RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/8 1 
 
8 August  2016 
(16-4238) Page: 1/10 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 SUMMARY REPORT OF TH E MEETING HELD ON 7-8 JUNE 201 6 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its eightieth  (80th) regular meeting on 7-8 June 2016 under the 
Chairmanship of Mr Garth Ehrhardt of Canada . 
 
The agenda of the meeting as set ou t in WTO/AIR/AG/ 12 was adopted with the following 
modifications:  
 
 Part 1 (Review Process ): 
 Article 18.6:  
 Addition of questions from Brazil with respect to U.S. new cotton chair programme . 
 Individual notifications:  
 Addition of questions from Thailand with r espect to  Chinese Taipei's notification 
G/AG/N/TPKM/135 ; 
 Addition of questions from Thailand with respect to Russia's notification 
G/AG/N/RUS/12 ; 
 Addition of questions from Thailand with respect to Australia's notification 
G/AG/N/AUS/99 ; 
 Addition of questi ons from Peru with respect to Israel's notification G/AG/N/ISR/55 ; 
 New Zealand requested to move its question to Israel, previously raised under 
Article  18.6, to questions regarding Israel's notification  G/AG/N/ISR/55 ; and  
 U.S. deferred replies to questio ns by the European Union, Brazil and India.  
1  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  
1.1.  On 11 May 2016, the Council for Trade in Goods had  agreed on a slate of Chairpersons of  its 
subsidiary bodies for the period 201 6-2017. The Committee endorsed, by acclamation, the elec tion 
of Mr Garth Ehrhardt of Canada as Chairperson.  
2  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
2.1  Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the reform 
programme under the Reform Programme: Article 18.6  
2.1.  The 28 implementation -related issues raised as well as the resp onses provided and follow -up 
exchanges are compiled in section 1 of document G/AG/W/ 154. These relate to:  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own res ponsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/R/81  
 
- 2 - 
 
  a. Argentina's tax policies  (raised by Ukraine)  
b. Argentina's support for dairy producers  (raised by the European Union ) 
c. Argentina's commodity and grain ex port policy  (raised by the European Union)  
d. Brazil's soft loans to sugar cane growers for cane planting  (raised by the 
European  Union)  
e. Brazil's domestic support programmes  (raised by the United States)  
f. Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  (raised by Australia , New Zealand and the 
United  States ) 
g. Canada's wine sale policy  (raised by New Zealand and the United  States ) 
h. Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese  (raised by New Zealand, Norway and  Switzerland ) 
i. Canada' s compositional standard for cheese  (raised by New Zea land) 
j. China's decision to end corn floor price  (raised by the European Union ) 
k. Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments  (raised by the United States)  
l. European Union's export subsidies (raised by Japan ) 
m. European Union's agriculture policies  (raised by New Zealand ) 
n. India's importation of apples  (raised by New Zealand ) 
o. India's new crop insurance scheme  (raised by Canada ) 
p. India's sugar export subsidies  (raised by Australia and the  European  Union ) 
q. India's export assistance programmes  (raised by the United Sta tes) 
r. Japan's Act on price adjustment of sugar and starch (raised by the European Union ) 
s. Moldova's poultry tariffs  (raised by the United States ) 
t. Russian Federation's  measures affecting Ukrainian transit of agricultural products to 
Kazakhstan (raised by Ukraine) 
u. Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs  (raised by New Zealand)  
v. Thailand's export of rice from government stocks  (raised by the European Union ) 
w. Turkey's support scheme to certain agricultural sectors  (raised by the European Union ) 
x. Turkey's domestic  support and export subsidies  (raised by Japan, New Zealand and the  
European Union ) 
y. Turkey's fruit and vegetable export subsidies (raised by European Union ) 
z. Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale  (raised by the United States ) 
aa. Turkey's rice support  (raise d by the European Union ) 
bb. U.S. new cotton chair programme (raised by Brazil) . 
2.2  Review of Notifications  
2.2.  The Chairperson informed Members that since the March  2016 meeting the Committee had 
received 6 2 notifications which had been distributed electronically to  all delegations.  
2.2.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram  
2.3.  Section 2 of document G/AG/W/ 154 reflects the questions raised, responses provided, and 
Members' follow -up comments in connec tion with the notifications on which questions had been 
raised in advance of the iss uance of the convening airgram.2 
                                                
