WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/R/67/Rev.1* 
3 September 2012 
 (12-4724) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEET ING HELD ON 20 JUNE 2012 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its sixty-sixth (66
th) regular meeting on 20 June 2012.  
The meeting was chaired by Ms Emalene Ma rcus-Burnett (Barbados) who took over from 
Mr Jonas Skei of Norway at the beginning of the meeting. 
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/3953 was adopted with the following 
modifications: 
(a) under Part 1 (Review Process): 
(i) reinstatement of a question by New Zealand to Indonesia under 
Section A, item (vi) (paragraphs 14-16 of G/AG/W/95); 
(ii) addition of a question from the United States under Article 18.6 on India's 
wheat and dairy policies; 
(iii) addition of a question from Switzerland in respect of Canada's Table MA:2 
notification (G/AG/N/CAN/89) under Section B(ii) (paragraph 82, of 
G/AG/W/94); 
(b) under Part 2, agenda item 3(c) (Other Matte rs within the Purview of the Committee): 
(i) addition of "specific implementation-related issues" by the United States; 
(ii) addition of a brief factual report by the Chairman on the informal 
consultations held on 18 and 19 Marc h 2012 on issues not specifically listed 
in the Convening Airgram. 
                                                      
* English only. 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/R/67/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  I. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON 
3. On 17 April 2012, the Council for trade in Goods agreed on a slate of Chairpersons of its 
subsidiary bodies for the year 2012.  The Commi ttee endorsed, by acclamation, the election of 
Ms Emalene Marcus-Burnett of Barbados as Chai rperson of the Committee on Agriculture until 
March 2013. 
II. PART 1:  THE REVIEW PROCESS 
4. Document G/AG/W/95, which compiled all the questions received by the Secretariat in 
writing before the prescribed deadline, was made av ailable.  A list of 'keywords' developed in the 
context of the on-going Q&A database project was u sed in order to improve the organization of the 
compilation.  Members' cooperation to ascribe ke ywords to the questions submitted allowed the 
Secretariat to better structure the compilation docum ent.  As regards the Re view Process undertaken 
since 1995, the Secretariat had already started assigni ng keywords to each question before proceeding 
with data input. 
A. M
ATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMEN TATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
5. The eight implementation-related issues rai sed as well as the responses provided thereto and 
follow-up exchanges are compiled in paragraphs 1-19 of document G/AG/W/96. 
B. REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
6. Since the March 2012 meeting, the Committee ha d received 48 notifications which had been 
distributed electronically to all delegations. 
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram 
7. The questions raised, responses provided as well as Members' follow-up comments in 
connection with the 27 notifications in respect of  which questions were raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram2 are fully reflected in paragraphs 20-106 of document G/AG/W/96 . 
(b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram 
8. The Committee took note of the 30 notifications circulated before 8 June 2012, including 
notifications carried over from the previous meetin g but in respect of which no questions had been 
raised by that date under the Committee's Working Procedures.3   
(c) Notifications circulated or made available after the issuance of the convening airgram 
9. The Committee took note of two notifications circ ulated after the issuance of the convening 
airgram on 8  June 2012, i.e. Table MA:1 by the United States (G/AG/N/USA/79/Add.2) for 2010; and 
Table MA:2 by Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/43) for 2011.  Both notifications will be reverted to for a 
review during the September 2012 meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Working 
Procedures. 
                                                      
