RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/82  
 
17 October  2016 
(16-5585) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 SUMMARY REPORT OF TH E MEETING HELD ON 14 SEPTEMBER  2016 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its eighty first  (81st) regular meeting on 14 September  2016 
under the Chairmanship of Mr Garth Ehrhardt of Canada . 
 
The agenda of the meetin g as set out in WTO/AIR/AG/ 14 was adopted with the following 
modifications:  
 
 Part 1 (Review Process ): 
 Article 18.6:  
 Addition of questions from Brazil with respect to  US soybean programmes . 
 Individual notifications:  
 Addition of questions from Switzerland wi th respect to Tunisia's notification 
G/AG/N/TUN/48 ; 
 Addition of questions from Switzerland  with respect to South Africa's  notification 
G/AG/N/ZAF/86 ; 
 Addition of questions from Peru with respect to New Zealand's  notification 
G/AG/N/NZL/93 ;  
 Addition of que stions from Peru with respect to Vietnam's notification 
G/AG/N/VNM/6 ; 
 Deletion of questions from Canada with respect to Kazakhstan's notification 
G/AG/N/KAZ/1; and  
 Deletion of questions from United States with respect to Canada's notification 
G/AG/N/CAN/10 8/Corr.1.  
1  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
1.1  Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the reform 
programme under the Reform Programme: Article 18.6  
1.1.  The 34 implementation -related issues raised as well as the responses provided and follow -up 
exchanges are  compiled in section 1 of document G/AG/ W/157. These relate to:  
a. Australia's Biosecurity Act of 2015 (raised India ); 
b. Brazil's domestic support programmes (raised by the United States ); 
                                                
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 and oblig ations under the WTO.  G/AG/R/82  
 
- 2 - 
 
  c. Canada's New Milk Ingredient class (raised by Austra lia, India, New Zeal and and 
the United States ); 
d. Canada's wine sale policy (raised by Australia, the Euro pean Union, New Zealand and 
the United States ); 
e. Canada's Growing Forward policy framework  (raised by India); 
f. Canada's support for ornamental horticulture industry  (raised b y India); 
g. Canada's compositional standard for cheese  (raised by New Zealand ); 
h. Canada' s STE notification on dairy products  (raised by New Zealand and 
the United  States ); 
i. Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese  (raised by  New Zealand, Norway and 
Switzerland ); 
j. Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments  (raised by the United States) ; 
k. European Union's agriculture policies  (raised by Australia, India and New Zealand ); 
l. India's sugar export subsidies  (raised by Australia and the European Union ); 
m. India's importation  of apples  (raised by New Zealand ); 
n. India's export assistance programmes  (raised by the United States ); 
o. Moldova's poultry tariffs  (raised by the United States ); 
p. Pakistan's increase on import duties on milk powde r including whey (raised by 
the European Unio n); 
q. Pakistan's export subsidy for sugar exports  (raised by the European Union ); 
r. Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs  (raised by Australia and New Zealand) ; 
s. Tanzania's restriction on sugar imports  (raised by Thailand ); 
t. Turkey's subsidies aimed at inc entivising the use of domestic dairy  (raised by 
New Zealand ); 
u. Turkey's domestic support polices  (raised by the Canada ); 
v. US Global Food Security Act  (raised by India); 
w. US new Cotton Ginning Cost Share Programme  (raised by India); 
x. US Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage Programmes  (raised by India); 
y. US increase in sugar TRQ  (raised by India); 
z. US purchase of cheese stock (raised by Australia ); 
aa. Vietnam's increase of excise duties for wine and spirits (raised by the European Union) ; 
bb. Zambia's public stocks and exports of maize (raised by the European Union) ; 
cc. China's environmental programmes (raised by Australia) ; 
dd. China's regional assistance programmes (raised by Australia) ; 
ee. Malaysia's Table ES:2 notification (raised by the European Union) ; 
ff. Thailand's export of rice from government stocks (raised by the European Union) ; 
gg. Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale (raised by the United States) ; and  
hh. US soybean programmes (raised by Brazil) . 
1.2  Review of Notifications  
1.2.  The Chairperson informed Members that since the June 2016 meeting the Committee had 
received 101 notifications . These  had been distributed electronically to all delegations.  G/AG/R/82  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.2.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram  
1.3.  Section 2 of document G/AG/W/ 157 reflects the questions raised, responses provided, and 
Members' follow -up comments in connection with the notifications on which questions had been 
raised in advance of the iss uance of the convening airgram.2 
1.2.2   Deferred replies to questio ns raised under the review process  
1.4.  The Chairperson noted that a total of 77 responses in the context of  the review process 
remained outstanding. The Chairperson strongly advised Members  to submit the ir replies to the 
Secretariat in order to enhance the eff iciency of the review process. The Chairperson noted that  
questions on notifications repeated from previous Committee meetings were grouped under this 
agenda item. The notifications subject to repeated questions were set out in Sect ion C of the 
Attachment to the c onvening airgram (WTO/AIR /AG/1 4). The questions and responses provided to 
these questions can be found in section 3 of document G/AG/ W/157.  
1.2.3   Overdue notifications  
1.5.  The Committee took note of document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.2 5 circulated on  2 September , 
respectively,  reflecting the current status of Members' compliance with notification obligations.  
1.6.  The Chairperson highlighted a few numbers with respect to the outstanding notifications. For 
the period 1995 to 201 4: 
 9% (58 ) of notifications in the MA:2 series  remain outstanding;  
 8% (55 ) of notifications in the MA:5 series;  
 36% (743 ) Table DS:1 domestic support notifications ;  
 33% (764 ) export subsidy notifications in the ES:1 series; and  
 8% (43 ) Table ES:2 notifications . 
1.7.  Six question s were raised under this a genda item. The question s, corresponding answer s and 
Members' follow -up comments can be found in section  4 of document G/AG/W/1 57. 
1.8.  The Chairperson stressed the importan t systemic benefits of transparency and called on all 
Members to fulfil their notificati on obligations in a timely manner.  
1.2.4   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
1.9.  The Committee took note of the 34  notifications circulated before 2 September  2016, 
including notificat ions carried over from the June  2016 meeting but in respect of which no 
questions had been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.3 
1.2.5   Notifications circulated or made available after the issuance of the convening 
airgram  
1.10.   Three  notifications had been circulated after the issuance  of the convening airgram on 
2 September  2016: 
 Thailand Table MA:1 and Table MA:2 for calendar year 2014: G/AG/N/THA/80 and 
G/AG/N/THA/81 ; 
 Cuba corrigendum to Table DS:1 for 2015:  G/AG/N/CUB/53/Cor r.1. 
                                                
