RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/69  
 
12 February 2013  
(13-0755)  Page: 1/8  
Committee on Agriculture   
 
 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 14 NOVEMBER 2012 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its sixty-eighth (68th) regular meeting on 
14 November 2012 under the Chairmanship of Ms Emalene Marcus-Burnett of Barbados. 
 The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/4041 was adopted with the following 
modifications: 
 
 under Part 1 (Review Process): 
 withdrawal of question from Canada with respect to Switzerland's 
MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/CHE/58); 
 addition of a question from the United States to Ukraine under Article 18.6; 
 addition of China's concerns regarding European Union's intention to modify its 
concession on poultry products; and 
 withdrawal of comments from the European Union with respect to Israel's 
transparency issues, including Table DS:2 (G/AG/N/ISR/48/Rev.1); 
 under Part 2 (Other Matters within the Purview of the Committee): 
 addition of an item, under other busine ss, by IICA to present the joint IICA-WTO 
work plan for 2013; 
 withdrawal of agenda item F (review of export restrictions –Table ER:1 
Notifications) by the United States; 
 addition of communication by the Chairperson regarding timeliness and 
completeness of notifications; and  
 addition of an item to provide information on the outreach activities by the 
WTO 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 twelve implementation issues raised  as well as the responses supplied thereto and 
follow-up exchanges are compiled in paragraphs 1-31 of document G/AG/W/106. 
                                               
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/69 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.2  Review of notifications 
1.2.  Since the September 2012 meeting, the Committee had received 33 notifications. 
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 27 notifications in respect of which questions were raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram2 are fully reflected in paragraphs 32-79 of 
document G/AG/W/106. 
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 17 notifications circulated before 2 November 2012 including 
notifications carried over from the previous 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 seven notification s circulated after the issuance of the convening 
airgram on 2 November 2012, i.e.: 
a. Table MA:1: Thailand (2010, 2011): G/AG/N/THA/73; 
b. Table MA:2: 
 Brazil (2008,2009,2010): G/AG/N/BRA/29; 
 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2009, 2010, 2011): G/AG/N/MKD/16; 
 Israel (2010, 2011): G/AG/N/ISR/49; 
 Poland (2004): G/AG/N/POL/68; 
 Thailand (2009, 2010): G/AG/N/THA/74; 
c. Table NF:1: Norway (2011): G/AG/N/NOR/68. 
1.2.4  Points concerning notificati ons raised at previous meetings 
1.2.5  Counter-notifications (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture) 
1.6.  There were no requests for the floor under the above agenda items. 
1.2.6  Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process 
1.7.  The Chairperson noted that six delegation s had outstanding replies in the context of the 
review of notifications. The Chairperson strongly urged them to submit the replies to the Secretariat in order to enhance the efficiency of the Review Process. Honduras provided additional 
information relating to the 67
th CoA meeting regarding a domestic support programme.4 
The United States suggested that, in order to improve efficiency, the questions be submitted 
20 days in advance instead of ten days, to allow Members sufficient time to prepare their 
responses. Following up on the US suggestion, Australia noted that the forthcoming web-based 
                                               