2 Section B of WTO/AIR/3901 refers. 
3 Section C of WTO/AIR/3901 refers.  G/AG/R/67/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings 
(e) Counter-notifications (Article 18. 7 of the Agreement on Agriculture) 
10. There were no requests for the floor und er the above-mentione d two agenda items. 
(f) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process 
11. The Secretariat regularly maintained contact with  the delegations that had yet to provide their 
written responses to questions raised in the past  in order to complete the relevant response 
compilation documents.  The Committee took note of the updating of the following reference 
documents circulated since the March 2012 meeting: 
(a) G/AG/W/75/Rev.5 dated 31 May 2012 contai ning the compilation of responses 
relating to the March 2010 meeting; 
(b) G/AG/W/92/Rev.1 dated 25 May 2012 contai ning the compilation of responses 
relating to the November 2011 meeting; and 
(c) G/AG/W/94/Add.1 dated 18 June 2012 containing the compilation of responses 
relating to the March 2012 meeting. 
(g) Overdue notifications 
12. The Committee took note of document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.10 dated 8 June 2012 reflecting 
the current status of Members' compliance with not ification obligations.  Specific questions regarding 
outstanding notifications by Egypt, Indonesia and Turkey were raised by Australia.  The text of the questions as well as the responses provided theret o and follow-up exchanges are compiled in 
paragraphs 107-109 of document G/AG/W/96.  
III. PART 2:  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. I
MPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES AND CONCERNS  
13. The Chairman noted that the situation had not  changed since the circulation of the 2003 
and 2006 reports to the General Council.4 
14. Argentina stated that without prejudice to the provisions of Article 10.1 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, the establishment of additional and sp ecific disciplines on export credits, export credit 
guarantees and insurance programmes, remained an  outstanding implementation issue resulting from 
the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.  Argentina requested that this item be retained on the 
agenda of the Committee on Agriculture in its regul ar session.  Brazil supported the intervention by 
Argentina. 
B. REVIEW OF THE LIST OF "SIGNIFICANT EXPORTERS " FOR THE PURPOSE OF TABLE  ES:2  
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT  
15. The Chairperson delivered an oral report assessi ng the situation and reporting on the informal 
consultations conducte d on 19 June 2012.5 
                                                      
4 G/AG/16/Add.1 and G/AG/22 refer. 
5 See Annex 1. G/AG/R/67/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
  16. Cuba considered that the report as well as the detailed discussions during the informal 
meeting showed that a few Members continued to believe that additional work should be achieved 
before an agreement on a revised list could be envisa ged.  Cuba emphasized that it did not have export 
subsidy reduction commitments and,  since 2003, it had ceased to be a significant exporter of sugar.  
Exempting Cuba from the Table ES:2 notification re quirement would not affect global sugar trade 
flows.  In these circumstances, Cuba reiterated the written request
6 it submitted to the Committee in 
November 2010 in order to be exempted from the Table ES:2 notification obligation.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela supported Cuba's request for exemption as an early solution did not seem feasible. Canada, while sympathising with Cuba's request, expressed systemic concern on the proposed piecemeal approach in considering exclus ion of some Members from the list while not being 
able to include those who should actually be added to it based on more recent statistics.  Referring to 
Cuba's unilateral decision to already exclude th e Table ES:2 in its most recent export subsidy 
notification,
7 Canada observed that the systemic repercussi ons of the delay in achieving an agreement 
on the revised list were already manifest.   
17. Regretting the circular and repetitive discussi ons under this agenda item, Canada also 
requested the Secretariat to prepare more detailed repor ts in order to avoid such repetitions in future.  
Australia and Nigeria supported this suggestion.  Australia insisted that such a compilation should 
also include the various technical contributions that the Secretariat had made in the past.   
18. Australia noted the Chairperson's remarks in para graph 3(b) of her oral report in relation to 
the base period. Australia considered that this matt er had been settled earlier.  Norway highlighted the 
need to urgently deal with the task at ha nd and looked forward to having detailed technical 
discussions prior to the September meeting in orde r to achieve the maximum possible progress.  The 
Chairperson welcomed Members' willingness to pu rsue the technical discussions as well as the 
suggestion of a compilation to be circulated by the Secretariat to facilitate future informal 
consultations.    
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
(a) Specific implementation-related issues  
19. The United States welcomed what it viewed as  an increased engagement by the Committee 
towards a better understanding of Members' agricu ltural policies through the Review Process.   
Following up on an earlier idea that was put forwar d for the Committee to look at certain specific 
disciplines in a comprehensive manner, the United St ates proposed that the entire set of the domestic 
support notifications guidelines be placed on the agenda. The purpose would be to develop an 
understanding of what had worked well, identif y where specific challenges remained, and seek 
possible improvements and best practices with pa rticular emphasis on possible support for developing 
countries.  
20. Supported by Argentina, India, Pakistan and Turk ey, China stated that if the objective behind 
the US proposal was to continue discussions on market price support, it would oppose the idea.  In 
China's view, such discussions had sensitivities li nked to the DDA and should therefore be addressed 
in the special session of the Committee on Agriculture.  However, if the proposal was not specifically 
linked to the question of market price support, Ch ina would welcome further clarification before 
agreeing to inscribe the item on the agenda of the regular session.  Pakistan echoed China's request, 
demanding further clarity in terms of the scope of the proposed work as well as process.  In this 
regard, Pakistan wondered whether such discussions would be held under "other business" or pursued 
in the course of informal meetings, as had been th e case for a number of other topics, based on written 
                                                      
