RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/R/60 
19 January 2011 
 (11-0327) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEET ING HELD ON 18 NOVEMBER 2010 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its sixtie th regular meeting on 18 November 2010 under 
the Chairmanship of Ms. Valeria Csukasi of Uruguay. 
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/ AIR/3659 was adopted with:  (i) the addition of 
two statements under item I.B by Brazil and by Aust ralia on behalf of the G-20 and the Cairns Group, 
respectively;  and (ii) the withdrawal of questions  addressed to the European Union (EU) with respect 
to G/AG/N/EEC/63, which had been ina dvertently inserted in the airgram. 
3. The Chairperson recalled the Committee's Working Procedures
2 which, inter alia , require that 
questions be transmitted to both the Secretariat and the concerned Members within the prescribed 
timelines in order to be included and proper ly annotated in the convening airgram. 
I. THE REVIEW PROCESS 
4. Pursuant to the Committee's decision in 20093, Section I of the present summary report should 
be read in conjunction with documents G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 and G/AG/W/80 which respectively 
compile all the questions and responses that were made  available to the Secretariat in writing.  Any 
follow-up comments to the concerns raised under the Review Process are reflected in Parts A and B 
below. 
A. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMEN TATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
5. New Zealand observed that, for lack of suffi ciently detailed and reassuring replies, it had 
reluctantly reiterated its concerns over Canada's da iry policies at the sixtieth regular meeting.  
New Zealand noted that Canada's response would be  examined in capital in order to reassess the 
trade-restricting potential of the cited programmes as well as their cumulative impact on trade in dairy 
products.  Canada re-iterated its view that the me asures referred to by New Zealand are consistent 
with its WTO rights and obligations. 
6. Australia, the EU and the United States shar ed the concerns expressed by New Zealand. 
                                                      
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 Paragraphs 8 and 10 of G/AG/1 refer. 
3 Paragraph 38(a) of G/AG/R/57 refers. G/AG/R/60 
Page 2  
 
  B. R
EVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram  
7. Since the 23 September regular session, 43 notif ications were circulated.  Annex 1 compiles 
those notifications in respect of which questions ha ve been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram. 
(i) Tariff rate quotas 
8. The United States indicated that it would contin ue to monitor the low fill rates achieved by 
Korea for certain dairy products, especially when  demand for imports at out-of-quota tariff rates 
appeared to exist. 
(ii) Special safeguard actions 
9. The Philippines undertook to supply a response at  a later stage to a question raised by 
Australia on the "cross-check" provision of Article 5.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture.4 
(iii) Domestic support 
10. The EU registered its interest in the i ssue of Brazil's debt rescheduling measures. 
11. Canada, the EU, India, Pakistan, Thailand, the United States and Uruguay voiced continued 
concerns in relation to Costa Rica's breach of domestic support commitments.  Costa Rica was urged 
to intensify the reform process and take the require d steps to remedy the situation.  India enquired 
whether the reported increase in the fixed producer prices5 had stimulated rice production;  whether 
the high-powered committee that had been set up to  examine the matter had formulated any interim 
recommendations;  and, if not, the expected timi ng for the issuance of any final recommendations.  
Both India and the United States wondered whether a decrease in rice support prices would be 
sufficient to achieve compliance.  Uruguay noted th at the breach had generated serious concerns of 
both a systemic and trade nature as trade in one of Ur uguay's vital item, i.e. rice, was directly affected.  
Hoping that the breach would not be recurring, Uruguay intended to closely monitor Costa Rica's reform process. 
12. Australia, Canada, the EU, the United States and Uruguay equally expressed concerns over 
Israel's breach of its AMS commitment.  The EU was appreciative of the explanations supplied and 
duly noted Israel's reference to the adverse imp acts caused by other Members' recourse to export 
restrictions.  Uruguay reiterated its  serious concerns both at a systemic and trade level and looked 
forward to the prompt implementation of reme dial measures.  Emphasizing the importance of 
compliance, both the EU and the United States welcomed Israel's reassurances that AMS 
commitments would be met in 2009.  Canada welcom ed Israel's offer to interested Members to 
discuss the issue bilaterally.  Australia flagged that  a response relating to a measure notified under the 
Green Box was outstanding.
 6 
 
                                                      
4 Paragraph 3(c) of G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 refers.  
5 See Costa Rica's response in September 2010 on page 19 of G/AG/W/78. 
6 Israel's response was subsequently included in paragraph 24 of G/AG/W/80.  G/AG/R/60 
 Page 3 
 