2 WTO/AIR/AG/ 12, Attachment Section B. G/AG/R/81  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.2.2   Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process  
2.4.  The Chairperson noted that a total of 77 responses in the context of  the revi ew 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. The Chairperson noted that , 
as a new practice , in order to keep better track of t he questions raised in the Committee, repeated 
questions from previous Committee meetings would be  grouped under this agenda item. The 
notifications subject to repeated questions were set out in Sect ion C of the Attachment to the 
convening airgram (WTO/AIR /AG/12).  The questions and responses provided to these questions 
can be found in section 3 of document G/AG/W/1 54.  
2.5.  The United States requested the floor to provide deferred replies to questions raised at 
previous Committee meetings by the European Union, Brazil and India . The corresponding 
questions and responses can be found in section 3 of document G/AG/W/1 54.   
2.2.3   Overdue notifications  
2.6.  The Committee took note of document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.2 4 and corrigendum  dated 
26 May 2016 and 30 May 2016, respectively,  reflecting the current status of Members' compliance 
with notification obligations.  
2.7.  The Chairperson highlighted a few numbers with respect to the outstanding notifications. For 
the period 1995 to 201 4: 
 9% (64) of notifications in the MA:2 series remain outst anding;  
 9 % (58) of notifications in the MA:5 series;  
 37% (754) Table DS:1 domestic support notifications ;  
 34% (792) export subsidy notifications in the ES:1 series; and  
 10% (52) Table ES:2 notifications . 
2.8.  Five question s were raised under this agenda item  to Argentina, China, Thailand and Turkey . 
The question s, corresponding answer s and Members' follow -up comments can be found in 
section  4 of document G/AG/W/1 54. 
2.9.  The Chairperson stressed the importan t systemic benefits of transparency and called on all 
Members to fulfil their notification obligations in a timely manner.  
2.2.4   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
2.10.   The Committee took note of the 4 1 notifications circulat ed before 2 7 May 2016, including 
notifications carried over from the March 201 6 meeting but in respect of which no questions had 
been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.3 
2.2.5   Notifications circulated or made available after the issuan ce of the convening 
airgram  
2.11.   Nine notifications had been circulated after the issuance  of the convening airgram on 
27 May 2016: 
Imports under Tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
 
 Tunisia  (2013-2015): G/AG/N/ TUN/48  
 New Zealand (2015): G/AG/N/NZL/ 92. 
                                                
3 WTO/AIR/AG/ 12, Attachment Section D. G/AG/R/81  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Domestic Support Commitments (Table DS:1):  
 
 Cameroon  (2015): G/AG/N/C MR/8 
 New Zealand  (2015): G/AG/N/ NZL/93 . 
Export Subsidy Commitments (Table ES:1 -ES:3):  
 
 Cameroon (201 5): G/AG/N/C MR/7 
 New Zealand (2015): G/AG/N/NZL/94  
 Ukraine  (2015): G/AG/N/UKR/23  
 Viet Nam (2013 -2014): G/AG/N/VNM/5 . 
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 Developin g countries (Table NF:1):  
 
