RESTRICTED
G/AG/R/79
4 December 2015
(15-6422)  Page: 1/6
Committee on Agriculture   
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25 SEPTEMBER 2015 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its seventy-eighth (78th) regular meeting on 
25 September 2015 under the Chairmanship of Mr Michael Wamai of Uganda. 
 The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/AG/7 was adopted with the following 
modifications: 
 • Part 1 (Review Process): 
• Question AG-IMS ID 78026 under Article 18.6 from Canada regarding Turkey’s late 
notifications to be moved to agenda item 1.2.7 – Overdue Notifications; 
• Question AG-IMS ID 78014 from Canada to China to be moved from Article 18.6 to 
agenda item 1.2 - Review of Notifications; 
• Addition of question from New Zealand with respect to India's minimum indicative export 
quotas for sugar under Article 18.6; 
• Withdrawal of part c and d of question AG-IMS ID 78071 from the United States to 
Oman on its domestic support notification G/AG/N/OMN/13. 
In addition, Chile, the European Union, New Zeal and and the United States requested the addition 
of a question to India concerning its port closures for apple imports under Article 18.6 (see paragraph 2.17-2.23). 
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 19 issues raised as well as the responses provided and follow-up exchanges are compiled 
in pages 4-19 of document G/AG/W/147. These relate to: 
a. Brazil's domestic support programmes (raised by the United States of America); 
b. China's TRQ underfill (raised by the United States of America); 
c. China's maize subsidies (raised by the European Union); 
d. China's cotton policies (raised by the United States of America); 
e. Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments (raised by the United States of America); 
f. European Union's dairy policies (raised by Australia); 
                                               
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/79 
 
- 2 - 
 
  g. India's support price for wheat (raised by the European Union); 
h. India's cotton policies (raised by the United States of America); 
i. India's sugar export subsidies (raised by Australia and the European Union); 
j. India's export assistance programmes (raised by the United States of America); 
k. Indonesia's restrictions on importation of sugar (raised by Australia); 
l. Republic of Korea's rice imports (raised by Australia and Thailand); 
m. Russian Federation’s wheat export tax (raised by the European Union); 
n. Sri Lanka’s increase in milk powder tariffs (raised by Australia and New Zealand); 
o. Switzerland's export subsidy budget (raised by Australia and New Zealand); 
p. Turkey's domestic support and export su bsidies (raised by the European Union); 
q. Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale (r aised by the United States of America); 
r. India’s minimum indicative export quotas for sugar (raised by New Zealand); 
s. India’s ports closures for apple imports (raised by Chile, the European Union, 
New Zealand and the United States). 
1.2  Review of Notifications 
1.2.  The Chairperson informed Members that since the June 2015 meeting the Committee had 
received 28 notifications which had been distributed 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/147 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.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 20 notifi cations circulated before 9 September 2015, 
including notifications carried over from the June 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.  Seven notifications had been circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram on 
9 September 2015: 
Imports under Tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2) 
 
• Guatemala (2008-2013): G/AG/N/GTM/50 
                                               
2 WTO/AIR/AG/7, Attachment Section B. 
3 WTO/AIR/AG/6, Attachment Section C. G/AG/R/79 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Special Agricultural Safeguard (Table MA:3) 
 
• Chinese Taipei: G/AG/N/TPKM/124 
Domestic Support Commitments (Table DS:1): 
 
• Chad (1997-2014): G/AG/N/TCD/2 
• Mauritius (2014): G/AG/N/MUS/5 
• Mexico (2008-2012): G/AG/N/MEX/28 
Export Subsidy Commitments (Table ES:1-ES:3): 
 
