G/AG/W/167  
 
3 August  2017 
(17-4214) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
 
PROPOSAL FOR EXPLORI NG POTENTIAL AG -IMS IMPROVEMENTS  
SUBMISSION BY UKRAIN E 
The following submission, dated 27 July 2017, is being circulated at the request of the delegation 
of Ukraine . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1  OVERVIEW  
1.1.  The Agriculture Information Management System (Ag -IMS) represents a significant step 
forward to meet the spirit and obligations embodied in the Agreement on Agriculture. This 
electronic platform demonstrates the WTO as a transparent and inclusive organization. Ag -IMS 
serves as a common venue fo r all delegations and interested public stakeholders. Improvements 
may further increase the value of Ag -IMS. Specifically, possible improvements may be: additional 
categorization of Questions and Answers (Q&As) as well as making links between original ques tion 
and subsequent questions. Ukraine has preliminarily explored some conceptual considerations. A 
next step is to informally explore wider views and options with all Members. Ukraine proposes 
categorization and tracking of Q&As be an agenda item at an in formal session during the next 
Regular Committee meeting.  
2  BACKGROUND  
2.1.  The current version of the Ag -IMS allows for a specific issue raised for a meeting to be 
categorized with 17 different attributes. The majority of categories target the question. Only ver y 
limited classification relates to the answer. When a question is submitted 15 attributes are 
available. One such attribute is reserved for the responding Member's textual response. One 
additional category captures the nature of the follow -up discussion o r expression of interest by 
other Members.  
2.2.  The question and answer process in the Committee has resulted in a number of positive 
understandings. The range is very wide, for example provision of more details or reference sources 
regarding a specific policy  or the provision of revised notifications. Such positive outcomes uphold 
the value of the Committee's work. It would be constructive to more fully and systematically 
identify positive outcomes. Equally, unanswered questions (in full or in part) offer insi ght as to 
where greater factual understandings are desirable. In fact, a number of answers have never been 
provided by responding Members. Responses cannot be electronical ly filtered via the existing 
Ag-IMS system based on any criteria of "completeness". E qually, the current system does not 
enable tracking of specific questions and its subsequent follow -on questions.  
2.3.  The Secretariat identifies questions to which a response has not been provided "on time". For 
example, document G/AG/W/161 lists on the first  page those questions from the previous Regular 
Session of the Agriculture Committee (March 2017), for which no response had been provided as 
of 3 May 2017. A similar, more comprehensive room document also reviews the larger set of 
understood outstanding q uestions (RD/AG/56 dated 29 May 2017). Both listings remain outside 
the electronic functionality of Ag -IMS. G/AG/W/167  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3  JUDGEMENT ISSUE  
3.1.  Documents such as G/AG/W/161 and RD/AG/56 are issued by the Secretariat under its own 
responsibility. The vast majority of informati on simply reflects Members' direct input from Ag -IMS 
requiring no additional value -added from the Secretariat. However, the table of "written responses 
not provided" requires a decision by the Secretariat. Basically this table reflects blank responses in 
the Ag -IMS, i.e., non -input from the responding Member. The "nothing" or "something" attribute 
forms a non -arbitrary guideline with minimal value -added. Judging the "completeness" of a 
Member's response beyond this binary sharpness places an undue burden on  the Secretariat. 
However, not all questions are being responded to in a full. A review of questions posted for the 
June 2017 Regular Session of the Committee on Agriculture shows Members identifying in 
follow-up questions, portions of pre vious questions w ith a less than full response.  
3.2.  Presumably Members can agree that a burden to categorize "response completeness" should 
not be place on the Secretariat. The Member asking a question would appear best -placed to carry 
such a burden, i.e., to directly assess completeness of a specific response. Such an indirect 
assessment is occurring in subsequent questions and generally focuses on incompleteness of 
responses.  
3.3.  The Committee's role to review implementation of commitments should be balanced in 
approach. Captur ing in Ag -IMS of the positive results will demonstrate the value of the 
Committee's work. Positive, substantive information sharing has created common understandings 
on specific policies and resulted in updated or revised notifications. A periodic document ation of 
these positive outcomes would underpin the effectiveness of the Committee's transparency 
provisions. Equally, systemic focus on information gaps forms part of the Committee's balanced 
approach.  
4  TRACKING QUESTIONS  
4.1.  The Ag -IMS ID system facilitates preparation of individual meeting agendas. However, no 
category allows for tracking a specific issue over time. It will be useful if follow -up questions would 
be directly associated with the original question.  
5  PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDE RATION  
5.1.  Ukraine suggests:  
a. A discussion on possible systematic capturing "completeness" of responses in Ag -IMS. A 
simple  categorization might be:  
 Full Response;  
 Partial Response;  
 No Response or alternatively Satisfied;  
 Partially Satisfied;  
 Not Satisfied.  
b. Placing such a judgement role on the questioning Member is not unique in the WTO. For 
example, the SPS Committee applies roughly the same approach for Specific Trade 
Concerns.  
5.2.  A discussion on possible linking of questions in Ag -IMS. For example, when the original 
questio n is searched, all directly subsequent, related questions from the same Member might also 
be displayed.  
5.3.  In the near -term a strong focus will continue on Members' implementation of electronic 
notification process in Ag -IMS. Ukraine wishes to begin the dial ogue for possible subsequent 
systemic improvements to the question and answer function in Ag -IMS, where undoubtedly other 
ideas will evolve from focused discussions. Ukraine will welcome the holding of an informal 
meeting at the next Regular Session, where  all Members can engage to explore opportunities to 
improve the functionality of this constructive and valuable transparency tool in the Committee on 
Agriculture.  
__________