 
  13. Australia observed that the Trade Policy Review of Norway undertaken in 2008 had identified 
the need to include rye, oilseeds and goat milk in the calculation of the Current Total AMS.  In this 
connection, Australia wondered whether target pri ces for these products had been maintained prior to 
2008 and whether previously circulated domestic suppor t notifications would also need to be revised 
accordingly.  Norway replied that  inclusion of the three products  concerned in the notifications 
relating to previous repor ting periods would not have led to a breach in the Total AMS commitment.  
Moreover, these three products had been included in  the Table DS:1 notification as from the reporting 
year 2005.  While expressing concerns over the reported breach, Canada, the EU, Pakistan, the 
United States and Uruguay welcomed Norway's tr ansparency and the immediate steps taken to 
achieve compliance. 
14. Argentina, Brazil and the EU expressed con cerns on the United States' classification of 
expenditures in the range of US$6 billion as non-pr oduct-specific support, including with respect to 
crop and revenue insurance and countercyclical paym ents (CCPs).  Argentina reserved the right to 
come back to this matter with additional questions .  Brazil contended that, by persisting to classify 
CCPs as non-product-specific, the United States conti nued to be in breach of the Appellate Body 
decision in the Cotton  case.  Moreover, Brazil regretted the absence of any precise information on the 
exact amount of cotton-specific CCPs.  In view of the prevailing high corn and soybean prices, Brazil believed that producers holding cotton contracts were the largest beneficiaries under the CCP 
programme with subsidies to cotton production amountin g to an estimated US$2.1 billion.  In light of 
the Doha mandate on cotton, this was an important consideration. 
15. The EU took note of a detailed response provide d by Honduras on its Table DS:2 and flagged 
that it might revert to the issue of classification of measures under Article 6.2 at a later stage. 
16. Australia, on behalf of the Cairns Group of agri cultural exporting countries, and Brazil, on 
behalf of the G-20, expressed deep concerns a bout violations of subsidy commitments recently 
notified.  While appreciating the dedication to tran sparency demonstrated by notifying Members, both 
Groups viewed such violations as extremely worrying  developments, particularly at a time when, in 
the context of the Doha Round, Members were seeking to further reduce and discipline trade-
distorting domestic support and eliminate export subsidies by 2013.  In this sense, Members' 
adherence to existing commitments was a fundame ntal precursor to successfully concluding the 
Doha Round.  Continued breaches ne gatively impacted on domestic and world markets, distorted both 
the allocation of resources and consumption pattern s, and if not addressed, undermined the confidence 
in, and the credibility of, the rules-based trading sy stem.  Importantly, the situation raised crucial 
systemic questions regarding the Committee's role  in overseeing the implementation of commitments 
under the Agreement on Agriculture.  In this context,  Brazil highlighted the need for strengthening the 
Monitoring and Surveillance function of the Commi ttee as advocated by the Cairns and G-20 Groups 
in the DDA negotiations.  The concerned notifying Members were urged to provide thorough explanations for their actions and detailed accounts of the steps being taken to ensure that such 
scenarios were not repeated. 
17. The statements delivered by the G-20 and Ca irns Group were echoed by Argentina, Chile, 
China, Colombia, EU, India, Pakistan, the Philippi nes and the United States.  India cautioned against 
the development of a 'trend' of breaches by deve loped country Members, mainly because no legal 
counteracting mechanism or remedy was in place  under the WTO.  India also wondered whether 
Members' DDA subsidy schedules should be revised in case of breaches, in future.  Pakistan urged 
Members to consider the adverse impact of breaches  on the food security of LDCs and NFIDCs.  In 
Pakistan's view, the Review Process should send a clear signal to notifying Members' domestic 
constituencies in order to convey the importance of respecting WTO commitments.  The Philippines 
felt that the breaches could discourage the efforts undertaken by Members with no Total AMS commitments in reforming the domestic agricultura l sector.  The United States recalled that a frank 
and effective discussion on such breaches within the purview of the Committee was only made G/AG/R/60 
Page 4  
 
