RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/R/56 
10 November 2009 
 (09-5615) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEET ING HELD ON 24 SEPTEMBER 2009 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its fifty-sixth regular meeting on 24 September 2009 
under the Chairmanship of Ms. Valeria Csukasi of Uruguay. 
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in  WTO/AIR/3418 of 14 September 2009 was adopted 
with the following modifications: (i) the addition of questions by Canada to Costa Rica relating to 
notifications in the context of domestic support commitments under Section II.B.(a) below; and (ii) 
the withdrawal by Thailand of a question posed to Indonesia under agenda item 1.B.(i).   
I. THE REVIEW PROCESS 
A. M
ATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMEN TATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
(a) Argentina:  Total value of agricultural produc tion for EC 27; and value of total production of 
basic agricultural products for selected new EC member States  
3. Acknowledging the data2 on total value of agricultural production (VoP) supplied by the EC 
at the 54th Session of the Committee as well as that in cluded in TN/AG/S/21/Rev.1, Argentina 
considered that the available VoP data was still in complete.  Argentina requested the EC to provide 
the following data for the period 1995-2000:  (i) Vo P data in local currencies for Cyprus, Czech 
Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia for all years; for Estonia for the 
years 1995 to 1999; and for Bulgaria for the years 1995 and 1996; and (ii) rele vant exchange rates for 
each year.  The EC considered that the VoP data it had provided in the past to the Committee should 
be a good complement to the information c ontained in the document TN/AG/S/21/Rev1.  
Furthermore, in view of the ongoing template discu ssions in the Doha Round agriculture negotiations, 
the EC had no intention to provide  additional data under the regular session.  The EC pointed out that 
data were, however, publicly available at the EU ROSTAT, both in terms of production value as well 
as exchange rates. 
4. Referring to the timelines provided for in th e "Notifications Requirements and Formats"3 for 
domestic support notifications, Argentina noted th at the Table DS:1 notification for the year 
2007/2008 and 2006/2007 were out standing. Argentina stressed that the data were essential to assess 
the effectiveness of the proposed overall trade-distor ting support cuts in the Doha Round.  The EC 
replied that the domestic support notification fo r the period 2006/2007 was under preparation. The 
data collection for the notification for the period 2007/2008 was yet to be initiated.  The EC expressed 
similar interest in the state of preparati on of Argentina's domestic support notifications. 
                                                      
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 Annex 1 of G/AG/R/54 and Corr.1 refer. 
3 G/AG/2 refers. G/AG/R/56 
Page 2  
 
  5. In its follow-up comments, Argentina urged th e EC to provide the data to the Committee 
noting that it would be important for verifying Doha schedules as well as in the context of the 
incorporation of certain data in the Draft Modalities.  
(b) Argentina:  EC tariffs: AVE calculation de tails for poultry (G/SECRET/25/Add.1); and new 
tariffs (G/SECRET/32)  
6. Referring to the information already provided on 2 July4, Argentina asked the EC to provide 
the AVE calculation sheet for the poultry tariff line HS  0210 99 39.  The EC stated that the tariff line 
HS 0210 90 29 had undergone a code ch ange in the year 2002, i.e. to HS 0210 99 39.  The detailed 
AVE calculations were officially transmitted to th e WTO Secretariat in 2005. Argentina also enquired 
about the new tariffs for the various tariff lines that were currently under negotiation pursuant to 
Article XXVIII of GATT 1994.5  The EC responded that the new tariffs would be notified in due 
course.  Moreover, the EC questioned whether these matters fell within the scope of Article 18.6 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, and expressed the vi ew that they would be more appropriately 
addressed under the procedures of Article XXVIII of GATT 1994.  
(c) Argentina: EC-25 and EC-27 Sc hedule of export subsidy commitments  
7. Referring to the data on EC-25 export subsidy co mmitment levels provided by the EC at the 
53rd Session6, Argentina noted that supporting calculations were needed for verification purposes.  It 
specifically considered that the netting-out procedur es previously referred to by the EC remained 
unclear, and that the data relating to the EC-27 co mmitment levels were yet to be distributed.  In 
Argentina's view, the verifica tion process had not even begun.  
8. The EC responded that a working document w as made available to Members during the 53rd 
Session. It described the EC-25 commitment leve ls on domestic support and export subsidies, 
outlining the methodology that the EC followed when  consolidating the expor t subsidy and domestic 
support commitments for the EC-25.  The document contained the results of the netted-out export 
subsidy commitment levels and aggregate Bound Total AMS figures.  The same methodology was 
followed for consolidating the commitments during the previous enlargement, i.e. from EC-12 to 
EC-15. 
9. Referring to the EC's latest Table ES:1 notification7  and the established timelines for export 
subsidy notifications, Argentina noted that the EC notification for the year 2007/2008 was now 
overdue.  The EC replied that the notification fo r the period 2007/08 had already been submitted to 
the Secretariat for circulation to Members.8 
(d) Australia and New Zealand:  Re-introduction of export subsidies for dairy products by the EC 
and the United States  
10. Australia reiterated its concerns  over the on-going use of dairy export subsidies by the EC and 
the United States, stating that it sent wrong signals about protectionism.  The use of export subsidies 
had a depressive effect on world dairy prices and a damaging effect on non-subsidizing producers 
such as Australia and many developing countries,  Australia asked the EC and the United States 
whether they had considered removing those expo rt subsidies given the recent improvement in 
international dairy prices.  Also, referring to the U.S. assertion that the decision to reactivate dairy 
                                                      
4  Para. 15 of  G/AG/R/55 refers. 
5  G/SECRET/32 refers. 
6 Paras 5-7 of G/AG/R/53 refer. 
7 G/AG/N/EEC/57, dated 25 November 2008. 
8 Circulated as G/AG/N/EEC/61 dated 15 October 2009.  G/AG/R/56 
 Page 3 
 
 
  export subsidies was in reaction to the damaging eff ect of the EC dairy export subsidies, Australia 
wondered whether the EC and the United States could consider a joint meeting to discuss a 
coordinated removal of their respective export subsid ies. New Zealand noted that both the EC and the 
United States had previously characterized the re -introduction of export subsidies for dairy products 
as a temporary measure.  In this context, New Zeal and sought an indication as to the possible duration 
of  the measure, given signs of stabilization in dairy markets. 
11. The EC responded that it was carefully monitori ng the situation on the dairy market but could 
not, at this stage, give an indication of the time it would take the dairy markets to recover to a point 
when export refunds would no lo nger be required.  The EC was committed to phase out export 
subsidies upon the successful completion of the Doha Round, which would lead, inter alia , to a 
parallel elimination of all similar measures by ot her developed countries, including in the dairy 
market.  The EC flagged its willingness to discuss  these issues at any moment with any trading 
partner. 
12. The United States indicated that, on 22 May 2009, the allocations under the Dairy Export 
Incentive Program (DEIP) had been announced for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010.  The 
decision to maintain the use of the DEIP was not  taken lightly.  In operating the programme, every 
attempt had been made to minimize the impact  on non-subsidizing foreign suppliers.  The 
reintroduction of subsidies by the EC on dairy pro ducts in January 2009 continued to have a price-
suppressing effect, a negative impact on the value of  U.S. dairy exports, and had displaced the United 
States from a number of its traditional dairy markets.  The United States continued to be willing to discuss with the EC the removal of respective export subsidies for dairy products.  The EC disagreed 
that its export subsidy programme ha d a price-suppressing effect in the global dairy market.  Rather, it 
considered that the EC's programme was a response to suppressed global dairy prices.  In its view,  
the U.S. decision to provide dairy export subsidi es had been taken autonomously rather than been 
induced by the EC.  
13. In its follow-up comments, New Zealand underlined  the damaging effects of export subsidies, 
especially on non-subsidizing producers including developing countries.  Referring to the growing 
signs of stabilization in the international dairy ma rkets, New Zealand considered that it was the 
perfect opportunity for the EC and the United States to show leadership with the prompt removal of 
export subsidies.  Australia fully supported New Zealand's call for removing export subsidies, which 
would actually assist in the recovery of the current global situation for dairy pr oducts.  Australia also 
urged the EC and the United States to meet bilate rally to discuss the removal of export subsidies.  
Argentina supported the points made by Australia and New Zealand and hoped to see an early 
elimination of export subsidies. 
(e) EC:  Switzerland's export subsidization of processed agricultural products
 