 United States: G/AG/N/USA/105/Rev.1 . 
2.12.   These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the working procedures.  
2.2.6   Points concerning notifications raise d at previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: information regarding outcome where the issue involved is one 
of general interest  
2.13.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
2.2.7   Counter -notifications (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture)  
2.14.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
3  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN  THE PURVIEW OF THE C OMMITTEE  
3.1  Developments in the field of export competition (G/AG/W/125/Rev.4 plus 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.1 to Add.5)  
3.1.  The Committee held its de dicated discussion on export competition. The Chairperson noted  
that this item had been on the agenda of the Committee since June 2014, as a result of the 
Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition of 7 December 20134 adopted at the 9th WTO 
Ministerial Conference in Bali. In this Declaration Ministers had agreed to hold dedicated 
discussions in the field of export competition on an annual basis in the Committee on Agriculture in 
order to enhance transparency and improve monitoring in relation to all form s of export subsidies 
and all export measures with equivalent effect.  
3.2.  The Chair person  recalled that the Ministerial Decision on export competition of  
19 December  20155 adopted at the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi (The Nairobi 
Decision) also mandated the Committee on Agriculture to monitor the implementation of the 
Decision in accordance with existing notification requirements under the Agreement on Agriculture, 
as complemented by the provisions set out in the Annex to this Decision.  
3.3.  The Annex to the Decision stipulated that consistent with the Bali Ministerial Declaration on 
Export Competition, Members would continue to provide information on export subsidies, export 
credit, export credit guarantees or insurance programs, international food aid  and agricultural 
exporting state trading enterprises, within the context of an annual examination process based on 
the structure contained in this Annex. In addition, developing country Members, unless they were 
                                                
4 WT/MIN(13)/40 and WT/L/915, 11 December 2013.  
5 WT/MIN(15)/45  and WT/L/980,  21 December 2015.  G/AG/R/81  
 
- 5 - 
 
  in a position to do so at an earlier date, were required to implement this Annex five years following 
the date of adoption of the Decision.  
3.4.  The previous chair  had circulated on 20 January 2016 a communication inviting Members to 
provide information in accordance with the terms of the Annex of the N airobi Decisio n. Based on 
Members' replies to this questionnaire and relevant notifications received by the Committee on 
Agriculture and the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises, the Secretariat had circulated on 
11 May 2016 a revised background docu ment G/AG/W/125/Rev.4 with its four addenda on export 
subsidies, export finance, international food aid and agricultural exporting State Trading 
Enterprises, updating the previous document G/AG/W/125/Rev.3.  
3.5.  The Secretariat had received 34 replies to the qu estionnaire (with the European Union 
counting as one). The Chairperson noted that this was the same number of replies as last year, 
but some Members who had not replied last year had provided responses this time . The 
Chairperson further noted that the qual ity of replies had again improved reflect ing Members'  
experiences in this transparency exercise over the last two years . The Chairperson regretted 
however the persisten t gaps in  some  Members' notifications and replies. He invited Members who 
had not yet re plied, or wished to complement their replies, to do so before the end of June 2016. 
Members that did not apply measures covered by the questionnaire could respond with a "nil" 
reply. He indicated that this supplementary information would be incorporated in  an updated 
background document.  
3.6.  Members welcomed the efforts made by some to respond to the questionnaire. New Zealand 
noted that some small developing country Members had replied, which demonstrated that the 
questionnaire was not overly burdensome. Norwa y welcomed efforts made by some Members who 
had improved their performance by replying to the questionnaire in 2016.  
3.7.  Other Members emphasized their view that Members could improve the quality of their 
responses. New Zealand, the European Union, Norway, Sw itzerland, Chile, the United States and 
Australia expressed disappointment about the number and quality of notifications and replies to 
the Secretariat's questionnaire, and asked all WTO Members to make the necessary efforts to 
improve the overall transpar ency. Norway and the EU noted that some Members who had replied 
to the questionnaire previously had not done so this time. While acknowledging the right of 
developing countries to phase -in the implementation of the annex to the Nairobi Decision, they 
expre ssed the hope that footnote 17 of the Decision would not result in less transparency.  
3.8.  Some Members commented on the questionnaire contained in the annex of the Nairobi 
Decision. The European Union considered that there was room for improvement in the anne x since 
it had been conceived before the adoption of the disciplines contained in the Nairobi Decision. The 
dedicated discussion could help Members to calibrate future work on the export competition pillar . 
New Zealand considered that the  Secretariat could  report  information that was already notified or 
otherwise reported.  New Zealand was of the view that possible modification or expansion of the 
current questionnaire and changes in Secretariat reporting deserve d further discussion and 
consideration.  
3.9.  The Ch airperson welcomed the additional contributions received from Members in advance of 
this discussion. Th e Cairns Group  had submitted  a paper6, like they had  in 2014 and 2015 . In 
addition Canada, the European Union, Australia and Chile7 addressed questions t o other Members 
in relation to the information contained in document G/AG/W/125/Rev.4.  
3.10.   New Zealand introduced the Cairns Group paper8 which supplemented  the Secretariat 's 
background document with some key conclusions drawn from the analysis, including with respect 
to the alignment of Members ' reported policies with the 2008 revised draft modalities 
(TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4).  New Zealand noted that the approach retained in this paper was slightly 
different than in the previous years, since it now considered the alig nment of Members ' reported 
policies with the new binding disciplines contained in the Nairobi Decision. This approach was 
however limited since the Secretariat 's background document was still based on pre -2016 data, 
reflecting the situation before  the adop tion of the Ministerial Decision. New Zealand highlighted in 
                                                