  possible because all four Members had actually notif ied the measures at issue.  Compliance with the 
established reporting procedures was of utmost importance.  Pointing to the Compliance Document
7, 
the United States urged all Members to fulfil their outstanding notification obligations. 
(iv) Export subsidies 
18. The United States pointed out that it had actually expected Korea to provide, in its response8, 
the HS tariff codes corresponding to the specifi c products receiving export subsidies.  The EU 
reiterated its disagreement with Sw itzerland over the interpretation of  Article 11 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
(v) Export restrictions and prohibitions 
19. While welcoming Ukraine's transparency in submitting a Table ER:1 notification, some 
Members expressed strong concerns.  Israel consid ered that, by failing to submit its notification 
sufficiently in advance, Ukraine had not met its oblig ations under specific provisions of its Protocol of 
Accession.  Both Israel and Japan cited the lack  of compliance with the timelines stipulated in 
Article 12.1 (b) of the Agreement on Agriculture, a nd regretted that the notification was not made 
before the institution of the measure.  Ukraine's failure to adhere to su ch timelines rendered the 
consultation procedures available under Article 12 in effectual since affected importing Members were 
denied access to them.  Japan also expressed a strong concern about the situation in recent years where a number of Members have implemented expor t prohibitions and restrictions without proper 
notification. 
20. Echoed by the EU and Israel, the United States stressed that, while such measures generally 
had adverse economic impacts, wh en applied on foodstuffs, they had serious impacts on the food 
security situation of net food-importing countries.  Being a net food-importer, Israel underlined the 
critical importance of an undisrupted supply of agricultural commodities and foodstuffs and pointed out that the delivery of shipments under contracts si gned before Ukraine's institution of the measure 
had also been adversely affected.  In this context,  Israel urged Ukraine to consider exempting such 
shipments from the application of the measure.  Japan emphasized its heavy dependence on imports 
for sourcing more than 60 per cent of the food re quirements of more than 100 million people.  In 
Japan's view therefore, responsible behaviour by ex porting countries was an important prerequisite to 
carry out further multilateral trade liberalization.  As such, export restricti ons and prohibitions were 
an important matter in the context of the Doha Round.  Switzerland supported all the interventions 
made by net food-importing countries. 
21. Israel, Japan and the United States sought fu rther clarification regarding the possible 
extension of the measure beyond 31 December 2010.   Citing a news report dated 17 November 2010, 
the United States expressed concerns  that Ukraine might decide to extend the export restriction until 
July 2011.  Israel believed that a decision to ex tend the measure until July 2011 had already been 
taken by Ukraine and that a proper notification to the Committee on Agriculture was effectively 
outstanding, which further deepened Israel's concerns.  Ukraine indicat ed that no official information 
had been received from capital as regards extensi on, but confirmed that no draft resolution to this 
effect was currently under consideration by th e Government.  In Ukraine's view, no specific 
notification requirements were currently in place to cover subsequent changes to existing measures.  
Ukraine undertook, however, to keep Members inform ed of any such changes in the best possible 
manner.  Ukraine expressed readiness to hold consul tations with interested Members upon request and 
referred to a possible recourse to Article  12.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
                                                     
 
7 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.4 refers. 
8 Paragraph 73 of G/AG/W/80 refers.  G/AG/R/60 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram  
22. The Committee took note of the notifications ci rculated in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram but in respect of which no ques tions had been raised by that date under the 
Committee's Working Procedures (Annex 2). 
23. Echoed by Argentina, Australia observed that only one EU member State had yet to submit a 
domestic support notification for the period 2001-2003.  Australia also recalled that the EU's proposed 
approach to reschedule its domestic support and export subsidy commitments following enlargement 
remained a pending matter.  A pre-condition for resolving that matter was the submission of all 
outstanding notifications by EU member States to the Committee. 
(c) Notifications circulated or made available after the date on which the notice convening the 
present meeting was issued  
24. The Committee took note of the notifications circ ulated after the issuance of the convening 
airgram (Annex 3).  These notifications will be reve rted to for substantive review at the March 2011 
meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working Procedures. 
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings  
25. 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.  Th ere was no discussion under this agenda item. 
(e) Counter-notifications  
26. 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  
27. The Chairperson recalled that WTO/AIR/3654 co ntained a reminder concerning outstanding 
responses to questions raised under the Review Process.  As agreed in March 1997, where a 
delegation undertook to provide detailed replies to questions raised under the Review Process, such 
deferred replies should be furnished, in writing, to  the delegation raising the matter normally within 
thirty days of the meeting concerned, with c opies being made available to other Members having 
expressed an interest in the matte r, as well as to the Secretariat. 
28. In view of the Committee's decision in Novemb er 2009, all replies supplied in writing for 
reviews carried out since the March 2010 meeting w ould be compiled in one single document so that 
one single compilation per Committee meeting woul d be produced.  The documents G/AG/W/75 and 
G/AG/W/78/Rev.1 would be revised to incorporate deferred replies associated with the March 2010 
and September 2010 meetings respectivel y.  As indicated in September9, for reviews undertaken prior 
to March 2010 , any deferred replies received by the Secretar iat would continue to be reflected in the 
summary reports. 
                                                      
