RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/R/57 
20 January 2010 
 (10-0258) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEET ING HELD ON 19 NOVEMBER 2009 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its fifty- seventh regular meeting on 19 November 2009 
under the Chairmanship of Ms. Valeria Csukasi of Uruguay. 
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/3478 of 9 November 2009 was adopted.   
I. THE REVIEW PROCESS 
A. M
ATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMEN TATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
(a) Australia: Canada's measures on dairy products  and tariff quota commitments on milk protein 
concentrates (MPC)  
3. Characterizing Canada's dairy supply mana gement as trade distorting and generating 
structural surpluses, Australia expressed concerns over a possible proposal to subsidize domestic milk 
protein concentrate (MPC) and skim milk powder un der the Special Class Program for use in cheese 
milk extension.  Since the imported MPC was prim arily used in cheese milk extension, Australia 
expressed concern that such a proposal could put a majority of MPC imports to Canada at risk.  
Referring to GATT Article XXVIII negotiations by Cana da for MPC85 to replace a tariff-only regime 
with a tariff quota and a prohibitively high out-of-quo ta duty, Australia asked Canada to explain the 
need for the proposed measures.  Canada stated its understanding that the proposal would exclude 
milk protein substances with a concentration of 85 pe r cent or higher and should not, therefore, affect 
the finalization of GATT Article XXVIII nego tiations concerning a tariff quota on MPC85.   
(b) EC2: Switzerland's export subsidization of processed agricultural products  
4. Referring to the reply by Switzerland at the 56th Session3, the EC noted that it seemed to 
imply that Switzerland would need to reintroduce e xport subsidies for primary products in order to 
continue providing export subsidies for incorporated  products.  The EC considered that the logical 
consequence of Article 11 of the Agreement of Agriculture would rather be to eliminate export 
subsidies for incorporated products, an approach foll owed by the EC as a result of the reforms of the 
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).  The EC encour aged Switzerland not to provide export subsidies 
                                                      
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. 
2 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amendi ng the Treaty on Europe an Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community (done at Lis bon, 13 December 2007) entered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (W T/L/779) from the Council of  the European Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, as of 1 December 
2009, the European Union replaces an d succeeds the European Community. 
3  Paras 14-15 of G/AG/R/56 refer. G/AG/R/57 
Page 2  
 
  inconsistent with Article 11.  Switzerland responded that it had no intention to reintroduce export 
subsidies for raw agricultural products.  Welcoming the elimination of export subsidies by the EC 
under the CAP reforms, Switzerland did not, however, ag ree with an interpretation of Article 11 that 
would necessitate the elimination of export s ubsidies on processed products in case those were 
eliminated for corresponding raw agricultural produc ts.  Switzerland reiter ated that such an 
interpretation would run contrary to the spirit of the export subsidy reduction commitments assumed 
by Members in the Uruguay Round. 
5. The EC, in its follow-up comments, encouraged Switzerland to follow the example of the EC 
and eliminate export subsidies on processed agricultu ral products in accordance with Article 11 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  Argentina reserved the right to come back to the i ssue in future meetings. 
(c) New Zealand: Canada's dairy policies 
 
 (i)   ice-cream subsidy programme  
6. Expressing systemic concerns over the Canadi an ice-cream subsidy programme and its 
compliance with WTO principles, New Zealand aske d Canada to provide specific details of the 
programme including the role of the Canadi an Dairy Commission (CDC) in facilitating the 
programme.  Canada replied that the Ice Cream  Promotion Initiative was a private contractual 
agreement between the Dairy Farmers of Canada, a non-governmental organization, and individual 
ice cream processors.  Further, the CDC had no part in determining the terms and conditions of the Ice 
Cream Promotion Initiative.   Canada considered that such a purely private initiative was not 
inconsistent with its WTO obligations.  
(ii)   proposed changes in milk proteins pricing system 
7. New Zealand referred to a proposal before the Canadian Milk Supply Management 
Committee (CMSMC) to enable the supply of dom estic milk proteins for cheese processing at 
reduced prices under milk class 4(m) compared to imported milk products.  Expressing concerns about the possible creation of a two-tier pricing system for milk proteins in cheese manufacturing
4, 
New Zealand sought specific details on the proposal and the steps being taken to ensure that any 
modifications to the pricing system would be consistent with Canada's WTO commitments.   
8. Canada noted that the CMSMC had the authority to make decisions on milk component 
pricing under Canada's supply ma nagement system.  The proposal presented to the CMSMC intended 
to stimulate demand for milk protein concentrates by  processors.  As imports of milk proteins were 
used in many different applications, including f ood products, neutraceuticals and non-food usages, 
Canada considered that there was no evidence that the implementation of the proposal would have any 
significant impact on the overall imports of milk proteins.  The CDC, as the chair of the CMSMC, 
consulted regularly with other fe deral government authorities to ensure Canada's compliance with 
trade obligations.  
(iii)  trade restrictive measures on dairy products  
9. Referring to various questions on Canadian dairy policies raised in the previous sessions of 
the Committee as well as the issue of compositional standards for cheese, which was also raised in the 
TBT Committee, New Zealand wondered how the cumu lative protectionist policies applied in the 
dairy sector were consistent with Canada's G20 co mmitments not to introduce new trade-restrictive 
                                                      
4 In New Zealand's view, this would thereby enable domestic proteins to undercut imports which are 
currently priced under the more expensive milk classes 3(a) and 3(b).  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 3 
 
 
  measures.  Canada maintained that the measures refe rred to by New Zealand were not trade restrictive 
and were consistent with its ri ghts and obligations under the WTO.  
10. The EC pointed out that it should be no surpri se to Members that it would follow the above 
issues with great interest. 
(d) United States:  Support measures by EC member States  
11. The United States requested the EC to indicate the nature of agricultural support that had 
appeared to have been allocated recently by the French government to the farming sector.  The United 
States enquired about the scope of agricultural supp ort measures by EC member States, and sought a 
preliminary indication as to the way such support would be reflected in domestic support notifications.  Moreover, the United States expresse d interest in knowing the type of latitude or 
guidance provided to EC member States to f und agricultural support measures for the major 
categories of WTO agricultural support (i.e., Amber, Blue, Green) so as to ensure compliance; and the 
way such funding and programme information transp arently evolved from EC member States into the 
final notifications presented by the EC.  
12. The EC responded that the State aid rules in th e agricultural sector were based on:  (i) the 
general principles of competition policy;  (ii) cohe rence with the EC's common agricultural and rural 
development policies;  and (iii) compatibility with th e EC's international obligations, in particular the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  Further, member Stat es' aids for agriculture were first assessed by 
the Commission before being implemented and gr anted in conformity with Community guidelines.
5   
13. As regards the specific support measures envi saged by the French government, the EC 
refrained from commenting as those measures were still to be assessed by the European Commission 
before being adopted and implemented.  The EC emphasized that the information on funding and 
support measures by the member Stat es was received regularly by the European Commission through 
annual notifications6 from concerned member States in the WTO format which was subsequently 
aggregated in EC-27 domestic support notifications.  
14. The United States reiterated the importance of tr ansparency with regard to support measures 
by EC member States and indicated that, in some cas es, it would be interested in the details of support 
measures at the level of member States rather than the aggregated amount for the EC. 
B. REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram  
15. Since the 24 September session, 37 notifications had been circulated by the Secretariat.  The 
Committee reviewed the notifications as listed in the agenda.  Specific points raised with respect to 
these notifications and the responses thereto are summarized in Annex 1  to this report.  
                                                      
 5 Notably Commission Regulations 1857/2006 and 153/2007. 
 6 Under Council Regulation 1857/2006, such annual notification requirements apply in addition to the 
notification and reporting obligations by EC member States. G/AG/R/57 
Page 4  
 