6 G/AG/W/85 refers. 
7 G/AG/N/CUB/42 refers.  G/AG/R/67/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  contributions.  In Argentina's view, since the WTO was a Member-led organization, new topics 
should only be introduced on the regular agenda of the Committee based on a decision to be taken by 
consensus.  Turkey expressed cauti on that the Committee's discussions should not lead to a change in 
Members' commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture nor in their implementation 
(i.e. notification formats). 
21. Norway welcomed the transparency on the part of the United States in presenting the proposal 
for the Committee's consideration.   Canada also th anked the United States for bringing forth an idea 
for informal discussions. Both Canada and Norway  looked forward to rece iving additional details 
from the proponent.  Norway observed that it was the right of any Member to propose any issue for discussion while Canada, highlighting the usefulness of  the informal process, urged Members to keep 
an open mind to pursue the discussions informally. 
22. The United States clarified that its proposal was to examine comprehensively the existing 
guidance of the Committee with regard to domestic  support notifications, which, in its view, fell 
within the boundaries of the Committee's mandate in regular session.  Describing a possible context for such a review, the United States recalled that requests for technical assistance had been recently 
highlighted under the agenda item on "overdue notifica tions", particularly in the sphere of domestic 
support.  The United States expressed readiness to present its ideas in more detail and looked forward 
to a fruitful discussion in the Committee. 
23. While noting that the US proposal was a late  addition to the agenda, the Chairperson 
concurred that Members had the right to propose issu es for inclusion in the regular agenda.  Ideas to 
improve the functioning of the Committee and the implementation of the Agreement on Agriculture 
were welcome.  In view of the initial reactions  from the floor, the Chairperson invited the United 
States to elaborate its proposal in writing so as to promote a better understanding and appreciation by other Members.  
(b) Factual report on informal consultations 
24. The Chairperson informed Members that inform al meetings had taken place during 18 and 
19 June 2012 in the course of which four topics were considered:  
(a) the Secretariat briefed Members on the stat e-of-play of the Agriculture Information 
Management System (Ag-IMS) including its two main elements, namely, the online submission system, and the archiving system for questions and answers.  The Secretariat undertook to keep Members informed as work progressed; 
(b) a further exchange of views took place on notification matters relating to the Table 
ER:1 format dealing with export prohibitions  and restrictions.  A useful exchange 
ensued on issues surrounding the implementation of the notification requirement.  The proponents looked forward to continuing discussions on the topic;  
(c) Members considered the issue of "signi ficant exporters" fo r the purposes of the 
Table ES:2 notification format
8; and  
(d) Members exchanged views on the notification of market price support by way of 
Supporting Table DS:5.  
                                                      