9 Paragraphs 17-18 of G/AG/R/59 refer. G/AG/R/60 
Page 6  
 
  (g) Overdue notifications
 
29. Document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.4 dated 17 November 2010, showing the current status of 
Members' compliance with notification obligations, was made available.  Australia raised questions to 
China, Egypt, India, Korea and Turkey and underlined the need for transparency through compliance with notification obligations.  The significant st eps taken in the Committee in recent months to 
address some of these concerns were recognized.  The full points raised and responses thereto, 
provided in writing, are compiled in documents G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 and G/AG/W/80, respectively.  Any follow-up comments are reflected below. 
30. Australia expressed appreciation for the submission of some of the previously overdue 
notifications and thanked Members, like Fiji, who very recently presented notifications.  Other 
Members were encouraged to follow suit.  Referri ng to the four notifica tions which had uncovered 
breaches, Australia believed that timely subm issions allowed the Committee to gain a better 
understanding of the policies pursued by the concer ned Members.  In this context, the comments 
shared earlier by the United States on linkages betw een timely notifications and the effectiveness of 
the Review Process were most relevant. 
II. OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. A
NNUAL 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  
31. The Secretariat circulated a statistical backgr ound note to facilitate the annual consultations 
under Article 18.510, providing export statistics for 22 products /product groups for the period covering 
the Uruguay Round base period for export subsidy re duction commitments, i.e. 1986-1990, up to the 
most recent year for which data were available.  For the products/product gro ups concerned, exporters 
holding a share of at least 0.10 per cent were listed while a series of charts showed the world market 
shares of the leading exporters.  All the backgroun d statistical spreadsheets had been posted on the 
Members' web site as of June 2010. 
32. As regards the total world exports of agricultural products and exports of rice, sugar, oilseeds, 
most dairy products and meat categories, the Secret ariat (Ms. T. Petrova) reported that the findings 
were essentially similar to those highlighted in  the 2009 annual consultations.  Since the Uruguay 
Round base period, in value terms , world exports of fruit and vegetables increased between six- and 
seven-fold with some new players (i.e. China and Me xico for fruit, and China for vegetables) gaining 
increasing share;  while world exports of live animal s nearly doubled (Canada, EU, Australia, United 
States and Mexico).  In volume terms , world exports of wheat/wheat flour and coarse grains increased 
by 30 and 39 per cent, respectively.  Vegetable o ils exports tripled (Malaysia, Indonesia, Argentina 
and Brazil) and so did wine exports (EU, Chile, Au stralia, South Africa, United States and Argentina).  
World oilcake exports doubled (Argentina, Brazil, United States and India).  A two-fold increase was 
registered for eggs (China, United States, EU, Mala ysia, India and Turkey) and tobacco (Brazil, EU, 
United States, India and China).  As for world co tton exports, they increased by 75 per cent (United 
States, India and Uzbekistan) compared to the Uruguay Round base period. 
33. Argentina thanked the Secretariat for the background statistical information, and for 
providing an opportunity to Members to comment on it.   The data had been examined in capital and 
Argentina reported that it ma tched national statistics. 
                                                      
10  G/AG/W/76 dated 16 August 2010 refers.  G/AG/R/60 
 Page 7 
 
 
  B. CONSULTATIONS ON THE LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EXPORTERS11 
34. The Chairperson recalled the discussions he ld during the annual consultations under 
Article 18.5 at the November 2009 meeting12, when Members supported the updating of the list of 
"significant exporters".  To facilitate the Committee's  consideration of this matter, the Secretariat had 
been requested to prepare the relevant backgroun d statistical data.  Such information had been 
compiled in document G/AG/W/76 as outlined in pa ragraph 31 above.  In this connection, the 
Chairperson drew Members' attention to page 48 of that document which listed potentially emerging 
significant exporters in respect of various product/p roduct groups based on the export statistics for the 
most recent available year.  As announced in  September 2010, the Ch airperson had invited 
27 Members to participate in an informal exchange of ideas.  The Chairperson delivered an oral report 
on such consultations which were held on 4 November 2010.13 
35. Supported by China, India recognized that the mandate to review the List of Significant 
Exporters for the purposes of the Table ES:2 notification requirement was stipulated in G/AG/2.  However, in its view, that exercise had been cont emplated a long time ago.  India suggested that 
updating the List might have lost relevance.  Refe rring to the Secretariat's introductory remarks in 
paragraph 32 above, India also wonde red (i) whether the scope of the review should equally entail the 
consideration of product coverage given the evolving trade significan ce of various products over the 
years;  (ii) whether the updated List would be put in to effect retrospectively or prospectively in terms 
of the Table ES:2 notifications;  and (iii) what th e reference period for redrawing the List might be. 
36. Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Europ ean Union, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the 
Philippines and the United States supported the idea of  updating the List, with Cuba pointing out that 
it was no longer a significant exporter of sugar; Canada observing that the Table ES:2 requirement 
was not burdensome;  and the Philippines, echoed by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, stressing 
the importance of having clear objectives in mind in order to successfully carry out such a review.  
Referring to the 22 product/product groups identified in the Uruguay Round Modalities
14 for the 
purposes of scheduling export subsidy reduction commi tments, the Philippines did not see much value 
in altering product coverage.  The United States cons idered that only two issues were outstanding: the 
reference period and the frequency of review.  Australia flagged its pr eference for a base period that 
would encompass a series of years rather, than a single year, so as to even out sharp variations.  Costa 
Rica suggested that the Secretariat could pr epare a background document showing alternative 
scenarios based on the selection of different reference periods. 
37. A few Members mentioned the pr ospective, DDA-related, notif ication requirements.  India 
questioned the continued need for, or usefulness of , Table ES:2 notifications in view of the Doha 
mandate to eliminate export subsidies by 2013.  Australia and New Zealand stressed the importance 
of the Table ES:2 notification in the context of anti-circumvention of export subsidy commitments.  
New Zealand further remarked that, once export subsid ies were eliminated, the requirement not to use 
them would still apply.  A focus on those signifi cant exporters who could influence world prices was 
therefore indispensable.  The United States echoed this view:  as rule-based obligations would 
continue to exist in the export subsidy area, Member s might actually wish to retain Table ES:2.  From 
a broader perspective, the United States also st ressed the importance of having access to information 
on total export volumes in order to  assess agricultural trade flows. 
38. Several Members expressed willingness to engage  in further discussions as it was imperative 
that the tools at the Committee's disposal to di scharge its monitoring and surveillance function be 
                                                      