14. The EC considered that Article 11 of the Agre ement on Agriculture precluded the payment of 
export subsidies on processed agricultural products in the absence of export subsidies for the related 
basic agricultural products.  Referring to Switzerland's reply to a question by the EC in the context of 
the Switzerland's Trade Policy Review in December 20089, the EC asked Switzerland to explain how 
the payment of export subsidies on processed agricu ltural products, in the absence of export refunds 
for the related basic products, could be in compliance with Article 11. 
15. Switzerland replied that Article 11 of the Ag reement on Agriculture did not prohibit that 
WTO Members provide subsidies on incorporated ag ricultural products if the exports of the basic 
agricultural products contained in the incorporated pr oducts were not subsidized in the same manner.  
Switzerland considered that Article 11 could not be  read as preventing Members to eliminate export 
                                                      
9  Paragraph 14 at page 93 of WT/TPR/S/208/Rev.1 refers.  G/AG/R/56 
Page 4  
 
  subsidies on primary products without elimination of export subsidies on corresponding incorporated 
products.  If that interpretation were to be given, Members would be forced to provide, or reintroduce, 
export subsidies on primary products so as to be able  to grant export refunds to incorporated products, 
which might run contrary to the spirit of the reduction commitments assumed by Members in the Uruguay Round.   
(f) United States:  Chinese Taipei 's rice tariff quota underfill: request for domestic price data for 
2007-2008  
16. Expressing its concerns over Chinese Taipei's tariff quota underfill for rice in the years 2007 
and 2008, the United States sought weekly data on domestic as well as international prices linked to 
rice imports for the calendar year 2007.  The United States also wondered why the internal prices for 
medium grain rice appeared to be isolated from th e world market for much of the year 2008, moving 
in the opposite direction to the world price. 
17. Chinese Taipei maintained that it provided fu ll import opportunities up to the scheduled rice 
tariff quota amounts for 2007 ad 2008 in accordance w ith its WTO commitment.  In the year 2007, a 
part of the tariff quota was, however, not awarded in the tendering process due to the high prices 
quoted by some suppliers which were in excess of th e prevailing international prices.  Similarly, in 
2008, a part of the tariff quota remained un-awarded through tendering due to the international food 
crisis that led to a surge in rice prices.  The bid prices for medium- and short-grain rice, in particular, 
during this period were even higher than domestic pr ices.  As the international food crisis receded 
with rice prices gradually returning to normal leve ls, Chinese Taipei believed that the fill rate for 
successful tenders would expect to increase.  For example, in 2009, apart from the country-specific 
tariff quota of 10,000 metric tons of long-grain rice,  for which tendering still needed to be continued 
due to food safety related issues, the tendering pr ocesses for the remaining tariff quotas had been 
completed.  Chinese Taipei would continue to pr ovide full import opportunities in accordance with its 
WTO commitments.  
18. Chinese Taipei stated that it had already supplie d relevant information on domestic rice prices 
from 2007 to 2009 to the United States bilaterally.  The data showed that international rice prices 
soared from January 2008 onwards, reaching a pe ak between April and May.  From June 2008 
onwards while the prices of American long-grain rice and Thai and Vietnamese rice started to decline, 
the prices of American medium-grain rice moved in the opposite direction and kept rising.  Chinese 
Taipei also noted that since the main outlet fo r its rice production was domestic consumption, 
domestic rice prices were less affected by interna tional price fluctuations, although domestic prices 
were generally higher than the average internati onal prices.  Chinese Taipei had two cropping seasons 
of rice:  the first rice crop was harvested from June  to September, was usua lly abundant, and made a 
major contribution to domestic stocks and prices. 
19. The United States noted that the rice market was an interesting market and medium-grain rice 
prices did not always follow the trend in the prices of long-grain rice.  The United States also felt that 
some of the price trends referred to by Chinese Taip ei might be caused by the absence of some typical 
producers and exporters of medium-grain  rice from the international market.  
B. REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram  
20. Since the 2 July session, 47 notifications had b een 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.   G/AG/R/56 
 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  
21. 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  
22. The following notifications were subject to prelim inary review and are to be reverted to at the 
next meeting for substantive review in accordan ce with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working 
Procedures. 
(i) in the context of the special safeguard  (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): from Japan 
(JPN/151); and  
(ii) in the context of domestic support commitme nts (Tables DS:1 and DS:2):  from New 
Zealand (NZL/59). 
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings  
23. 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  
24. 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  
25. There were no deferred replies to questions previously raised. 
(g) Overdue notifications  
26. An updated room document, dated 23 Septem ber 2009, showing the current status of 
compliance with notification obligations, was made available by the Secretariat. 
27. Australia's questions to several Members regardin g their overdue notifications are reflected in 
Annex 3.  Egypt stated that the domestic stake holders had been asked to provide the information 
necessary for the preparation of Egypt's outstanding domestic support and expor t subsidy notifications 
for the period 1998-2008.  While some problems ha d arisen with the collection of data, Egypt hoped 
to be able to submit the notifications soon and looked forward to discussing the issue in depth. G/AG/R/56 
Page 6  
 
  II. OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. T
RANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE 
PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (WT/L/432) 
28. The Committee held its eighth annual review under paragraph 18 of the Protocol on the 
Accession of the People's Republic of China.  The United States had submitted questions and 
comments to China in advance of the meeting,10 covering the following topics:  
(a) the application of VAT exemptions and rebates;  
(b) transparency of China’s tariff quota administration regime;  
(c) domestic policies supporting the grains sector  and the pork industry; restrictions on 
foreign investment in the agricultural sector; and  
(d) increasing government involvement, including with respect to the possible 
nationalization of wholesale agricultural markets. 
(a) Statement by China  
 29. China noted that, in the previous transitional reviews, it had already clarified its VAT 
exemption policy applying to farmers who sell "self-produced" grain products in China. China 
reiterated that it was a developing country, that its agricultural sector continued to be characterized by 
scattered and small-scale agricultural production, a low level of modernization, a huge rural 
population, and less than optimal production capac ity.  In those circumstances, the relevant 
administrative bodies experienced difficulties in directly levying VAT.  
30. A VAT exemption policy therefore applied to "self-produced" units and individuals who are 
directly engaged in producing primary agricultural products, i.e. crop growing and harvesting; animal 
husbandry; as well as fishing (i.e. the "direct production chain").  However, a 13 per cent VAT 
continues to be collected where sales transactions are effected after  the purchasing and processing of 
the primary agricultural products. In other words,  the VAT exemption policy is only aimed at the 
primary agricultural products that are in the direct production chain.  Should the transaction be made 
at wholesale or retail stage, then a 13 per cent VAT would be levied.  China considered that imported 
agricultural products, including grains, already be nefit from a full tax rebate upon exportation.  
Hence, imported agricultural products are also exem pt from taxation before entering China's customs 
territory.  China levies a 13 per cent VAT on importe d agricultural products, i.e. the same VAT rate 
that applied to entities that are engaged in th e wholesaling and retailing of domestic agricultural 
products.   
31. In China's view, therefore, the discriminati on claims advanced by the United States were 
unjustified, as the same tax exemption regime app lies to both (i) "self-produced" agricultural products 
that are sold directly by Chinese farmers before en tering the domestic wholesale or retail markets; and 
(ii) imported agricultural products, before entering China's customs territory.  Once all agricultural 
products entered in the domestic chain of transac tions, the tax burden applying to both foreign and 
home-grown agricultural products was the same.   
32. China stressed that it had faithfully complied with all transparency commitments, including 
those relating to tariff quota administration, sin ce its accession to the WTO.  All the details 
concerning its tariff quota regime, including the announcement of annual tariff quota volumes, 
                                                     