  (b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram  
16. The Committee took note of the notifications whic h had been circulated in advance of the 
date on which the notice convening the present mee ting was issued, but in respect of which no 
questions had been raised by that date under the Committee's Working Procedures (G/AG/1).  These 
notifications are listed in Annex 2. 
(c) Notifications circulated or made available after the date on which the notice convening the 
present meeting was issued  
17. The Table DS:1 notification by Romania (ROU/22) was subject to preliminary review and is 
to be reverted to at the next meeting for substa ntive review in accordance with paragraph 9 of the 
Committee's Working Procedures. 
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings  
18. The Chairperson recalled that delegations have the possibility to inform the Committee of the 
outcome of discussions which are of general interest , but which may have been pursued bilaterally as 
a result of the review of notifications.   
(e) Counter-notifications  
19. The Committee took note that no counter-notif ications had been received under Article 18.7 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(f) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process  
20. The EC provided its response7 to the questions raised by Austra lia and the United States at the 
September 2009 meeting with respect to the Table DS:1 notification from Malta (MLT/10). 
(g) Overdue notifications  
21. Document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.1 dated 18 November 2009, showing the current status of 
compliance with notification obligations, was made available. 
22. Australia's questions to several Members, and responses thereto, regarding their overdue 
notifications are reflected in Annex 4.   
II. OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. ANNUAL CONSULTATION UNDER ARTICLE 18.5  WITH RESPECT TO MEMBERS ' PARTICIPATION 
IN THE NORMAL GROWTH OF WORLD TRADE IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS WITHIN THE 
FRAMEWORK OF THE COMMITMENTS ON EXPORT SUBSIDIES  
23. The Secretariat circulated a revised statistical background note for the purposes of the annual 
consultations under Article 18.5.8  The document provided, for selected exporters and selected 
agricultural products/product groups, statistical data on export volumes (including international food 
aid) and shares in world exports, covering th e Uruguay Round base period for export subsidy 
reduction commitments, i.e. 1986-90, as well as the period comprised between 1999 and the most 
                                                      
 7  See Annex 3. 
8  See G/AG/W/32/Rev.11 (dated 13 November 2009).  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 5 
 
 
  recent year for which data in volumetric terms were  available.  The charts showed the world market 
shares of the leading exporters for the products/product groups concerned.   
24. In its presentation of the background note, the Secretariat (Ms. T. Petrova) pointed to the 
tripling of world exports of agricultural products in value terms since the Uruguay Round base period.   
In volume terms, while exports of poultry meat, "o ther" agricultural products, fruit and vegetables and 
pigmeat increased between three- and six-fold, expor ts of skim milk powder and butter and butter oil 
remained at their base period levels.  The perform ance of some individual exporters significantly 
improved from the previous year, e.g. in the produc t groups of wheat and wheat flour (EC, Australia 
and Ukraine), coarse grains (Ukraine, Russian Fe deration, South Africa), sugar (Thailand, India, 
Saudi Arabia), butter and butter oil (United Stat es and India), cheese (Chile), whole milk powder 
(China and Brazil), bovine meat (Colombia), pigm eat (Chile and Hong Kong, China), oilseeds (EC) 
and fruit and vegetables (Chile). 
25. The Secretariat further highlighted that the United States and the EC remained among the top 
five exporters for most of the products surveyed  during the period 1995-2007, while Australia and 
Brazil maintained such status for about half of  the products.  Other Members and observers having 
gained top exporter status in 2007 were Ukraine for coarse grains, India for sugar and bovine meat, 
Belarus for skim milk powder, the United States for butter and butter oil, China for whole milk 
powder, and Chile for fruit and vegetables.  A num ber of developing countries also registered 
significant export increases for individual product categories. 
26. Australia welcomed the document and consider ed that its earlier issuance would facilitate 
closer examination and analysis by Members at the November meetings of the Committee.  Noting 
that the EC and, to a lesser extent, the United St ates were among the top three exporters for skimmed 
milk powder, butter, cheese and whole milk powder,  Australia underlined that the consequence of 
certain dairy support measures and particularly export subsidies by them was likely to have an adverse 
impact on global market conditions.  Australia looke d forward to the elimination of export subsidies 
under the Doha Round. Argentina and New Zealand sh ared Australia's views on the impact of export 
subsidies by major exporters and ur ged the EC and the United States to discontinue their dairy export 
subsidies.   
27. Members also supported the idea of updating the list of "significant exporters", as contained 
in G/AG/2/Add.1 of 16 October 1995 and asked the Secretariat to prepare the relevant background 
statistical data in order to enable the Co mmittee to review the list at a later stage. 
B. ANNUAL MONITORING EXERCISE ON THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE MARRAKECH NET 
FOOD -IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (NFIDC ) DECISION UNDER ARTICLE 16.2 
28. The annual monitoring exercise is undertaken on the basis, inter alia , of contributions by 
Members, including Table NF:1 notifications, as we ll as contributions by the observer international 
organizations.  The Chairperson recalled that the notification requirement under the NF:1 series relates to:  
(a) the quantity of food aid provided to LDCs and NFIDCs, with an indication of the 
proportion provided in fully grant form or  on appropriate concessional terms;  
(b) technical and financial assistance;  
(c) and other relevant information with respect  to actions taken by Members within the 
framework of the Decision. G/AG/R/57 
Page 6  
 
  29. The Committee took note of the circulation of the following notifications in the Table NF:1 
series since the December 2008 monitoring exercise
9: Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/34, CUB/36 and 
CUB/38), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/144 and JPN/145), Ne w Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/45/Rev.1, NZL/56 
and Corr.1), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/54) and South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/69).  The Committee also 
acknowledged receipt of a recent Table NF:1 submission10 by Australia for the financial year 2007/08. 
30. The Committee took note of a revised background no te circulated by the Secretariat for the 
purpose of facilitating the annual monitoring exercise.11  The note provides a brief introduction on the 
follow-up process to the NFIDC Decision as a whole as well as a description of the implementation of 
the substantive provisions in the fields of internat ional food aid; technical and financial assistance;  
S&D treatment in the framework of an agreement on export credits; and access to the resources of the 
international financial institutions.   
31. The Secretariat (Mr. D. Dixit) highlighted that: 
(a) the section on food aid was updated to include statistics on  food aid shipments for 
2007 and 2008 based on the information re ported by members of the Food Aid 
Committee to the secretariat of the International Grains Council (IGC); 
(b) the data on global food aid deliveries was also revised, based on WFP statistics for 
2008, and, where appropriate, the share of  LDCs and NFIDCs in total food aid 
deliveries was duly reflected; 
(c) the note was updated to reflect the distributio n of food aid according to the following 
three categories: emergency, programme and project food aid in 2008.   Compared to last year's version, food aid to all destina tions was accounted for, i.e. including that 
destined to Eastern Europe and the CIS;.   
(d) WFP statistics by mode of delivery were incorporated in the note, i.e. indicating 
whether food aid was channelled through direct transfers, local purchases or 
triangular purchases; 
(e) as regards the degree of concessionality of  food aid, the document reflects updated 
information reported by Members by way of their Table NF:1 notifications; 
(f)  the section describing access to resources of  international financial institutions was 
updated in the light of contributions  received from international observer 
organizations at the 2008 monitoring exercise. 
32. Cuba thanked the Secretariat for the background note.  Cuba specifically highlighted three of 
its major concerns, i.e. (i) the reduction in offici al development assistance for agriculture, (ii) the 
reduction in technical assistance for LDCs and NF IDCs, and (iii) the negative impact of reduced 
export credits on access to food.     
                                                     
 
9 A reminder airgram was also circulated by the Se cretariat on 26 October 2009 (WTO/AIR/3469). 
10 See G/AG/N/AUS/75 dated 7 December 2009. 
11 See G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 dated 4 November 2009.  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 7 
 