• Malaysia – Table ES:1 and ES:2 (2014): G/AG/N/MYS/35 
• South Africa – Table ES:2 and ES:3 (2011-2013): G/AG/N/ZAF/85 
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. 
1.2.4  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 
1.7.  There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item. 
1.2.5  Counter-notifications (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture) 
1.8.  There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item. 1.2.6  Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process 
1.9.  The Chairperson noted that a total of 20 dele gations had outstanding replies in the context of 
the review process. The Chairperson strongly advise d 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 
1.10.  The Committee took note of document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.22 dated 9 September 2015 
reflecting the current status of Members' compliance with notification obligations. 
1.11.  The Chairperson highlighted  a few numbers with respect to the outstanding notifications. 
For the period 1995 to 2013: 
• 9% (54) of notifications in the MA:2 series; 
• 11% (61) of notifications in the MA:5 series; 
• 35% (685) of notifications in the DS:1 series; 
• 33% (732) of notifications in the ES:1 series; and  
• 11% (54) of notifications in the ES:2 series remain outstanding. 
1.12.  Three questions were raised under this ag enda item: from the European Union to Argentina 
and from Canada and the United States to Tu rkey. The questions, corresponding answers and 
Members' follow-up comments can be found in section 3 of document G/AG/W/147. G/AG/R/79 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.13.  To improve the efficiency of the review process, the Chairperson called for Members to 
respect the timelines provided for submitting and re sponding to questions. This would facilitate the 
Secretariat's ability to provide a complete version of compilation documents to all Members prior to Committee meetings and would assist the Secretariat in maintaining a coherent structure in the 
AG-IMS which would in turn help Members to search and find information. 
1.14.  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 (G/AG/16 and Add.1; G/AG/22) 2.1.  The Chairperson noted that the situation had not changed since the circulation of the 2003 
and 2006 reports to the General Council.
4 
2.2.  Without prejudice to the disciplines of Ar ticle 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture with 
respect to circumvention of export subsidy commitments, Argentina recalled that the 
establishment of additional and specific discipl ines on export credit, guarantee and insurance 
programmes remained an outstanding implementation issue resulting from the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, and therefore requested th at this item be retained on the Committee on 
Agriculture's agenda. 
2.3.  Argentina also expressed its deep concern about the recent difficulties encountered in the 
Doha Round agriculture negotiations regarding the substance of the disciplines on governmental support for export financing that were proposed in the draft modalities for agriculture 
of 2008 (TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4, Annex J). 
2.4.  Argentina noted that these disciplines – which were additional to those already established in 
the Agreement on Agriculture – had been outstanding since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round 
in 1994, which meant a delay of more than two decades. Such disciplines should have been agreed 
on immediately after the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, in order to prevent the circumvention of Agreement on Agriculture export competition obligations and scheduled export subsidy 
reduction commitments. 
2.5.   Argentina further noted that if no result to prevent such circumvention would be achieved 
regarding these disciplines within the framework of the Doha Round negotiations on agriculture, the issue should remain outstanding in the regular session of the Committee on Agriculture. 
2.2  Implementation of Bali Outcomes 
2.6.  The Chairperson noted that the Committee on Agriculture was responsible for implementation 
of Bali outcomes in two areas: the dedicated discussion on export competition and the Decision on 
TRQ administration. 
2.7.  With regard to the dedicated discussion on export competition the Chairperson noted that an 
updated version of the background document (G/AG/W/125/Rev.3) was circulated on 27 July 2015 
by the Secretariat. This concluded the second de dicated discussion which took place in June 2015.  
2.8.  The Chairperson recalled that, as noted in th e June meeting, it was clear that the future of 
the dedicated discussions on export competit ion would depend on the outcome of the 
10
th Ministerial Conference and on the review of th e situation regarding export competition to be 
undertaken by Ministers at that time. Therefore Members would have to wait until the beginning of 
next year, after the Nairobi Ministerial Conf erence, to see whether and how the dedicated 
discussion process should be continued. 
                                               