2 WTO/AIR/AG/ 12, Attachment Section B. 
3 WTO/AIR/AG/ 12, Attachment Section D. G/AG/R/82  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.11.   These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the working procedures.  
1.12.   Additionally, there are ten notifications pending for finalization and circulation from 
Argentin a, Barbados, Costa Rica, Mauritius, New Zealand, Tunisia, the United States, 
Saint Vincent  & the Grenadines and Zambia.  
1.2.6   Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: information regarding outcome where the  issue involved is one of  
general interest  
1.13.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
1.2.7   Counter -notifications (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture)  
1.14.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
2  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN  THE PURVIEW OF THE CO MMITTEE  
2.1  Implementation -related Issues (G/AG/16 and G/AG/16/ Add.1; G/AG/22)  
2.1.  In the Doha Ministerial Decision on implementation -related issues and concerns, the 
Committee had been  asked to follow up on three issues:  development of discipl ines to govern the 
provision of export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes i n accordance with 
Article  10.2;  examination of the possible means of improving the effectiveness of the 
implementation o f the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision;  contin ued review of the administration of TRQs  
and the submission of addenda to Table  MA:1 notification s on tariff rate quota regimes.  
2.2.  The chair noted that w ith respect to the development of disciplines to govern the provision of 
export credits, export credit gu arantees or insurance programmes as well certain aspects raised 
under the implementation discussions on the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision, some progress had been  
made at the end of 2015 in the context of Nairobi Ministerial outcomes. In CoA meetings in 2016  
some Members had reminded the Committee  of the challenges faced by NFIDCs due to volatile 
food market prices and urged other Members to re -engage in efforts to full y implement the 
Marrakesh NFIDC  decision as man dated by Ministers in paragraph  25 of the Nairob i Ministerial 
declaration. At the last meeting Egypt requested that this item remain a standing agenda item for 
the CoA.  No delegation took the floor under this agenda item.  
2.2  Implementation of Ministerial  Outcomes  
2.3.  The chair noted that the  CoA was responsibl e for implementation of Ministerial outcomes in 
several areas: the monitoring of information submitted under the Bali Decision on Public 
Stockholding for Food Security purposes; and monitoring and review of Members' obligations 
established under the Bali D ecision on TRQ administration , and  monitoring of the  Nairobi 
Ministerial decision on export competition, including the annual dedicated discussion on export 
competition.  No information ha d been provided by Members in the context of the monitoring 
foreseen under the Bali Decisions on Public Stockholding for Food Security purposes and 
TRQ administration to this date. According to the Decision on TRQ administration, a review of the 
operation of that Decision should begin no later than the end of 2017.  
2.4.  The chair recalled that the  first post -Nairobi dedicated discussion on export competition had 
taken  place in the June 2016 meeting. Questions and responses provided during those discussions 
could  be found in the document G/AG/W/155. The Secretariat background doc ument had been  
revised subsequent to the June CoA meeting and circu lated in document G/AG/W/125/R ev.5 and 
addenda. The chair would  initiate the next dedicated discussion on export competition scheduled 
for the June 2017 meeting by sending the questionnaire  later in the year.   
2.5.  As noted during the June meeting, the Nairobi Decision also includes other provisions related 
to the review and  monitoring of its provisions. Members in particular agreed in the Decision to 
review the provisions on international food a id within the Committee on Agriculture monitoring of 
the implementation of the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible G/AG/R/82  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least -developed and NFIDCs.  The next annual 
monitori ng exercise on  the follow -up to the Marrakesh NFIDC decision would normally  take place 
during the next meeting of t he Committee in November 2016.  
2.6.  Finally, the Chair noted that the Director -General  had reported at the General Council on 
27 July on his consultations on t he Nairobi Decision  (WT/GC/M/163) . As noted in this report, the 
DG had continued conversations with Members with scheduled export subsidies entitlements for 
agricultural products  and these Members  had indicated that they would revise their schedules to 
eliminate those entitlements.  
2.7.  Chile reiterated its concern in relation to monitoring the implementation of the Decision, 
specifically as it related to  agricultural exporting State Trading Enterprises (STEs).  Chile had 
presented the concern in the June CoA me eting in RD/AG/49. Chile noted that the analysis in the 
Secretariat reports revealed that there was insufficient information to allow Members to carry out 
an effective preliminary assessment of the influence of agricultural STEs on world trade, namely 