 
  33. The representatives of the International Grains Council (IGC), the World Bank, and the World 
Food Programme (WFP) made contributions to the monitoring exercise.  The International Monetary Fund (IMF) submitted a written contribution prior to the meeting.  The Committee took note of these statements which were subsequently comp iled and circulated to the membership.
12   
C. IMPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES13 
34. The Chairperson recalled that the situation had not changed since the circulation of the 2003 
and 2006 reports to the General Council.14 The Compendium of Documents on Implementation-
Related Issues  had been revised15 to account for the documents that (i) were directly or indirectly 
relevant to the three implementation-related issues  under the purview of the Committee, and (ii) had 
been circulated since the 2006 report of the Co mmittee on Agriculture to the General Council.   
35. 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.  Argen tina therefore requested that this item be 
retained on the agenda of the Comm ittee on Agriculture in regular session. 
D. FOLLOW -UP: IMPROVEMENT OF TIMELINESS AND CO MPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATIONS AND 
OTHER INFORMATION FLOW S ON TRADE MEASURES (G/AG/GEN/83  AND G/AG/GEN/85) 
1. Suggested Work Programme 
36. The Committee considered the Suggested Work Programme  that was circulated at its 2 July 
session.16  The Chairperson noted that in light of th e previous debate, some items listed in the 
suggested action plans had been retained for further discussions.  Some had been successfully 
implemented and there was agreement on the elimination of certain items.17  The Chairperson also 
urged delegations who had not filled the survey questionnaire18 to do so in order to ensure that all 
interests, particularly those of developing c ountries, were adequately reflected in the Work 
Programme.  Since the circulation of results of the survey19, the Secretariat had received only four 
additional completed questionnaires.   
37. As agreed at the September meeting, the Secretariat had prepared a revised work 
programme20 for consideration by the Committee, in cluding suggested action plans (i) for the 
Committee and (ii) for the Secretariat, respectively.  
                                                      
12 See G/AG/GEN/90 dated 27 November 2009. There were no contributions by the FAO, UNCTAD 
or OECD. 
13 See WT/MIN(01)/17 dated 14 November 2001. 
14 See G/AG/16 dated 4 July 2003; and G/AG/16/Add.1 dated 13 June 2006. 
15 See G/AG/W/70/Rev.1 dated 16 November 2009. 
16 Annex 6 of G/AG/R/55 refers.   
17 Paras 41-56 of G/AG/R/56 refer. 
18 G/AG/GEN/83 refers. 
19 G/AG/GEN/85 refers. 
20 Annex 5 refers. G/AG/R/57 
Page 8  
 
  (a) Possible action plan for the Committee
  
 38. The Committee agreed to implement the following programme elements:  
(a) As of the March 2010 meeting, the room document compiling the questions  posed by 
Members before each formal session as well as the written responses  supplied by 
Members after each formal session will be ci rculated as restricted documents in 
accordance with the distribution procedur es laid out in the 2002 General Council 
Decision.
21  These documents would be automatically derestricted 60 days after the 
date of circulation, unless re quested otherwise by a Member. 
(b) Notifications-related datasets (Table MA, DS, and ES series ):  in light of the 
discussions held during the September 200 9 meeting, the datasets on information 
notified by Members by way of Table MA:2 , MA:5, DS:1 and ES:1 notifications had 
been posted by the Secretariat on the Members' password-protected web site.  The Committee agreed that, since the information was based on Members' notifications 
that were already available in the public domain, these datasets would be posted on 
the public web site after being further upda ted to reflect incoming submissions.  The 
Chairperson also encouraged the concerne d Members to contact the Secretariat on 
outstanding issues, such as explanatory notes. 
(c) Compilation of " best practices ":  the Chairperson proposed that informal 
consultations be held separately on this matter.  
(b) Possible action plan for the Secretariat 
 
(i) Technical assistance and training 
39. Referring to the Geneva-based Workshop on Agri culture Notifications in September 2009, 
the Chairperson noted that in the assessment forms, the participants  had outlined a number of useful 
recommendations for the future.  Some delegations had also called on this type of activity to be 
repeated in subsequent years.  Other delegations considered that there need ed to be some time for 
reflection prior to taking any decision in respect of the continuation of such activities (i.e. venue, 
format, cost-benefit analysis compared to other de livery modes such as e-learning, improvement of 
Members' own notification record, etc.).  The Secret ariat had started preparing a report.  As the need 
to first undertake an evaluation of this techni cal assistance activity was stressed, the Committee 
agreed to maintain this item in th e Secretariat's action plan for further discussions and decisions at the 
March 2010 meeting of the Committee.  
40. In light of the discussions at the September No tification Workshop, the Secretariat had started 
work on the following technical assistan ce items on a priority basis:   
(a) Revision of the ITTC Notifications Handbook : The Chairperson stated that in light of 
the feedback received during the Workshop on Agriculture Notifications as well as 
the handouts and material that were distribut ed, the Secretariat intended to release a 
version for distribution towards the end of 2009 or beginning of 2010.  
(b) Self-training module on agriculture notifications : The Chairperson informed 
Members that a pilot version could be released towards the end of March 2010. 
                                                      
21 WT/L/452.  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (c) E-training module incorporating user support :  The Secretariat would investigate the 
availability of funds with the intention of  developing such a module in the longer-
term. 
(ii) Data requirements 
41. The Chairperson reported that Members conti nued to accord the highest priority to the 
development of a database on specific implementa tion-related concerns raised since 1995 during the 
Review Process.  As noted in the September meet ing, the project would have important resource 
implications.  The Secretariat had already submitte d a detailed IT Business Case to the internal 
Working Group responsible for the allocation of IT fu nds, and was awaiting a decision in this respect.  
The Chairperson also encouraged Members with e xperience in building such databases to contact the 
Secretariat for an initial exchange of ideas. 
42. On the suggested online submission of notifications  by Members directly to the Central 
Registry of Notifications by computerized means,  the Chairperson noted that such a system might 
potentially offer advantages to Members, for exampl e, in the form of improved access to and easier 
dissemination of notified data.  The SPS and TBT areas had pilot on-line submissions systems in 
place and other WTO divisions might follow suit.  Furthermore, the issue of data management was a 
horizontal issue in the context of improving transp arency and strengthening the role of the WTO.  
This matter would be considered at the 7th WTO Ministerial Conference.  Following-up on the 
discussions held at the July and September 2009 sessions, a detailed IT Business Case had been 
submitted to the internal Working Group responsible  for the allocation of IT funds within the 
Secretariat.  A decision in this respect was pending.   
(c) Next steps  
43. Based on the above discussion, the Secr etariat was requested to update the Suggested Work 
Programme to be considered at the March 2010 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture. 
2. Best Practices  
44. As requested by the Committee, the Secretariat had issued the first compilation of " best 
practices " based on Members' contributions.  Two new c ontributions had been received and would be 
incorporated in a revised version. Recalling that  the document was based on members' suggestions, 
the Chairperson proposed that info rmal consultations be organized on this matter after the Ministerial 
Conference, and encouraged Members to forward a ny new ideas and suggestions to the Secretariat. 
45. Australia suggested that the scope of the pape r be expanded to include best practices with 
regard to the review of notifications.  The Un ited States found the discussions useful and expressed 
the view that some of the items included in th e compilation should be implemented on a voluntary 
basis.  It noted that some of the suggestions unde r the "domestic support" chapter (e.g. the inclusion 
of the value of production to justify de minimis  claims),  were relevant.  The United States already 
implemented a number of those suggestions and would implement more ideas in the future.   
46. The United States considered that some of  the suggestions, particularly under the "tariff and 
other quotas"  and "special safeguard"  chapters, might exceed the scope  of the current notification 
requirements.  These might perhaps be better addressed  under the Special Session  in the context of 
monitoring and surveillance .  While not questioning the intent, the United States also noted that some 
of the suggestions might put an additional burden on notifying Member s.  For example, the suggestion 
to harmonize the reporting periods for export subs idy notifications might be difficult to implement 
and might even have a bearing on schedul ed export subsidy commitments. Under "institutional 
capacity building",  it appeared to be more relevant to pur sue some of the suggestions made under the G/AG/R/57 
Page 10  
 
  previous agenda item i.e. "suggested work programme" .  The United States supported Australia's 
suggestion to expand the scope of the paper to c over aspects relating to review of notifications.  
47. The intervention made by the United States was echoed by the EC and Japan who found that 
certain suggestions, in particular those dealing with the special safeguard, exceeded the scope of 
current notification requirements, and should be more suitably addressed in the Special Session. 
Argentina considered the document to be u seful and supported its periodic update.    
3. Presentation on Agricultural Web Pages  
48. As a follow-up to the discussions
22 held at the September Session, the Secretariat made a 
more detailed presentation on the agricultural web pages.23 
E. OTHER BUSINESS : RENEWED REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS BY INTER -AMERICAN 
INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL COOPERATION (IICA) 
49. The Committee acknowledged receipt of a request for ad hoc  observership from the Inter-
American Institute for Agricultural Cooperati on (IICA).  Recalling that document G/AG/W/29/Rev.6 
listed the international/intergovernmental organiza tions which had been accorded, or which had 
requested observer status, the Chairperson reported that there had been no change in the position of 
Members in the General Council on the issue of observe rship.  However, keeping in view the latest 
request from the IICA seeking an ad hoc  observer status at the Committee, the Chairperson proposed 
that informal consultations be held prior to the March 2010 meeting on the issue of ad hoc  
observership in general, as well as the request fro m the IICA in particular.  The Chairperson also 
requested the Secretariat to circulate the letter containing IICA's request as a document in all three 
official languages.24 
F. OTHER BUSINESS : DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
50. The next (58th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agri culture is scheduled to be held on 
10 March 2010.  On this basis, the reminder airg ram will be issued on 12 February 2010 and the 
convening airgram will be issu ed on 26 February 2010.   
                                                      
