RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/75  
29 September 2014  
(14-5435)  Page: 1/9  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5 AND 6 JUNE 2014 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its seventy-fourth (74th) regular meeting on 5 and 6 June 2014 
under the Chairmanship of Mrs Mi riam Chaves from Argentina. 
 The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/4309 was adopted with the following 
modifications: 
  Part 1 (Review Process): 
 Addition of follow-up questions from the Un ited States of America with respect to 
Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 
1  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON 1.1.  On 9 April 2014, the Council for Trade in Goods agreed on a slate of Chairpersons of its 
subsidiary bodies for the period 2014-2015. The Committee endorsed, by acclamation, the election 
of Mrs Miriam Chaves of Argentina as Chai rperson of the Committee on Agriculture until 
March 2015. 
2  DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FIELD OF EXPORT COMPETITION 
2.1.  The Chairperson noted that this new item on the agenda of the Committee stemmed directly 
from the Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition of 7 December 2013
2 adopted by Ministers 
at the 9th WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali which states, inter alia that: 
"Accordingly, we commit to enhance transparency and to improve monitoring in 
relation to all forms of export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, 
in order to support the reform process. 
We therefore agree to hold dedicated discussions on an annual basis in the Committee 
on Agriculture to examine developments in  the field of export competition. This 
examination process shall provide an opportunity for Members to raise any matter 
relevant to the export competition pillar, in furtherance of the final objective set out in 
the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
This examination process shall be undertaken on the basis of timely notifications 
under the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture and related decisions, 
complemented by information compiled by the WTO Secretariat, consistent with the 
practice followed in 2013, on the basis of Members' responses to a questionnaire, as illustrated in the Annex."  
2.2.  It was decided at the meeting of the Committee on Agriculture held on 29 January 2014 to 
hold the first annual dedicated discussion on export competition during the June 2014 meeting. The Chairperson noted that this first discussion constituted the first concrete step of one clear 
                                               
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 or obligations under the WTO. 
2 WT/MIN(13)/40 and WT/L/915 dated 11 December 2013. G/AG/R/75 
 
- 2 - 
 
  deliverable of the Bali Ministerial outcomes, on a topic which remained a key priority of the 
agriculture negotiations. 
2.3.  The Secretariat presented its backgro und document based on the answers to the 
questionnaire sent to Members on 10 February 2014, supplemented by information already 
contained in document TN/AG/S/27/Rev.1 of 24 April 2013, and relevant information coming from 
Table ES:1 and ES:3 notifications and notifications to the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises received by the Secretariat up to 30 April 2014.
3 
2.4.  The questionnaire requested Members to provide information as per the Elements for 
Enhanced Transparency on Export Competition contained in the Annex to the Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition. The Secretar iat had registered 31 replies (with the European 
Union counting for one). Two additional replies were received after the document was circulated 
and therefore had not been incorporated into it . The Members who replied represented close to 
80% of the total world export of agricultural products in 2012. 
2.5.  The main document G/AG/W/125 described how the data transmitted by Members were 
collected and compiled, and contained a number of related summary tables and charts.  
2.6.  The main document was complemented by four addenda which constituted an integral part of 
it, each one corresponding to the four areas covered under the Export Competition pillar, namely: 
a. G/AG/W/125/Add.1: Export subsidies; 
b. G/AG/W/125/Add.2: Export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes; 
c. G/AG/W/125/Add.3: International food aid; and 
d. G/AG/W/125/Add.4: Agricultural exporting state trading enterprises (STEs). 
2.7.  The Chairperson invited Members who had not yet replied to the questionnaire, or wished to 
complement or modify their answers, to do so. She indicated that these additional responses would be incorporated in a revised paper.
4 
2.8.  Members welcomed the Secretariat's document. They considered that this exercise was a 
good opportunity to review the different programmes in place and acknowledged the domestic reforms undertaken by some Members in the area of export competition. Many considered that 
this review highlighted the importance of ensuri ng that these reforms continue, including with a 
view to achieving the total elimination of all forms of export subsidies. New Zealand introduced the Cairns group document (G/AG/W/129) which aimed at summarising and complementing the Secretariat's report and highlighted key conclusions. They noted that the Secretariat's report was 
the first time that Members' various export competition policies – across the four pillars– had been 
considered so comprehensively in the Committee on Agriculture. 
2.9.  On the overall quality and quantity of info rmation contained in the Secretariat's background 
document, Members welcomed the increased transparen cy generated by this exercise especially in 
relation to export competition measures other than export subsidies. At the same time several Members considered that there were a number of ga ps in Members' notifications and responses to 
the Secretariat's questionnaire, as well as some areas where further information analysis would be 
useful. One Member felt that a lack of comprehensive data made it difficult to determine the magnitude of the subsidy element of measures such as export financing support, STEs and international food aid. Another Member noted data limitations in particular with respect to 
information on potential increases in export subsidies; non-transparent practices of STEs; and 
export financing practices and programs that had evolved with the rise of major developing country exporters, but that are not transparent. 
2.10.  Members' views differed regarding what this exercise implied for fulfilling the 
Doha mandate. Some Members commented that even this incomplete data provided an 
                                               