6 G/AG/W/153, 31 May 2016.  
7 RD/AG/45, 46,  47 and 49, dated 27 May, 31 May, 2 June and 13 June , respectively . 
8 G/AG/W/144 , 29 May 2015 . G/AG/R/81  
 
- 6 - 
 
  conclusion the need for Members to amend their schedules to eliminate their export subsidies 
entitlements, in accordance with the timeline agreed in the Decision.   
3.11.   New Zealand summarized the main  outcomes of the Cairns Group paper based on the data 
compiled in the Secretariat's background paper for export subsidies, export finance, agricultural 
exporting state trading enterprises and international food aid.  
3.12.   In relation to export subsidies, New Zea land noted the continuing decline in their use 
according to notifications, with however some limited cases  of increased outlays . New Zealand 
questioned the consistency of these developments with the Bali Declaration  and the Nairobi 
Decision  which called fo r Members  to exercise utmost restraint with regard to all forms of export 
subsidies.  The EU, supported by Switzerland, regretted the absence of data in the Secretariat's 
background document on the use of export subsidies under Article 9.4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Korea questioned how paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision would apply to Article 9.4 
export subsidies.  
3.13.   On export finance , New Zealand regretted that replies to the questionnaire in many cases 
lacked information on whether the programmes wer e self -financing. The United States and the 
European Union also regretted the lack of data on some export financing programmes and the EU 
noted that some of its questions aimed at filling this gap. Korea raised some questions on the 
duration of the phasing  in period referred to in paragraph 16 of the Decision as well as on the 
time-frame applicable to notifications by developed country Members of existing contracts 
operating with a maximum repayment term exceeding 18 months.  
3.14.   On exporting state trading ente rprises, New Zealand noted that the Secretariat 's 
background document did not contain sufficiently detailed trade statistics to assess the impacts of 
agriculture exporting STEs on global markets. The European Union also expressed some 
disappointment about the lack of data on some state controlled corporations operating public 
stocks in various Members.  
3.15.    On international food aid , the EU regretted the lack of detailed data on monetization and 
noted that at least one new country was notifying the use of in -kind food aid, seemingly also in 
non-emergency situations. S ome Members also identified areas where the analysis  of international 
food aid  in the Cairns Group paper could be  enhanced . China noted that most of its international 
food aid was provided in respon se to emergency requests and mostly in cash in response to World 
Food Programme's requests. Food aid provided by China was neither  monetized nor re -exported. 
The EU noted in relation to the export finance section of the Cairns Group paper that the absence 
of replies for 13 EU member States meant that according to available information, export finance 
programmes covered by the Nairobi Decision were absent in these countries .  
3.16.   Two Members commented on the Cairns Group paper's characterization of the ir food ai d 
programmes. Japan  commented that they provide cash -based, rather than in -kind, food aid and 
that their  system was not equivalent to monetization of in -kind food aid. Russia commented that 
food aid is normally provided on an untied cash -based basis.  These  comments are also reflected in 
their replies to questions circulated by other Members . 
3.17.   Members engaged in further discussion on the questions circulated in advance of the 
meeting. Canada, the European Union, Australia and Chile introduced these  questions and several  
Members provided oral replies. The Chairperson invited Members who had replied orally to 
questions from other Members and Members who were not in a position to reply during the 
meeting to send their replies to the Secretariat in written form. T he questions , the responses 
provided and follow -up exchanges  would be compiled in a document  and circulated  to Members .9 
3.18.   The Chairperson noted in conclusion the usefulness of the debates that had allowed both a 
broad overview of the developments in the fie ld of export competition and a more focused 
discussion based on questions received from Members on some specific measures in relation to the 
implementation of the Nairobi Decision.  He welcomed the number and the quality of the specific 
questions and replie s by Members. He invited Members with suggestions on how to improve the 
                                                
