WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/102 
9 October 2012 
 (12-5494) 
Committee on Agriculture Original:   English 
  
 
 
COMMENTS ON G/AG/W/99 BY AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED STATES
1 
 
Communication from China, India, Pakistan, Philippines and Turkey 
 
1. We see the document by Australia and the Unite d States as a response to one of the demands 
by some of us to have an enhanced transparency  in Table ES:2 while presenting total exports data in 
terms of HS. 
2. As far as we understand, this document attempts to ensure that in achieving an enhanced 
transparency in Table ES:2, the comparability requi rement for Table ES:1 and Table ES:2 (as stated 
in G/AG/2) for those Members having export subs idy reduction commitments is not compromised.  
More explicitly, this proposal attempts to ensure that total exports data in Table ES:2 are presented for 
various products with reduction commitments on a comparable basis to the data included in 
Table ES:1.  We support this objective clearly stat ed in G/AG/2 in view of Article 10.3 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture which is to preven t circumvention of export subsidy reduction 
commitments by those Members who have such commitments. 
3. Without offering any specific preference for e ither of the two approaches proposed by the 
United States of America and Australia, we believe that both the United States of America and Australia proposals provide an enabling situation to allow the "significant exporters" to have a 
consistency in product composition (on the basis of a HS-based guidance) while presenting total 
exports data by them in Table ES:2.  We will we lcome this added transparency in Table ES:2 by 
"significant exporters". 
4. However, we would also like to make it cl ear that by singling out Members with reduction 
commitments using the "comparability" argument, we would not accept a situation where significant exporters happen to assume more onerous transparen cy requirements than those Members with export 
subsidy reduction commitments.  Just to give an  example: a Member with export subsidy reduction 
commitments on coarse grains presents both export  subsidy and total export data in Table ES:1 
(assuming say Australian approach of adding an addi tional column in Table ES:1) by listing "coarse 
grains" in column 1 of table ES:1 whereas a "signifi cant exporter" of coarse grain (but without export 
subsidy reduction commitments on coarse grains) presents total exports data in Table ES:2 on 
HS-basis.  This will not be an acceptable situation and would go against the spirit of the Agreement 
on Agriculture where Members with export subsid y reduction commitments are subject to general 
circumvention rule in Art 10.1 (like anybody else) and are additionally required to respect Art 10.3 
which is the basis of "comparability" requirement in G/AG/2. 
5. What flows from the point 4 above is that  Members with export subsidy reduction 
commitments would also need to be practicing an enhanced transparency in presenting total exports 
data for a product with reduction commitment on a HS-basis and respect the "comparability" 
requirement in presenting export subsidy data accordi ngly (i.e. on a HS basis).  It can't happen that 
"significant exporter" present total exports in Table ES:2 on a disaggregated HS basis whereas 
                                                      
1 Dated 19 September 2012. G/AG/W/102 
Page 2  
 
  Members with reduction commitments (and thus with a greater circumvention potential) maintain the 
status quo in presenting ES:1 and ES:2 data.  To furt her clarify this concern, we are presenting the 
two scenarios (one acceptable and other non-acceptable ones) using an example of two Members A and B (one with reduction commitment on coarse gr ain and other a significant exporter of coarse 
grain) using the format suggested by Australia. 
6. Finally, the United States of America - Aust ralia paper mainly addresses comparability issue 
in the context of our suggestion to have greater transparency and consistency in ES:2 data.  Other 
issues like need of disaggregation in the existing prod uct categories (like for fruits etc.) as well as the 
need to include additional products in the scope of Table ES:2 etc. remain to be addressed separately 
through our ongoing technical discussions. 
  
   G/AG/W/102
 Page 3NON-ACCEPTABLE SCENERIO 
 
Table ES:1   Aust ralian Suggestion   
 
EXPORT SUBSIDIES:    Member B (reduction commi tment on Coarse grain)    
REPORTING PERIOD:    calendar year, marketing year, etc.  
Export Subsidies:    Budgetary Ou tlay and Quantity Reduction Commitments 
  
Description of products Calendar / marketing year 
beginning . . . . Subsidized Exports Food Ai d Annual commitment levels Quantity of total 
exports 
Outlays Quantity  
Outlays Quantity (tonnes) 
(from Section II of Part IV) (from Section II of Part IV)    (from Section II of Part IV)  
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
  
Coarse Grain                                                                                                                              q1                                                                                                                    q2 
Table ES:2   Aust ralian Suggestion   
EXPORT SUBSIDIES:    Member A (significant exporter of Coarse grain)    
REPORTING PERIOD:    calendar year, marketing year, etc. 
Export Subsidies:  Notifi cation of Total Exports   
Description of Products Calendar / marketing year 
beginning . . . . Quantity of Total 
Exports   
1 2 3  
       Coarse Grain* 
          HS1 
          HS2 
          HS3 
             (*CoA agreed HS-based 
definition of coarse grains for Table 
ES:2 purposes: HS1, HS2 and HS3)   
---          
Q1 
Q2 
Q3 
  
    
  G/AG/W/102 
Page 4  
ACCEPTABLE SCENERIO  
 
Table ES:1   Aust ralian Suggestion   
 
EXPORT SUBSIDIES:    Member B (reduction commi tment on Coarse grain)    
REPORTING PERIOD:    calendar year, marketing year, etc.  
Export Subsidies:    Budgetary Ou tlay and Quantity Reduction Commitments 
  
Description of products Calendar / marketing year 
beginning . . . . Subsidized Exports Food Ai d Annual commitment levels Quantity of total 
exports 
Outlays Quantity  
Outlays Quantity (tonnes) 
(from Section II of Part IV) (from Section II of Part IV)    (from Section II of Part IV)  
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
  
Coarse Grain* 
   HS1                                                                                                                                          q3 
   HS2                                                                                                                                           q5       
(Coarse grains is composed of two tariff lines HS1 and HS2 in the ES reduction commitmen ts in Member B’s Schedule)                                                                                                                          
            q4 
           q6 
                
Table ES:2   Aust ralian Suggestion   
 
EXPORT SUBSIDIES:    Member A (significant exporter of Coarse grain)    
REPORTING PERIOD:    calendar year, marketing year, etc. 
Export Subsidies:  Notifica tion of Total Exports    
Description of Products Calendar / marketing year 
beginning . . . . Quantity of Total 
Exports   
1 2 3  
       Coarse Grain* 
          HS1 
          HS2 
          HS3 
 (*CoA agreed HS- based definition of 
coarse grains for Table ES:2 
purposes: HS1, HS2 and HS3)            
          Q1           Q2 
           Q3  
   
__________