RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/85  
 
28 July 2017 
(17-4161) Page: 1/7 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF TH E MEETING HELD ON 7 JUNE  2017 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its eighty -fourth  (84th) regular meeting on 7 June 2017 under 
the Chairmanship of Mr Alf Vederhus  of Norway . 
 
The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/AG/ 21 was adopted with the following 
modifications:  
 
 Part 1 (Review Process):  
 Article 18.6:  
 Addition of questions  to Turkey  by the Russian Federation regarding  its Inward 
Processing Regime (IPR);  
 Modification to question raised by Canada  (AG-IMS ID 84055)  to the United States 
regarding its Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) .  
 Individual notifications:  
 Withdrawal of question  AG-IMS ID 84034  raised by  Canada with respect to  Ukraine's 
notification G/AG/N/UKR/18 . 
 Part II (Other matters within the purview of the Committee) : 
 Developments in the field of export competition : 
 Addition of questions by China to Japan and the United States  regarding 
monetization of food aid.  
1  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
1.1  Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the reform 
programme: Article 18.6  
1.1.  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/165. These relate to:  
a. Canada's butter export subsidies  (raised by Australia ); 
b. China's sugar import s (raised by Australia ); 
c. European Union's export subsidy commitments  (raised by  Guatemala ); 
d. European Union's sugar policies  (raised by  Australia ); 
e. India's pulses policies  (raised by Canada ); 
f. Indonesia's dairy import system  (raised by the United States ); 
g. Malaysia's import licensing procedures for sugar  (raised by Australia ); 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/R/85  
 
- 2 - 
 
  h. Mexico's agricultural diesel programme  (raised by Ukraine ); 
i. Philippines' rice waiver  (raised by  Australia, Thailand and the United States ); 
j. Russian Federation's decoupled support  (raised by the United States ); 
k. Switzerland's domestic purchase requirements for meat TRQs  (raised by the 
United  States ); 
l. Switzerland's reclassification of customs position for seasoned meat  (raised by the 
European Union ); 
m. Turkey's national agriculture model  (raised by the European Union ); 
n. U.S. regulations on fluid ultrafiltered milk  (raised by Canada ); 
o. U.S. border adjustment tax proposal  (raised by Ukraine ); 
p. Brazil's domestic support programmes (raised by the United States);  
q. Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class (raised by Austra lia, New Zealand and the 
United  States);  
r. Canada's wine sale policy  (raised by Australia, the European Union, New Z ealand and 
the United States);  
s. Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese  and domestic support (raised by New Zealand and 
the United States );  
t. India's wheat stocks (raised by Australia and the United States ); 
u. India's support price for rabi crops  (raised by the United States);  
v. Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  (raised by Australia and the United States ); 
w. Thailand's rice policies  (raised by the United States ); 
x. U.S. Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) (raised by Canada) ; and  
y. Turkey's Inward Processing Regime  (IPR) (raised by the Russian Federation).  
1.2  Review of Notifications  
1.2.  The Chairperson informed Members that since the March  2017 meeting the Committee had 
received 43 notifications . These  had been distributed electronically to all delegations.  
1.2.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram  
1.3.  Section 2 of document G/AG/W/ 165 reflects the questions raised, responses provided, and 
Members' follow -up comments in connection with the noti fications on which questions had been 
raised in  advance of the iss uance of the convening airgram.2 
1.2.2   Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process  
1.4.  Section 3 of document G/AG/W/ 165 reflects the questions raised, responses provided, and 
Members ' follow -up comments in connection with deferred replies to questions on notifications 
raised under the review process.3 
1.5.  The Chairperson noted that a total of 90 responses in the context of the review process 
remained outstanding. The Chairperson strongly advised Members  to submit the ir replies to the 
Secretariat in order to enhance the efficiency of the review process.  
1.6.  Jordan informed the Committee that it had responded, via the AG IMS, to questions posed at 
the March 2017 CoA meeting by Canada, the Unite d States and New Zealand regarding Jordan's 
domestic support notifications (G/AG/N/JOR/19 and G/AG/N/JOR/20).4 
                                                