3 G/AG/W/125 and addenda 1 to 4 dated 21 May, completed by two corrigenda dated 28 May. 
4 Revisions were circulated on 16 September 2014: G/AG/W/125/rev.1 and G/AG/W/125/Add.1/Rev.1. G/AG/R/75 
 
- 3 - 
 
  opportunity to draw conclusions and transparency through data collection was one of the ways to 
help fulfil the Doha mandate to eliminate all forms of export subsidy. Others stressed that transparency should not be a precondition to fulfil the Doha mandate. Various Members stated that the full elimination of all forms of export subsid ies and disciplines on all export measures with 
equivalent effect continued to be possible and urgent, particularly those that have negative impact 
on low-income farmers in the developing world. 
2.11.  On export subsidies, several Members highlighted the positive trend in this area reflected by 
the overall decline in export subsidy use. With the exception of a few Members, export subsidy use 
had fallen to zero and where this was not the case, Members had indicated their intention to reduce their use. Some Members noted that the reduction in export subsidies had been influenced by factors like high prices. Several Members noted th at while the overall trend of the use of export 
subsidies was decreasing, the grant of export subsidies had become more concentrated, both in 
terms of the Members that continued to apply them and the products that benefitted from this type of support. Some Members highlighted that data on export subsidies granted by developing 
countries and notified under article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture were missing from the 
Secretariat's document and some suggested that future Secretariat reports could usefully include this information. 
2.12.  On export financing support, the Cairns grou p drew attention to the fact that of the four 
types of export financing support mentioned in the Rev.4 modalities, risk cover was reported as the most common form of such support to agricultural goods. The second most used kind of programme within the sample was direct financing support. This included direct credits/financing, 
refinancing, and interest rate support. Some Memb ers regretted the absence of relevant reform in 
recent years in the area of export financing su pport. Regarding the repayment terms of the export 
credits implemented by Members, various Member s noted that the majority of the programmes 
reported had a repayment term that exceeded the 180 days maximum repayment term. Others 
noted that this type of support tended to benefi t a few products exported by developed Members. 
2.13.  On STEs, various Members noted the increase in transparency that the questionnaire had 
brought on this topic, in particular as compared to information provided in current 
STE notifications. The report also gave information on how many reported STEs had monopoly powers. Others were of the view that some ex porting STEs were still missing both from the 
notifications to the working party on STEs and in the information transmitted by Members and 
compiled in the Secretariat's background document. Others considered that further information 
was needed to assess the alignment of the reported STEs with all the elements of the Rev.4 modalities.  
2.14.  On international food aid, various Member s noted the shift towards cash-aid and noted that 
a few Members explicitly permitted the practice of monetization in circumstances other than emergency situations or where the beneficiary is an LDC. Some Members noted that it was not 
clear whether donor Members had considered the possible adverse effects of in-kind food aid 
granted outside the World Food Programme or the emergency food aid category. 
2.15.  The Chairperson concluded by recognizing Me mbers' interest and work on the subject. The 
Chairperson was of the view that this discussion ha d been a good first step in the implementation 
of the Bali Ministerial Declaration on export competition. The Chairperson recalled that the 
Committee mandate was expected to hold these dedicated discussions on an annual basis, and 
that the next one should therefore take place in June 2015. It was the intention of the Chair to 
hold consultations before the summer break to discuss how this information collection process 
could be enhanced in 2015. Her intention was to be in a position to circulate the questionnaire for the 2015 exercise before the end of the year, in order to give Members more time to reply. G/AG/R/75 
 