11 G/AG/2/Add.1 dated 16 October 1995 refers. 
12 Paragraph 27 of G/AG/R/57 refers. 
13 See Annex 4. 
14 MTN.GNG/MA/W/24 of 20  December 1993 refers. G/AG/R/60 
Page 8  
 
  up-to-date.  In this context, the Chairperson evoked similar efforts at the level of the General Council 
where proposals aimed at improving the review mechanisms under various committees had been 
tabled.  The Chairperson confirmed that a further round of consultations would be organized in an 
open-ended format in early 2011, aiming at facilitating consensus at the next regular meeting in 
March 2011.  In the meantime, the Chairperson asked  the Secretariat to prepare a comparative table 
showing trade shares resulting from two different refe rence periods (i.e. latest three-year period for 
which data are available, and a single-year pe riod, respectively).  Based on preliminary work 
undertaken by the Secretariat, it would appear th at the List of Significant Exporters under each of 
these scenarios would not change dramatically. 
C. 
ANNUAL MONITORING EXERCISE ON THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE MARRAKECH NET 
FOOD -IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (NFIDC ) DECISION UNDER ARTICLE 16.2 
39. 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. 
40. The Chairperson recalled that the notification requirement under the NF:1 series relates to:  
(i) the quantity of food aid provided to LDCs an d NFIDCs, with an indication of the proportion 
provided in fully grant form or on appropriate c oncessional terms;  (ii) technical and financial 
assistance;  and (iii) other relevant information with  respect to actions taken by Members within the 
framework of the Decision.  The Committee took note of  the circulation of the following notifications 
in the Table NF:1 series since th e December 2008 monitoring exercise15:  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/75 
and Corr.1, AUS/81), Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/81), Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/41), Norway 
(G/AG/N/NOR/54/Rev.1 and NOR/60) and United States (G/AG/N/USA/76).  Japan informed the 
Committee of its recent Table NF:1 submission for 2008.16 
41. The Committee took note of a revised background no te circulated by the Secretariat for the 
purpose of facilitating the annual monitoring exercise.17  The note briefly introduced the Committee's 
follow-up process to the NFIDC Decision as a whol e and described the implementation of the 
substantive provisions of the Decision in the fields of international 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.  The Secretariat (Mr. D. Dixit) highlighted that: 
(a) the background note included references to some important food security-related 
events and initiatives which were deemed  relevant to the Committee's annual 
monitoring exercise.  For example, the note contained an update on the work carried 
out by the UN High Level Task Force for th e Global Food Security Crisis (HLTF) as 
well as a reference to the Extraordinary Meeting of the Intergovernmental Groups 
(IGG) of Grains and Rice convened by the FAO in September 2010 to consider a sudden surge in global wheat prices in mid-2010; 
(b) international food aid statistics had been up dated and briefly analyzed.  International 
food aid flows sourced from the WFP and sh ipments sourced from the International 
Grains Council (IGC) had been incorporated  and broken down by food aid categories; 
modes of delivery; and food aid recipients; 
(c) the state-of-play of the renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention 1999 was updated 
in light of the deliberations of the Food Aid Committee in June 2010; 
                                                     