22 Para. 51 of G/AG/R/56 refers. 
23 See http://www.wto.org/english/trat op_e/agric_e/ag_work_e.htm  
24 Circulated as G/AG/GEN/89 dated 27 November 2009.  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Annexes 
 
   Page  
 Annex 1 Summary of points raised with respect to notifications 12 
 
  Imports under tariff and other quotas (Table MA:2) 12  
  Colombia - G/AG/N/COL/37 12 
  European Communities - G/AG/N/EEC/62 12 
 
  Domestic support (Table DS:1) 14  
  Costa Rica - G/AG/N/CRI/24 14 
  Dominican Republic - G/AG/N/DOM/18 14   Israel - G/AG/N/ISR/42 14   Jordan - G/AG/N/JOR/10 and JOR/11 16 
  Norway - G/AG/N/NOR/51 16 
  South Africa - G/AG/N/ZAF/71 19   Chinese Taipei – G/AG/N/TPKM/68 20   Trinidad and Tobago – G/AG/N/TTO/12 21  
  New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2) 21  
  Australia - G/AG/N/AUS/74 21 
 
  Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)  22 
  European Communities - G/AG/N/EEC/55/Rev.1, EEC/57/Rev.1 & EEC/61 22 
  Pakistan – G/AG/N/PAK/11 23 
 
Annex 2 Notifications subject to review in resp ect of which no questions have been  
  raised in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram 24 
 
Annex 3 Deferred replies by the EC (MLT/10) to questions raised by Australia and  
  the United States 25  
Annex 4 Additional questions on notifications raised by Australia 26 
  under agenda item 2.B(vii) "overdue notifications" 
 Annex 5 Revised Work Programme 28 
 
 
 G/AG/R/57 
Page 12  
 
  Annex 1 
 
Summary of points raised with respect to notifications
 
  I. IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTAS (TABLE MA:2) 
A. C
OLOMBIA - G/AG/N/COL/37 
1. Question by Canada - The tariff quota for fresh or chille d beef  "Carne de bovino fresca 
0201" has been consistently underfilled in 2005, 2006  and 2007, with an average fill rate of less 
than 1 per cent.  Can Colombia provide the reasons for this? 
For the period 2005-2007, Colombia had an average annual beef consumption of 
795,000 tonnes and for the same period the production average reached 830,000 tonnes.  The above situation clarifies that  Colombia is not only self-sufficient for 
meeting beef consumption needs, but at  the same time it generates surpluses for 
exports. This is the reason for the drop in demand for beef imports. 
 
B. E
UROPEAN COMMUNITIES - G/AG/N/EEC/62 
2. Questions by Canada  –  
(a) The US-specific pork tariff quota (TQ ID 17: " Cuts of domestic swine, fresh, 
chilled or frozen, with or without bone, excluding tenderloin " presented 
separately) was notified but the Canada-s pecific tariff quota for pork (TQ ID 21: 
"Boneless loins and hams of domestic swine, fresh, chilled or frozen " (0203)) was 
not.  What is the reason for this? 
The EC assumes that this question refers to the tariff quota "Order Numbers" 
as they appear in Annex 7 to the annual Commission Regulation amending Annex I to Council Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical 
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff.  The EC refers to the latest 
version of Annex 7, namely Regulati on 948/2009 as published in Official 
Journal L 287 of 31 October 2009.    Looking at the tariff quota list in Annex 7, the EC is under the impression that Canada has inverted the coverage of the two pork tariff quotas that it 
mentions.  Tariff Quota number 17 is not a US-specific tariff quota, but a 
tariff quota specifically for Canada, whereas Tariff Quota number 21 is a tariff quota allocated to the United States.
1   
 Assuming that Canada agrees with this reading, and that the reference was 
indeed to Tariff Quota number 17, the EC confirms that this tariff quota 
appears on page 72 of G/AG/N/EEC/62.  The tariff quota allocated to Canada is included in total tariff quota quantity of 10,159 tonnes under the tariff quota "Meat of swine – cuts of domestic swin e, fresh, chilled or frozen, with or 
without bone, excluding tenderloin presented alone ". 
 
                                                     
 
1 Official Journal L 287, page 858 also refers.  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 13 
 
 
  (b) Can the European Communities provide clarification as to why the following 
tariff quotas were notified in the Table MA:2 but were not included in the EC 
customs tariff schedule? 
Description Final quantity 
(tonnes) 
Broken rice 100,000 
Manioc starch 8,000 
Manioc starch 2,000 
'High quality' meat of bovine animal s, fresh, chilled or frozen 37,950 
Boneless 'high quality' meat, fresh or ch illed, answering the fo llowing definition: 
Special or good-quality beef cuts obtained from exclusively pasture-grazed animals, aged between 22 and 24 months, having tw o permanent incisors and presenting a 
slaughter 11,000 
Boneless 'high quality' meat, fresh, chilled or frozen, answering the following 
definition : Beef cuts obtained from steers (novilhos) or heifers (novilhas) aged between 20 and 24 months, which have been  exclusively pasture grazed, have lost 
their central 5,000 
Boneless 'high quality' meat, fresh, chilled or frozen, answering the following 
definition : Special or good-quality beef cuts obtained from exclusively pasture-
grazed animals presenting a slaughter liveweight not exceeding 460 kilograms, 
referred to as ' 4,000 
Semi-milled or wholly milled rice 63,000 
Semi-milled or wholly milled rice 13,500 
Semi-milled or wholly milled rice (1006 30) 26,716 
 
Annex 7 to the annual Commission Re gulation amending Annex I to Council 
Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the 
Common Customs Tariff is an indicative non-exhaustive list reflecting regulations concerning the internal management of the tariff quotas.  Tariff 
quotas notified in the Table MA:2 are not  necessarily included in the list of 
Annex 7.   
3. Questions by New Zealand - A number of chees e tariff quotas (listed below) have very 
low tariff quota fill rates.  These ta riff quotas also have high in-quo ta tariff rates, in some cases 
over €1,000 per 1,000 kg/net, which appears to act as a significant barrier to trade.  Could the 
EC explain why the tariff quotas listed below h ave had very low tariff fill rates over a number 
of years and indicate any efforts it has made to improve fill rates?   G/AG/R/57 
Page 14  
 
  Cheese and curd
:  Average fill rate (2003-2008), per cent  
 
Emmental, including processed emmental 0 
Gruyere, sbrinz, including processed gruyere 2 Other cheese 29 
 
As a general rule, unless otherwise mentione d, there is sufficient offer at attractive 
prices on the internal market for the products  concerned.  Other factors contributing to 
the low fill rates are as follows:  before  2003 some of the  imports under the above-
mentioned tariff quotas originated in the 10 countries which have joined the EC in 
2004;  Emmental, Gruyere and Sbrinz used to be imported from Switzerland.  From 
2007 onwards, imports from Switzerland take  place under the terms of a free trade 
agreement after Switzerland had already benefited from preferential rates for some 
time. 
 
4. Follow-up comments:  Argentina indicated that it would study the EC notification and might 
come up with questions in future. South Africa poi nted out that it had some questions on tariff quota 
fill rates which it was not able to raise in the presen t meeting for lack of sufficient time.  South Africa 
would study EC's current responses in detail, but re served the right to raise additional questions in 
future meetings as appropriate. 
II. DOMESTIC SUPPORT (TABLE DS:1) 
A. C
OSTA RICA - G/AG/N/CRI/24 
5. The United States reiterated the question posed at the previous meeting.2 
The authorities are still working on the prepara tion of a reply to this issue.  Costa Rica 
undertook to provide a detailed response at the earliest opportunity.   
 
