised under this agenda  item by Canada to Tu rkey. The question, and 
the relevant answer, can be found in document G/AG/W/151. 
1.14.  The Chairperson reminded Members the important role the CoA played with respect to 
enhancing transparency of agricultural trade. The Chairperson noted that transparency enables 
trading partners to see how rules were implemented. He stressed that agriculture notifications 
were essential for the Committee processes to work effectively and called on Members to fulfil their notification obligations in a timely manner as  the strength of the WT O system depended upon 
their contributions.  
2  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
2.1  Annual monitoring exercise on the follo w-up to the Marrakesh NFIDC decision under 
Article 16.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (G/AG/W/42/Rev.18 and 
G/AG/W/42/Rev.18/Corr.1) 
2.1.  The annual monitoring exercise was undertaken on the basis, inter alia , of contributions by 
Members, including Table NF:1 notifications, as we ll as contributions by observer international 
organizations. 
2.2.  The Committee took note of the backgro und note revised annually by the Secretariat.
4 This 
note included references to the MC10 outcome in the area of export competition in the sections 
dealing with food aid, including concessionality of food aid, and differential treatment in the 
framework of an agreement on export credits. 
2.3.  Morocco, on behalf of the African Group,  considered that the implementation of the 
NFIDC decision had not been satisfactory. The Ao A had an ambiguous impact on these countries. 
In particular:  
i. Food aid deliveries had dropped dramatically  by almost 65% from year 2005 to year 
2014, as indicated in the Secretariat's note. 
ii. African countries remained the largest recipients of food aid receiving more than 
50% of the total food aid deliveries. 
iii. The African Group strongly believed th at the WTO and the Doha Development 
Agenda (DDA) played an important role in ensuring food security in the longer term, 
through the removal of all agricultural trade distortions.  
iv. After 20 years of monitoring the NFIDC decision, and in the absence of concrete 
DDA outcomes, the African Group believed  that the CoA should examine possible 
means of improving the effectiveness of  the implementation of the Marrakech 
NFIDC Decision.  
2.4.  The African group stated that the Marrakech NFIDC Decision was an important tool to 
improve food security and to increase agricultural  productivity in NFIDCs and LDCs in the context 
of increased liberalization of agricultural trade.  The African Group called on Members to start a 
review of the Marrakech NFIDC Decision within the relevant format to strengthen the Decision, including by increasing the level of technical and financial assistance promised under the Decision, 
and to establish a mechanism to fully implement the provisions of the Decision. Finally, the African 
Group welcomed the Nairobi Decision on export co mpetition, and the food aid disciplines contained 
therein, noting that the review process set forth in paragraph 32 would add value to the annual 
discussions on the implementation of the Marrakech NFIDC Decision. 
                                               
4 G/AG/W/42/Rev.18 and G/AG/W/42/Rev.18/Corr.1, dated 8 and 15 February 2016. G/AG/R/80 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.5.  Egypt aligned itself with the statement prov ided by Morocco on behalf of the African Group. 
Egypt recalled the communication submitted by the NFIDCs, African and Arab groups which called 
for an adoption of a comprehensive work programme to mitigate the impact of the food market prices on NFIDCs.
5 Egypt urged Members to re-engage in a debate to discuss in greater detail the 
serious challenges NFIDCs continued to face. Egypt believed that having a sub-agenda item on 
food aid under the annual monitoring exercise on the Marrakech NFIDC Decision would give Members the opportunity to share experiences on implementing these provisions with a view to 
strengthening them, and improving the effectiven ess of the Marrakech NFIDC Decision. Finally, 
while Egypt acknowledged the importance of  food aid for many NFIDC countries, Egypt 
emphasized that establishing a support mechanism that increased agricultural productivity in the longer term was necessary for NFIDCs to counter the negative impact of liberalization and highly 
distorted markets. 
2.6.  Nigeria supported the African Group and Eg ypt's interventions, and encouraged Members to 
update their notifications accordingly. Nigeria noted the need for a review process which would 
facilitate discussions in relation to the implementation of the Marrakech NFIDC Decision and 
enhance transparency. 
