RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/77  
 
20 May 2015  
(15-2649)  Page: 1/7  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 4 MARCH 2015 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its seventy-sixth (76th) regular meeting on 4 March 2015 under 
the Chairmanship of Mrs Miriam Chaves from Argentina. 
 The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/AG/2 was adopted with the following 
modifications: 
  Part 1 (Review Process): 
 Addition of questions from Australia with respect to Indonesia's regulation on 
importation of meat; and 
 Addition of questions from the European Union with respect to the Angola's Joint 
Executive Decree on import regulation. 
1  THE REVIEW PROCESS 
1.1  Matters relevant to the implementa tion of commitments under the Reform 
Programme: Article 18.6 
1.1.1  Trends in domestic support 
1.1.  Canada introduced a Cairns Group paper on trends in domestic support.
2 The document was 
an updated and revised version of the work Canada had presented during the March and June 2014 informal meetings of the Committee on Agriculture and included new data based on 
recent notifications from the United States of Am erica, the European Union, Brazil, India and the 
Russian Federation. The objective of the paper was to compile and summarize information from Table DS:1 notifications with a view to presenting it in a more accessible format. Many Cairns 
group members had found this to be a useful exerci se as it had allowed them to take a step back 
from the review of individual notifications and make some observations about the evolution of domestic support within and across Members over the last decade. Canada hoped that this would 
help to enrich the review process and strengthen  Members' collective understanding of the broader 
policy context in which this Committee operated. Canada also emphasized that the intention was not to present conclusions based on the data, but rather to provide a common factual basis for Members to conduct their own analysis and draw their own conclusions. Canada and the other 
cosponsors recognized that these conclusions would likely differ significantly from one Member to 
another. 
1.2.  As noted in footnotes to the paper, severa l Cairns Group Members, Argentina, Indonesia and 
the Philippines, did not support the document or were unable to co-sponsor the paper at the time 
of the meeting. They raised concerns that th e document presented a distorted picture of the 
relative importance of domestic support of deve loped and developing country Members. Argentina 
stated that the new document overlooked the fact  that developed country Members that had been 
subsidizing their agricultural production for decades remained the major subsidizers. For these 
                                               
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. 
2 G/AG/W/141. G/AG/R/77 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Members total domestic support represented a larger proportion of agricultural value of production 
than for most developing country Members. Regarding Green Box expenditure, Argentina and the Philippines further noted that the document showed that developed country Members had shifted their support from Amber Box to Green Box in sign ificant amounts and that this amount of support 
was unlikely to have only minimally distorting effects. Argentina stressed that the use of the Green 
Box by developing country Members focused on assisting large rural populations, developing poor rural infrastructure and addressing food securi ty. The Philippines noted that the paper did not 
cover all the countries that provided support above de minimis  levels and excluded data from 
major exporters of important commodities, such as rice. 
1.3.  Other Members, including Bolivia, India, and China also expressed concern about the balance 
of the presentation of the factual data and its analysis. India and China emphasized the 
importance of differentiating livelihood concerns from commercial interests. For some developed 
country Members the value of agricultural expo rts represented a substantial, and growing, 
proportion of their agricultural value of production. In contrast, for some developing countries 
highlighted in the document, domestic consumptio n represented a larger proportion of value of 
production than agricultural exports and the support  was provided to small farmers rather than to 
large commercialized farmers. Illustrating this  point, India presented figures on Members' 
domestic support provided per person economically active in the agriculture sector, as well as 
figures of agricultural exports as a percentage of agricultural value of production. 
1.4.  Other Cairns Group Members, Paraguay, Uruguay, Pakistan, New Zealand and Australia, 
supported the statement by Canada. Paraguay an d Uruguay noted that the presence of trade 
distorting domestic support, regardless of wh o was providing the support, meant that small 
economies had to make greater efforts in order to benefit from the international trading system.  
Pakistan suggested exploring further improvements  to the paper, including looking at in-depth 
policy dimensions and product specific subsidies provided by the largest exporters. New Zealand 
added that the significant reductions in current  total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) 
were encouraging, but that examples of in creases in both Amber and Green box support 
demonstrated the importance of the WTO reform process. 
1.5.  The United States of America emphasized that the usefulness of this discussion would be 
improved if all relevant factual information was presented. The United States of America noted that the Cairns group country-specific graphics and total graphics were not analogous. While the 
total support figures included all forms of support, the country-specific graphs had omitted 
de minimis  support and thus understated the total su pport provided by Members. The United 
States of America recommended that all types of su pport should be included in the country tables 
and presented updated tables containing additional  information on expenditures falling within the 
de minimis  levels.  
1.6.  Mexico, Brazil and the European Union welcomed the US presentation. Mexico was of the 
view that subsidies, irrespective of who provided them, would have trade distorting effects. Brazil 
noted that the charts presented by the United St ates of America were at different scales which 
provided a distorted comparative perspective.  
1.7.  New Zealand, the United States of Americ a, and the European Union stressed the importance 
of Members making complete and timely notifications. For the European Union, it was important to 
ensure updated data was available to Members in the context of the ongoing negotiations in all 
fora leading up to the work programme and the Ministerial conference in Nairobi. 
1.8.  Canada and Australia noted that many Me mbers had presented information that extended 
some of the analysis and requested those Members to share the data and calculations that supported their statements.  
1.1.2  Specific implemen tation-related issues 
1.9.  The 17 specific implementation-related issues  raised as well as the responses provided and 
follow-up exchanges are compiled in section 1 of document G/AG/W/142. These relate to: 
a. Angola's Joint Executive Decree on import re gulation (raised by the European Union); G/AG/R/77 
 
