RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/73  
10 March 2014  
(14-1487)  Page: 1/8  
Committee on Agriculture   
 
  SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29 JANUARY 2014 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its seventy-second (72nd) regular meeting on 29 January 2014 
under the Chairmanship of Mr Guilherme Marquardt Bayer. 
The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/4238 was adopted with the following 
modifications: 
 Part 1 (Review Process): 
 addition of a question from the United States with respect to India's export of 
wheat at prices below acquisition costs. 
 Part 2 (Other Matters within the Purview of the Committee): 
 addition of an item under agenda it em 2.D (other business) to provide 
information on the agriculture notification workshops planned for 2014 by the Secretariat. 
1  THE REVIEW PROCESS 
1.1  Matters relevant to the implementa tion of commitments under the Reform 
Programme: article 18.6 
1.1.  The 15 implementation-related issues raised as well as the responses provided and follow-up 
exchanges are compiled in section 1 of document G/AG/W/118. These relate to: 
a. Brazil's domestic support programmes (raised by the United States); 
b. Canada's proposed changes to tariff sche dule (raised by the United States); 
c. China's cotton domestic support (raised by the United States); 
d. Costa Rica compliance with AMS commitments (raised by Canada and the 
United States); 
e. Ecuador's import licensing of certain agricultural products (raised by the United States); 
f. Egypt's export restriction on rice (raised by the United States); 
g. European Union's levy on fruits and vegetables (raised by Canada); 
h. European Union's sugar production levies (raised by Canada); 
i. India's rice exports (raised by Pakistan); 
                                               
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/73 
- 2 - 
  j. India's wheat stocks and exports (raised by Canada); 
k. Japan's new agricultural policy (raised by Canada); 
l. Saint Lucia's domestic purchase requirements for poultry and pork (raised by the 
United States); 
m. Thailand's paddy pledging scheme (raised by Canada and the United States); 
n. Turkey's destination of wheat flour sa le (raised by the United States); and 
o. India's export of wheat at prices below acquisition costs (raised by the United States). 
1.2  Review of Notifications 
1.2.  The Chairperson informed Members that since the September 2013 meeting, the Committee 
had received 43 notifications which had been di stributed electronically to all delegations. 
1.2.1  Notifications in respect of which ques tions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram 
1.3.  The questions raised, responses provided as well as Members' follow-up comments in 
connection with the 21 notifications in respect of which questions were raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram2 are fully reflected in sectio n 2 of document G/AG/W/118. 
1.2.2  Notifications subject to review in resp ect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram 
1.4.  The Committee took note of the 21 notifications circulated before 17 January 2014, including 
notifications carried over from the September 2013  meeting but in respect of which no questions 
had been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.3 
1.2.3  Notifications circulated or made av ailable after the issuance of the convening 
airgram 
1.5.  The Committee took note of eight notification s circulated after the issuance of the convening 
airgram on 17 January 2014: 
Imports under Tariff and other qu ota Commitments (Table MA:2): 
 Norway (2012): G/AG/N/NOR/74 
 Ukraine (2013): G/AG/N/UKR/16 
Annual summary of Special Safeguar d actions taken (Table MA:5): 
 Costa Rica (2013): G/AG/N/CRI/45 
 Czech Republic (2004): G/AG/N/CZE/59) 
 Switzerland (2013): G/AG/N/CHE/65 
Domestic Support Commitments (Table DS:1): 
 Norway (2012): G/AG/N/NOR/73 
Export Subsidy Commitments (Table ES:1): 
 Costa Rica (2013): G/AG/N/CRI/46 
 Czech Republic (2004): G/AG/N/CZE/60 
1.6.  These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the working procedures. 
                                               
2 WTO/AIR/4238, Attachment Section B. 
3 WTO/AIR/4238, Attachment Section C. G/AG/R/73 
- 3 - 
  1.2.4  Points concerning notificati ons raised at previous meetings 
1.2.5  Counter-notifications (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture) 
1.7.  There were no requests for the floor under the above four agenda items. 1.2.6  Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process 
1.8.  The Chairperson noted that a total of 16 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. 
1.2.7  Overdue notifications 1.9.  The Committee took note of document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.16 dated 17 January 2014 
reflecting the current status of Members' compliance with notification obligations. 