2 WTO/AIR/AG/ 21, Attachment Section B. 
3 WTO/AIR/AG/21, Attachment Section C.  G/AG/R/85  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.2.3   Overdue notifications  
1.7.  The Committee took note of document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.2 8 circulated on  24 May 2017, 
reflecting the current status of Members' compliance with notification obligations.  
1.8.  Since the March 2017 CoA meeting a number of Members ha d submitted agriculture 
notifications covering multiple years.  The Chair highlighted that these  included Burundi who had 
notified Table DS:1 and Table ES:1 notifications covering three imple mentation years (2013, 2014 
and 2015) and  Gabon who had notified Table DS:1 and Table ES:1 notifications for four 
implementation years (2013 through 2016) . The Chairperson also noted  that Panama was up to 
date through 2016 with their Table MA:2, Table MA:5, and Table DS:1 notifications. Among 
developed country Members , Iceland had recently notified Table MA:5 and Table ES:1 -ES:2 
covering three implementation years (2014 -2016).  The Cha irperson commended Members for 
making conscientious efforts to bring their notifications up to date . However,  the Chairperson 
noted that a significant proportion of domestic support and export subsid y notifications remain ed 
outstanding for the period 1995 to 2015 .  
1.9.  Members had raised four  question s under this agenda item. The question s, corresponding 
answer s and Members' follow -up comments can be found in section 3 of document G/AG/W/ 165. 
1.2.4   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
1.10.   The Commi ttee took note of the 43 notifications circulated before 24 May  2017, including 
notificat ions carried over from the March  2017 meeting but  in respect of which no questions had 
been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.5 
1.2.5   Notifications circulated or made available after the issuance of the convening 
airgram  
1.11.   Four notifications had been circulated  after the issuance  of the convening airgram on  
24 May 2017: 
 Republic of Moldova:  Table  ES:1 for 2016 (G/AG/N/MDA/8) ; 
 Panama:  corrigendum to Table DS:1 for 2016 (G/AG/N/PAN/41/Corr.1) ; 
 Peru:  Table  ES:1 for 2015 and 2016 (G/AG/N/PER/17) ; 
 Ukraine:  corrigendu m to Table DS:1 for 2011 (G/AG/N/UKR/18/Corr.1) . 
1.12.   These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with the Committee's working procedures.  
1.2.6   Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: information regarding outcome where the issue involved is one of  
general interest  
1.13.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
1.2.7   Counter -notifications (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture ) 
1.14.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
                                                                                                                                                  
4 See http://agims.wto.org/ : AG-IMS ID 83059, AG -IMS ID 83087, AG -IMS ID 83088, 
AG-IMS ID 83089, AG -IMS ID 83090 and AG -IMS ID 83128.  
5 WTO/AIR/AG/ 21, Attachment Section D. G/AG/R/85  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN  THE PURVIEW OF THE C OMMITTEE  
2.1  Developments in the field of export competition  
2.1.  The Committee held its dedicated discussion on export competition. The Nairobi  Ministerial 
Decision on Export Competition6 stated that the "Committee on Agriculture shall monitor the 
implementation of the Decision  by Members  in accordance with existing notification requirements 
under the Agreement on Agriculture, as complemented by the provisions set out in the Annex to 
this Decision " (Paragraph 4 of the Decision) . The Secretariat had received 33 replies to the 
questionnaire  and had circulated a revised background document G/AG/W/125/Rev.6 , with four 
addenda on export subsidies, expo rt finance, international food aid and agricultural exporting 
State Trading Enterprises.  
2.2.  Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and 
the United States responded to questions raised by Members in advance of th e Committee meeting 
in the context of the 2017 annual discussion on export competiti on.7 China and the United States 
introduced questions during the meeting. Details of the questions, answers and follow -up 
comments raised in the context of the annual discu ssion on export competition can be found in 
document G/AG/W/ 166. 
2.3.  The Cairns group and the Russian Federation had circulated a paper as an input to the 
dedicated discussion .8 The paper considered the alignment of  Members’ reported policies with the 
disciplines agreed by Ministers at MC10 in the Export Competition Decision.  
2.4.  The Committee discussed progress on the elimination of Members ' scheduled export subsidy 
entitlements . New Zealand noted that this  commitment applied  to 16 Members  while New Zealand 
and Panama 's Uruguay Round entitlements  on exp ort subsidies were already zero . Australia had 
submit ted an amended schedule to the WTO eliminating all of its export subsidy entitlements . 
Israel had informed the Commit tee that they would submit their amended schedules by the end of 
2017. Uruguay indicated that they would comply with the requirements of the Decision in due 
course. Colombia reported that it ha d not been using export subsidies since 1999 and that they 
were working towards submitting a revised schedule. Norway informed the Committee that as of 
2014 the use of export subsidies had been discontinued for all products, except four (cheese, 
butter, pork and processed agriculture products) and that a revised sched ule would be submitted 
in the second half of 2017 . Brazil noted that efforts to revise Brazil's own schedule we re under 
way.  
2.5.  While there had been a  general downward trend in notified export subsidy outlays , 
Switzerland  had increased  its export  subsidies budget and outlays . According to New Zealand , this 
appeared inconsistent with the Bali Declaration  that called  on Members to exercise utmost 
restraint with regard to all forms of export subsidies.  However, New Zealand noted that 
Switzerland ha d been transparent in these developments unlike many Members who did not have 
up to date  Table  ES:1 notifications . 
2.6.  With respect to export financing support, just under half of the programmes reported ha d 
repayment terms that exceed ed the 18 months maximum re payment period established in the 
MC10 Decision. New Zealand pointed out that wh ile 11 Members had reported this type of 
programm e, most Members had not provide d information on whether the programmes were 
self-financing, which was one of the conditions that had been established with immediate effect by 
the Decision.   
2.7.  On exporting state trading enterprises  (STEs) , fewer agricultural exporting STEs had been 
reported  than in previous years . Six additional Members confirmed that they d id not have 
agricultural exporting STEs, bringing the four -year total to 42 Members. Several Members reported 
new and updated information on agricultural exporting STEs compared  to current STE notifications.  
New Zealand noted that the Secretariat's backgroun d document did not contain sufficiently 
detailed trade statistics to assess the impacts of agriculture exporting STEs on global markets . 
                                                