2.7.  Australia noted that as a party to the Food Assistance Convention it delivered food assistance 
through agencies including the World Food Progra mme and the Food and Agriculture Organization 
of the United Nations (FAO). The key considerations for Australia's food assistance were effectiveness and efficiency; to achieve the best value for money; and to provide a greater impact 
for vulnerable populations. Australian food assistance continued to be cash-based and on fully 
grant terms, ensuring that the food assistance was delivered against the objectives set by the 
Australian government, while minimising any risk  of trade distortion. In 2013/2014, Australian 
food assistance totalled AUD 93.6 million, of which AUD 73.4 million were directed to LDCs 
and NFIDCs. The food assistance funded aro und 65,000 tonnes of food, of which 51,000 tonnes 
were allocated to LDCs and NFIDCs. Australia had contributed over AUD 33 million in emergency food assistance in 2013/14. Australia's approach to food security included efforts to promote open 
and efficient markets where food could move freely to where it was needed most and to increase 
economic growth. Australia's overseas developmen t assistance in food security and agriculture 
helped improved agricultural productivity and broadened opportunities for agricultural business 
growth, trade and market access, and increased the ability of the poor to access food by 
increasing incomes and driving economic gr owth. In 2013/2014, Australia provided around 
AUD 360.5 million in overseas development assistance for broader food assistance, food security and agricultural measures, of which over AUD 205. 9 million were directed to LDCs and NFIDCs. 
2.1.1  Contributions by Members 
2.8.  The Committee took note of the circ ulation of the following notifications in 
the Table NF:1 series since the 2014 monitoring exercise:
6 Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/98); 
European Union (G/AG/N/EU/27); Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/79 and G/AG/N/NOR/84); 
Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/7); and United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/105). 
2.1.2  Contributions by observ er international organizations 
2.9.  The Committee took note of the contri butions made by the observer international 
organizations: the FAO highlighted the trends in food import bills of LDCs and NFIDCs, 
developments in food price volatility and on market trends in basic foodstuffs, as well as on the operation of the Agriculture Market Information System.
7 The Inter-American Institute for 
Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) reported on its technical cooperation provided during 2015 to 
support countries in Latin America and the Caribbean on food security and nutrition.8  
2.2  WTO list of net food-importing develo ping countries (G/AG/3 and G/AG/5/Rev.10) 
2.10.  The Chairperson recalled that within the framework of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision, and 
pursuant to the Decision of the Committee (G/AG/3), the Committee was required to review the 
                                               
5 G/AG/W/90 circulated on 14 November 2011. 
6 A reminder (WTO/AIR/AG/9) was also circulated on 9 February 2016. 
7 G/AG/GEN/129 circulated on 4 March 2016. 
8 G/AG/GEN/128 circulated on 26 February 2016. G/AG/R/80 
 
- 6 - 
 
  list of NFIDCs, including on the basis of specific requests from Members for inclusion into the list. 
The Chairperson noted that the Committee had received an application from Qatar to be included in the list. The relevant supporting statistical data had been provided in line with paragraph 2 of G/AG/3. As per past practice, this supporting da ta was available for inspection in the Agriculture 
and Commodities Division. 
2.11.  Qatar requested the Committee to revise the NFIDC list to include Qatar. Qatar had 
submitted data that showed that since 2015 over 90% of its foodstuff had been imported, making 
Qatar one of the largest net food-importing countries on a per capita basis. Qatar also noted that 
the data attached to their request complied with the requirements and procedures set out in the 
Decision of the Committee (G/AG/3). 
2.12.  Australia, Canada, the European Union, Australia and the United States requested more 
time to analyse Qatar's request and its corresponding data. The United States questioned how a 
Member with a high per capita income might be co nsidered to align with the NFIDC group. Nigeria 
encouraged Members to consult on this matter. Qa tar, in light of the comments made by Members, 
agreed to defer its request to a later stage and invited concerned Members for further discussion.  
2.13.  Based on these comments, the Chairperson proposed the Committee to give Members time 
to reflect and consult on the request from Qatar, and noted that the Committee would revert back 
to this issue at a later stage.  