- 4 - 
 
  3  THE REVIEW PROCESS 
3.1  Matters relevant to the implementa tion of commitments under the Reform 
Programme: article 18.6 
3.1.  The 17 implementation-related issues raised as well as the responses provided and follow-up 
exchanges are compiled in section 1 of document G/AG/W/135. These relate to: 
a. Brazil's 2014-2015 harvest plan (raised by the European Union); 
b. Brazil's domestic support programmes (raised by the United States of America); 
c. Canada's proposed changes to tariff schedule (raised by the United States of America); 
d. Canada's dairy policies (raised by New Zealand); 
e. Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments (raised by the United States of 
America); 
f. Ecuador's domestic purchase requirements (raised by the United States of America); 
g. Honduras' tax exemptions (raised by the United States of America); 
h. India's subsidization policy (raised by Pakistan); 
i. India's national agricultural insurance scheme (raised by the United States of America); 
j. India's landholding laws (raised by the United States of America); 
k. India's sugar export subsidies (raised by Australia and Brazil); 
l. India's wheat stocks and exports (raised by Canada and the United States of America); 
m. Saint Lucia's domestic purchase requirements for poultry and pork (raised by the United 
States of America); 
n. Thailand's paddy pledging scheme (raised by India, Pakistan and the United States of 
America); 
o. Turkey's domestic support and export subsidies ( raised by the European Union); 
p. U.S. Farm Bill (raised by Argentina, India and Indonesia); 
q. Turkey's wheat flour sale (raised by the United States of America). 
3.2  Review of Notifications 3.2.  The Chairperson informed Members that since the March 2014 meeting the Committee had 
received 53 notifications which had been distributed electronically to all delegations. 
3.2.1  Notifications in respect of which ques tions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram 
3.3.  Section 2 of document G/AG/W/135 reflects the questions raised, responses provided, and 
Members' follow-up comments in connection with the 23 notifications on which questions had been 
raised in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram
5. 
                                               
5 WTO/AIR/4309, Attachment Section B. G/AG/R/75 
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.2.2  Notifications subject to review in resp ect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram 
3.4.  The Committee took note of the 46 notifications circulated before 26 May 2014, including 
notifications carried over from the March 2014 meet ing but in respect of which no questions had 
been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.6 
3.2.3  Notifications circulated or made av ailable after the issuance of the convening 
airgram 
3.5.  One notification had been circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram on 
26 May 2014: 
Notification under Article 16.2 of the Agreement: Monitoring of the follow-up to the 
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform 
Programme on Least-Developed and net Food-Importing Developing 
countries (Table NF:1) 
 Cuba (2011): G/AG/N/CUB/48. 
3.6.  This notification would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular meeting, 
in accordance with paragraph 9 of the working procedures. 
3.2.4  Points concerning notificati ons raised at previous meetings 
3.7.  There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item. 
3.2.5  Counter-notifications (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture) 
3.8.  There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item. 3.2.6  Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process 
3.9.  The Chairperson noted that a total of 14 dele gations had outstanding replies in the context of 
the review of notifications. The Chairperson stro ngly 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. 
3.2.7  Overdue notifications 3.10.  The Committee took note of document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.18 dated 27 May 2014 reflecting 
the current status of Members' compliance with notification obligations. 
3.11.  The Chairperson highlighted  a few numbers with respect to the outstanding notifications. 
For the period 1995 to 2012: 
 11% (69) of notifications in the MA:2 series, 
 12% (70) of notifications in the MA:5 series, 
 39% (723) of notifications in the DS:1 series, 
 37% (762) of notifications in the ES:1 series, and  
 12% (59) of notifications in the ES:2 series remain outstanding. 
                                               