 
10 G/AG/W/72.  G/AG/R/56 
 Page 7 
 
 
  application procedures, allocation and re-alloca tion methods, were promptly and appropriately 
published on the websites of the Ministry of Co mmerce and the National Development and Reform 
Commission. The serial reference numbers of al l pertinent documents were also duly listed in 
Annex 1A of China's yearly submission to the Committee on Market Access in the context of the 
transitional review mechanism.  On the U.S. request that information on companies holding tariff 
quota licences be released, China observed that the Chinese private sector was concerned by demands 
that confidential business information be disclosed as this could adversely affect competitiveness. 
China believed that such concerns should be respect ed, and were in full conformity with WTO rules, 
notably paragraph 3 of Article XIII of the GATT 1994.  
33. In response to the U.S. questions, China also confirmed that:  
(a) in the framework of its 2009 stockpiling ope rations, its purchases of oilseeds would 
reach 5 million tonnes, representing a 3.5 million tonne increase from 2008 targets;  
(b) farmers continued to benefit from direct subsidies for planting grains in 2009;  
(c) total support for pig breeding farms amounted  to 2.5 billion Yuan in 2008.  For 
payments related to the artificial insemi nation of sows, the central budget covered 
60 per cent of the support while the remainder was covered by the local budget.  Due 
to insufficient statistical cap acities, China had not yet collected data on total spending 
under this programme in 2008;  
(d) China had no intentions to remove the equity cap applying on foreign investments in 
the agricultural sector.  
34. Finally, China sought further clarification on the specific kind of nationalization and 
consolidation policies referred to by the United St ates in its questions, as it was not aware of the 
existence of such policies.   
(b) Follow-up questions and comments by Members and China's responses  
35. The United States thanked China for its res ponses and enquired whether these could be 
supplied in writing to enable capital-based official s to further study and clarify any matters. China 
responded that there was no mandate nor mechanis m requiring China to prov ide written answers.  
Should such concerns be raised under the Trade Po licy Review Mechanism, China would be able to 
provide written answers.  The United States en couraged China to provide written answers and 
observed that, as was the case with much of the Committee's agenda, the provision of written answers 
was particularly useful in assisting delegati ons in better understanding the responses supplied. 
(c) Report to the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG)  
 
36. With respect to the Committee's report on the tr ansitional review to the CTG, the Committee 
took note that the Chairperson would submit a f actual report on her own responsibility.  The report 
would make reference to all rele vant documents submitted in the c ontext of this review and make 
reference to the Secretariat's summary report of this  meeting reflecting the discussions held under this 
agenda item.11 
                                                      
11 The report was subsequently circulated in document G/AG/26 (dated 1 October 2009). G/AG/R/56 
Page 8  
 
  B. M
ULTILATERAL REVIEW OF MINIMUM MARK ET ACCESS COMMITMENTS FOR RICE UNDER 
SCHEDULE LX-R EPUBLIC OF KOREA (G/MA/TAR/RS/98) 
37. The Committee held a multilateral review of the implementation of Korea's commitments 
under Schedule LX – Republic of Ko rea with regard to the special tr eatment extended for rice.  In its 
introduction to the communication entitled " Minimum market access commitments for rice "12 which 
had been circulated in advance of the meeting,  Korea referred to the allocation of the minimum 
market access throughout the implementation pe riod and provided information on the annual 
implementation record from 2005 to 2008, the administration of the global quota and the public auctioning of imported table rice conducted by the Agricultural Fishery Trade Corporation.  The Chairperson invited interventions from the floor.  There were no comments.  
C. I
MPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES  
38. Paragraph 2 of the Doha Ministerial D ecision on Implementation-Related Issues and 
Concerns13 instructs the Committee to follow up on three distinct matters:   
(a) Members must develop disciplines on export credits as per Article 10.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture;   
(b) the Committee must examine possible means for improving the effectiveness of the 
implementation of the NFIDC Decision;   
(c) the Committee must also ensure  that Members' tariff quota regimes are administered 
in a transparent, equitable and non-discr iminatory manner, keeping such regimes 
under review.   
39. The Chairperson recalled that the situation had not  changed since the circulation of the reports 
to the General Council14 on these issues.  The Chairperson fu rther noted that an addendum to the 
Compendium of Documents on Implementation-Related Issues  had been issued on 1 September 2009 
to reflect the recent circulation of: (i) a Table NF:1 notification by Cuba, and  (ii) a Table MA:1 notification by El Salvador.
15  In November the WTO Secretar iat will update the Compendium and 
circulate a revised background note on the impl ementation of the Decision on Measures Concerning 
the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Progr amme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing 
Developing Countries.16  
40. 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) 
41. The Committee considered the Suggested Work Programme  that was circulated at its 2 July 
session.17  The Chairperson urged delegations w ho had not filled the survey questionnaire18 to do so.  
                                                      
12 G/AG/W/71 refers. 
13 WT/MIN(01)/17 (dated 14 November 2001). 
14 G/AG/16 (dated 4 July 2003) and G/AG/16/Add.1 (dated 13 June 2006) refer. 
15 See G/AG/W/70/Add.2. 
16 See G/AG/W/42/Rev.11 for the latest revision. 
17 Annex 6 of G/AG/R/55 refers.    G/AG/R/56 
 Page 9 
 
 
  This would ensure that all interests, particularly t hose of developing countries,  be adequately reflected 
in the work programme.  As a fo llow-up to the open-ended informal  consultations held on 13 July, 
Members were invited to consider each of the elemen ts listed in the suggested action plans (i) for the 
Committee and (ii) for the Secretariat, respectively.  
(a) Possible action plan for the Committee   
 