2 Section B of WTO/AIR/4041 refers. 
3 See Section C of WTO/AIR/4041. 
4 The answers provided will be reflected in G/AG/W/103/Add.1 G/AG/R/69 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Question & Answer system would be a very us eful tool whereby Members could submit their 
questions at their earliest convenience. 
1.2.7  Overdue notifications 
1.8.  Document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.12 dated 2 November 2012, showing the current status of 
Members' compliance with notification obligations, was made available. One question was raised 
under this agenda item, as reflected in paragraph 80 of document G/AG/W/106. 
2  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 2.1  Annual monitoring exercise on the follo w-up to the Marrakesh net food-importing 
developing countries (NFIDC) decision under Article 16.2 
2.1.  The annual monitoring exercise was undertaken on the basis, inter alia , of contributions by 
Members, including Table NF:1 notifications, as we ll as contributions by observer international 
organizations. 
2.2.  The Committee took note of the background note
5 revised annually by the Secretariat. 
Australia and Pakistan praised the usefulness of the note which provided the latest available 
information as well as an overview of the current situation regarding international food aid. A few 
comments were made on (i) the new Food Assistance Convention  (FAC); (ii) the forms of food aid; 
and (iii) technical and financial assistance. 
a. Australia recalled the conclusion of the new Food Assistance Convention, which could 
assist in providing greater transparency on  food aid. The Convention incorporated 
several general principles in terms of better management of food assistance. As a party to the negotiations, Australia had taken steps to facilitate the signing of the Convention 
which was expected to come into force in 2013. With reference to paragraph 32 of the 
Secretariat note, Argentina believed that the Convention did not represent any progress 
in relation to the Food aid Convention, 1999, as far as the degree of concessionality was 
concerned. Specifically, Argentina considered that maintaining the percentage of 
non-concessional food aid at 20% was not in line with paragraph 3 of the Ministerial 
Decision which clearly stipulated that guidelines should be adopted to ensure that an increasing proportion of basic foodstuffs be  provided to LDCs and NFIDCs in fully grant 
form. Argentina requested the WTO Secretariat to inform the Committee on how 
FAC donors planned to comply with this requirement. Argentina also pointed out that it would be important to cite the Doha Mandate in agriculture, including the Draft Modalities Text, in the note. 
b. As a major recipient of food aid, Pakistan considered that WFP's local purchases 
constituted a powerful development tool, and thus the most efficient and effective form of food aid. While commending the gradual shift to emergency food aid assistance, 
Australia observed that more work was need ed to reform national food aid policies. 
c. On technical and financial assistance, Pakistan observed that Members currently notified 
information in a variety of formats. This made it difficult for the reader to determine 
whether the aid was destined to LDCs and NFIDCs. To facilitate the analysis of Members' 
Table NF:1 notifications, Pakistan requested the Secretariat to summarise the information contained therein in Section B of the note. With reference to paragraph 39 of the Secretariat note, Pakistan also invited the IMF to provide the latest data on its 
technical assistance programmes and to indicate which LDCs and NFIDCs had benefited 
from this assistance. In Pakistan's view, the construction of state-of-the-art storage capacity and water reservoirs were among the areas where technical assistance was 
needed by NFIDCs and LDCs to enhance agricultural productivity and infrastructure, as 
emphasized by the NFIDC Decision. In this re gard, Pakistan requested the Secretariat to 
investigate the extent to which notified technical assistance was geared towards such 
objectives." Australia encouraged recipients to inform the Committee on the type of 
impacts that food aid and technical and financial assistance had at national level. 
                                               
5 G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 dated 2 November 2012. G/AG/R/69 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.3.  The United States noted the large amount  of information available in the Tables NF:1 
notifications and other different sources. The United States encouraged Members to consider 
whether the information being provided by way of Table NF:1 notifications was sufficient and 
presented in a clear format. Similarly, the United States encouraged Members to notify all relevant 
information concerning food aid and technical assistance to the WTO. 
2.1.1  Contributions by Members 
2.4.  The Committee took note of the circulation of the following notifications in the Table NF:1 
series since the 2011 monitoring exercise6: Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/84); Canada 
(G/AG/N/CAN/93); the European Union (G/A G/N/EU/1, G/AG/N/EU/2, G/AG/N/EU/3 and 
G/AG/N/EU/4); Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/172 and NF:1 for 2010 recently submitted); New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/77); Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/62)
7 and the United States (G/AG/N/USA/90). Members 
were invited to comment on the detailed information contained in these Table NF:1 notifications, 
or on recent developments in their own national food aid or technical assistance policies and 
strategies. 
2.5.  The United States observed that changes had occurred in its food aid programmes. A new 
demand driven system was applied where the WFP and private/voluntary organizations had access 
to US resources. More specifically, with re gards to in-kind food aid programmes, these 
organizations placed orders with the government of United States and the USDA purchased the 
commodities in a transparent and competitive process in the domestic commercial market at 
commercial prices. The government of United States had taken steps to significantly improve targeting in recent years through the use of more robust food security needs assessments, market analysis and post-distribution impact assessments. Such assessments minimized the possibility of 
commercial trade displacement while reducing the potential for beneficiary populations to develop 
a dependency on food assistance.  
2.1.2  Contributions by observ er international organizations 
2.6.  The Committee took note of the contributions made by: FAO in G/AG/GEN/106; the 
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) in G/AG/GEN/104; and the IMF in G/AG/GEN/107.  
2.7.  Pakistan welcomed FAO's contribution. Although the document noted that prices were stable 
and that import bills would not be high, Pakistan believed that the cereal import bill would be higher than in previous years for NFIDCs and that prices for vegetable oils would also remain high. 
In Pakistan's view, this could have an impact on countries that were highly dependent on the 
import of these commodities. Argentina flagged that it might submit written comments on the 
reports submitted by the FAO and IMF. 
2.2  Implementation-related issues 
2.8.  The Chairperson noted that the situation had not changed since the circulation of the 2003 
and 2006 reports to the General Council.
8 
2.9.  Argentina, with the support of Brazil an d Australia, 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. 
2.3  Annual Consultation under Article 18.5 with  respect to Members' Participation in the 
Normal Growth of World Trade in Agricultur al Products within the Framework of the 
Commitments on Export Subsidies 
2.10.  The Chairperson recalled that one of the main bases for the present consultations within the 
framework of the commitments on export subsidies was the full picture notifications in the export 
                                               