6. Canada flagged its interest in this matter a nd recalled a similar question it posed during the 
September meeting.  
 
B. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC - G/AG/N/DOM/18 
7. Question by United States - Could the Dominican Republic further elaborate on 
expenditures for each measu re found under (a) General services in Supporting Table DS:1? 
The authorities are still working on the prep aration of a reply.  The Dominican 
Republic undertook to supply a detailed response in due course.    
C. I
SRAEL - G/AG/N/ISR/42 
8. Questions by the EC - Comparing Green Box support for the years 2005 and 2006 the 
EC notes important reductions in support no tably for "Decoupled income measures" and 
"Regional Assistance Programmes". 
(a) Could Israel explain the reaso ns for those reductions? 
                                                      
2 G/AG/R/56, page 20 refers.  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 15 
 
 
  The reductions in the decoupled income support measures  are due to an error 
which occurred during the preparation of this notification.  The correct amount should be 7.17 million dollars.    The reason for the reduction in the su pport for regional assistance programme
 
lies in a series of changes that took pl ace in the allocation of the government 
budget to the agricultural sector.  It seems that from 2006 onwards, parts of the budget for this programme went through other government agencies.  However, the criteria and eligibility for this measure remain unchanged.  An 
addendum to that end will be sent soon to reflect these changes.  
(b) Did payment of the decoupled "Galilee s ubstitute payments" in 2005 require the 
status of poultry producer during that year ?  If so, could Israel elaborate on the 
compatibility of this condition with para 6 (e) of Annex 2?  Do the "Galilee Law Deficiency payments" notified in S upporting Table DS:6 concern the same 
producer group? 
Israel had earlier submitted a Table DS:2 notification
3 which described the 
measure in detail.  The payments under the programme are based on the historical quota given under the Galilee law to poultry producers.  More specifically, decoupled payments in 2005 did not require the status of poultry producer during that year as indicated in the aforementioned notification.  
(c) Could Israel elaborate on how the "Rural Department Agreement" and "New 
settlement Infrastructure" programmes noti fied as regional assistance meet the 
criteria of para 13(a) of Annex 2? 
The Rural Department Agreement progr amme was originally conceived to 
assist Kibbutzims, which are cooperatives or communal farming settlements, 
to overcome an economic crisis which o ccurred in the mid 1980s.  Most of the 
Kibbutzims that are included in this programme are located in disadvantaged areas.  For specific Kibbutzims that do not meet the requirement of being located in a disadvantaged area, if ne cessary, Israel will consider providing 
support under more appropriate Annex 2 criteria such as decoupled income 
support.  However, the programme is about to end soon.   
 The New Settlement Infrastructure pr ogramme was designed to assist new 
settlements in specific remote regions and along the Israeli border.  The programme targets settlements in disa dvantaged areas such as the Jordan 
valley, or the Golan Heights.  These areas have unique climatic and 
topographic conditions and have very specific economic and administrative 
identities.  
(d) Has Israel considered notification of the "Clean Arava Project" under para 12 
of Annex 2? 
Israel will consider EC's comments.  The "Clean Arava Project" is a unique 
programme which takes place in the Arava region, part of the Israeli desert.  The programme involves the use of very "green and environmentally friendly" 
technologies to produce fruits and vegeta bles in this arid land (using among 
other things, sterilized fruit flies to control the reproduction of this pest).   
                                                     
 
3 G/AG/N/ISR/17 refers. G/AG/R/57 
Page 16  
 
   
(e) Could Israel explain the content of the "Harod stream" pilot project? 
The objective of the "Harod stream" pilot project is to develop a specific 
technology to enable the flow of water u sed in aquaculture to the nearby rivers 
and streams.  The project is being carried out by the Ministry of Environment 
and the Ministry of Agriculture to help the rehabilitation of rivers in Israel.  
Currently, the objective is to build an ecological model farm using the results 
from the pilot project.  Israel will be willing to provide more comprehensive information, if  considered necessary by the EC.  
 
D. J
ORDAN - G/AG/N/JOR/10  AND JOR/11 
9. Questions by Canada - G/AG/N/JOR/11 show s a very large increase in expenditures for 
research and infrastructural services between 2005 a nd 2006.  Is this increase a modification of 
existing services or is it a new measure?  Has Jordan considered submitting a Table DS:2 
notification to show how this expenditure meets the criteria of paragraphs 2(a) and 2(g) of 
Annex 2? 
The capital authorities are still working on this  issue.  Jordan undertook to provide a 
response in due course.   
10. Questions by United States -  Under Support ing Table DS:5 for both 2006 and 2007, 
USDA's production data indicate that Jordan’s production for wheat and barley was higher 
than what is reported in these tables, which would suggest that total market price support may 
also be higher.  The calculation of total market price support should be based on the quantity of 
production eligible to receive price support.  Co uld Jordan confirm the quantity of production 
eligible to receive price support during the notified time period? 
Same response as in paragraph 9 above. 
E. NORWAY - G/AG/N/NOR/51 
11. Questions by Australia:  
(a) With the aim of verifying Norway's de minimis  values, can Norway provide the 
source document for its value of production data, along with the relevant data?   
The source of the values is the Norw egian Agricultural Economics Research 
Institute, Totalkalkylen for landbruket (an annual total account for agriculture).  The relevant values are as follows:  
 
 2005: 22,815 million NKr  2006: 23,071 million NKr  2007: 24,251 million NKr  
Norway understands that the submitted values of production as represented in 
the notifications and in the Secretaria t's document TN/AG/S/21 will be subject 
to review under the Committee on Agricultu re Special Session later this year.  
Norway looks forward to answering a ny question that Members may have on 
value of production figures during that session. 
  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (b) In respect of its Green Box subsidies for "public stockholding for food security 
purposes" as set out in paragraph 3 of Annex 2, could Norway provide: 
(i)  the "national legislation" that identifies its food security programme; 
 
The legislation regarding security stocks of flour for human consumption is laid down in the annual Proposition no. 1 to the " Storting " (annual 
budgets).  The legislation regarding storage of meadow seed is laid down in the Regulation on Seed Production etc. including meadow seed, as well as the annual Proposition no. 1 to the Storting (annual budgets).  Both 
legislations are adopted by the Storting (Parliament).  
 (ii) its "predetermined targets related  solely to food security" for the 
"volume and accumulation of" stocks;  
Norway confirms that the aim of the measures is food security.  
(iii)  evidence that food purchases a re "made at current market prices";  
and that "sales from food security stocks" are "made at no less than the current domestic market price for th e product and quality in question; 
 
The stocking of flour for human c onsumption is based on an agreement 
between the Norwegian Agricultural Authority and private milling 
enterprises.  The enterprises have co mmitted themselves to keeping stocks 
in addition to the volumes needed for their own operation.  The security stocks shall be equivalent to 20 days demand for bakeries in the 
northernmost part of the country (Ofo ten/Vestfjorden and north wards).  
The stock is owned by the milling enterprises which buy and sell the 
products on commercial terms.  The notified amount is compensation for 
costs related to the stockholding.  Cultivation and stock-keeping of meadow seed are subsidized by the governments in order to ensure long -term availability of varieties of 
seeds, which are adapted to the climatic  conditions in Norway.  Trading is 
made on commercial terms in competition with imported seeds.  
 
(c) In respect of the deduction of "taxes on pesticides" from its total non-product-
specific AMS, can Norway explain:  
(i)  the WTO legal basis for this deduction? 
 
Paragraph 4 of Annex 3 to the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
(ii) if the deduction is pursuant to paragraph 4 of Annex 3 to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, how is a tax on pesticides a "[levy] or [fee] paid 
by producers"? 
 
Norway confirms that the measure in question constitutes a levy or fee 
paid by producers.  It is furthermore a levy or fee that is specific to agricultural producers. 
 G/AG/R/57 
Page 18  
 
  (iii) if the deduction is pursuant to paragraph 4 of Annex 3, what do the 
producers receive in return for the payment of this levy/ fee? 
 