- 3 - 
 
  b. Brazil's domestic support programmes (raised by the United States of America); 
c. Canada's tariff-rate quota for cheese (raised by New Zealand); 
d. Canada's dairy policies (raised by the United States of America); 
e. China's cotton domestic support (raised by the United States of America); 
f. Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments (raised by the United States of 
America); 
g. India's cotton policies (raised by the United States of America); 
h. India's sugar export subsidies (raised by Au stralia, Colombia and the European Union); 
i. India's exports of cereals and rice (raised by the European Union); 
j. Indonesia's regulation on importation of meat (raised by Australia); 
k. Pakistan's wheat export subsidies (raised by Australia and the European Union); 
l. Russian Federation's agricultural support for 2015 (raised by the United States of 
America); 
m. Russian Federation's grain exports (raised by the European Union); 
n. Thailand's sugar policies (raised by Australia, Brazil and the European Union); 
o. Thailand's paddy pledging scheme (raise d by the United States of America); 
p. Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale (r aised by the United States of America); 
q. U.S. Export Credit Guarantee Programme (raised by Australia). 
1.2  Review of Notifications 1.10.  The Chairperson informed Members that since the November 2014 meeting the Committee 
had received 52 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 
1.11.  Section 2 of document G/AG/W/142 reflects the questions raised, responses provided, and 
Members' follow-up comments in connection with the 20 notifications on which questions had been 
raised in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram.3 
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 
1.12.  The Committee took note of the 35 notifications circulated before 20 February 2015, 
including notifications carried over from the No vember 2014 meeting but in respect of which no 
questions had been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.4 
                                               