8 Annex 1 refers. G/AG/R/67/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
  (c) Date of the next regular meeting 
25. The next (67
th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture was re-scheduled to 
20 September 2012 in view of the WTO Public Fo rum (titled "Is Multilateralism in Crisis") on 24-
26 September 2012.  The scheduling of the Novemb er meeting remains unchanged (tentatively, 14-
15 November 2012). 
26. The Chairperson recalled that two Specialized Workshops on Agriculture Notifications would 
take place in Geneva on the sidelines of the Co mmittee meetings in September and November 20129.  
As in the past, the participants will be selected  taking into consideration their experience and 
involvement in the WTO agriculture notifications file.  As part of the programme , the participants will 
also be able to attend the regular sessi on of the Committee on Agriculture.   
27. The 2012 Annual Report of the Committee on Agricu lture to the Council for Trade in Goods 
will be considered at the Sept ember meeting of the Committee.  In accordance with customary 
practice, the Secretariat will prepare a draft to be circulated in advance of the September meeting for 
Members' consideration. 
 
_______________ 
 
                                                      
9 The Workshop for English-speaking participants will be held on 18-21 September 2012 whilst the 
activity for French-speaking participants will take place on 12-15 Nove mber 2012.  G/AG/R/67/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Annex 1 
 
Oral report by the Chairperson under agenda item 3.B 
 
1. On 19 June, Members met in an informal setting in order to make progress on the review of 
the list of significant exporters for the purposes of the Table ES:2 notification requirement.  In this 
context, my predecessor recalled two specific requ ests to the Committee seeking exemption from the 
Table ES:2 notification requirement.  We all benefi ted from a joint written contribution by a group of 
five Members which consolidated the various concerns  that they had been raising in the course of the 
last two years.  The contribution was made available to all Members through the Documents for 
Meetings  facility (RD/AG/4). 
2. There was an interesting exchange of views on, inter alia : 
(a) the fundamental purpose of the Table ES:1 notification, in relation to Members' 
compliance with the relevant export subsidy commitments; 
(b) the fundamental purpose of the Table ES:2 notification and whether it could become 
an effective tool used in mon itoring world agricultural trade; 
(c) the possible adoption of a two-step process (i.e. first, the adoption of 
G/AG/W/82/Rev.1 followed by a discussion of product scope) or a comprehensive 
review of both product scope and significant exporters);  
(d) the notion of "compatibility" versus the no tion of "comparability", notably between 
Tables ES:1 and ES:2 for Members with reduction commitments; as well as across 
the entire membership; 
3. Three broad themes were singled out in the joint submission for more technical work: 
(a) base year:  There appears to be a shared sense  that the latest data available should be 
used as a basis for establishing th e list of significant exporters; 
(b) product coverage, as well as the inclusion of new products such as ethanol.  In this 
context, the desirability to expand the pr oduct scope of G/AG/2 beyond that specified 
in the Uruguay Round Modalities Text was discussed; 
(c) product classification and disaggregation by delineating the product coverage at the 
sub-heading level of the Harmonized System (HS 6-digit).  The merits of requiring 
the presentation of data in Table ES:2 on  a 6-digit basis were discussed.  The 
potential challenges in adopting a uniform HS -based approach were also recalled, 
namely the varying levels of product di saggregation in Members’ existing export 
subsidy reduction commitments; keepi ng pace with regular updates of HS 
classification itself;  as well as possible con sequences on the burdensome nature of an 
extended Table ES:2 notification requirement. 
4. In order to encourage informed technical debate s in the future, the Secretariat was requested 
to prepare a compilation of written inputs supp lied by Members over the past two years. 
5. Recalling past discussions on the issue of product consistency, my predecessor also suggested 
to further explore the idea of listing all signifi cant exporters meeting the 5 per cent threshold, 
irrespective of whether they have reduction comm itments, and subjecting them to the Table ES:2 
notification requirement in respect of the concerne d products.  In order not to compromise the existing G/AG/R/67/Rev.1 
Page 8  
 
  comparability requirements for products subject to export subsidy reduc tion commitments, my 
predecessor also suggested that we re-examine  previous technical contributions as well. 
6. This completes my report to the Committee. 
 
__________