9 G/AG/W/ 155, to be issued.  G/AG/R/81  
 
- 7 - 
 
  structure of the discussions to exchange ideas with him as well as with other delegations and the 
Secretariat.   
3.19.   The Chairperson also noted that some issues had been raised on how the C ommittee on 
Agriculture would monitor the implementation of some specific elements of the Decision. He 
invited Members to follow a pragmatic approach and address the issues as they arise.  
3.20.   The Chairperson announced that the next dedicated discussion on exp ort competition was 
planned to be held at the June 2017 meeting of the Committee. In order to enable Members to 
provide adequate replies during the meeting, the Chairperson suggested that Members adopt 
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.  
3.2  Implementation -related Issues (G/AG/16 and Add.1; G/AG/22)  
3.21.   The Chairperson noted that the situati on concerning one of the issues dealing with the 
Table  MA:1 addenda ha d not changed and continue d to be reflected in the last two reports made 
to the General Council in 2003 and 2006.10 With respect to the development of disciplines to 
govern the provision of export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes as well 
as certain aspects raised under the implementation discussions on the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision, 
the Chairperson  noted that some progress had been  made at the end of 2015 in the con text of the 
Nairobi Ministerial outcomes.  The Chairperson noted that i n the March 2016 CoA meeting several 
Members had underlined the challenges faced by NFIDCs due to volatile food market prices and  
they had urged other Members to re -engage in efforts to fully implement the Marrakesh NFIDC 
Decision as mandated by Ministers in paragraph 25 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration.  
3.22.   Egypt welcomed the outcome achieved at the Nairobi Ministerial  on some of the 
implementation -related issues . Egypt  recalled  that in the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration  Ministers 
had reaffirmed their commitment to fully implement the NFIDC Decision . Egypt request ed to keep 
this as a standing  agenda item.  
3.3  Implementation of Bali Outcomes  
3.23.   The Chairperson noted that the CoA was responsibl e for the implementation of Ministerial 
outcomes in relation to the annual dedicated discussion on export competition; the monitoring of 
information submitted under the Bali Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security purposes; 
and the monitoring and  review of Members' obligations established under the Bali Decision on TRQ 
administration. With respect to the monitoring foreseen under the Bali Decisions on Public 
Stockholding for Food Security purposes and TRQ administration, the Chairperson noted that  no 
information had been provided by Members. The Chairperson noted that according to the Decision 
on TRQ administration a review of the operation of that Decision should commence no later than 
the end of 2017.   
3.24.   With respect to  the CoA's  implementation of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export 
competition11, the Chairperson noted that Members had just completed  the first post -Nairobi 
dedicated discussion on export competition, and that the Decision also included other provisions 
related to the review and  monitoring of its provisions.  He noted that it was premature to engage in 
the review of the Decisions' disciplines to be conducted every three years by the Committee, as 
mandated by paragraph 5 of the Decision.  
3.25.   Members had also agreed in the Decision to r eview 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 net food -importing developing countries. The last annual 
monitoring exercise on the follow -up to the Marrakesh NFIDC decision had taken place during the 
meeting of the Committee on 9 March 2016. Some useful suggestions had been made at that tim e 
on how to articulate this review within the annual monitoring exercise on NFIDCs.  
                                                