1.10.  The Chairperson highlighted  a few numbers with respect to the outstanding notifications. 
For the period 1995 to 2012: 
 15% (92) of notifications in the MA:2 series, 
 14% (83) of notifications in the MA:5 series, 
 43% (783) of notifications in the DS:1 series, 
 39% (817) of notifications in the ES:1 series, and 
 15% (73) of notifications in the ES:2 series remain outstanding. 
1.11.  Two questions were raised under this agenda item: (i) European Union's question regarding 
Turkey's overdue notifications, and (ii) Australia's question regarding Viet Nam's pending notifications. These questions and their respective  answers, and follow-up comments, can be found 
on G/AG/W/118 pages 36 and 37. 
2  PART 2: OTHER MATTERS WITH IN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
2.1  Implementation-related Issues and Concerns (G/AG/16 and Add.1; G/AG/22) 
2.1.  The Chairperson noted that the situation had not changed since the circulation of the 2003 
and 2006 reports to the General Council.
4 
2.2.  Argentina, with the support of Australia and Brazil, stated that without prejudice to the 
provisions of Article 10.1 of the Agreement on Ag riculture, the establishment of additional and 
specific disciplines on export credits, expo rt 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 Regular CoA. 
2.2  Review of the List of "Significant Exporters" for the Purpose of Table ES:2 
Notification requirement 
2.3.  The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting held on 29 January regarding the review 
of the list of significant exporters. The chairper son noted that based on a number of consultations 
had in 2013 as well as the progress made in earlier consultations, he had presented to Members the result of discussions on this subject as co ntained in two room documents: (i) recommended 
revision to Table ES:2 notification (RD/AG/24), and (ii) list of "significant exporters" for the 
purposes of the notification requirements in re spect of export subsidy commitments (RD/AG/25). 
The chairperson reminded Members about some basic principles and parameters within which the work on the revision of the list of significant ex porters had been carried out, specifically referring 
to the common understandings recorded in paragraph 2.12 of G/AG/R/69 and paragraph 2.5 of 
G/AG/R/71. On 24 January the chairperson had circulated a summary of the discussions which 
provided more details and included examples to clarify how the revised list and the proposed 
                                               
4 G/AG/16/Add.1 and G/AG/22. G/AG/R/73 
- 4 - 
  modifications to Table ES:2 notifications would address the various issues and concerns that had 
been raised.5 
2.4.  The Chairperson outlined how the three fundamental issues of "comparability", 
"disaggregation", and "new products" were addres sed and incorporated in the documents. Some 
Members expressed a strong desire to adopt the list and the suggested modifications to Table ES:2 
notification at the January meeting especially cons idering the amount of time that had been spent 
in arriving at that stage and the progress that was reflected in those documents. Members further 
confirmed that disaggregation of Table ES:1 wa s not within the mandate of these discussions. 
2.5.  Members, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, New Zealand 
Pakistan, United States and Uruguay, welcomed the report made by the Chairperson and noted that the outcome, as explained by the Chairperson in his report, had already achieved the required 
maturity. These Members emphasized the importan ce of concluding the review of the list of 
significant exporters in the March committee meeting by also referring to fact that the work on this issue had been ongoing for more than 4 years. 
2.6.  Some delegations including India, the Ph ilippines and China raised one issue that they 
believed required additional work so that it coul d also be reflected and addressed in the proposed 
Table ES:2 notification package. This concerned the disaggregation of total exports provided by 
Members with reduction commitments in section I of the draft Table ES:2 notification format. 
These delegations believed that not requiring a disaggregation in section I of the Table ES:2 format implied weaker transparency requiremen ts on the part of Members with reduction 
commitments. These Members also raised the issue of the criteria to be used for identification of 
new products. Malaysia and Egypt expressed a willi ngness to engage in further discussions on this 
topic. 
2.7.  Other Members clarified that reduction commitment Members were no longer excluded from 
the revised list of significant exporters. Thus, reduction commitment Members included in the list 
would also be subject to disaggregation of information in section II of the revised Table ES:2 notification format. Members expressed willingness to look at the issue raised at the informal 
meeting and requested additional details from the proponents. Members emphasized that the 
proposed disaggregation in section I of Table E:S2 shouldn't require a modification in the presentation of information in Table ES:1 since this was not within the scope of the exercise. 