6 WTO/AIR/4309, Attachment Section C. G/AG/R/75 
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.12.  The Chairperson stressed the importance of Members' timely notifications given the work of 
the CoA in 2014 and the new monitoring functions foreseen in the outcomes from the Bali Ministerial. 
4  PART 2: OTHER MATTERS WITH IN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
4.1  Implementation-related Issues and Concerns (G/AG/16 and Add.1; G/AG/22) 
4.1.  The Chairperson noted that the situation had not changed since the circulation of the 2003 
and 2006 reports to the General Council.
7 
4.2.  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. This was of particular importance in light of 
the new discussions concerning export competition stemming from the Bali Decision on this topic. 
Argentina requested that this item be retained on the agenda of the Committee on Agriculture. 
4.2  Implementation of Bali outcomes 
4.3.  The Chairperson reported on the informal consultation held in 6 June 2014. During these 
consultations the Chairperson had stressed that the implementation of the Bali Decisions were of the utmost importance. In the context of the March meeting several ideas had been raised, 
specifically related to the Decision on TRQ Administration. Members had highlighted the fact that 
some Members had begun including TRQ fill rates in MA:2 notifications. Some suggestions had 
been made in the March CoA meeting regardin g the possibility of the Committee developing 
guidelines on how fill rates should be reported in order to ensure uniformity in the notifications. 
One Member had noted that only five Members (out of the 17 Members) who had notified imports 
under TRQs had included fill rates. Some Member s thought notification formats could be changed; 
others considered that fill rate information should be provided but that changes to notification 
format were not necessarily required. The Chair had concluded that the Secretariat would put 
together a draft MA:2 notification format including an additional column to capture fill rates and circulate this to the membership for disc ussion at the next informal meeting. 
4.4.  During the informal consultations the G-33 had requested the initiation of the work 
programme under the Bali Public Stockholdi ng Decision with a view towards making 
recommendations for a permanent solution. They called for proposals to be submitted in a time-bound manner in order to be able to meet th e deadlines set out by Ministers in the Decision. 
Several Members called for discussions on this issue before the next CoA in November and sought 
suggestions regarding the format for these discu ssions. Recognizing the need to advance these 
discussions in order to meet the deadlines foreseen  by Ministers, the Chairperson had called for 
proposals to be submitted on this topic and noted that an informal meeting of the CoA could take 
place before summer break depending upon the submission of proposals. 
4.5.  On all four of these issues, Members agreed to continue discussions in the next informal 
meeting of the CoA which would be held in the margins of the November CoA. Additional informal 
meetings might also be held before the November meeting to follow-up on specific items.  
                                               