3 WTO/AIR/AG/2, Attachment Section B. 
4 WTO/AIR/AG/2, Attachment Section C. G/AG/R/77 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.2.3  Notifications circulated or made av ailable after the issuance of the convening 
airgram 
1.13.  Nine notifications had been circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram on 
20 February 2015: 
Implementation of market access opportunities: tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1): 
 Switzerland (2015): G/AG/N/CHE/13/Add.17 
Special Safeguard: price-based (Table MA:4) 
 Barbados: G/AG/N/BRB/22 
Annual summary of Special Safeguar d actions taken (Table MA:5): 
 Barbados (2003-2009): G/AG/N/BRB/21 
Domestic Support Commitments (Table DS:1): 
 Canada (2012): G/AG/N/CAN/104 
 Costa Rica (Revision, 2013): G/AG/N/CRI/48/Rev.1 
 Paraguay (2012-2013): G/AG/N/PRY/23 
 South Africa (2011-2013): G/AG/N/ZAF/83 
New or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction (Table DS:2)  Canada: G/AG/N/CAN/105 
Export Subsidy Commitments (Table ES:1-ES:3): 
 Dominican Republic (2013-2014): G/AG/N/DOM/24 
1.14.  These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the working procedures. 
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  
1.15.  There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item. 
1.2.5  Counter-notifications (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture) 
1.16.  There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item. 
1.2.6  Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process 
1.17.  The Chairperson noted that a total of 16 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. The United States of America 
provided response to Russian Federation's ques tions at the November 2014 meeting regarding its 
domestic support notification G/AG/N/USA/93.
5 India indicated that they would soon submit replies 
                                               
5 AG-IMS ID 75125. G/AG/R/77 
 
- 5 - 
 
  to Brazil's questions raised at the last Committee meeting concerning its domestic support 
notifications G/AG/N/IND/10 and G/AG/N/IND/10/Corr.1.6 
1.2.7  Overdue notifications 1.18.  The Committee took note of document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.20 dated 20 February 2015 
reflecting the current status of Members' compliance with notification obligations. 
1.19.  The Chairperson highlighted  a few numbers with respect to the outstanding notifications. 
For the period 1995 to 2013: 
 11% (73) of notifications in the MA:2 series; 
 12% (73) of notifications in the MA:5 series; 
 38% (736) of notifications in the DS:1 series; 
 36% (802) of notifications in the ES:1 series; and  
 12% (59) of notifications in the ES:2 series remain outstanding. 
1.20.  The Chairperson stated that, in response to the request by the Committee in 
September 2013, the Secretariat had updated the documentation guide on the "Improvement of 
the Submission of Notifications".
7 The updated guide now covered relevant documents circulated 
before 20 February 2015. 
1.21.  Two questions were raised under this agenda item by the United States of America to China 
and Turkey respectively. The questions, corresp onding answers and Members' follow-up comments 
can be found in section 3 of document G/AG/W/142. 
1.22.  The Chairperson stressed the importance of transparency given the important systemic 
benefits it provided and called on all Members to fulfil their notification obligations in a timely 
manner. 
2  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 2.1  Implementation-related issues 
2.1.  The Chairperson noted that the situatio n had not changed since the circulation of the 
2003 and 2006 reports to the General Council.
8 
2.2.  Argentina stated that without prejudice to the provisions of Article 10.1 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, the establishment of additional and spec ific disciplines on export credits, export credit 
guarantees and insurance programmes remained an  outstanding implementation issue resulting 
from the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. Argentina requested that this item be retained 
on the agenda of the Committee on Agriculture. 
2.2  WTO list of net food-importing deve loping countries (NFIDCs) (G/AG/3 and 
G/AG/5/Rev.10) 
2.3.  The Chairperson recalled that within the fr amework of the Marrakesh Decision, and pursuant 
to the Decision of the Committee (G/AG/3), the Co mmittee was required to review the list NFIDCs, 
including on the basis of specific requests from Members for inclusion into the list. The Chairperson noted that the Committee has not received any demands from Members to be added to the list 
since March 2012. Therefore, the list contained in document G/AG/5/Rev.10 remained unchanged. 
                                               