 
15 A reminder airgram (WTO/AIR/3654) was also circulated on 29 October 2010. 
16 Subsequently circulated as G/ AG/N/JPN/160 on 1 December 2010. 
17 G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 dated 15 October 2010, refers.  G/AG/R/60 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (d) the degree of concessionality of food ai d was updated based on recently-submitted 
Table NF:1 notifications; and 
(e) the sections relating to technical assistance and access to resources of international 
financial institutions now integrated the d escriptions of recent schemes and initiatives 
as reported by those international ob server organizations attending the 2009 
monitoring exercise. 
42. On behalf of the European Union, two e xpert policy coordinators from DG-ECHO and 
DG-DEV introduced EU's new humanitarian food  assistance strategy and developmental policy 
framework on food security.  Switzerland describ ed its humanitarian food aid strategy.  
Representatives of the FAO, Inte r-American Institute for Coopera tion on Agriculture (IICA), United 
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and World Food Programme intervened, 
while the International Grains Council (IGC) a nd International Monetary Fund (IMF) submitted 
written contributions to the 2010 monitoring ex ercise.  The World Bank and the OECD did not 
participate.  All the specific presentations, contri butions and statements delivered by participating 
WTO Members (European Union and Switzerland) and observer intergovernmental organizations 
were subsequently compiled and circulated.18 
43. Pakistan called for greater information sharing on the technical and financial assistance 
element of the NFIDC Decision and stressed the n eed to devise innovative ways to impart such 
assistance to LDCs and NFIDCs in order to impr ove agricultural productivity and infrastructure.  
Drawing on Canada's Table NF:1 notification19 as an example, Pakistan considered that detailed 
information on the assistance and initiatives implemen ted by the Canadian Partnership Branch could 
be extremely useful as these hinged on public-private or private-private partnership models, transfer 
of technology and collaboration and assistance in the s phere of infrastructural development (e.g. local 
seed industry, capital machinery, etc.) in recipien t countries.  Likewise, the kind of technical 
assistance imparted by Australia20 in the field of post-harvest technology was an area of particular 
interest, as was also just flagged by the EU in  presenting its developmental policy framework.  
Pakistan encouraged Members, particularly donor Members, to link technical and financial assistance 
to contemplated outcomes in the recipient countries,  e.g. improvement in the agricultural productivity 
and infrastructure.  Enhanced access to technical a nd financial assistance by LDCs and NFIDCs in the 
case of natural disasters should also be explored in the context of the implementation of the NFIDC Decision. 
D. I
MPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES21 
44. The Chairperson recalled that the situation had not changed since the circulation of the 2003 
and 2006 reports to the General Council.22 In advance of the meeting, the Compendium of Documents 
on Implementation-Related Issues  had been revised23 to account for the documents that (i) were 
directly or indirectly relevant to the three im plementation-related issues under the purview of the 
Committee;  and (ii) had been circulated since th e 2006 report of the Committee on Agriculture to the 
General Council. 
45. 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 
                                                      
18 G/AG/GEN/94 dated 20 December 2010 refers.  
19 G/AG/N/CAN/81 refers. 
20 G/AG/N/AUS/81 refers. 
21 WT/MIN(01)/17 refers. 
22 G/AG/16 and Add.1 refer. 
23 G/AG/W/70/Rev.2 refers. G/AG/R/60 
Page 10  
 
  guarantees and insurance programmes remained an  outstanding implementation issue resulting from 
the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.  Supporte d by Cuba, Argentina requested that this 
item be retained on the agenda of the Committee on Agriculture in regular session. 
E. I
MPROVEMENT OF TIMELI NESS AND COMPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHER 
INFORMATION FLOWS ON TRADE MEASURES (G/AG/GEN/85,  G/AG/W/73/R EV.2 ) 
46. In view of the time constraints, the Chairpers on suggested that this ag enda item, including the 
specific issue of statistical paper evaluating progress made with regard to compliance, be taken up in 
the March 2011 meeting of the Committee, while the question of "best practices" could be considered 
in the course of informal consultations in December 2010. 
F. RENEWAL OF AD HOC OBSERVER STATUS TO INTER -AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR 
AGRICULTURAL COOPERATION (IICA) 
47. The Chairperson recalled the Committee's decision in March 2010 to grant ad hoc  observer 
status to IICA24 and the need for invitations in this c ase to therefore be extended on a meeting-by-
meeting basis.  The Committee agreed  to invite IICA to participate in the March 2011 regular session 
as an ad hoc  observer. 
G. OTHER BUSINESS : DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
48. The next (61st) regular meeting of the Committee on Agri culture is scheduled to be held on 
31 March 2011.  On this basis, the reminder airgram will be issued on 7 March 2011 and the 
convening airgram will be issued on 21 March 2011.  Th e delegation of India flagged that the date of 
the next meeting would be in conflict with the Ma rch meeting of the SPS Committee.  The Secretariat 
confirmed that the date would be maintained a nd undertook to convey the message to SPS Secretariat 
colleagues for further consideration. 
 