6 WT/MIN(15)/45 and WT/L/980 . 
7 G/AG/W/162 . 
8 G/AG/W/164 . G/AG/R/85  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Information on export values, prices and destinations reported by Members accounted for less 
than a third of reported S TEs.  
2.8.  In relation to  international food aid, New Zealand commented that the food aid donors ' 
programmes of  the 12 Members who responded appear ed to be consistent with MC10 food aid 
disciplines . Australia  welcomed the predominance of reported cash -based foo d aid  and urged 
Members to make additional efforts when providing information on food aid . 
2.9.  Several Members highlighted the relatively low response rates to the questionnaire. 
New Zealand stressed that a more complete assessment of Members ' implementation would 
require an improved response rate and quality . New Zealand remarked that the response rate 
from Members ha d been patchy and in some cases ha d decline d, particularly  the response rate o n 
export financing. The United States remained concern ed by inadeq uate or missing responses  and 
encouraged the Members to improve their responsiveness to the transparency requirements . The 
United States highlighted that due to this lack of reporting, it was difficult to assess the 
consistency of Members' export competiti on policies with the Nairobi Decision.  The European Union 
clarified that all of its 28  members  had responded to the questionnaire and that some  of its 
members d id not feature in the Secretariat's report because they d id not apply the measure  
concerned .  
2.10.   Some Members commented on the provisions relating to cotton in the Nairobi Export 
Competition Decision. New Zealand called on Members to accelerate their processes to eliminate 
export subsidy entitlements related to cotton given that the implementation deadl ines had already 
passed. The United States  noted that as of 1 January 2017 all Members should be meeting the 
transparency commitments included in the annex to the Export Competition Decision regarding 
cotton, and that such responses were key to understandi ng how Members were meeting their 
commitments on cotton as outlined in Nairobi. The European Union  lamented the lack of 
transparency from developing country Members in relation to cotton as mandated by paragraph  9 
of the Cotton Decision and paragraph 12 of  the Decision . 
2.11.   Some Members also regretted that few developing country Members had responded to the 
questionnaire. New Zealand noted that although the reporting requirements d id not become 
obligatory for developing Members until five years after the Decision was adopted , some small er 
developing country Members had replied, which demonstrated that the questionnaire was not 
overly burdensome . The European Union expressed its disapp ointment with the low rate of 
submission of information and dat a by developing country Members, particularly from those 
Members who had submitted responses  to the questionnaire before the Nairobi Ministerial and who 
had failed to do so since the Nairobi De cision. The European Union also regretted the lack of data 
on use of export subsidies with reference to Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture .  
2.12.   Members commented on aspects of the Secretariat report that could be enhanced to 
improve monitoring. New Z ealand suggested that the Secretariat 's report include an indication of 
the year in which Members ha d submitted responses to the questionnaire .. This would enable an 
assessment of improvements in  transparency and the annual response rate s.  
2.13.   The Chairperson announced that the next dedicated discussion on export competition would  
be held at the June 2018  meeting of the Committee. In order to enable Members to provide 
adequate replies during the meeting, the Chairperson suggested that Members ad opt similar 
timeframes to those already in place under the Review process and therefore encouraged 
delegations to send their questions addressed to other Members at least ten days before the 
meeting of the Committee.  
2.2  Implementation -related Issues (G/AG/16 , G/AG/16/Add.1  and G/AG/22)  
2.14.   In the Doha Ministerial Decision on implementation -related issues and concerns, the 
Committee had been  asked to follow up on three issues:  development of disciplines to govern the 
provision of export credits, export credit guara ntees or insurance programmes i n accordance with 
Article  10.2;  examination of the possible means of improving the effectiveness of the 
implementation o f the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision;  continued review of the administration of  TRQs 
and the submission of adde nda to Table  MA:1 notification s on tariff rate quota regimes.  G/AG/R/85  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.15.   Egypt requested that this item remain a standing agenda item for the CoA. In recognition of 
the challenges NFIDC countries continue to face since the adoption of Marrakesh Decision, the 
Minister s (in Paragraph 25  of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration9) had reaffirmed their commitment 