42. The Committee agreed to implem ent the following programme elements as soon as possible:  
(a) The room document showing compliance  with notification obligations will be 
circulated by the Secretariat as an official and unrestricted WTO document, before each formal meeting of the Committee.
19   
(b) Creation of an electronic list of notifications sorted by notification requirement, 
Member, document symbol, implemen tation year covered and date issued : in view of 
the general support expressed during the 13 July consultations, the Secretariat had emailed a preliminary compilation of notifications issued since 1995 to all delegations in August 2009. The Chairpers on recalled that, in July, there was also 
some interest in the official distribution of that compilation in hard copy because 
developing countries had reported difficulties in accessing the web.  A recently updated list had been posted on the WTO web site to enhance accessibility.
20 The 
Secretariat undertook to update the electronic list once a month.   
(c) Electronic transmission facility : full support was shown towards this initiative during 
the 13 July consultations, particularly as it would usefully complement the monthly 
release of the above-mentioned electronic lis t of notifications.  In response, the 
Secretariat had created a list server to facilitate the dissemination of agriculture-related documents on a subscription basis.  The Chairperson announced that the list server would be fully operational on 25 September. 
43. The Committee decided to maintain the following items in the Suggested Work Programme  to 
afford Members another opportunity for discussion: 
(a) As regards the possible issuance of (i) the room document compiling the questions  
posed by Members before
 each formal session; as well as (ii) the written responses  
supplied by Members after  each formal session; as official and unrestricted 
documents, the Chairperson reported that two Members had expressed reservations in the 13 July consultations. In their view, other WTO bodies' procedures were not 
necessarily adequate in the field of agri culture. Implementing this suggestion might 
even be counter-productive as it could s tifle the Review Process.  From the 
transparency point-of-view, the current prac tice was not only amply sufficient, but it 
would also ensure that delegations do not feel inhibited in supplying spontaneous and 
detailed responses. In this light, the Chairperson invited Members to reflect on the 
following three options: 
(i) to maintain the current practice of posting such documents on the Members' 
password-protected web site; 
                                                                                                                                                                    
 
18 G/AG/GEN/83. 
19 The first document was circulated as G/AG/GEN/86 on 2 October 2009. 
20 See http://www.wto.org/engl ish/tratop_e/agric_e/ag_list_notif_e.xls  G/AG/R/56 
Page 10  
 
  (ii) to ask the Secretariat to prepare and circulate such documents as unrestricted , 
since there was a lot of support for this option during the 13 July consultations; 
(iii) to ask the Secretariat to prepar e and circulate such documents as restricted  in 
accordance with the 2002 General Council Decision
21, meaning that they 
would be automatically derestricted 60 days after the date of circulation, 
unless requested otherwise by a Member.   
(b) Notifications-related datasets (Table MA, DS, and ES series):   Since 1995, the 
Agriculture and Commodities Division (AGCD) has maintained datasets containing the information notified by Members in documents circulated in the G/AG/N/-- 
series.  In the 13 July consultations, pa rticipants had expressed support for those 
datasets to be released to Members only, or alternatively, to the public as well.  Their 
helpfulness in enhancing Members' anal ytical capability was highlighted, being 
understood that they had to remain purely factual (i.e. no conceptual analysis).  The Committee requested that the S ecretariat prepare such datasets and initially post them 
on the Members' password-protected web site , as and when they become available.  
The Chairperson pointed out that the next round of consultations would not be held 
before the November meeting.  This would allow all delegations to become 
acquainted with the information containe d in those files before discussing the 
dissemination policy.  
(c) Compilation of " best practices ": the Chairperson recalled that, building on the ideas 
contained in the questionnaire-based surv ey, Members had been invited to send 
further inputs to enrich the debate on " best practices " in the area of preparation of 
notifications. Rather than extending the deadline for receipt of Members' 
contributions, the Committee asked the Secret ariat to circulate a first compilation 
based on the few contributions so far
22 in order to help focus the Committee's 
discussions in future. 
44. With no objection from the floor, the following programme elements were removed from the 
Committee's action plan : 
(a) Consultations on prescribed notific ation timelines and templates :  The Chairperson 
recalled that this item had been listed in the Committee's action plan in response to 
the survey results.23 The membership, however, had expressed strong reservations, 
both in the 13 July consultations and duri ng the September formal meeting.    
(b) Preparation of factual briefing notes on recently-issued notifications by the 
Secretariat :  As in the above case, strong concer ns were expressed by some Members 
during the 13 July consultations.  In their view, this task fell beyond the Secretariat's 
mandate and the thin line between " facts " and " evaluation " could be easily crossed. 
                                                      
21 WT/L/452. 
22 Subsequently circulated in G/AG/W/73 dated 15 October 2009. 
23 Paras. 31 and 32 of G/AG/GEN/85 refer.  G/AG/R/56 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (b) Possible action plan for the Secretariat  
 
(i) Technical assistance 
45. The Chairperson observed that, as far as techni cal assistance was concerned, Members were 
very supportive of all of the items listed in the Suggested Work Programme  and aimed at improving 
the timeliness and completeness of notifications.   
46. The Committee took note of the on-going  Geneva-based Workshop on Agriculture 
Notifications. Members thanked the Secretariat for delivering on this important objective. A number 
of useful recommendations for the future were outlined.24  Some delegations ca lled on this type of 
activity to be repeated in subsequent years.  Other delegations considered that there needed to be some 
time for reflection prior to taking any decision in re spect of the continuation of such activities (i.e. 
venue, format, cost-benefit analysis compared to other delivery modes such as e-learning, 
improvement of Members' own notification record, etc.).  As the need for the Committee to first 
undertake an evaluation was stressed, this item was maintained in th e Secretariat's action plan for 
further discussion.  
47. Members concurred that the following techni cal assistance features would need to be 
implemented on a priority basis:   
(a) Revision of the ITTC Notifications Handbook :  in this context, the feedback received 
during the on-going Geneva-based Workshop on  Agriculture Notifications, as well as 
some of the handouts and material that were distributed, will be taken into account by the Secretariat in producing the final versi on (slated 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 re leased towards the end of March 2010.  
Members' interest in a more elaborate e-training module incorporating user support features was noted.  With a view to develop th is tool at a later stage, the Secretariat 
was requested to investigat e the availability of funds. 
48. The Chairperson recalled that the " better targeting of training sessions towards notification-
related issues " by the Secretariat was already the case to a certain extent.  As to the organization of 
"specialized regional courses", the AGCD had taken steps to sensitize the ITTC on this matter. As a 
result, the 2010/2011 WTO Technical Assistance Plan  would respond to Members' concerns with the 
inclusion of relevant events in this area.  Howeve r, the detailed coverage of such courses was largely 
demand-driven.   Members were urged to take the necessary steps to directly advise the ITTC of their 
technical assistance needs, before the finalization of the 2010/2011 biennial plan. 
49. The delegation of Fiji indicated that the info rmation flowing through its Foreign Affairs 
department was often channelled to capital-based offici als in charge of notification matters at a very 
late stage, which explained why some of the prescribed deadlines were not complied with.  Fiji 
believed that it would be important to establis h a direct communication line between the WTO 
Secretariat and the capital-based officials responsible for the preparation and submission of 
agricultural notifications. 
                                                     