10 G/AG/16/Add.1 and G/AG/22  dated 13 June 2006 and 16 May 2006, respectively . 
11 WT/MIN(15 )/45, 21 December 2015.  G/AG/R/81  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.26.   Finally, the Decision also included specific provisions entailing possible actions by Members . 
For example , paragraph 11 of the Decision, provide d for consultations upon re quest between a 
Member using export subsidies and other Member s. The Decision also provide d for the possible 
notification to the Committee on Agriculture by a deve loped Member under paragraph 15( a) of an 
existing contract operating on a repayment term long er than 18 months in relation to export 
finance.  
3.27.   Australia, Brazil, Norway, Uruguay and the European Union confirmed they had started 
working internally on the necessary steps to eliminate their export subsidy entitlements from their 
schedules, as required  by the Nairobi Decision. Colombia also confirmed its readiness to modify its 
export subsidies schedule once all the other Members with export subsidy reduction commitments 
had confirmed a similar engagement. As regards the other provisions of the Decision , Brazil 
confirmed its measures were already in compliance and Colombia indicated that a review had been 
initiated internally to this effect. Several Members also noted in the course of the meeting that 
they had not granted or were not currently granting e xport subsidies.  
3.28.   Argentina welcomed the fact that some Members had started taking the necessary steps to 
implement the Nairobi Decision in this regard and considered that these efforts  by all concerned 
Members would have a positive influence on the overall  agricultural negotiation.  
3.29.    Australia drew attention to the fact that the information transmitted and incorporated in the 
latest background document on export competition included a notification to the Committee 
pursuant to paragraph 15 (a) of the Nairobi D ecision on export competition.12  
3.30.    The United States recalled that paragraph 4 of the Nairobi Decision gave the clearest 
guidance on the implementation of the Decision. The United States also agreed that Members' 
schedules should reflect their commitments p ursuant to the Nairobi Decision but considered that 
all Members concerned should move together towards the modification of their schedules. 
Accordingly, the United States expressed its interest in receiving information from all Members 
with export subsidy reduction commitments on their intentions and preparation in this regard, 
possibly by the next scheduled meeting of the Committee.  
3.31.   India raised some questions in relation to the way forward envisaged by some Members to 
implement the Nairobi Decision in the  case of scheduled export subsidy entitlements. India insisted 
on the necessity to ensure coherency in the way Members implemented the various provisions of 
the Decision on export subsidies as well as in other areas like export finance or international foo d 
aid, but also other Ministerial Decisions. India also wondered about the relationship between the 
current Agreement on Agriculture and possible revised export subsidies schedules. India, 
supported by the Philippines and Camero on, therefore asked for more  clarity on the specific 
procedures and format envisaged by these Members to modify their schedules in this context. 
India finally asked the Chairperson where this issue should be discussed.  
3.32.   Some Members provided their views on what the next steps should b e. For Australia, Chile, 
Norway, New Zealand and Uruguay, modifying the scheduled export subsidies entitlement was a 
direct consequence of the relevant paragraphs of the Nairobi Decision. In addition , they noted  that 
procedures existed in the WTO to make s uch changes in the Schedules.     
3.33.   The Chairperson concluded  that the implementation of the Nairobi Decision on export 
competition would remain on the agenda of the regular Committee on Agriculture and that 
Members would therefore have the opportunity to co ntinue these exchanges. He invited Members 
to continue being transparent on their intentions regarding the implementation of the Decision and 
to talk to each other, as well as with him, to provide more clarity on the way forward.  
3.4  Chair report on informal m eeting  
3.34.   The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting of the Committee on Agriculture held on 
6 June where Members had discussed a paper from a number of Cairns Group Members entitled 
"Trends in Domestic Support".13 Australia, on behalf of the co -signator ies, had presented the 
                                                
12 Footnote ** , page 4 of document G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.2 . 
13 G/AG/W/150 and JOB/AG/69, 9 May 2016.   G/AG/R/81  
 