to fully implement this decision in Nairobi. Therefore, the NFIDC Group had called upon the 
Members to engage in further discussions on how to operationalize the Ma rrakesh and the Nairobi 
mandate to improve implementation.  
2.3  Implementation of Ministerial outcomes  
2.16.   The Committee on Agriculture  was responsible for the implementation of Ministerial 
outcomes in the following areas: the monitoring of information submitted un der the Bali Decision 
on public stockholding for food security purposes; monitoring and review of Members' obligations 
established under the Bali Decision on TRQ administration ; and m onitoring of the  Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision on E xport Competition, including the annual dedicated discussion on export 
competition.   
2.17.   No information ha d been provided by Members in the context of the monitoring foreseen  
under the Bali Decisions on public stockholding for food security purposes and TRQ  administration. 
Accor ding to the Decision on TRQ administration, a review of the operation of that Decision should 
begin no later than the end of 2017.  The Chair person  highlighted that t his issue w ould be part of 
the agenda of the next CoA meeting in October. If necessary an i nformal meeting  would be 
convened  in advance of that meeting to provide Members with the opportunity to reflect 
collectively on this review.  
2.18.   Paragraph 5 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition mandates that the CoA r eview of 
the Decisions' discipline s every three years. The European Union suggested that discussions on the 
review be initiate d at the 2018 June meeting within  the annual discussion on the export 
competition decision.  The Chairperson recalled that Members had also agreed to review the 
provisions on international food aid within the Committee on Agriculture monitoring of the 
implementation of the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision of April 1994 on Measures Concerning the 
Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least -developed and ne t food -importing 
developing countries. In the last annual monitoring exercise on the follow -up to the Marrakesh 
NFIDC decision during the CoA on 9 November 2016, some Members had suggest ed how to 
organize  the review within the annual monitoring exercise on  NFIDCs.  
2.4  Request for ad hoc observer status (G/AG/GEN/140 /REV.1 ) 
2.19.   The Committee had received a revised request for ad hoc observer status from  the 
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) on 24 May 2017.10 The Chair person  proposed 
to convene an informal meeting to discuss th is request ahead of the October  2017 meeting.  
3  OTHER BUSINESS  
3.1  Transparency information session – October 2017  
3.1.  The Secretariat had held a transparency  information session  in the margins of the 
September  2016 meeting where a number of suggestions were made on how to improve the 
monitoring of the Committee . The Secretariat highlighted some of the steps taken to address 
these suggestions , such as the inclusion of question s and responses provided within  the e xport 
competition dedicated session in the  Agriculture Information Management System (AG IMS) 
database ; the organization of focused workshops  including notification workshops and workshops 
targeting LDC members ; and the organization of side events for the Committee meetings.  A 
transparency information session was foreseen in the October CoA.  
3.2  Workshop for LDCs on agriculture at the WTO  
3.2.  The Secretariat was organizing a workshop on agriculture for Least Developed Countries 
(LDCs)  which will be held from 16 to 19 October  2017. The workshop w ould cover the rules of the 
                                                
9 WT/MIN(15)/DEC.  
10 G/AG/GEN/140/Rev.1.  G/AG/R/85  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Agreement on Agriculture, the notification requirements, and the tools available to meet these 
requirements . Participants w ould also have the opportunity to participate in the  October CoA. The 
WTO would finance the participation of 30 government officials from LDCs. An invitation letter with 
additional details about the workshop and the selection process w ould be sent to Members.  
3.3  Date of next regular meeting  
3.3.  The Chairperson proposed that the eighty -fifth (85th) regular meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture be held on  17-18 October  2017. On this basis , the airgram convening the meeting 
would be issued on 6 October  2017.  
 
3.4.  The Chairperson noted that i n light of the anticipated schedule leading up to the Buenos Aires 
Ministerial, the October meeting w ould be the last CoA meeting in 2017. The Chairperson  propose d 
that the two agenda items normally covered during the November Co A meeting s (the Annual 
Monitoring Exercise on the Follow -up to the Marrakesh NFIDC decision, and the Annual 
Consultation under Article 18.5 of the AoA ) be included in the age nda of the first meeting in 2018 . 
 
 
__________