the share, in volume and value terms, of exports by STEs in world trade of the product in question. 
Chile noted that this type of data could be included by Members notifying an STE or added by the 
Secretariat to its report.   
2.3  Chair report on the Transparency In formation Session  
2.8.  The Committee on Agriculture held an information session on enhancing transparency and 
the review process on Tuesday 13 September. Representatives of Members, Observers and 
Observer Organizations were all invited to participate in this i nformation session. (The programme 
had been  circulated in document G/AG/GEN/133.)  The Secretariat had presented an overview of 
the transparency obligations related to the Agreement on Agriculture and how these relate to the 
Committee on Agriculture's revie w process. The Secretariat had highlighted the various online 
sources of information useful for the work of the Committee, with an emphasis on the Agriculture 
Information Management System (AG  IMS). Members could  access a diversity of information 
through t his database, such as the complete set of notifications submitted by WTO Members and 
data contained in these notifications. The Secretariat also had presented the AG  IMS function for 
the search and submission of questions and responses in the context of th e CoA review process.  
2.9.  The information session provided a forum for discussion and experience sharing with respect 
to the preparation and submission of notifications and the implementation of the review process.  
Costa Rica, the Russia n Federation  and the U nited States presented their notification procedures 
and shared their experiences in relation to notification practices. Members stressed the importance 
of awareness at the capital level of the need and benefits of complying with the transparency 
requireme nts in relation to the Agreement on Agriculture. Members also noted the difficulty they 
had in obtaining the necessary data to prepare the notifications and stated that coordination 
among the different stakeholders played an important role. Members highlig hted the usefulness of 
having a formalized notification procedure to create accountability and recognized the importance 
their own notifications played for training purposes and to create institutional memory. Some 
considered that responding to questions i n the CoA provided them with the opportunity to deepen 
their analysis of their own programmes.   
2.10.   Brazil, Canada and the European Union presented their experiences with the implementation 
of the CoA review process noting the importance of this process for ob taining information 
regarding policies of commercial interest and policies that raised systemic concerns. Members 
discussed coordination with relevant stakeholders and noted the involvement of the private sector 
in identifying issues to raise in the review  process. Members p raised the usefulness of the Ag  IMS 
for submitting and answering questions, accessing all questions, answers and notifications 
discussed in the Committee, and analysing Members' notified information. Members stressed the 
importance of co mpliance with transparency obligations for the review process to work.  
2.11.   New Zealand, Pakistan and Senegal discussed their view of the challenges and opportunities 
for transparency and the CoA review process. Members highlighted the benefits transparency 
provided for the work of the Committee in monitoring Membe rs' implementation of their 
AoA commitments. Members were of the view that the lack of awareness and technical knowledge 
were some of the reasons why only a small proportion of Members participate in t he review 
process and fully comply with their transparency obligations  G/AG/R/82  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.12.   Members suggested ideas for enhancing the work of t he CoA . Some of these related 
organizing events to promote useful exchanges among delegates, including:  
 Increasing the use of informal  meetings, information sharing events and other side 
events to the committee to deepen the level of discussions;  
 Promoting the sharing of best practices through informal information sessions and 
Member presentations; and  
 Targeting the needs of Members, p articularly LDCs, through tailored technical assistance 
activities including notification workshops to address notification gaps.  
2.13.   Other ideas related to information and enhancing the use of  the rich data available at 
the WTO, such as:  
 Enhancing the AGIMS, including technical improvements, modifications to tracking 
outstanding responses and incorporating information exchanged in the Committee 
through the EC dedicated discussion;  
 Using the roll -out of the on -line notification system to deepen and improve anal ytical 
capacity of Members and the Secretariat;  
 Exploring links to existing data sources associated with other WTO Committees to 
promote coherence;  
 Augmenting the information provided in the context of t he Chair's Annual Report to 
the CTG; and  
 Encouraging the Secretariat to explore options for presenting summarized notified 
information and synthesis of issues raised in the CoA review process.  
3  OTHER BUSINESS  
3.1  Date of next regular meeting  
3.1.  The Chairperson proposed that the eighty -first (82nd) regular meeting of  the Committee on 
Agriculture would be tentatively scheduled on 9-10 November  2016.  
 
 
__________