6 A reminder (WTO/AIR/4034) was also circulated on 23 October 2012.  
7 In addition, Norway submitted G/AG/N/NOR/68 dated 7 November 2012. 
8 G/AG/16/Add.1 and G/AG/22 refer. G/AG/R/69 
 
- 5 - 
 
  subsidy area. These notifications covered not only subsidized exports and related budgetary 
outlays but also total food aid and total export volumes (i.e. Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3). 
Members' compliance with notification obligations in the export subsidy area was crucial to enable 
the Committee to undertake such consultations.  Members were referred to G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.12 
which reflected the state-of-play of submissions in the export subsidy area. The document showed 
that for the implementation period 1995-2011, 813 Table ES:1 notifications and 79 Table ES:2 
notifications remain outstanding. 
2.11.  The Committee took note of the revised statistical background note.9 Argentina found that 
the note continued to lend support to the idea that Members who subsidized their products as well 
as those who applied high levels of border protection had a significant participation in international agricultural trade. In Argentina's view, the ma jor exporters did not allow access to their own 
market: protection and subsidized production expl ained their high level of participation in world 
agricultural trade. Argentina emphasized the need to continue the reform process in the 
framework of the Doha Round. Pakistan and the United States expressed appreciation for the 
document and its continued usefulness in tracking the evolution of agricultural trade over the 
long-term. The United States noted the significant differences from the first W/32 document, such 
as, among others, the increase in the number of WTO Members listed in the tables, the number of agricultural products covered and the shift in the leading commodity exporters. 
2.4  Review of the list of significant exporters 
2.12.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that since the September 2012 meeting, a 
number of new submissions had been tabled. Two rounds of informal consultations were held on 31 October and 16 November respectively. During these consultations, there was convergence on 
some basic principles and technical issues:  
 the Committee was operating under the broad parameters of agreed notification guidance 
contained in G/AG/2;  
 the scope of the exercise should in no way affect Members' scheduled export subsidy 
reduction commitments;  
 a shared understanding to continue relying on simple average trade share for the three most 
recent years and that a common reference period should be used for all product categories;  
 to continue drawing on FAO and other relevant data sources for export data in volumetric 
terms; and  
 the final outcome should not lead to a burdensome notification obligation, especially for 
developing country Members.  
2.13.  The Chairperson noted Members' need to conduct more focused technical discussions on two 
aspects that were specifically touched upon on 29 October: 
 product disaggregation and  
 use of filters to identify new products  to be added to the existing list.  
2.14.  In this regard, the Chairperson stated that consultations would continue seeking to maintain 
the momentum achieved, with discussions open to all interested delegations. The Chairperson 
encouraged Members to intensify discussions in order to reach early agreement, and welcomed 
suggestions on how to organize the Committee's work on the outstanding issues. 
2.15.  All intervening delegations welcomed the new contributions as well as the Chairperson's 
report on the state-of-play, indicating at the same time their readiness to continue discussions. 
Australia, China, the European Union, New Zeal and, Norway, Pakistan, th e Philippines and Turkey 
specifically supported the Chairperson's identificati on of areas of convergence. Cuba recalled its 
request for exemption from the Table ES:2 notifi cation obligation. In this regard, Australia, 
                                               