2.8.  The chairperson noted that lack of conv ergence necessary to conclude discussions at the 
January meeting of the Committee on Agriculture. Simultaneously, the chairperson recognized the 
strong desire on the part of all Members to conclude this discussion by the March Committee meeting, especially considering the busy agenda ar ising from Bali discussions to be pursued in the 
Committee. A number of Members emphasized that until the March meeting, consultations should 
be limited on the disaggregation of data in section I of Table ES:2. One Member suggested that some additional consideration was required on the issue of "new products". 
2.9.  The chairperson noted his intention to begin consultations soon after the meeting focusing on 
the unresolved issues. The objective would be to facilitate an agreement on the revised list of 
significant exporters along with the Table ES:2 notification package in the March Committee meeting. Members were encouraged to examine the feasibility of reaching convergence on 
disaggregation of data in section I of Table ES:2. He encouraged Members to keep their capitals 
fully informed on the work being done so that a final resolution on this topic could be reached at the March 2014 CoA meeting. 
2.3  Chair Report on Informal Meeting, Including Follow-up from Bali Ministerial 
2.10.  The Chairperson reported on three aspe cts discussed at the informal meeting held on 
29 January: (i) Article 18.4, (ii) Export Restrictions and (iii) follow-up to Bali Ministerial. 
2.11.  Under the topic of Article 18.4, the Chairperson noted that Canada had recalled the 
discussion in the September 2013 informal meeting regarding its written communication 
(RD/AG/18). This paper aimed at improving Members' understanding of Article 18.4 with a view to 
                                               
5 RD/AG/26. G/AG/R/73 
- 5 - 
  promoting best practices and transparency in noti fications. Canada highlighted two main points 
from the paper: (i) that the obligation to give due consideration to effects of excessive inflation under Article 18.4 rested with the membership as whole in the context of the review process; and (ii) that the paper suggested practical guidelines for supporting documentation to facilitate the 
review process when a member sought to  invoke Article 18.4 (annex to RD/AG/18). 
2.12.  In response to a request made by some Members to include historical context on this issue, 
Canada had developed a compendium with a history of questions and answers raised in the 
Committee on Agriculture related to Article 18.4 (RD/AG/18/Add.1). Since 1995, 29 notifications 
had referred to Article 18.4 or excessive rates of inflation, and Members had provided 38 questions and answers in the Committee on Agriculture on this issue. This issue had had a long history, and Members" notification procedures varied. Canada no ted that its objective create a useful reference 
document that set out best practices on notifi cation and transparency, with a view to give 
Members seeking to invoke Article 18.4 a clear understanding on what is expected from them by the Committee. 
2.13.  Several Members welcomed Canada's contribution noting that Members had not yet 
achieved a common understanding on the applicatio n of Article 18.4, and recognizing that some 
Members might have difficulties in complying with AMS commitments due to excessive rates of 
inflation. Some Members stressed that Canada's paper should not be seen as an incentive for 
Members to avoid reform. 
2.14.  Additionally, some Members supported Canada's view that Article 18.4 did not provide for 
individual Members to unilaterally adjust their AMS when making a domestic support notification. 
Rather, they considered that Article 18.4 provided an obligation for the Committee to take into 
consideration, following a notification, if a violation to subsidy commitments had been caused by excessive rates of inflation. One Member expresse d scepticism on the need to develop guidelines. 
2.15.  Canada stated that it would circulate a revised paper and that it would organize a 
plurilateral meeting before the March 2014 Committee meeting to discuss this issue with interested Members. Canada's intention was to table the paper during the regular meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture in March. 
2.16.  On the topic of export restrictions, the United States referring to a paper it had presented in 
September 2013 CoA meeting (G/AG/W/113) stressed  the importance of improving transparency 
in the application of agricultural export restrictions. The United States highlighted the analytical 
work undertaken by the OECD to identify and categorize agricultural export restrictions. The 
United States suggested that a more complete understanding of the types of measures that are used globally would strengthen discussions that  take place in the CoA on the transparency 
provisions related to this issue. 
2.17.  A number of Members recognized the im portance of enhanced transparency in the 
application of export restrictions pursuant to Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture and 
expressed willingness to carry out further work on this topic. Some Members noted that the OECD 
data includes measures that do not fall within the legal scope of notification requirements under 
the Agreement on Agriculture. Therefore the summary statistics generated from that dataset were not strictly comparable with figures generated on the basis of information submitted to the WTO. 
Other Members recalled the process led by Japan on this issue and observed that this process had 
also led to improved transparency in this area. 