The producers are thereby author ized to utilize pesticides.  
 (iv)  the legislative basis for the "taxes on pesticides";  
The legislative basis for the tax es on pesticides is laid down in 
Regulations relating to pesticides issued by the Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Food on 26 July 2004 and the Food Act relating to food 
production and food safety. 
 
(v)  what kinds of pesticides are the taxes levied on? 
 
The taxes are levied on all pesticides  defined as agricultural pesticides 
(plant protection products), with  the exception of macro-biological 
preparations, adhesive agents and other adjuvants. 
 
(vi)  how are the taxes calculated (e.g. by volume, by price)? 
The tax system is area-based and differentiated by the product's health 
and environmental properties, and the individual tax is calculated per litre 
or kilogram of product. 
 
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food sets a standard area fee.  Each product is placed in one of seven ta x classes based on their health and 
environmental properties.  The taxes payable for individual products are 
calculated by multiplying the standard area fee by a factor for the given 
tax class for each product.  A standard area dose is then used to calculate 
the tax per litre or kilogram of pr oduct.  The standard area dose is 
calculated for each individual produc t based on the highest permissible 
dose with reference to its dominant use or application.   
12. Follow-up comments:  Australia also encourag ed Members to include the total value of 
production data in their domestic support notificati ons so as to enable reviewing Members to assess 
the de minimis  claims.  On the Norwegian practice of de ducting taxes on pesticides, Australia referred 
to Norway's Table DS:1 notification for 2002-2004
4 where such a practice had resulted in a negative 
total non-product-specific AMS figure, which in turn  was deducted in the calculation of the Current 
Total AMS.  Australia noted that it would study the Norwegian response in the light of the above 
practice and might pose follow-up questions.   
13. Questions by the EC - In Supporting Table DS:1, the EC notes for the year 2005 the 
introduction of a "National environmental progr am" with a support amount of 3.2 billion Nkr 
in parallel with the elimination from Supportin g Table DS:3 of the "Acreage and Cultural 
Landscape Scheme", notified up to and including 2004 as compliant with Article 6.5(a)(i) in the Blue Box with an amount of around 3 billion Nkr.  
(a) Was the "Acreage and Cultural Landscape Scheme" ended in 2004?  Is the 
disappearance of this programme in any w ay related to the introduction of the 
"National environmental program" in 2005?  
                                                     
 
4 G/AG/N/NOR/47 dated 22 February 2008 refers.  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 19 
 
 
  The funds from the Acreage and Cultura l Landscape Scheme were transferred 
to the National Environment Programme, where they have been made subject 
to the objectives, criteria and relevant potential sanctions of this programme.  
The relation between the removal of  the Acreage and Cultural Landscape 
payments from the Blue Box and the introduction of a “National 
Environmental Programme is that a s ubstantial share of direct payments 
underwent reform in this year, and have been made contingent on participation 
in, and fulfilment of the requireme nts of, the "National Environmental 
Programme".  
(b) Can Norway confirm that the paymen ts under the "National environmental 
program" comply with the condition of para 12 of Annex 2 that "the amount of 
payment shall be limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with the government programme"?  
The payments under the "National envi ronmental programme" comply with 
paragraph 12 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Eligibility for the 
payments is determined as part of a clearly-defined government environmental 
programme and is dependent on the fulf ilment of specific conditions under the 
government programme.  The economic measures under the environmental 
programmes shall cover the additional cost s linked to the participation in the 
programme through the maintenance of  the agricultural landscape and other 
environmental requirements, and represent a payment for the production of 
environmental goods. 
(c) Will Norway introduce a Table DS:2 notification for the "National 
environmental program"? 
Norway confirms that a Table DS:2 no tification on the relevant measures has 
been submitted on 18 November 2009.
5  Reference is made to this notification 
for supplementary information. 
F. SOUTH AFRICA - G/AG/N/ZAF/71 
(a) Payments for relief from natural disasters  
14. Question by the EC:  Though not notified as a heading that is generating expenditure 
during 2006, South Africa mentions "(ix) co-o rdinated refunding of unmanageable debt" that 
farmers can receive support in case of "drought  and economic downturns".  Does an economic 
downturn suffice as such to make  farmers eligible for support under this heading or does there 
also need to be the simultaneous occurrence of a natural disaster to trigger the support?   
There needs to be a combination of factors be yond the control of individual producers, 
including the occurrence of a natural disaster. 
(b) Regional assistance  
15. Question by the EC - South Africa noti fies 1,473 million Rand under "Development 
aid".  How are the underdeveloped and disad vantaged areas mentioned under this heading 
defined?  Estimation of the area concerne d in relation to the total agricultural area? 
                                                      
5 Subsequently circulated as G/AG/N/NOR/55 dated 4 December 2009 G/AG/R/57 
Page 20  
 
  16. Question by the United States - South Africa provides assistance to producers in 
underdeveloped and disadvantaged areas to enco urage agricultural and rural development as 
an integral part of the development programme.  What are the nature and scope of this programme, including eligibility requirements a nd methodology and criteria used to calculate 
payments? 
The areas involved are the former "homel and" areas that ar e characterized by 
underdevelopment and subsistence farming.  No accurate figure of the area involved is 
available.  Beneficiaries of the various land reform projects also benefit from these programs.  Programmes under this heading are targeted at resource poor and subsistence producers with the objective to facilitate production.  Assistance includes 
the facilitation of access to finance and support the procurement of inputs such as seed 
and fertilizer.  The improvement of food security is also and important objective of the programmes under this heading.  Commercial producers do not benefit from these programmes.  
G. C
HINESE TAIPEI - G/AG/N/TPKM/68 
17. Questions by the EC -  
(a) What is the allocation of the loans for the relief of natural disasters for which an 
interest subsidy of 72.67 million NT$ is paid? How is it ensured that the payments do not exceed the cost of losses incurred? 
The interest subsidy on the loans for th e relief of natural disasters was paid for 
those farmers who suffered from agricultur al losses caused by the disaster and 
whose farms were located within the disaster area.  Following the disaster, 
eligible farmer victims can apply for low interest loans based on their actual 
losses in order to rebuild their farms.  The government should examine 
farmers' actual losses to ensure that th e interest subsidies do not exceed the 
losses of the farmers, and the agriculture -oriented financial institutions should 
administer low interest loans in accordance with government regulations. 
Follow-up comments:  The EC wondered wh ether interest was calculated on 
the losses that actually occurred.  Chin ese Taipei confirmed that the total 
subsidy did not exceed the losses. 
(b) Under Regional Assistance, Chinese Taipei mentions programmes for 
"disadvantaged farms".  Are these farms situated in disadvantaged regions as 
stipulated in para 13(a) of Annex 2? 
The payments under regional assistance programmes are for producers in 
disadvantaged regions only, i.e. offshore islands, in accordance with 
paragraph 13(a) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(c) In Supporting Table DS:1 should not little (g) read "resource retirement" 
instead of "producer retirement"? 
Chinese Taipei concurred with the EC.  A corrigendum was issued.
6 
                                                      
6 See G/AG/N/TPKM/68/Corr.1 dated 11 January 2010.  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 21 
 
 
  18. Questions by United States - Under Supporting Table DS:1 (j) environmental 
programmes, could Chinese Taipei describe any limit ations specified regarding the use of green 
manure crops? 
"The Adjustment of Paddy and Upland Crop Program" is aimed at assisting farmers in 
growing those green manure crops which were recommended by the Government to 
increase soil organic matter content and soil fer tility, and to conserve the environment.  
This measure is in accordance with A nnex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
H. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO - G/AG/N/TTO/12 
19. Questions by Canada - For the first time, there is an entry for the "Cocoa and Coffee 
Industry Board" claimed as "marketing and pr omotion services" in Ge neral services.  This 
requires the submission of a Table DS:2 notifica tion to show how the newly-notified measure 
meets the criteria of Annex 2, i.e., in this case the criteria in paragraphs 1 and 2(f) of Annex 2.  This Board seems to engage also in other activi ties than marketing and promotion services, such 
as administering a guaranteed price scheme for cocoa and coffee, as well as offering loan 
guarantees and providing cocoa plants to the industry.
7  On what grounds is this measure 
claimed as meeting the Green Box criteria? 
Relevant officials in the capital are still revi ewing the questions.  Trinidad and Tobago 
undertook to supply a written response.   
 