7 G/AG/16/Add.1 and G/AG/22. G/AG/R/75 
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.3  Chair report on informal meetings 
4.6.  The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting held on 5 June 2014 on the following 
topics: 
 European presentation on its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); 
 Trends in domestic support; 
 Export restrictions, Article 12 of the AoA; and 
 Market access. 
4.7.  The European Union provided a presentation on the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to 
facilitate an exchange of views on this topic.  The European Union specifically referred to the 
rationale and the process leading to the CAP reform, and provided detailed information on the key changes introduced to the three pillars of the CAP: direct payments, market measures and rural 
development. Members appreciated the European initiative to offer transparency with regard to 
the reformed CAP, and sought additional clarifications on a number of issues related to the changes introduced to the programmes under the three pillars. 
4.8.  On trends in domestic support, Canada, on behalf of the Cairns Group, and the United States 
of America presented papers on trends in domestic support. Canada noted that the submission was a revised version of the document that the Committee had considered informally during the 
March meeting. In the revised paper, the proponen ts modified the terminology that was used in 
the previous version so as to account for the comments that some Members had made at the March meeting. A number of Members thanked the proponents for taking their comments on board in revising the document. Two Members referred to their respective demographic situation and 
presented figures on support on a per capita basis and showed that the support calculated on this 
basis in their countries was multiple times less than the corresponding figures derived for some developed countries. A point was also made to look at the export orientation of the supported 
sectors in judging the distorting potential of the support. Some Members noted that the trends 
presented in the document did not depict a clear tr end in reform in the area of domestic support. 
It was also pointed out that the declining support levels in some countries in the recent years 
might have also been contributed by the rising agricultural prices. One Member emphasized the 
importance of a closer monitoring of the Green Box programmes that could also cause a potential distortive effect especially when the support amo unts were large. Another Member didn't subscribe 
to the support figures included in the paper for the years not yet reported in the notifications; 
simultaneously strong calls were made to Member s to update their outsta nding notifications. The 
proponents were also offered some specific suggestions, for example, to cover all Members with a Total AMS commitment and not to exclude de minimis  support in calculating the total Amber Box 
support for the various covered countries. A number of Members shared the conclusion in the 
Cairns Group paper emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the Doha mandate on domestic support. 
4.9.  The United States of America stated that their paper on domestic support focussed on market 
price support, which was the most trade-distorting form of amber box support. In a departure from the previous discussions on this topic where the calculation of market price support were at the centre of discussions, the United States of Am erica clarified that the current paper focussed on 
the economic effects of market price support. The paper referred to a number of studies that 
examined and demonstrated those trade-distorting effects of market price support. Some Members appreciated the fresh approach presente d in the US paper to examine market price 
support. Some other Members took exception to esta blishing a hierarchy of distortive potential of 
various individual support types falling within the amber box by arguing that such a gradation 
within the amber box did not exist in the Agreement on Agriculture. A few developing Members did 
not accept the characterization of market price support as the most-distorting form of support by 
arguing the role of such support in their countri es towards supporting the food security goals. 
These Members also considered that past research on the distorting effects of market price support, as quoted in the U.S. paper, might have or iginated from analysing this type of support in 
OECD countries. In view of a very short notice to Members to examine the paper, the chairperson 
advised the Members to revert to it in the next meeting. G/AG/R/75 
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.10.  On export restrictions, Article of the Agr eement on Agriculture, the discussions on the issue 
of enhancing transparency in the application of export restrictions continued based on the written submissions from the United States of Am erica (G/AG/W/128 and G/AG/W/128/Corr.1) and 
Japan (G/AG/W/130). Referring to the various studies made in the recent past, the United States 
of America highlighted the effect of export restrictions in contributing to price spikes and to cause 
a negative effect on importing countries' food security. The Japanese submission presented, using the UN COMTRADE data, a detailed analysis of the role of the time-period for determining a 
"net-food exporter". To facilitate an improved common understanding in the application of the 
transparency provisions in Article 12 of the Ag reement on Agriculture, Japan had examined the 
question of the net-food exporter status by applying four different time-frames, namely "five-year average", "five-year Olympic average", "t hree-year average" and "previous year". 
4.11.  Several Members welcomed the papers to wards enhancing the transparency of export 
restrictions. A number of importing countries underlined the importance of progress in this area citing the negative food security impact that export restrictions could have on those countries by 
way of limiting the availability of food in the in ternational market. Citing some elements presented 
in the United States of America submission, a point was emphasized to limit the scope of discussions within the scope of Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Some Members 
emphasized the balance that had been carefully struck in the rules between the food security 
interests of the exporting and importing countries. A point was also made that the recent episodes 
of the global price hikes could not be attributed solely to the application of export restrictions rather a host of other factors including some fundamental demand and supply-side issues were 
also deemed responsible. A number of Members welcomed the analytical work that Japan 
presented to the Committee to have an informed consideration of the net-food exporter issue. Simultaneously, some other Members suggested caution and reminded that the Committee was 
not mandated to amend or interpret the rules. The Chairperson encouraged Members to continue 
the exchange on this topic and also advised to  keep the discussions within the parameters of 
Article 12 of the Agreement. 
4.12.  On market access, the Committee's discussi ons on the issue of market access continued 
based on the four written submissions. Pakistan presented data on trade trends (RD/AG/34). Paraguay focused on tariff data in the most traded agricultural products (RD/AG/33 and RD/AG/31/Rev.1). The United States of America focused on tariff implementation 
issues (G/AG/W/132). 
4.13.  Several trends in tariffs and trade were highlighted in these presentations. Pakistan's 
presentation noted an increase in imports an d exports of developing countries between 2000 
and 2012. Trade within developing countries had increased over time; however LDCs continued to 
represent only a small proportion of world trade in  agricultural products. Paraguay presented data 
on trade flows and bound and applied tariffs for major agricultural commodities. This data 
highlighted the variety of tariff profiles across pr oducts and countries and the complexity of some 
tariff regimes. The United States of America described several tariff implementation issues, including the gap between bound applied agricultur al duties in some countries, the existence of 
complex tariffs on agricultural products, and the us e of high tariffs. The United States of America 
also requested that the Secretariat assist Members by compiling relevant tariff and trade data on 
agricultural products. Members welcomed these presentations and recognized the rich data analysis that had been undertaken. Members considered that more work could be done in terms of 
analysing market access trends in agricultur e. Some Members stressed that the U.S. paper 
proposing the data compilation had been circulated  very close to the informal meeting which did 
not allow adequate time for consultation. Othe rs noted that a request for compiled data had 
already been put forward in the March CoA. Member s agreed to ask the Secretariat to compile the 
data (pending final confirmation by one Member ). Other additional requests for data were 
suggested (specifically on TRQs, SSG, and tariff peaks) and detailed information on those requests were given by the interested Members. 
4.14.  Several Members welcomed the report and recognized the importance of these informal 
meetings. Some Members highlighted that the do cuments discussed during the informal meeting 
had been submitted very close to the meeting which did not allow time for Members to become 
fully acquainted with the information therein, and t hus they were not able to participate fully in the 
discussions. Members were encouraged to submit their documents for meetings with sufficient 
time in advance of the meeting, ideally ten days before. G/AG/R/75 
 