 
24 See Secretariat report on this tec hnical assistance activity (forthcoming).  G/AG/R/56 
Page 12  
 
  (ii) Data requirements 
 
50. The Chairperson underlined that some of the initiatives listed in this category had already 
been implemented and would be therefor e deleted from the next version of the Suggested Work 
Programme .  The Secretariat would be awaiting any feedback or suggestions for improvement 
directly from end users. 
51. For example, in the 13 July consultations, so me Members had indicated willingness to engage 
in any kind of consultations or working groups to examine ways in which the public or Members' web 
sites might possibly evolve. In the meantime, the public web site had been enhanced to facilitate user 
access to notification-related tools and informati on. The agricultural web pages had been briefly 
introduced during the Workshop and a more deta iled presentation would be made during the 19 
November meeting of the Committee. In this contex t, the Chairperson invited Members to test the 
recently-launched agricultural web pages.
25 The idea of printing a booklet  had become less urgent, and 
perhaps even redundant, given Members' current prioritization of several technical assistance elements and information tools, notably the Notif ications Handbook and the newly created agriculture 
web pages. 
52. As noted in paragraph 42(c) above, the electr onic transmission facility (list server) had also 
been launched, allowing the dissemination of agri culture-related documents on a subscription basis. 
During the Geneva-based workshop, delegations had been advised that, in the longer term, a CRN-
based on-line dissemination facility would be implemented. 
53. 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. In the 13 July consultations, par ticipants had hinted that this database would 
essentially consist of an archiving system of questions and answers .   In anticipation of the important 
resource implications that this project might have, the AGCD had submitted a detailed IT Business 
Case to the internal Working Group responsible for th e allocation of IT funds within the Secretariat, 
and was  awaiting a decision in this respect. The Ch airperson encouraged Members with experience in 
building such databases to contact the Secret ariat for an initial exchange of ideas. 
54. On the suggested online submission of notifications  by Members directly to the CRN by 
computerized means, the Chairperson recalled that during the 13 July consultations, some Members had seemed to prefer the on-going system raising con cerns that (i) this implied foregoing the valuable 
technical assistance by the Secretariat in verifying the submissions; and (ii) this could disrupt the 
existing channels of communications between the va rious departments involved in the preparation of 
agriculture notifications under each pillar.   
55. In the wider WTO context, it was noted that the SPS and TBT ar eas had pilot on-line 
submissions systems in place, and that other WTO divisions might follow suit.  No specific project existed as yet on a WTO-wide basis. In view of the support received from certain delegations 
attending the Workshop, the Chairper son suggested that this item be maintained on the action plan.  
The Secretariat was requested to consult with the re levant experts within the WTO as to the type of 
validation procedures that might be necessary for a prospective on-line system to be viable, in the 
light of Members' initial concerns as expressed above.   
(c) Next steps
 
56. Based on the above discussion, the Secr etariat was requested to update the Suggested Work 
Programme to be considered at the November meeting of the Committee on Agriculture. 
                                                      
25 See http://www.wto.org/english/trat op_e/agric_e/ag_work_e.htm   G/AG/R/56 
 Page 13 
 
 
  E. OTHER BUSINESS : ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
57. In line with past practice, a short and factual draft report for the CTG on the work undertaken 
by the Committee in the course of 2009 had been circul ated before the meeting in order to facilitate 
Members' consideration of this matter.   
58. Korea proposed that a reference to the multila teral review of minimum market access 
commitments for rice held at the present meeting be added to the report.  The Chairperson indicated 
that the report would also incorporate a paragra ph on the outcome of the Workshop on Agriculture 
Notifications held from 22 to 24 September 2009.  The Committee took note of the draft report and the statements made and agreed that, after updati ng as appropriate, it would be submitted to the CTG 
on the Chairperson's responsibility.
26 
F. OTHER BUSINESS : PROVISIONAL SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR 2010 
59. According to the Committee's rules of procedure,  regular meetings of the Committee are to be 
held in March, September and November.  The Committee took note of the provisional schedule of 
meetings for 2010.  The dates for each regular m eeting would continue to be confirmed at the 
preceding meeting of the Committee.  The question of  whether there was a need for a regular meeting 
in June 2010 would be determined by the Chairperson following the March 2010 meeting in 
consultation with Members.  Moreove r, the following schedule may need to be re-visited in light of 
developments in the negotiations on agriculture:  
(a) [11 and 12] March 2010;  
(b) [10 and 11] June 2010;  
(c) [16 and 17] September 2010; and  
(d) [18 and 19] November 2010. 
G. OTHER BUSINESS : DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
60. The next (57th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agri culture is scheduled to be held on 
19 November 2009.  On this basis, the reminder airgram will be issued on 26 October 2009 and the 
convening airgram will be issued on 9 November 2009.   
                                                      
26 The report was later circulated in G/L/894 (dated 9 October 2009). G/AG/R/56 
Page 14  
 
  Annexes 
 
   Page
 
 Annex 1 Summary of points raised with respect to notifications 15 
 
  Imports under tariff and other quotas (Table MA:2) 15  
  Brazil - G/AG/N/BRA/24 15 
  Canada - G/AG/N/CAN/77 and CAN/79 15   Canada - G/AG/N/CAN/79 16 
  China - G/AG/N/CHN/16 16 
  Iceland - G/AG/N/ISL/29 17   United States - G/AG/N/USA/69 17 
 
 Special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5) 17
  Japan - G/AG/N/JPN/146 17 
  Japan - G/AG/N/JPN/148 18 
 
  Domestic support (Table DS:1) 18  
  Australia - G/AG/N/AUS/73 18 
  Costa Rica - G/AG/N/CRI/24 19 
  Malaysia - G/AG/N/MYS/25 21 
  Malta - G/AG/N/MLT/10 22  Switzerland - G/AG/N/CHE/47 22   Uruguay - G/AG/N/URY/38 23  
  New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2) 24  
  European Communities - G/AG/N/EEC/58 24 
 
  Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)  24 
  Canada - G/AG/N/CAN/78 24 
 
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 26 
 
Annex 3 Additional questions on notifications raised by Australia 28 
  under agenda item 2.B(vii) "overdue notifications" 
 
Annex 4 Costa Rica: Value of rice production and GDP (2004-2007) 29 
 
 
  G/AG/R/56 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Annex 1 
 
Summary of points raised with respect to notifications  
 
 
I. IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTAS (TABLE MA:2) 
A. BRAZIL  -  G/AG/N/BRA/24 
1. Question by the EC  - The EC note Brazil's intention to eliminate the tariff quota for 
wheat and the related negotiations with Canada and the United States.  Could Brazil report on 
the progress of the negotiations with  Canada and the United States? 
The tariff rate quota regime for wheat is not  currently in place and negotiations have 
not advanced recently.  Though the United Stat es and Canada have expressed interest 
in the tariff quota for wheat, Brazil consid ers the current regime which applies a 
10 per cent MFN tariff to wheat more beneficial than the potential tariff quota regime for all trading partners, including the United States and Canada.  Brazil is one of the 
world's largest importers of wheat; about 60 per cent of its domestic demand is 
supplied by imports.  
B. C
ANADA  -  G/AG/N/CAN/77  AND G/AG/N/CAN/79 
2. Questions by Australia - Following up on p revious discussions on Canada's tariff quota 
for "fluid milk" (64,500 tonnes), Australia seeks further clarification on the matter of imports 
of fluid milk by consumers for personal use.  In previous responses, Canada has explained the 
procedure for the importation for personal use under General Import Permit #1.  Can Canada 
outline the procedure for the importation of fluid milk for commercial use by Canadian entities, 
like dairy processors?  If a procedure for commer cial imports is not in place, can Canada 
explain how the tariff quota is being administered on a genuine global basis and consistent with 
WTO commitments? 
Canada notes that it answered similar questions on the administration of its fluid milk 
tariff quota as recently as the 55th regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture held on 2 July 2009.  Canada's reply can be found in the summary report of the meeting.
1  
 
Canada's Table MA:1 notification on the administration of tariff quotas 
(G/AG/N/CAN/45) notes that Canada's tariff quota for fluid milk is administered on a 
global basis and is subject to Genera l Import Permit #1, which regulates the 
importation of dairy products for personal use, so that any resident of Canada may import fluid milk.  There are no formal app lications for any resident of Canada to 
import fluid milk in Canada.  Consumer s importing fluid milk must only invoke 
General Import Permit #1 when completing the normal customs entry document.  Canada's current administration of this tariff quota, as outlined in Canada's Table 
MA:1 notification of 2 August 2001 (G/AG/ N/CAN/45), is consistent with its WTO 
obligations. 
 