_______________ 
 
                                                      
24 See also G/AG/W/29/Rev.7.  G/AG/R/60 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Annex 1 
 
Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised  
under the Committee's Working Procedures  
 
 
(i) Notifications relating to imports under ta riff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2) : 
  Korea G/AG/N/KOR/41  
(ii) Notifications in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)
: 
  Philippines G/AG/N/PHL/40 MA:5  (iii) Notifications in the context of domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)
: 
 
 Brazil G/AG/N/BRA/26  China G/AG/N/CHN/17  Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/30 & 24/REV.1  Dominican Republic G/AG/N/DOM/18/REV.1  Israel G/AG/N/ISR/42/REV.1 
 Israel G/AG/N/ISR/45 
 Namibia G/AG/N/NAM/18  Norway G/AG/N/NOR/59  United States G/AG/N/USA/77  
(iv) Notifications in the context of new or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2)
: 
  Ecuador G/AG/N/ECU/25  Honduras G/AG/N/HND/31  Namibia G/AG/N/NAM/19  
(v) Notifications in the context of export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)
: 
 
 Korea G/AG/N/KOR/42 ES:1 & ES:3  Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/50  United States G/AG/N/USA/78 ES:1 & ES:2 
 
(vi) Notifications in the context of export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1):
 
 
Ukraine G/AG/N/UKR/5 G/AG/R/60 
Page 12  
 
  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) 
-  United States G/AG/N/USA/71/ Add.4 
-  United States G/AG/N/USA/79 
  
(ii) imports under tariff and othe r quota commitments (Table MA:2) 
- Norway G/AG/N/NOR/56 
- Switzerland  G/AG/N/CHE/52 - United States  G/AG/N/USA/75  
 (iii) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5) 
 - Japan G/AG/N/JPN/159 
- Norway G/AG/N/NOR/58 - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/80 
 
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1) 
- Argentina G/AG/N/ARG/30 
- Bulgaria G/AG/N/BGR/16 - Peru G/AG/N/PER/8 - Thailand G/AG/N/THA/72  
(v) in the context of export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3) 
 - Armenia G/AG/N/ARM/18 
 - Fiji G/AG/N/FJI/7  - Norway G/AG/N/NOR/57  - Paraguay G/AG/N/PRY/17  
 
  G/AG/R/60 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Annex 3 
 
Notifications circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram  
  
(i) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1 and DS:2) 
- Canada G/AG/N/CAN/17/Rev.1 
- Canada G/AG/N/CAN/35/Rev.1 - Canada G/AG/N/CAN/37/Rev.1 - Canada G/AG/N/CAN/43/Rev.1 
- Canada G/AG/N/CAN/49/Rev.1 
- Canada G/AG/N/CAN/53/Rev.1 - Canada G/AG/N/CAN/60/Rev.1 - Canada G/AG/N/CAN/66/Rev.1 - Canada G/AG/N/CAN/69/Rev.1 
- Canada G/AG/N/CAN/71/Rev.1 
- Canada G/AG/N/CAN/82 - Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/21 - Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/22 - Poland G/AG/N/POL/67  
(ii) in the context of export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3) 
- Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/20 
 
 
 G/AG/R/60 
Page 14  
 
  Annex 4 
 
Informal consultations on the List of Significant Exporters for the purposes of 
 
the Table ES:2 notification requirement (4 November 2010)  
 
Oral report by the Chairperson on 18 November 2010 
 
1. You will recall that, at the September 2010 regular  meeting, I had announced my intention to 
organize informal consultations in advance of t oday's meeting.  My preliminary contacts and the 
informal consultations held on this  important notification matter have  been indeed very useful and 
constructive. 
2. As you may be aware, at its inception, the Table ES:2 notification requirement was motivated 
by considerations relating to transparency and the need to ensure that the anti-circumvention 
provisions of Article 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture  were operationally effective.  This is why in 
1995, Members agreed that annual data on the total volume of exports would be notified not only by 
Members having scheduled export subsidy reduction commitments;  but also by Members having 
undertaken no such commitments, but who nevert heless had rule-based commitments not to use 
export subsidies.  This second category of Member s was therefore also required to provide annual 
data on total export volumes for those products for which they were deemed "significant exporters". 
3. My sense is that nearly all the participants belie ve that it is a good idea to update the list for a 
number of reasons.  The following points have b een raised by participating delegations:  
(a) First, over the last two years, we ha ve implemented a comprehensive Work 
Programme, both at the Committee's level, and at the Secretariat's level, aimed at improving the completeness and timeliness of notifications, and by the same token, at enhancing the monitoring and surveillance function carried out by the Membership. 
Some participants found that it seemed therefore logical that the tools that are at our 
disposal, including the List of Significant Exporters, be modernized; 
(b) Second, the List has not been updated for the last 15 years although it is clearly 
mentioned in page 24 of G/AG/2 that, afte r its establishment, it "shall be reviewed 
after two years".  Several par ticipants have clearly called on the List to be updated to 
better reflect today's reality in terms of the major, as well as emerging, players in agricultural trade; 
(c) A third argument was given by some of the Members that are listed today in 
document G/AG/2/Add.1.  They have underlined that they are no longer "significant exporters" since their export share of the products concerned, in volume terms, has 
fallen below the specified 5 per cent threshold.   In their view, their categorization as 
"significant exporters" is not warranted an ymore.  Consequently, the corresponding 
notification requirement should be relaxed in their case.  Conversely, some of the 
participants who have recently emerged as potential candidates for inclusion in the 
List (the so-called "newcomers") have usef ully flagged their readiness to assume the 
corresponding Table ES:2 notification require ment for the concerned products, for the 
sake of transparency. 
(d) Finally, the Table ES:2 compliance record in the period 1995-2009 was also 
examined during our informal consultations.  Participants found that, overall, the 
notification of total export volumes on an a nnual basis had not posed any particular 
challenge to the Members concerned, whether these were Members with export  G/AG/R/60 
 Page 15 
 