2.18.  To initiate the Committee's discussions on follow-up to the Bali Ministerial the Chairperson 
highlighted the items that would have repercussions for the planning of Committee meetings in 
2014 relating to the following Bali outcomes: 
 Export competition (WT/MIN(13)/40) 
 Understanding on TRQ administration provisions of agricultural products 
(WT/MIN(13)/39) 
 Public stockholding for food se curity purposes (WT/MIN(13)/38) 
2.19.  In these three areas Ministerial guidance specifically indicated that the Committee on 
Agriculture would undertake follow-up activities in terms of monitoring and review. G/AG/R/73 
- 6 - 
  2.20.  The Ministerial Declaration on export co mpetition called for dedicated discussions in this 
area based on notifications and a questionnaire to be circulated by the Secretariat. The annex of the Declaration included elements for enhanced transparency on export competition which would form the basis of the Secretariat's questionnaire.  The Chairperson proposed that the Committee on 
Agriculture hold the annual discussion on export competition during the June 2014 Committee 
meeting. This timing would also be appropriate in 2015 as it would provide adequate time between the annual CoA meeting discussion on the topic and the review foreseen at the 10
th Ministerial 
Conference. The Chairperson noted that the Secret ariat would circulate the questionnaire in the 
following weeks with a view to circulating a summary of the questionnaire results in advance of the June Committee meeting. While recognizing the ambitious timeline, Members supported the proposed timing for work in this area. 
2.21.  With respect to the Decision on TRQ administration, the Committee on Agriculture was 
expected to review and monitor the implementa tion of the Decision. The monitoring to be 
conducted in the context of the TRQ underfill mechanism would depend on Members' submissions. 
Some Members indicated that they planned to ta ke advantage of this mechanism. Others noted 
that the CoA could begin applying the monitoring procedures laid out in the Annex of this Decision as soon as submissions were received by the Committee. 
2.22.  On the Decision on public stockholding, th e monitoring activity of the Committee would also 
depend on whether Members decided to use the Decision. In addition, under this Decision Ministers agreed to establish a work programme in the CoA, based on current and future submissions by Members. Some Members suggested that submissions to the CoA would be logical 
in March and that such submissions could include other aspects of the Agreement on Agriculture 
relevant for discussions on food security. Other Members considered that this work was also relevant for the CoA special session and called for submissions to be handled in the appropriate 
forum. 
2.23.  The Bali outcomes on general services and cotton were briefly mentioned. One Member 
suggested that it would be useful to examine how general services have been notified historically 
under the Green Box. Some Members were considering whether some implementation issues 
related to cotton could be usefully included in CoA discussions. 
2.24.  Members welcomed the report provided by the Chairperson, and provided follow up 
comments on the various issues discussed during the informal session. 
2.25.  The United States stated that, with respect to export restrictions, it planned to issue a 
written report regarding the OECD data analysis  and its applicability to the CoA. On export 
competition, the United States was of the view that some programmes may not have been covered 
in the December 2012 report issued by the Secretariat, and wished to engage interested Members 
to ensure a full coverage and understanding of the relevant programmes in the new transparency report. On public stockholding the United States supported Members' view that the best way 
forward was to focus on substantive work in the Committee and to minimize procedural 
preoccupations. The United States encouraged Members to seek a common understanding on the factual implementation issues for TRQ administration, public stockholding, general services and a comprehensive inventory of cotton measures through informal and formal discussions. 
2.26.  Uganda, on behalf of the Least-developed Countries group, with regards to the Bali outcome 
on agriculture, stated that work should avoid ov erlap of mandate with the Special Session of the 
CoA. In particular regarding public stockholding, Uganda noted that Ministers agreed to establish a 
work programme, but that clarity was needed as to whether this should be done on the regular 
Committee or under the Special Session Committee. Concerning TRQ administration, Uganda noted that the Ministers mandated the Committee on Agriculture to review and monitor the 
implementation of Members' obligations established under this understanding. Regarding 
additional issues raised by the delegation of the United States with respect to the Bali Decisions on cotton, Uganda noted that the mandate given by Ministers on cotton was outlined in paragraphs 5 and 8 of the Decision, to hold a dedicated discu ssion on a bi-annual basis in the context of the 
Committee on Agriculture in Special Session. On Export Restrictions, Uganda was of the 
understanding that the delegation of Japan had initiated work in this area, which the Committee on Agriculture was still exploring. G/AG/R/73 
- 7 - 
  2.27.  Argentina supported Uganda's statement regarding cotton. Argentina noted that the Bali 
Decision on cotton was a mandate for the Special Session of the CoA, but that if any Member was interested in following up on other work regard ing cotton under the regular CoA, as proposed by 
the United States, Argentina was ready to engage. 