2.3  Annual consultation under Article 18.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture, with 
respect to Members' participation in the norm al growth of world trade in agricultural 
products within the framework of the commitments on export 
subsidies (G/AG/W/32/Rev.15) 
2.14.  The Chairperson noted that the Committee's Working Procedures stipulated that an annual 
consultation on Members' participation in the normal growth of world trade in agricultural products 
was to be undertaken at the regular November meetings of the Committee. However, since 
in 2015 the November meeting of the CoA was post poned due to the preparatory work for MC10, 
the Committee would undertake these consultations at the current March 2016 Committee 
meeting. 
2.15.  The Chairperson recalled that Members' compliance with notification obligations in the 
export subsidy area was crucial to enable the Committee to undertake these consultations. Members were referred to G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.23 which reflected the state-of-play of submissions 
in the export subsidy area. The document showed  that for the implementation period 1995-2014, 
805 Table ES:1 notifications and 58 Table ES:2 notifications remained outstanding. 
2.16.  The Committee took note of the revised statistical background note prepared by the 
Secretariat on the basis of FAO data.
9 The Secretariat thanked the FAO for their excellent support 
and collaboration to assist in the preparation of the document. Members also recognized FAO's valuable assistance in this annual consultation process. 
2.17.  The Committee took note of a room document submitted by Australia, Argentina, Canada, 
Chile, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Pakistan and Thailand.
10 Australia noted that the Secretariat's 
note showed how exports were growing or contracting for particular Members. Australia's document examined those trends in terms of the value of trade in contrast to the Secretariat's 
document which analysed most commodities in volume terms. Australia had sought to replicate 
the Secretariat's general methodology. The paper also included two additional pieces of information: (i) a "total agricultural exporters" table and (ii) a column depicting Members' 2013 
exports as a percentage of its 2003 exports. Australia noted that the document showed the 
percentage growth change over ten years per Me mber. Australia encouraged members to submit 
their export subsidies notifications, so that information would be available to evaluate whether the 
growth of exports were due to export subsidies or  to an increase in competitiveness. Switzerland 
suggested adding additional information to Australia's document to help Members interpret the figures. The Philippines was of the view that it would be better to use the note produced by the 
                                               
9 G/AG/W/32/Rev.14 dated 12 September 2013. 
10 RD/AG/39 dated 8 March 2016 (this document is restricted to Members only). G/AG/R/80 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Secretariat containing data in quantities, since the examination of trends was not affected by 
exchange rates or inflation. 
2.18.  Various Members welcomed the Secretariat's background note and Australia's document 
emphasizing the usefulness of both these document s. Both documents contained large amounts of 
information that Members would reflect on over the coming months in order to understand the 
broader trends in world trade in agricultural products. 
2.19.  Members commented on the changing participation of Members during the time-period 
examined. In particular developing countries were taking part in the increases in world trade. 
Members noted that both documents showed that more countries were participating in the global agriculture trading system and that market share was distributed more widely. The United States 
stated that the most dramatic change in trad e flows had been the emergence of new Members 
such as the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Kaza khstan, and the increasing role of developing 
country exporters. Uruguay and Argentina stressed that their positive export performance was due 
to an increase in its competitiveness, and not to the use of subsidies or other support measures. 
Pakistan added that trade distorting support for the top ten producers that received the highest 
level of support and the top ten exporters needed to  be reviewed more regularly to ensure a level 
playing field for all. 
2.20.  Many Members recognized the value of the analysis in terms of highlighting trends in 
trading patterns for specific products. The Europe an Union noted that trade increased in most 
sectors both in quantity and values. The United States noted that developing countries had increased their shares in a number of products such as wheat, coarse grains (primarily corn), rice, 
oilseed, sugar and beef. At the same time, tradit ional exporters were losing market shares on 
these products. The US shares of coarse grains , wheat, rice and oilseeds had fallen, while its 
shares of meat and fruit and vegetables had increased. The United States drew attention to the 
fact that some LDCs were beginning to appear as participants in the global market. Countries such 
as Cambodia and Benin were trading in rice; Lao PDR and Zambia were trading in coarse grains; Yemen was trading in butter and butter oil; and Ethiopia was trading in oilseeds. Canada noted 
that Canada's global share of bovine meat expo rts showed a decline of the 2010 to 2013 period. 
Of the top ten bovine meat exporters, India showed  a consistent increase in global market share. 