                                                     
 
1 The responses are summarized in report G/AG/R/55, para 3 of Annex 2. G/AG/R/56 
Page 16  
 
  C. C
ANADA  -  G/AG/N/CAN/79 
3. Question by EC - The EC note that several ta riff quota fill quantities exceed the tariff 
quota size.  What was the tariff treatment for th e quantities imported in excess of the tariff 
quota size?  
The respective in-quota tariffs for each " over-filled" tariff quota are applied to the 
total notified volume of imports of these products. 
 
D. CHINA  - G/AG/N/CHN/16 
4. Questions by Australia - Australia notes that there was significant underfill for wheat 
(0.45 per cent), corn (0.69 per cent) and rice (6.2  per cent), followed by sugar (40.1 per cent).  
These tariff quotas are in the magnitude of millions  of tonnes and form an important part of 
China's accession package. 
(a) Can China explain the reasons for these tariff quotas being so significantly 
underfilled?   
China witnessed consecutive good harvests in the past years which ensured 
sufficient domestic supply and a stable food price.  On the other hand, the 
price on the international market has kept increasing, especially since 2006.  
As a consequence, the majority of Ch inese enterprises were allowed to import 
food from overseas markets. 
In respect of sugar, the record high pr oduction in 2007 and 2008 together with 
already very high volumes of stocks led to tremendous ove rsupply in certain 
markets causing a weakened demand and c onsequently a low fill rate in the 
sugar tariff rate quota.    
(b) Will China consider adjusting its tariff quo ta administration to increase the fill 
rates and provide the access envisaged as part of China's accession?  
China sees no need to adju st the tariff quota administration since low fill rates 
are caused by market conditions.  
 
5. Questions by EC - The EC note the relatively low fill rates for China's tariff quotas 
during the reporting period, except for cotton and wool. 
(a) Could China elaborate on the reasons?  
Same response as provided under paragraph 4(a) above. 
 
(b) Could China inform about the tariff treatment of cotton that is reported to be 
imported outside the tariff quota quantity?  
Most of the out-of-quota amount of cotton imported was subject to an interim 
tariff lower than 40 per cent, and the rest was subject to the out-of-quota tariff 
of 40 per cent. 
  G/AG/R/56 
 Page 17 
 
 
  E. ICELAND  - G/AG/N/ISL/29 
6. Questions by Australia - Australia notes th e significant number of tariff quotas that 
Iceland has notified – 86 tariff quotas in 2005-2006,  covering a range of products with relatively 
small commitment quantities.  Also a number of  the tariff quotas remain underfilled or are non-
operational.  Has Iceland considered reforms to  its tariff quota system to consolidate the 
number of tariff quotas and simplify its schedule?  Are all these tariff quotas required to protect 
domestic producers? 
Attention is being drawn to the fact th at 66 tariff headings associated with a 
number of products relevant to Iceland's current access commitments are not subject to any tariff quota system upon import, but only to applied rates of 
duty that are equal to lower than the corresponding in-quota rates.  Currently 
Iceland does not consider reforming its tariff quota system.  This matter has 
been dealt within in the Doha R ound of negotiations and Iceland would 
certainly meet its future commitments in this regard. 
 
F. U
NITED STATES  - G/AG/N/USA/69 
7. Question by the EC - The EC note a relatively  low tariff quota fill for non-fat dried milk 
and cotton; and a certain erosion during the years notified of the tariff quota imports for beef 
and Emmental.  Could the United States explain the reasons for this? 
Market conditions, including the falling value of the dollar during the period, explain 
the low tariff quota fill and the variations noted.   
With respect to non-fat dried milk, rapi dly growing global demand and adverse 
weather conditions in Oceania contributed to a shortage of available exportable 
supplies from New Zealand and Australia and high global prices.  As a result, the United States non-fat dried milk was competitive on world markets, and therefore there was little incentive for importers to pur chase non-fat dried milk into the United 
States. 
Cotton import demand was low as production was stable and consumption continued 
to decline, resulting in near record exportable supplies. 
With respect to beef, several countries account for the majority of imports under the 
tariff rate quota.  In addition to the market conditions, some of these countries have been subject to disease-based trade restrictions that have constrained shipments. 
Demand for Emmental was weakened due to  the high international prices of cheese 
and lack of available exportable supplies.  In addition, the weak dollar was a further 
factor in making the imported Emmental less competitive with domestic supplies.  
II. SPECIAL
 SAFEGUARD  (TABLES  MA:3  TO MA:5) 
A. JAPAN - G/AG/N/JPN/146 
8. Questions by EC - What were the external reference prices that Japan used for its price-
based SSG for "yogurt; frozen, preserved or containing added sugar, or other sweetening 
matter, flavouring, fruits or nuts (excluding frozen yogurt)" (HS 0403.10.190)?  What was the 
source of these prices? G/AG/R/56 
Page 18  
 
  The trigger price for the product in question is established by multiplying the external 
prices for basic products, skim milk powder  (SMP) and cream, by their proportion.  
The external price of SMP is the estimated c.i.f. price based on the International Dairy 
Agreement (IDA) minimum price, adding freight and transaction costs from New 
Zealand.  As the IDA minimum price of cream is not available, the external price of 
cream is the estimated c.i.f. price based on the f.o.b. price of New Zealand, the main 
export country, adding freight and transaction costs from New Zealand. 
 
9. Follow-up comments: In response to EC's enqui ry, Japan clarified that the source for the 
estimated prices had been New Zealand's data.  
 
B. J
APAN - G/AG/N/JPN/148 
10. Questions by EC - What were the external reference prices that Japan used for its price-
based SSG for "milk powder containing added su gar or other sweetening matter, of a fat 
content, by weight, exceeding 5 per cent but not exceeding 30 per cent" (HS 0402.29.119)?  
What was the source of these prices?  
As noted in the notification, no imports were implemented in 1987 and 1988.  Japan 
considers the c.i.f. price for 1986 as the aver age c.i.f. price for the years 1986 to 1988 
and uses it as the basis for calculating the trigger price. 
III. DOMESTIC SUPPORT (TABLE DS:1) 
A. AUSTRALIA - G/AG/N/AUS/73 
11. Questions by EC - The EC note on page 7 of the notification an amount of $A 40.90 
million for a "reduction in Australian Quaran tine and Inspection Service (AQIS) fees and 
charges". 
(a) How is the partial recovery of inspection fees and services operated and what is 
the calculation method for the subsidy? 
It is Australian Government policy that from 1 July 2009 100 per cent of the 
costs of inspection fees are charged to industry.  There is no budgetary provision to continue funding the par tial recovery of inspection fees beyond 1 
July 2009.  
(b) Is there a link between the level of subsidization and the amounts charged to 
importers for the intervention of the AQIS? 
There is no link between the partial re covery of inspection fees and import 
inspection fees.  The amount charged to importers operates on a fee for service, cost recovery basis (see answer to the next question).  
(c) Is it correct that these amounts charged to importers have recently been 
increased and if so, could Australia comm ent on the reasons for this increase? 
A 2008 review of Australia's inspection fees found that the costs incurred by 
the AQIS for conducting import inspections exceeded the fees that were charged to importers for the service (the fees had not been reviewed since 2005).  As a result, on 1 July 2009 Au stralia amended its import inspection 
fees to reflect the costs incurred.  G/AG/R/56 
 Page 19 
 
 
  12. Follow-up comments:  The EC further enquired if there was any possibility of reintroducing 
the subsidy in the future.  Australia undertook to r espond in due course.  The United States flagged its 
interest in this issue.  B. C
OSTA RICA  - G/AG/N/CRI/24 
(a) General  
13. Questions by Australia - Costa Rica has notified product-specific and non-product 
specific support, but has not provided informatio n on its value of agricultural production and 
the value of its rice production in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.   Can Costa Rica provide information on its value of production? 
The value of total rice production in the period 2004-2007 is reproduced in Annex 4. 
(b) Supporting Table DS:1 for 2004-2007
 
14. Questions by the United States: 
(a) Under the "Productive conversion programme", what are the "objectively 
demonstrated structural disadvantages"  referenced in Annex 2, paragraph 11(a) 
that these producers face? 
The Green Box productive conversion progr amme is aimed at enhancing the 
competitiveness of small and medium-si zed agricultural producers, increasing 
their participation in the domestic market and ensuring their effective 
integration in international markets, as well as improving the living conditions 
or well-being of small farmers through th e financing of investment projects. 
 