20. Questions by United States - In Supportin g Table DS:1, under (iii) infrastructural 
services, could Trinidad and Tobago explain how capital expenditures for establishing a 
packing house facility for fresh produce meet s the criteria under Annex 2, paragraph 2(g)? 
 A reply will be provided in due course.  
III. NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2) 
A. AUSTRALIA - G/AG/N/AUS/74 
21. Questions by the EC – Under the "Special Disaster Flood Assistance Scheme", Australia 
mentions that the grants given under this scheme "assist in meeting the needs of primary producers and small businesses".  Could Aust ralia elaborate on what specific needs are 
concerned? 
The Special Disaster Flood Assistance Scheme provided compensation (in the form of 
non-repayable grants) to eligible primar y producers and small businesses who suffered 
loss and direct damage as a result of monsoonal flooding.   
 Compensation was only paid following the monsoonal flooding and only for the following flood recovery activities:  purchasing, hiring or leasing plant, equipment or materials (i) to clean premises or a property;  or (ii) that is essential to the immediate 
resumption of farming or other business ac tivities; clearing or disposing of debris, 
damaged goods or injured or dead livestock;  repairing buildings other than houses, 
and repairing or replacing fencing on a prope rty; repairing or reconditioning essential 
plant or equipment;  leasing temporary prem ises for the purpose of resuming trading;  
engaging a person (i) to conduct a safety inspection of premises;  or (ii) to check the 
                                                     
 
7 www.agriculture.gov.tt/applicationloa der.asp?app=articles&id=1102, and  
www.agriculture.gov.tt/documentlibrary/downloads/79/ccib%20web%20site%20info.pdf   G/AG/R/57 
Page 22  
 
  health of livestock or poultry;  purchasing fodder or saving crops or feed for stock;  
paying wages to an employee of the entity, if the payment is more than the wages ordinarily paid to the employee (to cover, for example, extraordinary hours an employee may have worked during flood recovery efforts). 
 
Primary production enterprises which did not incur clean-up, removal of debris or 
restoration costs but did suffer a loss of income as a result of the monsoonal flooding 
were not eligible for assistance. 
IV. EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1 TO ES:3) 
A. E
UROPEAN COMMUNITIES - G/AG/N/EEC/55/R EV.1, EEC/57/R EV.1 AND EEC/61 
22. Australia noted that for the marketing years 2006/2007 and 2007/2008, the EC had 
applied unilaterally-determined annual commitmen t levels with respect to Part IV of its 
Schedule for the EC-25 and EC-27.  A footnote to Table ES:1 of EEC/57/Rev.1 also stated, erroneously, that annual commitment levels for the EC's export subsidy budgetary outlay and 
quantity reduction commitments were "EC-25 commitment levels following Article XXIV:6 
negotiations for the EU enlargement of 2004."   Australia has noted at previous meetings
8, that 
the Article XXIV:6 mechanism does not apply to Part IV of a Member's Schedule . 
23. The EC's decision to start applying unilatera lly determined modifications to its Part IV 
commitment levels prior to a multilateral verifi cation process is contrary to advice the EC 
provided to the Committee on Agriculture and th e Committee of Regional Trade Agreements in 
2005 and 2006 that it would continue to apply Schedule CXL to the EC-25 and EC-27.9  
Australia recalled that it had not agreed to any of the proposed changes, nor had these changes 
been submitted to a multilateral verification process.  Australia had not agreed either to the 
proposed approach that the EC provided at the December 2008 meeting. 
24. Australia looked forward to further engageme nt with the EC in relation to proposed 
changes to Part IV of the EC Schedule as a result of enlargement to EC-25 and EC-27.  
However, until the multilateral verification pr ocess for the new EC-25 and EC-27 Schedules was 
completed, Australia questionned the appropriateness  of providing notifications on the basis of 
EC-25 and EC-27.  Australia also noted that wh ile reported volumes of export subsidized sugar 
in 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 (1,359.6 thousand and 1,336.9 thousand tonnes, respectively) appeared to be within the EC's unilaterally  determined commitment levels for EC-25 and 
EC-27, these volumes of export subsidized sugar  appeared to have exceeded the commitment 
levels contained in Part IV of Schedule CXL (i.e. 1,274.4 thousand tonnes). 
25. Questions by Australia:  In line with previous advice by the EC in 2005, 2006 and 2007, 
does the EC intend to continue to apply Schedule CXL to the EC-25 and EC-27 until multilateral verification of the new schedules fo r EC-25 and EC-27 has taken place? What steps 
is the EC taking to finalize the multilateral v erification process for EC-25 and EC-27, and in 
what timeframe does it anticipate completing this process? 
As reflected in the notifications G/SE CRET/20 (2004) and G/SECRET/26 (2006), the 
commitments in the schedules of the count ries which have acceded to the European 
Communities, have been withdrawn and re placed by the Schedule of the European 
Communities, which entails the EC-15 CXL Schedule. While the EC-15 CXL Schedule has not yet been certified, the EC intends to continue to apply it to the EC-25 
                                                     
 
8 For example, G/AG/R/54, Annex 5, paragraph 47-50. 
9 For example, G/AG/R/44, paragraph 3  and G/AG/R/47, paragraph 16.  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 23 
 
 
  and EC-27, including the tariff rate  quota commitments negotiated under GATT 
Article XXIV.6. 
 
The majority of the tariff rate quota commitments negotiated following the EC-25 
enlargement have been implemented as from July 2006.  As from the same time, the 
EC has been applying the annual commitmen t levels, resulting from the netting-out of 
export subsidy commitments and the aggreg ation of domestic support commitments of 
the countries which acceded in 2004, with respect to Part IV of its Schedule. 
 
The new EC-25 agricultural schedule on agri cultural subsidies does not result in an 
overall increase in the level of agricultural subsidies set out as commitments.  By 
netting out the export subsidies the EC-25 commitment level has decreased and the 
EC has not introduced any new export subsidy product groups.  Once the EC-15 CXL Schedule has been certified, the EC will move on to notifying the EC-25 and the 
EC-27 Schedules to the WTO, as require d under the relevant WTO agreements. 
 
26. Australia hoped to work closely with the EC dur ing the next few months to make progress on 
this matter keeping in view the fact, that under the DDA, the EC would schedule its commitments at 
EC-27 level.  Argentina requested the EC to pr ovide supporting calculations to explain the EC-25 
export subsidy commitment levels included in the document circulated to Members at the 53
rd Session 
of the Committee.  Considering that the informati on would also be relevant for the discussions being 
carried out in the agriculture nego tiations, Argentina urged the EC to transmit this information to the 
Special Session as well.  New Zealand and United States expressed interest in the matter.  Referring to Australian comments, the EC considered that go od cooperation would be important for a quick 
certification of the EC-15 Schedule.  The EC woul d reflect on the request from Argentina concerning 
the netting out of export subsidy commitments. 
27. Questions by Canada: Could the EC clarif y for which products tenders on export 
refunds are currently open and for which products  export refund rates are not currently set at 
zero? 
Invitations to tender for export refunds ar e open for certain milk products.  For the 
following products the export refunds are not currently set at zero: butter and butter oil, beef meat, pig meat, poultry meat and eggs and the corresponding incorporated 
products. 
 