2.28.  The Philippines emphasized that the implem entation regarding public stockholding for food 
security purposes would be monitored as far as there was an invocation of such a measure. On the aspect of food security in general, the Philippines noted the need to clearly delineate the work to 
be done by the regular Committee and Committee meeting in special session. 
2.29.  Pakistan stated that the Decision of the Ministers on stockholding was clear in terms of 
identifying a work programme to be undertaken in the CoA to pursue this issue with the aim of making recommendations for a permanent soluti on. Pakistan noted that the work programme 
should take into account Members' existing an d future submissions, noting that the future 
submissions provided an opportunity for Members to bring their own perspective on stockholding 
and food security. Pakistan noted Uganda's statem ent, and stated that considering the expressed 
need for clarity on which domain should some of the issues be discussed, Pakistan stated that 
Members could start by focusing on the availability on data, which could only be done under the regular Committee on Agriculture, such as domestic support data and the new data on export 
competition which would be obtained from the questionnaire to be sent to Members as part of the 
Ministerial Decision on this subject. 
2.30.  China supported Uganda's statement rega rding the implementation of the Ministerial 
Decision. China noted that the implementation of the Ministerial decision would be done by the 
CoA as clearly stated in the Decision itself. China was of the view that work to find a permanent 
solution for the public stockholding issue should be done under the Special Session Committee. However, work on other subjects of the Decisi on could be carried out by either committee. 
2.31.  India stated that the Ministerial declarat ion was very specific on the issue of public 
stockholding for food security purposes, and note d that Members were free to submit new papers, 
but that those submissions had to be related to the issue under discussion, other issues related to 
food security would have to be discussed on a different forum. 
2.32.  Norway noted that the follow-up to the Bali Decision was a Member-driven process, and that 
it was not up to the Secretariat or the Chairperson to define how it should be handled in the following months. Norway stated that questions on  how to interpret the Decision would come up 
and underlined that Norway was ready to engage constructively on the discussions. 
2.33.  Barbados supported Uganda's statements, and noted the need for clarity on the venue 
under which the mandated elements should be discussed, either under the regular or special 
session committee. On export competition, Ba rbados looked forward to operationalize the 
Decision, including how developing countries could be assisted in ameliorating any added burdensome additional reporting requirements. 
2.34.  Korea supported Norway's position that the follow-up to the Bali Ministerial Decision should 
be a Member-driven process, and also noted the need to clarify the venue under which the implementation of the Bali Decision should be discussed. 
2.35.  New Zealand noted that the Ministerial Deci sion specified that an annual review on export 
competition should take place in the regular Committee on Agriculture which would have to be 
done by June in order to effectively inform the next Ministerial Conference. New Zealand stated that Ministers had also agreed that there would be a work programme on the public stockholding 
for food security issue in the regular Committee on  Agriculture. New Zealand noted that although 
interpretation issues would arise, there were clear tasks set out by the Ministerial Decision, and that Members should start working on them without delay. G/AG/R/73 
- 8 - 
  2.4  Other Business 
2.4.1  Secretariat Briefing on Upco ming Notification Workshops in 2014 
2.36.  The Secretariat briefed the Committee on tec hnical assistance activities carried out by the 
Secretariat aimed at improving the submission, and the quality, of notifications. The Secretariat 
carried out one notification workshop in 2013 in Geneva, held in English. The workshop was 
attended by 30 participants, out of which 20 we re funded by the WTO while the remaining ten 
attended on a self-funded basis, including several Geneva-based delegates. For 2014, two 
notification workshops have been scheduled. The workshops would be held in English and Spanish 
(tentatively). Further details on the application pr ocedures and logistics of the workshop would be 
circulated to Members in the following weeks. 
2.4.2  Date of next regular meetin g and reminder of upcoming agenda 
2.37.  The Chairperson proposed that the next (73rd) regular meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture would be held on Friday, 14 March 2014.6 
__________ 
                                               
6 Subsequent to the 29 January CoA, the date of the meeting was moved to Friday, 21 March 2014, as 
per the fax sent to Delegations on 7 February 2014.