The beneficiaries are located in rural areas at a considerable distance from the 
relatively more developed regions of the country and have limited access to 
basic services such as infrastructure, en ergy supply and bank loans for project 
financing. 
 
Given such constraints, these producers receive organizational, standardization and marketing support from the Government, since they lack training in administrative management , post harvest management, product 
processing, and marketing and sales, and they do not have access to market intelligence or marketing information concerning their products. 
(b) Under the "Farming and livestock protect ion and development trust for small 
and medium-sized producers" programme, Costa Rica states that this support is given to "producers who experienced difficulties as a result of…the behaviour of the international prices of agricultural goods."  How does this meet the criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 11(c), which states that the amount of payments shall not 
be related to or based on the prices, dom estic or international, applying to any 
production undertaken in any year after the base period ? 
The programme known as the farming and livestock protection and 
development trust for small and medium-sized producers (FIDAGRO) 
contributes to the country's economic and social development through financial recovery (that is, debt purchase and restructuring) and reinsertion 
into productive activity of small a nd medium-sized agricultural producers G/AG/R/56 
Page 20  
 
  who, as a result of natural disasters, erratic fluctuations in international and 
domestic prices of agricultural goods and inputs and specific market conditions, have lost their financial au tonomy and are not eligible for credit 
from financial intermediaries. 
 The debts purchased are restructured for a maximum period of 15 years, with 
a three-year grace period on the principal and interest, at a fixed interest rate 
of two percentage points below the low est basic borrowing rate calculated by 
the Central Bank of Costa Rica. 
There is no direct relation between in ternational prices and the amount of 
support that producers may receive;  rather, this constitutes a form of 
additional support provided through the purchase and restructuring of debts 
contracted with financial entities.  
(c) Table DS:1 for 2007
 
15. Questions by the United States - We note th at Costa Rica exceeded its AMS level.  We 
appreciate Costa Rica's commitment to transparen cy.  What steps has Costa Rica taken or will 
take to ensure that the AMS level will not be exceeded in the future? 
The government of Costa Rica is examining the AMS figures for 2007 and 2008 and 
making the relevant calculations.  The in formation will be communicated to the 
Committee on Agriculture as soon as it is available. 
Costa Rica attaches the utmost importance to compliance with its WTO commitments 
and respect for the principle of transparen cy and reiterates its adherence to such 
principles.  
16. Questions by Canada - Costa Rica reports a Current Total AMS during 2007 in excess of 
its scheduled commitment level.  This appears to violate Article 3.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture which states that "... a Member sh all not provide support in favour of domestic 
producers in excess of the commitment levels specified  in Section I of Part IV of its Schedule".  
(a) What mechanism did Costa Rica have in place until 2007 to ensure that Total 
AMS expenditures were within its limits?  
(b) What steps did Costa Rica take in 2008 to avoid a recurrence of a violation in 
that year and later years?  
Same response as provided under paragraph 15 above. 
17. Follow-up comments:  Australia noted that the question on the total value of agricultural 
production (VoP) was linked to the ongoing exercise  of seeking best practices in the Committee on 
Agriculture and urged all Members to provide  the total VoP when submitting Table DS:1 
notifications.  Australia clarified that its interest was partly linked to the question raised by the United 
States with regard to the AMS notified by Costa Ri ca, as providing the total VoP was instrumental in 
determining how the AMS had been calculated with regard to de minimis .  The United States and 
Canada looked forward to receiving more inform ation once Costa Rica concluded its analysis.  
Canada noted its appreciation of Costa Rica’s comm itment to  transparency in its notifications. 
  G/AG/R/56 
 Page 21 
 
 
  C. MALAYSIA  - G/AG/N/MYS/25 
(a) Supporting Table DS:1 for years 1999-2007:  Price Subsidy and Guaranteed Minimum Price  
18. Question by Australia - Can Malaysia provi de more information on this programme?  
19. Question by the EC - It is stated that the measure only applies to paddy farmers. The 
amount notified in 2007 is RM 444 million, which corresponds to more than half of the amounts 
notified in the Green Box.  What paragraph of Annex 2 is concerned and could Malaysia 
elaborate on how this measure complies with the criteria there?   
20. Question by the United States - How does Ma laysia justify these programmes as Green 
Box given that they appear to be available to all rice farmers, are seemingly tied to price and/or 
production levels, and explicitly exist to "prev ent the price of paddy from falling too low" and 
to "ensure that farmers receive a reasonable income"?  
Malaysia's paddy rice farmers are among the poorest of the poor in the country.  
Considering the income status of the rice fa rmers this instrument is used as an income 
support measure for resource-poor farmers.   
70 per cent of the farmers work in areas of only between 0.1 and 5 acres, with an 
average national yield of 3.5 tonnes per hectare and a medium area of about 1.014 
hectares.  The annual income of this category of farmers is estimated to be at RM 4,387, equivalent to approximately US $104.44.  This income is well below the 
national poverty line of RM 836, i.e. US$239 per month.   
Another 18 per cent of paddy farmers work in  areas of 5 to 10 acres or between 2.023 
and 4.046 hectares.  Considering that incom es of paddy farmers are directly related to 
the size of farms that they operate, the government extends this instrument only to 
those working in areas of 6 acres or less for the purpose of alleviating poverty among 
resource-poor farmers.   
In this respect, of the total 250,000 fa rmers in Malaysia, only about 135,000 are 
actually eligible for the support.  The "G uaranteed Minimum Price" (GMP) has been 
in existence since 1949; it acts as a psychological floor price for the farmers, and as a 
political floor price for the government.  
Since 1995, paddy price records showed th at national paddy prices have not fallen 
below the GMP.  There has been no government  spending to maintain this GMP.  As 
such, for the last 10 years the GMP has never functioned as an economic floor price. 
Malaysia continues to monitor the effect of such support and has concluded that it 
does not have the effect of price support leading to significant supply response. 
Malaysia is a rice importing country which produces only 65 to 70 per cent of its 
domestic requirements.  Between 600,000 a nd 1 million tonnes are imported annually 
to meet consumption needs.  Under such  circumstances, the policy instruments 
utilized for this subsector are unlikely to cont ribute to distortions in global rice trade.  
 