9 G/AG/W/32/Rev.13 dated 18 October 2012 refers. G/AG/R/69 
 
- 6 - 
 
  supported by Canada, New Zealand and Norway, noted the need to resolve the long standing issue 
of updating the list of significant exporters as soon  as possible. In Norway's view, work needed to 
intensify. Supported by Argentina and New Zealand,  Norway requested that the relevant statistical 
trade data be updated taking account of the zone s of convergence highlighted by the Chairperson 
and listing all significant exporters, regardless of whether they had reduction commitments. For 
transparency purposes, this list could be posted on the Members' password protected website by 
the Secretariat. It would constitute a useful basis for further constructive engagement. 
2.16.  The Chairperson reiterated her call for Members to intensify discussions with a view to reach 
an agreement and to also provide ideas on  how to move forward on the subject. 
2.5  Review of Domestic Support Notifications 2.17.  The Chairperson recalled that in the 29 October informal consultations, Members had 
exchanged views on the contribution by the United  States contained in document G/AG/W/97. At 
the time, several participants had expressed interest in such exercise and had sought further 
details. 
2.18.  The United States briefly presented its more recent submission
10, highlighting some of the 
key points such as the use of outdated procedur es and the usefulness of the current notification 
procedure. The United States encouraged the Committee to undertake a review of the current 
situation with regard to domestic support notifications while taking account of the evolution that 
had taken place over the years in many respec ts, notably the growing number of WTO Members, 
the introduction of different products and different policies. 
2.19.  Argentina, Canada, China, Norway, the Philippines and Turkey expressed readiness to 
engage in further discussions on the basis of the US proposal. Argentina and China welcomed the 
US document as a sign of positive engagement on technical issues. Canada considered that a 
discussion on notifications matters would be useful for Members to exchange views on the way forward. In Korea's view, in-depth discussions were needed to determine how the Committee could 
strengthen the review process within its curre nt mandate. Norway noted that it would be 
potentially useful to consider the current information available and whether it was serving its intended purpose. 
2.20.  Both Argentina and China agreed that th ere had been many changes in Members' policies 
since 1995 and consequently changes in the way domestic support notifications were submitted, especially as regards formats. In that sense, Ar gentina understood that the US proposal was of a 
purely technical nature, based on the experience acquired by the Committee so far in the area of 
notifications, including with respect to recently-acceded Members. Echoed by China and Pakistan, 
Argentina however remained concerned with the format of the discussion which, in its view, should take place in an informal mode. China flagged that, while certain procedures needed upgrading, 
there were no fundamental problems with the exis ting system. Argentina also suggested that it 
would be useful to take into account the respon ses to the 2009 questionnaire sent to Members in 
response to a request made by the General Council. 
2.21.  Korea underlined that, since domestic support notifications were closely linked to each 
Member's agricultural policies, they were very se nsitive. As such, they should be treated with 
caution. Japan remained keen to revitalize the Committee on Agriculture but noted that domestic support was a complex topic, and that a common understanding was required before having 
discussions on specific issues. Supported Turkey, Pakistan sought further clarification on the US 
request for the Committee to carry out a comprehensive review of the domestic support pillar, and the suggested process to initiate that type of re view. Pakistan considered that the only mandated 
review was that relating to the list of significant exporters. Pakistan held that G/AG/2 was closely 
related to certain rights and obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture, thus G/AG/2 could not be modified. New Zealand noted that the US proposal was the type of work the Committee was 
mandated to do. New Zealand stood ready to review the operating procedures of the Committee 
and to have a look at the notification process, either in an informal or formal mode. Although the United States had chosen to highlight domestic support because of its complexity, New Zealand believed that a review process could also be undertaken for other pillars. 
                                               