B. P
AKISTAN - G/AG/N/PAK/11 
28. Questions by Australia: Australia welcomed the steps Pakistan has undertaken to bring 
its notifications up to date, and encouraged oth er Members to do the same.  Recalling the terms 
of Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agricultu re, Australia noted that Pakistan provided a 
subsidy on freight paid to exporters on export co nsignments of fresh fruit and fresh vegetables 
in 2006/2007 while Part IV of Pakistan's sche dule included no commitments relating to such 
export subsidies.  In Australia's view, the implem entation period referred to in Article 9.4 ended 
in 2005, and further, Pakistan had not scheduled any export subsidy commitments in Part IV of 
its Schedule.  In this context, Australia asked Pakistan to clarify the basis on which it had 
provided a subsidy on freight paid to exporters on  export consignments of fresh fruit and fresh 
vegetables in 2006/2007.  
Pakistan suspended the provision of export subsidy after the fiscal year 2005/06.  The 
export subsidy paid to the exporters duri ng the year 2006/07 was based on the claims 
submitted by them during the year 2005/06. 
 G/AG/R/57 
Page 24  
 
  Annex 2 
Notifications subject to review in respect  of which no questions have been raised
 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
  
(i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) 
- El Salvador G/AG/N/SLV/32 
  
(ii) imports under tariff and other quot a commitments (Table MA:2):   
- Bulgaria G/AG/N/BGR/13 
- Croatia G/AG/N/HRV/9 
- Czech Republic G/AG/N/CZE/56 - El Salvador G/AG/N/SLV/33 - Lithuania G/AG/N/LTU/4 - Norway G/AG/N/NOR/53 
 
 (iii) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):   
- Colombia G/AG/N/COL/38  
- Japan G/AG/N/JPN/151 - Thailand G/AG/N/THA/68 
 
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  
- Albania G/AG/N/ALB/4 
- New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/59  - Paraguay G/AG/N/PRY/16 
 
(v) new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction  
(Table DS:2) 
 - New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/61 
 
(vi) in the context of export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): 
- Albania G/AG/N/ALB/3 
- Argentina G/AG/N/ARG/28 
- Croatia G/AG/N/HRV/8 - Czech Republic G/AG/N/CZE/55 - Indonesia G/AG/N/IDN/13/Add.1 - Indonesia G/AG/N/IDN/15/Add.1 
- Jordan G/AG/N/JOR/12 
- Lithuania G/AG/N/LTU/3 - Malawi G/AG/N/MWI/3 - Norway G/AG/N/NOR/52 - Paraguay G/AG/N/PRY/15 - Thailand G/AG/N/THA/69 
  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 25 
 
 
  Annex 3 
Deferred replies by the EC (G/AG/N/MLT/10) to questions raised by                                           
Australia and the United States  
  
1. Question by Australia - Can Malta provide more information on the Green Box measure 
(i) "structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids" in 2001-2003? 
The support schemes notified were applied in an ticipation of the support schemes that Malta 
applies since its accession to the European Un ion.  Having the characteristics of the 
programmes currently applicable under the EC 's Common Agricultural Policy they complied 
with the relevant criteria of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.   
2. Question by the United States - Could the EC/Malta provide more detailed information 
about the measure "direct payments to producers"  and how it meets the criteria of Annex 2, 
paragraph 6 for decoupled income support? 
The EC's decoupled support was notified in notification G/AG/N/EEC/58.  A Table 
DS:2 notification giving details on the EC's  structural adjustment assistance for the 
period 2007-2013 will be made available to the Committee together with the annual 
domestic support notification 2006/07 shortly. 
    
  G/AG/R/57 
Page 26 Annex 4 
 
Additional questions1 on notifications raised by Australia  
under agenda item 2.B(vii) "overdue notifications"  
 
Responding Members Question by Australia Responses supplied 
Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela G/AG/GEN/86 indicates that Venezuela has outstanding Table MA:2, MA:5, DS:1, ES:1 
and ES:2 notifications (the last notification was submitted in April 2003).   
Could Venezuela indicate when it intends to submit its outstanding notifications?   The questions were being examined by the relevant 
authorities and once the examination was concluded, 
outstanding notification obligations would be complied 
with. Venezuela also referred to the technical difficulties, 
for example in collecting data, given a high attrition rate 
among government officials.  
China G/AG/GEN/86 indicates that China has outs tanding Table DS:1 notifications for the 
period 2002-2008.   
Could China indicate when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications?   Noting that the preparations for the outstanding 
notification were coming to a close, China stated that it 
would attempt to submit them as soon as possible.  
However, China could not give exact time for its submission.  
Egypt G/AG/GEN/86 indicates that Egypt has outstanding domestic support and export 
subsidies notifications for the period 1999-2008 (Egypt's last notification was submitted 
in May 1999).   
Could Egypt indicate when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications?   The matter was still under consideration in capital.  
India India has not submitted a notification since June 2002.  Since the 52nd regular meeting of 
the Committee, Australia has consistently as ked India when Members could expect India 
to comply with its notification obligations.  When responding, India has indicated that the process of gathering information in prep aration for compliance with its notification 
obligations was underway, and as soon as this process was completed, India would 
circulate the notifications among the Members.   
Could India provide Members with an update on progress of gathering information to 
prepare its agriculture notifications?  Could India provide an indicative time when it 
intends to submit these outstanding notifications?   India was already in the process of making its agriculture 
notifications up to date.  The process was on track and 
India hoped to submit its notifications shortly to the Secretariat. 
Israel G/AG/GEN/86 indicates that Israel has outstanding Table MA:2, MA:5, DS:1, ES:1 and 
ES:2 notifications.   
Could Israel indicate when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications?   Tables MA:2 and MA:5 for the years 2005-2008 had 
been prepared and would be available very soon.  Table 
DS:1 notification for years 2007-2008 was under preparation and would be available soon.  Outstanding 
Tables ES:1 and ES:2 notifications would also be made 
available.  Export subsidies, if at all allocated, were very limited in scope and well below Israel's commitment 
levels.  
   G/AG/R/57
 Page 27Responding Members Question by Australia Responses supplied 
Korea G/AG/GEN/86 indicates that Korea has outstanding Table MA:5, DS:1 and ES:1 
notifications.   
Could Korea indicate when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications?   Korea was making its utmost  efforts to meet its 
notification obligations in a timely manner and hoped to 
submit notifications at an early date. 
Turkey G/AG/GEN/86 indicates that Turkey has outstanding Table DS:1, ES:1 and ES:2 
notifications (Turkey's last notification was submitted in May 2002).   
Could Turkey indicate when it intends to submit its outstanding notifications?   Turkey was aware of the need to comply with its 
notification obligations.  Clarifying that its domestic 
support and export subsidy notifications had been 
delayed due to ongoing agriculture reforms, Turkey noted that the notifications would be submitted once the 
internal study in order to completing the agriculture 
notifications was over. 
 
1In addition, Australia requested that as a "best practice", responses be provided in writing.G/AG/R/57 
Page 28  
 
  Annex 5 
 
REVISED WORK PROGRAMME1 
 
Possible action by the Committee on Agriculture Suggested timelines 
Issue as WTO documents: 
- questions posed by Members before  the date of the Committee's formal 
sessions:  these are currently made available as room documents  during 
the meetings and are also posted on Members' password-protected web site. 
- written responses supplied by Members after  the Committee's formal 
sessions: these are currently made available on Members' password-protected web site, if and when received by the Secretariat. 
Options to consider:
 
(i)   maintain the current practice (ii)  circulate as unrestricted WTO documents (iii) circulate as restricted WTO documents in accordance with 
General Council Decision (WT/L/452, i.e. they would be 
automatically derestricted 60 days af ter the date of circulation, unless 
requested otherwise by a Member).   
 
 
  
 
  
19 November 2009  
Make publicly available any notification -related datasets currently maintained 
by the AGCD on an internal basis   
Datasets on information notified by Me mbers by way of Table MA:2, MA:5, 
DS:1 and ES:1 notifications have been posted on Members' password-
protected web site.  19 November 2009 
Open-ended consultations on " best practices " 
Written contributions circulated in document G/AG/W/73 (15 October 2009)    19 November  2009 
                                                      
 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 and obligations under the WTO.  See paragraph 56 of G/AG/R/56 
for details.  G/AG/R/57 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Possible action by the Secretariat Suggested timelines 
A.  Technical assistance and training 
Geneva-based Workshop on Agricultu re Notifications, 22-24 September 2009   
Report by the Secretariat (under preparation) Forthcoming 
Revising the ITTC Notifications Handbook End-2009/Early-2010 
E-learning:  develop a self-training module on agriculture notifications End of March 2010 
E-learning: develop an e-training module, incorporating user support features Long-term 
B.  Data requirements 
Database on questions/answe rs supplied by Members since 1995 in the context 
of the Review Process  IT Business case 
Online submission of notifications by Members to the CRN  IT Business case 
 
 
__________