On the other hand, Canada's global share of pig meat and coarse grain exports were more stable over the same period. Meanwhile Brazil, Ukraine and India showed increases in their share of 
global exports for coarse grains over the same period. 
2.21.  Finally, the United States expressed its hope  that the Secretariat's note could be the basis 
for some of the Committee's ongoing work, includin g the consideration of an update of the list 
significant exporters. 
2.4  Implementation-related issues an d concerns (G/AG/16 and G/AG/16 Add.1; 
G/AG/22) 
2.22.  The Chairperson noted that the situation concerning one of the issues dealing with the 
Table MA:1 addenda had not changed and continued to be reflected in the last two reports made to the General Council in 2003 and 2006.
11 With respect to the development of disciplines to 
govern the provision of export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes as well 
certain aspects raised under the implementation discussions on the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision, the 
Chairperson noted that some progress had been ma de at the end of 2015 in the context of the 
Nairobi Ministerial outcomes.  
2.23.  Egypt welcomed the outcome achieved at the Nairobi Ministerial and noted that Members 
had not been able to reach an outcome concerning means of improving the effectiveness of the implementation of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision. Egypt highlighted that in the Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration Members had reaffirmed their commitment to fully implement the NFIDC decision. 
Egypt, supported by the African Group, called to keep this as a standing agenda item.  
                                               
11 G/AG/16/Add.1 and G/AG/22. G/AG/R/80 
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.5  Implementation of Ministerial outcomes 
2.24.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee that paragraph 4 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Decision on export competition stated that the "Committee on Agriculture shall monitor the implementation of the Decision by Members in acco rdance with existing notification requirements 
under the Agreement on Agriculture, as complement ed by the provisions set out in the Annex to 
this Decision". Members had also agreed in the Annex to the Decision that consistent with the Bali Ministerial Declaration on export competition, they would continue to provide information on 
export subsidies, export credit, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes, international 
food aid and agricultural exporting state tradin g enterprises, within the context of an annual 
examination process based on the structure containe d in this Annex. In addition, footnote 17 of 
the Nairobi Decision stated that "Notwithstanding paragraph 4 of this Decision, developing country 
Members, unless they are in a position to do so at an earlier date, shall implement this Annex no 
later than five years following the date of adoption of this Decision". 
2.25.  The Chairperson had circulated on 20 January 2016 a communication informing the 
Committee that the annual examination process referred to in the Annex to the Nairobi Decision 
would be held during the June 2016 meeting of the CoA and had invited Members to provide the 
Secretariat with information in accordance with the terms of the Annex of the Nairobi Decision no 
later than 25 March 2016. The Chairperson stated that Nairobi Decision on exportation competition 
had been a historic success and that this achievem ent needed to be followed by a well-functioning 
monitoring mechanism. The Chairperson also noted that Members had agreed in the Decision to review the provisions on international food aid within the regular CoA monitoring of the 
implementation of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision. 
2.26.  Many delegations intervened to welcome the Nairobi result on export competition and 
underlined the need to fully implement it. The European Union noted that it had actively 
contributed to reach a decision in Nairobi on export competition. Brazil stressed that the 
elimination of export subsidies was a long overdue result and that the Decisions adopted in MC9 and MC10 were the core of the results achieved so far under the DDA in Agriculture. 
2.27.  A number of Members with scheduled export subsidy reduction commitments gave some 
indications about how they intended to implement the Decision. The European Union noted that the Nairobi Decision on the elimination of export subsidies had been automatically incorporated in its internal legislation, which provided that export subsidies could be granted only to the extent 
possible with its international commitments. In relation to its schedule, The European Union also 
indicated its readiness to undertake the necessary modifications. Australia noted that its amended schedule would be tabled for review by the Australian Parliament joint standing committee on 
treaties which provided parliamentary oversight of proposed treaty commitments and 
subsequently submitted to the federal executive council for final approval, after which it would be submitted to the WTO. Canada noted that it planne d to modify its schedule to reflect the terms of 
the Decision and had taken steps to implement all the aspects of the Decision. New Zealand was 
reviewing how to best amend its schedule to reflect the requirement that Members immediately eliminate remaining schedule export subsidies entitlements. Norway stated that in January 2016 the Norwegian parliament voted in favour of implementing the phasing out of export subsidies by 
2020, in accordance with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and that in April 2016 the government of 
Norway would discuss amending its schedule for export subsidies. Switzerland had initiated 
procedures to conform domestically with the Nairobi Decision and to eliminate its remaining 
scheduled export subsidies entitlements. These two processes required approval of parliament. 