10 G/AG/W/105 dated 5 November 2012. G/AG/R/69 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.22.  In the course of the discussions, the Unit ed States welcomed the future launching of the 
AG-IMS, a tool that would facilitate a closer look at the types of questions raised over the last 
18 years in the Committee and enable Members to draw some inferences. The United States 
requested the Secretariat to provide training to a ll Members on the use of the system. This request 
was supported by Pakistan who requested that a presentation be scheduled on 26 March 2013. 
Pakistan also pointed out that some of the outdat ed elements could be certainly corrected by the 
Secretariat when developing the AG IMS. Japan al so pointed out the usefulness of the AG-IMS in 
reviewing domestic support notifications. 
2.6  Renewal of ad hoc Observer Status to the Inter-American Institute for Agricultural 
Cooperation (IICA) 
2.23.  The Committee agreed to invite IICA to participate in its regular meetings in 2013 regular 
sessions as an ad hoc  observer. 
2.7  Other Business 
2.7.1  Timeliness and completeness of notifications 2.24.  The Chairperson recalled that on 29 October the Committee had been encouraged to reflect 
on the fundamental role that notifications play in the Review Process. The majority of Members 
remained well behind in fulfilling the prescribed/agreed notification timelines. This situation continued to be reflected in the updated Compliance document (G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.12). Members 
had been encouraged to start again a focussed discussion on ways to improve the timeliness and 
completeness of notifications. The results of the 2009 survey were contained in G/AG/GEN/85 dated 15 June 2009. Many of the recommendations emanating from the survey (particularly those 
relating to the Committee and the assistance from the Secretariat) had been implemented to some 
degree. 
2.25.  The Chairperson requested the Committee to reflect on three main questions in order to 
build on the process that begun in 2009, i.e. whether:  
 all possible avenues had been explored toward s improving the timeliness and completeness 
of notifications;  
 the measures implemented sufficient and what gaps, if any, existed; and  
 it was time to explore the possibility of re-l aunching an amended survey that took into 
account the progress achieved so fa r, and what more could be done.  
2.7.2  Communication from IICA 2.26.  The IICA briefed the Committee on its thir d joint work plan involving IICA and the WTO 
Secretariat covering the period November 2012 to November 2013, in order to give continuity to 
the commitments undertaken by both bodies. The work plan listed activities with respect to notifications of agricultural policies, joint studies, participation in meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture, and the opportunity for the IICA to sh owcase its work through the WTO. IICA's Centre 
for Strategic Analysis for Agriculture (CAESPA) would be responsible for relations between IICA 
and the WTO Secretariat and would be in char ge of implementing the work plan. IICA was 
represented in 34 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. It had an experienced network of 
experts in agriculture, international trade and trade negotiations, strategically located both in country offices and at central headquarters, through whom the technical cooperation activities set out in the work plan would be implemented.
11 
2.7.3  Outreach Activities by the Secretariat 
2.27.  The Chairperson informed that the Secretariat was organizing a number of information and 
training sessions for Geneva-based delegates, especially for those who were newly-posted. The 
Secretariat reported that two training sessions for Geneva-based delegates had been held so far, 
                                               
11 G/AG/GEN/105 dated 8 November 2012. G/AG/R/69 
 
- 8 - 
 
  the first of which covered agriculture-related technical assistance on offer in 2012/2013 while the 
second activity covered the new Agricultur e Information Management System (Ag-IMS), 
particularly focused on the Q&A f unction. Additional activities were planned on the overview of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, the review process and the Members' Transparency Toolkit. The 
Secretariat encouraged Members to provide any suggestions or comments with respect of such 
technical assistance activities. A new programme of information and training sessions would be 
circulated early 2013. 
2.28.  Cuba, supported by Jamaica, thanked the Secretariat for organizing the information 
sessions, and requested the organization in 2013 of  more information sessions as they were very 
helpful for the delegates' work. 
2.7.4  Date of next regular meeting 2.29.  The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture is scheduled to be held on 
26 March 2013. On this basis, the reminder and conv ening airgrams will be issued on 28 February 
and 13 March 2013, respectively. 
 
__________