- 9 - 
 
  4.15.  The Chairperson noted that as the paper on market access had been submitted at a late 
stage, Members would have an opportunity to discuss this paper at the next informal meeting to take place on the margins of the November Committee meeting. In the meantime the Secretariat was requested to start work on the compilation of market access data
8. 
4.4  Other Business 
4.4.1  Secretariat briefing on upcoming notification workshop 
4.16.  The Secretariat stated that the fifth notifi cation workshop on agriculture notifications would 
take place on 2 to 5 July 2013. A total of 20 cand idates from developing country capitals had been 
selected. The workshop would also be attended by four participants on a self-funded basis The Secretariat noted that this type of workshop had been offered for the last five years, and around 
100 Members had benefited from this training. The programme of the workshop had been 
expanded to include training on the AG-IMS. The Secretariat noted that an additional agriculture 
notification workshop would take place at the end of the year, the details of which would be shared with the Membership in the near future. 
4.4.2  Date of next regular meetin g and reminder of upcoming agenda 
4.17.  The Chair proposed that the next (75
th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture 
would be held on 13 and 14 November 2014. The airgram convening this meeting would be issued 
on 3 November 2014. An informal meeting would be scheduled immediately prior to the regular 
meeting on 12 November 2014 to discuss issues re levant to the work of the Committee on 
Agriculture.  
 
__________  
                                               
8 The compilation document was produced by the Secr etariat and distributed to Members on 9 July 2014 
under the symbol G/AG/W/133.