 
  subsidy reduction commitments or "si gnificant exporters" with no scheduled 
reduction commitments.  In other words, th e level of compliance is actually quite 
good relative to other notification areas in agriculture, which seems to indicate that 
the notification burden would be minimal for any newcomers. 
4. While there has been so far general support for re viewing the List, I could also sense a strong 
desire to keep the review of the current List a simple and pragmatic exercise.  For example: 
(a) Some participants argued that, should the Committee decide to review the List, the 
frequency of future reviews should not im pose an additional burden on the notifying 
Members nor on the Committee's work.  There seems to be some convergence towards the adoption of a 3- to 5-year review cycle; 
(b) Moreover, some participants have expressed  some caution against a major overhaul 
of all the parameters on the basis on which th e first List of "significant exporters" was 
originally established; 
(i) This is especially true when it comes to product coverage . 
- A few Members have suggested the incorporation of new product categories, 
such as a new "processed products" grouping, or products emerging in quite 
significant trade volumes.  In this context, I have made the point that we should perhaps be mindful of the historical background: the list of products specified in G/AG/2 was a Uruguay Round negotiated outcome.  It is the basis on which Members' Schedules of export subsidy reduction commitments were established in accord ance with the provisions set out in 
the Uruguay Round Modalities Paper (M TN/GNG/MA/W/24).  Moreover, 
the list of products contained in G/AG/2 also serves as the basis for the Table ES:1 and Table ES:3 notification requirements. Clearly, modifying the current product coverage would have a nu mber of implications in other areas.  
This, however, should not preclude further discussion and I am looking 
forward to hearing all your views on this aspect. 
- The difficulty to obtain reliable informat ion in volumetric terms for 3 product 
categories in particular (eggs, live animals, wine) has been noted by many participants.  In the Secretariat's pa per (G/AG/W/76), statistics have been 
presented on the basis of export values for live animals.  As a matter of fact, 
these 3 categories are not listed in G/AG/2/Add.1, probably due to the 
measurement challenge. Members who have assumed reduction 
commitments in respect of any of these 3 products, and who therefore are required to submit a corresponding Table ES:2 requirement in volume terms, 
may wish to share their respective ex perience with us today on how this 
particular notification challenge was addressed. 
(ii) Apart from product coverage, a second parameter of crucial importance is 
contained in the definition of "signifi cant exporters" itself.  As you know,  
"significant exporters" are Members whose share of total world exports in any one or more of the products concerned exceeds 5 per cent . I am glad to 
report that during our consultations no participant has suggested that this 
numerical benchmark be modified. G/AG/R/60 
Page 16  
 
  (iii) One last parameter that would be obviously important for the calculation of 
trade shares is the reference period  to be taken into account.  For the sake of 
simplicity, some participants have favoured picking the most recent year, or perhaps the last 2 years for which data are available.  Others have observed that a fixed 3-year or 5-year referenc e period would be more representative of 
major export trends as it would sm ooth out unusual discrepancies, for 
example those arising from adverse climatic conditions.  The idea of 
synchronizing the 3-year review cycle with a 3-year fixed reference period 
was also floated.  Alternatively, a dopting rolling reference periods would 
allow us to take account of the most rece nt years for which data are available.  
However, recourse of rolling averages could imply annual modifications of 
the List due to the annual recalculation of trade shares. 
5. The Secretariat has posted all the statistical in formation at Members' disposal on the password 
protected web site since June 2010.  I am sure that  many have already taken the time to examine a 
number of possible scenarios.  The debate is not clos ed and I am looking forward to listening to your 
further suggestions today. 
6. To conclude, I would like to reiterate that ther e seems to be wide support for a review of the 
current List of "significant exporters".  This is rather a good start.  Everybody realizes that it is 
essential to preserve the monitoring and surveillan ce function of the Committee on Agriculture which 
is primarily based on notifications, including the Ta ble ES:2 requirement.  The informal consultations 
have shown that we need to ensure that this mon itoring function remains credib le and relevant in view 
of continued distortions in agricultural trade. 
__________