2.28.  Brazil noted that the deadline for the elimination of its scheduled export subsidy 
entitlements was beginning of 2017 for cotton an d end of 2018 for other commodities. Brazil was 
consulting about the internal procedures to be followed in the implementation of this Decision. 
Colombia noted that it was willing to take in due time the necessary measures to comply with the Ministerial Decision, especially those related to the modification of Colombia's schedule. Uruguay reminded the participants that it had never used its rights to subsidize exports and stated that it 
would take the necessary actions for the modification of its schedule within the deadline 
established for developing country Members. Mexico  noted that they were one of the few Members 
which used export subsidies and reiterated their commitment to implement the Decision. 
2.29.  India considered that all ministerial decisions adopted at Nairobi were binding and 
expressed concerns that the proposed amendment of schedules seemed to take account of only G/AG/R/80 
 
- 9 - 
 
  one of those decisions. The European Union mentione d a reflection on the legal enforceability of all 
the elements covered by the Decision. Nigeria and Chile stressed the importance of an expeditious 
implementation of the decision.  
2.30.  Members emphasized the importance of continued monitoring. The European Union echoed 
the call for Members to provide replies to the export competition questionnaire and encouraged 
those developing country Members who provided an swers in previous exercises to do so again. 
The United States looked forward to a robust no tification and monitoring process of the export 
competition Decision in the Committee.  
2.31.   India noted that one of the outcomes em anating from the Bali Ministerial was the regular 
annual exercise on export competition, and requested clarification on whether the review would continue, following the Nairobi Decision. India highlighted that paragraph 4 of the Export 
Competition Decision indicated that the CoA shall monitor the implementation of this decision but 
that Art. 18.1 of the AoA also indicated that  the commitments made by Members should be 
reviewed by the CoA. India also noted that the Committee was mandated in paragraph 5 to review 
every three years the disciplines contained in the Decision. The chairperson noted that the annual 
monitoring exercise would continue, as per the Annex of the Nairobi Export Competition Decision, consistent with the Bali Decision and that it woul d follow the practice of the previous two years. 
2.32.  Some Members also commented on the impl ementation of the Bali Ministerial Decisions. 
Brazil recalled that Members had adopted a decision  on TRQ administration in Bali, and noted that 
transparency regarding the administration of TRQs and potential under filling was central as market access in tariff lines with TRQs was already limited. Brazil noted that the initial notifications 
on TRQ fill rates, referring to year 2014, were starting to become available. This information was 
the point of departure for any action under the underfi ll mechanism. Brazil stated that to facilitate 
the implementation of the Decision, the Secretariat could be asked to compile and to keep up to 
date the information regarding the quota fill, base d on notifications submitted by Members. This 
information would also be helpful for the review of the operation of the TRQ Decision.  
3  OTHER BUSINESS  
3.1  Notification workshop 
3.1.  The Secretariat informed the Committee that another notification workshop would be held in 
the week of 15 July 2016 in Geneva, in Englis h. The workshop targeted officials who had 
responsibilities in the area of agriculture notifi cations with the objective of helping them develop 
their knowledge and skills necessary to fulfil Members' notification obligations. As in previous 
workshops, the programme would also include individual sessions with Secretariat staff to discuss, on a country-specific basis, notification issues, covering also online databases that are functioning 
and in process. The Secretariat encouraged Members to disseminate this information to 
government officials in their capital so that they could apply for this technical assistance activity. The Secretariat noted that funds would be provided for around 25 capital-based participants, and 
noted that a number of places were often available for Geneva-based officials willing to attend on 
a self-funded basis. Nigeria welcomed the Secretariat's information and called for a regular follow-up on the technical assistance acti vities provided by the Secretariat.  
3.2  Date of next regular meetings 
3.2.  The Chairperson suggested that the next (80th) regular meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture be held on 7-8 June 2016. On this ba sis, the airgram convening the June meeting will 
be issued on 27 May 2016. 
__________