6 AG-IMS ID 75123 and 75124. 
7 G/AG/W/112/Rev.2. 
8 G/AG/16/Add.1 and G/AG/22. G/AG/R/77 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.3  Implementation of Bali outcomes 
2.4.  As regards the implementation of the Bali Ministerial Declaration on export competition, the 
Chairperson reminded the Committee that the second annual dedicated discussion would take place during the June meeting. The Chairperson stated that the Secretariat would update in 
advance of the meeting its background document
9 on export competition covering information 
contained in relevant notifications and replies to the questionnaire on export subsidies, export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes, international food aid and agricultural 
exporting state trading enterprises. 
2.5.  The Chairperson recalled that the questionnaire was circulated on 26 November 2014 along 
with a summary of suggestions received on how to increase the number and improve the overall quality of replies to the questionnaire. The resp onses to the questionnaire were due by 20 March 
and by the date of this Committee meeting eight replies had been received from Members. 
2.6.  Reiterating that the comprehensive and updated information from Members was a critical 
element of the examination process put in place according to the Bali Ministerial Declaration on 
export competition, the Chairperson invited Members to make all possible efforts to send their 
replies to the questionnaire and their notifications by the 20 March deadline. 
2.7.  One Member emphasized the urgency and im portance of eliminating all forms of export 
subsidies given the Bali Ministerial decision an d the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial declaration on 
export competition.  
2.8.  Regarding TRQ administration, the Chairperson recalled that in November 2014, in order to 
encourage a consistent notification approach, the Chairperson had suggested that in future 
notifications Members use an additional column to provide the relevant TRQ fill rate data 
administration. The Chairperson reported that the Secretariat had circulated an example of a notification which included an additional column for fill rate information
10 and some Members had 
already started to report fill rates using the proposed format.  
2.9.   The Chairperson also recalled that the annex of the Bali decision on TRQ administration 
included the underfill mechanism that Members had not yet initiated. The Chairperson reminded 
Members that that they may raise concerns under this mechanism both when importing Members 
did not notify fill rates and when the fill rate notified was below 65%. Consequently the Chairperson encouraged all Members to noti fy TRQ fill rates in a timely manner.  
2.4  Chair's report on informal consultations  
2.10.  The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting held on 3 March 2015. Members 
discussed a paper submitted by Japan entitled "Work on improving the implementation of 
notifications on export restrictio ns – Definition of foodstuffs".
11 
2.11.  The paper introduced points for discussion concerning the definition of "foodstuffs" in the 
context of Article 12 of the Agreement on Agricult ure. It summarized the discussions on food stuffs 
in the Committee and provided an overview of how different products have been notified under 
Article 12. Japan posed several questions for discussion to clarify what would be the relevant set of 
products covered by the notification provisions included in Article 12 of the Agreement.  
2.12.  Many Members welcomed the papers' object ive of enhancing the transparency of export 
restrictions and supported Japan's efforts in this area. Many Members considered that the scope of 
the notification provisions under Article 12 should  be those products covered in Annex 1 of the 
Agreement. Some Members cautioned that work on this issue should not lead to unintentional limitations on the scope of the coverage of Article 12. Others noted that work in this area should 
avoid changing the balance of rights and oblig ations under the Agreement since the Committee 
was not mandated to amend or interpret the rules. Japan indicated that they intended to submit a 
paper on timing of export restriction notifications in the future. The Chairperson encouraged 
                                               
9 G/AG/W/125/Rev.2 and addenda. 
10 G/AG/W/137. 
11 G/AG/W/140. G/AG/R/77 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Members to continue exchanges on this topic and on any other topic under the scope of the 
Agreement on Agriculture to seek improvements in transparency. 
2.5  Other Business 2.5.1  Secretariat briefing  on Technical Assistance 
2.13.  The Secretariat informed the Committee that  the next workshop on agriculture notifications 
would take place on 9 to 12 June 2015.
12 The invitation would be circulated by the end of 
March 2015. The purpose of the workshop would be to provide specialized training to capital-based 
officials who were involved in notification prep arations. Similar to previous events, three days 
would be devoted to lectures and hands-on practices and on the last day participants would meet one-on-one with the Secretariat on particular notification questions. The workshop would be held in English but the Secretariat would look into possibilities to prepare training materials also in 
Spanish and French depending on the demand.  
2.5.2  Date of next regular meeting  2.14.  The Chair proposed that the next (77
th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture 
would be held on 4-5 June 2015. The airgram convening this meeting would be issued on 
22 May 2015.  
__________  
                                               
12 The dates of this workshop were subsequently changed to 6-9 July 2015.