- 9 - 
 
  document highlighting the trends in domestic support in respect of ten Members included in the 
document based on their dominant share in global agricultural trade. Using the notified domestic 
support data for the period 2006 -2010, Au stralia had showed the evolution of support for these 
Members under the categories of AMS, Blue Box, Article 6.2 and the Green Box. Relying on those 
trends, Australia considered that AMS support was decreasing with respect  to most cover ed 
Members whereas t he support  reported under the de minimis  was growing along with  increasing 
value of production. The same point was also underlined by showing the trends in the respective 
contributions of AMS, de minimis , Article 6.2 and Blue Box components within total su pport 
provided under Article 6. The support under the Green Box category was shown to be generally 
growing in the set of Members covered in the paper. This was also the case for Article  6.2 support 
in the case of eligible Members.    
3.35.   A number of Members th anked the proponents for this overview on domestic support trends 
that they deemed important both for the review process within the Regular session of the 
Committee and also for informing the negotiations. To the latter point, some other Members noted 
the different mandates of the regular and special sessions of the agriculture Committee and 
stressed the need to avoid overlap between these two Committees.  
3.36.   Members commented on the methodology used in the paper. Members noted that the paper 
included indicato rs based on support per capita and support per hectare and many had found 
these useful for evaluating domestic support trends. Some Members questioned the aggregate 
presentation of domestic support data noting that aggregation could have hide the important  
differences that would have been evident if the data had been examined by specific support 
categories. Another Member raised the issue of the assessment period used in the document and 
considered that the food crisis of 2007 -8 and the resulting inflation might had influenced the 
analysis.  
3.37.   Some comments had been made regarding Members' different uses of domestic support. 
Some Members noted the different situation between Members with Total AMS and Members 
subject to de minimis  limits. Specific examples of high product -specific AMS spending as a 
percentage of the respective value of production had been quoted highlighting that Members 
subject to de minimis limits had limited possibility of concentrating support on particular products. 
One Member emphasized t he important role that domestic support play ed in supporting food 
security and livelihood objectives in developing Members.  
3.38.   Some ideas were raised regarding possible extension of the analysis. Some Members 
suggested expanding the Membership coverage of the  document for a more comprehensive 
assessment. One Member suggested that it would be useful to look at the export orientation as 
well as the import intensity of the specific supported sectors in judging the distorting potential of 
the support. Another Memb er suggested that it would be useful to look at the different 
methodologies used by Members in quantifying domestic support.  
3.39.   Serious concerns were expressed on the poor compliance of Members with regard to 
domestic support notifications that might have eve n resulted in an underestimation of the current 
support and a strong call was made for updating notifications.   
3.5  Other Business  
3.5.1   Transparency Information Session September 2016  
3.40.   The Chairperson noted that the Secretariat had been developing and enhancing vari ous 
tools to help Members submit and access information related to the work of the Committee. One 
useful tool was the Agriculture Information Management System (AG IMS) database which 
contained all the relevant information regarding Members notifications a s well as a complete 
database of questions and responses that had been provided by Members under the review 
process. In addition, the Secretariat had been developing an on -line system for agriculture 
notifications which would be available in 2017. The Chai rperson stated that the Secretariat had 
offered to provide more information on these tools to the delegations at the next meeting of the 
Committee to assist Members in taking full advantage of them.  G/AG/R/81  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.41.   The Chairperson noted that while the systems and database s were essential in terms of 
managing all the information that is channelled through the Committee, the practical value of 
these tools also depended on the ability of Members to extract and use the information. The 
Chairperson suggested using this informat ion session to learn from each other and to think 
collectively about how to enhance the work of the Committee, particularly as it related to 
improving transparency and monitoring. The Chairperson stated that he would circulate in the 
coming days a draft programme that could include panel discussions with Members sharing 
experiences regarding the CoA's review process.  
3.5.2   Briefing on July Notification Workshop  
3.42.   The Secretariat informed the Committee that the invitation fax for the agriculture 
notification worksho p, to be held from 12 to 15 July, had been circulated on 20 April 2016. The 
deadline for submissions of applications was 13 May 2016. The deadline had been extended two 
weeks to accommodate additional applications. The Secretariat announce d that a total of  
62 applications for funded participation had been  received from 57 Members, including six Least 
Developed Countries. The Secretariat noted that the selection process had been completed and 
that 25 government officials had been selected for funded particip ation.  Additionally, five 
government officials had been selected for self-funded participation,  reaching a total of 
30 government officials who would benefit from the workshop . 
3.5.3   Date of next regular meeting  
3.43.   The Chairperson proposed that the eighty -first (81st) regular meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture would be tentatively scheduled on 14-15 September  2016. The airgram convening this 
meeting would be issued on 2 September  2016. 
__________