4 G/AG/16/Add.1 and G/AG/22. G/AG/R/79 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.9.  With respect to the Bali Decision on TRQ administration, the Chairperson recalled that this 
decision required Members to notify TRQ fill rates and Members had already begun reporting TRQ fill rate information using the form at contained in document G/AG/W/137. 
2.10.  The Chairperson noted that the Bali Decisi on on TRQ administration also included the 
underfill mechanism
5 and Members had not yet initiated it. The Chairperson recalled that Members 
might raise concerns under this mechanism both when importing Members did not notify fill rates 
and when the fill rate notified was below 65%. Th erefore he encouraged all Members submitting 
Table MA:2 notifications to use an additional column to report fill rate information in a timely 
manner. 
2.11.  There was no request for the floor under this agenda item.  2.3  Renewal of ad hoc Observer Status to the Inter-American Institute for Agricultural 
Cooperation (IICA)  
2.12.  The Committee agreed to invite IICA to participate in its regular meetings in 2016 regular 
sessions as an ad hoc observer.  
2.4  Other Business 
2.4.1  Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods  2.13.  The Chairperson stated that as usual he would prepare a brief and factual annual report to 
the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) under his own responsibility. The report would include the 
activities of the Committee on Agriculture held in March, June and September 2015 and would be considered by the CTG at its meeting on 10 November 2015.
6  
2.4.2  Information Session on-line notification system 
2.14.  The Secretariat provided a brief update about the development of an online system for 
agriculture notifications. The Secretariat recalled that the idea for this online system was highlighted during the Committee discussions on best practices which took place in 2009 
and 2010.
7 During the discussions, Members supported the idea that the Secretariat developed 
web-based applications for, among other things, on line notifications. The Secretariat informed the 
Committee that some prototypes had been developed for the online submissions of notifications in 
several areas. An information session would be organized to provide further briefing on the 
progress of the development and delegates would have an opportunity to have hands-on experience with the prototypes. More informatio n regarding the date of the information session 
would be provided at a later stage.   
2.4.3  Date of next regular meeting 
2.15.  In light of the Nairobi Ministerial Conf erence, the Chairperson suggested that the next 
(79
th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, which normally would be held in 
November 2015, be postponed to 2016. Further to Members' suggestions to combine the January 
and March meetings in 2016, the Chairperson proposed that the tentative date for the next meeting would be 9-10 March 2016.  
2.16.  The Committee also took note of the proposed Committee meetings for 2016: 7-8 June, 
14-15 September and 9-10 November.  
2.4.4  Question to India regarding India's importation of apples 2.17.  The Chair noted that New Zealand, Chile, the European Union and the United States of 
America had raised a question through a message to India with copy to the Secretariat on 
18 September after the deadline for raising questions. The matter was raised under Article 18.6 of 
                                               
5 Included in Annex A of WT/MIN(13)/39. 
6 See G/L/1126. 
7 A summary of the discussions can be found in G/AG/W/73/Rev.2 and G/AG/W/73/Rev.2/Add.1.  G/AG/R/79 
 
- 6 - 
 
  the Agreement which permits Members to raise any matters relevant to the implementation of the 
agreement under the AoA. The issue had not been incl uded in the list of questions at the time of 
the adoption of the agenda. 
2.18.  The Chair recalled that the Committee's rules of procedure (G/AG/1) do not specify a strict 
deadline for raising a matter under Article 18. A matter may be raised outside the Committee 
meetings through the Chairperson and the Member to whom a matter has been raised should answer within 30 days. For practical purposes the Committee uses the same ten-day deadline for 
both notification-related questions and Article 18.6 questions.  
2.19.  With respect to issues raised under Articl e 18.6, paragraph 12 of G/AG/1 specifies that the 
Chairperson's role is: 
"to ensure that there are reasonable grounds for the request and that as far as 
possible duplication and unduly burdensome requests are avoided. The information or 
explanation thus requested should normally be provided to the Committee by the Member to which the request is addressed within 30 days." 
2.20.  The Chair urged Members to be pragmatic at the time of adoption of the agenda. Members 
have control of their responses to questions and may indicate in their response whether they consider an issue to fall outside the scope of the AoA. 
2.21.  The Chair considered that since the specific question posed to India had met both the 
threshold of relevancy and non-burdensomeness, it was admissible in the Committee under Art.18.6. The Chair further noted that the questi on had been raised late and had therefore not 
been included in the convening airgram. He re cognized India had expressed willingness to discuss 
the issue and to share information with the interested Members bilaterally and encouraged 
interested Members to pursue the discussions accordingly. 
2.22.  Several Members registered their concerns  regarding how the issue had unfolded in the 
Committee meeting. New Zealand noted that while they had not expected the complete response 
in that committee meeting they expected that In dia would provide a response within the 30 days 
deadline. Chile felt that the specific question  to India should have been addressed in the 
Committee and sought information from India regarding whether port closures for importation of 
apples were temporary or permanent and requeste d clarification on the basis for the measure. 
The US expressed concern about the systemic impl ications for transparency if Members seek to 
block introduction of questions in the CoA. The European Union stressed that the question was 
clearly a subject relevant to the CoA's review process and took note of the Chair's conclusions. 
Australia appreciated the enhanced transparency in agricultural trade provided by the CoA and 
fully supported the chair in his role.  
2.23.  India also registered concerns that the issue being raised in the CoA went beyond the 
mandate of this Committee. They welcomed the suggestion of the Chair and were available to 
meet to discuss any issue. 
__________