(b) Supporting Table DS:2 for years 1999-2007:  Fertilizer Subsidy Scheme
 
21. Questions by the United States - Could Malaysia explain how its Fertilizer Subsidy 
Scheme meet the criteria of Article 6, paragra ph 2?  In particular, how does Malaysia target G/AG/R/56 
Page 22  
 
  what appears to be a generally available input subsidy towards low-income or resource-poor 
rice producers?  
The fertilizer subsidy is only provided  to farmers operating less than 10 acres. 
 22. Follow-up comments:  Australia noted that the reason for posing the question related to how 
the actual measure met the Green Box criteria and re quested that the response be provided in writing 
in order to make its own assessment.  The EC fo und that the extensive reply shed more light on 
existing concerns.  However, the EC would study th e measures in more detail as they contained price 
elements which continued to cause concerns with re gard to the purity of the measures in the Green 
Box.  Malaysia's effort in submitting overdue do mestic support notifications was appreciated by 
Australia, the EC and the United States.   
D. M
ALTA  - G/AG/N/MLT/10 
23. 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 coordination with Malta is underway.  A written reply will be provided as soon as 
it is available.  
 
24. 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? 
Same response as provided under paragraph 23 above. 
E. SWITZERLAND  - G/AG/N/CHE/47 
(a) Supporting Table DS:1:  General Direct Payments  
25. Questions by the United States - Could Switze rland provide more information about this 
programme and how it meets the criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 6 for decoupled income 
support?  In particular, if payment is made in part related to "supply of foodstuffs", then how 
does it meet criteria in paragraph 6(e) – no production required - and paragraph 6(b) – not tied 
to the type and volume of production? 
More information on Switzerland's direct paym ent system can be found in the latest  
Trade Policy Review report.2  General direct payments are contributing to the 
fulfilment of the overall aim of agricultu ral policy as described in the Federal 
Constitution.  They are granted on a fixed surface area, thereby no obligation for 
production, nor relation to the type or  volume of production is included.  
Consequently the scheme is in line with the obligations set out in Annex 2, paragraph 
6 of the Agreement on Agriculture.   
(b) Supporting Table DS:1:  Regional Assistance Programmes
 
26. Question by the United States - Could Switzerland provide more information about its 
regional assistance programmes and how they m eet the criteria for Annex 2, paragraph 13, 
particularly with respect to disadvantaged producers?  
                                                      
2 Paras 13-14 and 16 of  Chapter IV(2)(ii) of WT/TPR/S/208/Rev.1 refer (p.92-93).  G/AG/R/56 
 Page 23 
 
 
  The regional assistance programmes are descr ibed in detail both in the relevant 
Ordinance as well as in the annual Agricultu re Report published by the Federal Office 
for Agriculture.3  As regards the accessibility of  the regional assistance programme, 
farmers in disadvantaged areas can benefit of such measures.  The description and 
classification of disadvantaged areas is mainly following the classification of 
mountainous areas, starting from the hill zone up to the high Alpine regions.  Equally 
the slope level is a parameter considered  in the structure of such measures. 
 
27. Follow-up comments: The United States would review the response and may require 
assistance in order to identify the document referred to. 
F. URUGUAY  - G/AG/N/URY/38 
28. Questions by Australia - Can Uruguay provi de more information on its Green Box 
measures (b) "Payments under environmental pr ogrammes" and (c) "Direct payments to 
producers"? 
"Payments under environmental programmes" relate to the Responsible Production 
Project, whose main aim is 'to prom ote the adoption of economically and 
environmentally viable, integrated and e ffective management systems for natural 
resources used in agriculture, including biodiversity' through the adoption of technologies, management practices and produc tion systems that are compatible with 
sustainable development, particularly among small and medium-sized family farmers.  
As part of an integrated approach, the project promotes improved natural resource 
management while helping to increase productivity. 
 
Its specific objectives are: to ensure the a doption of conservationist soil management 
systems and natural pasture restoration practices; improve the use of soil, water and biodiversity resources in agricu ltural, livestock and fishery activities;  make use of 
biodiversity in the rural productive sector;  develop a public information system on 
natural resource and biodiversity managemen t; build local and national capacity with a 
view to developing integrated natural ag ricultural resource management projects; 
encourage studies and research on natural resource and biodiversity management; 
identify new priority areas for biodive rsity in Uruguay; improve pesticide 
management; raise awareness of the activ ities conducted under the project and the 
rural productive sector's awareness of inte grated natural res ource and biodiversity 
management.  The measure notified as 'direct payments  to producers' has two components:  
(i) traceability and (ii) animal health and food protection.  The first component 
provides support for an extensive campai gn to disseminate information, raise 
awareness, provide training, and develop mana gement and planning skills in respect of 
the Animal Identification and Registration System (SIRA).  It also provides support for the design and implementation of instrume nts and tools used to coordinate SIRA 
databases at national level.  The seco nd component supports institutional capacity 
building at national level with a view to th e development of procedures for attracting, 
training, supervising and qualifying human re sources, thus ensuring the availability of 
professionals to carry out official duties re lating to animal health control, general 
animal health management, and the stre ngthening of procedures that guarantee the 
safety of food of animal origin.  This measure was mistakenly notified as 'direct 
                                                     
 
3 Available at http://www.blw.admin.ch/dokumentation/00018/00498/index.html?lang=fr  
[10 November 2009]  G/AG/R/56 
Page 24  
 
  payments to producers' when it should ha ve been notified as a Green Box measure 
under 'General services' (items (b), (c), (d) and (e)). 
V. NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2) 
A. E
UROPEAN COMMUNITIES - G/AG/N/EEC/58 
29. Questions by the United States - The United States notes with interest the EC's reply at 
the July 2009 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture to the U.S. question regarding its 
notified Blue Box support meeting Article 6, paragraph 5 criteria. 
(a) Could the EC elaborate on how it concl udes that the fixed payment criteria in 
itself implies any notion of "production-limiting" ? 
Article 6.5(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture states that direct payments 
under production-limiting programmes shall not be subject to the commitment 
to reduce domestic support if such pa yments are based on fixed area and 
yields or if livestock payments are made on a fixed number of head.   
The EC Blue Box payments are either based on fixed area and yields or on a 
fixed number of head.  Therefore these payments comply with the conditions 
required for Blue Box compliance in Article 6.5.  The respect of the 
requirements stipulated in Article 6.5 means that the support schemes are production-limiting.  
(b) Could the EC also describe and give an example of how this works in practice ? 
Examples of these support schemes can be found in notification 
G/AG/N/EEC/58.  For instance, the payments for arable aid are based on fixed 
area and yields, published in legislation.   Equally, for instance, payments for 
suckler cows are made on a fixed number of head published in legislation.  References to relevant legislation are contained in Supporting Tables DS:3 of 
notification G/AG/N/EEC/59.  
30. Follow-up comments:  The United States felt enc ouraged with some of EC's comments and 
undertook to look at the response.  Green Box as well as other boxes need to be in good order.  Australia indicated its interest.  Australia unders tood that the programmes notified under item 3.(d) 
and 3.(c) omit production and that production limitation was not an objec tive, but rather an additional 
requirement.  
VI. EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1 TO ES:3) 
A. C
ANADA - G/AG/N/CAN/78 
31. Questions by Australia: 
(a) Further to Australia's previous questions on dairy export subsidies, Australia 
notes that Canada subsidized 16,404 tonnes of Skim Milk Powder from 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2008 (as reported in Table ES:1), but total exports of Skim Milk 
Powder for the same period were report ed as 16,246 tonnes (based on Table 
ES:2).  Can Canada explain the discr epancy (i.e. what happened to the 
additional 158 tonnes of subsidized exports)?  G/AG/R/56 
 Page 25 
 
 
  Canada's export subsidy commitment for skim milk powder is slightly higher 
than the total exports reported.  This di screpancy is due to the use of different 
data sources: subsidized exports of skim milk powder, cheese, butter, and 
other milk products are reported by th e Canadian Dairy Commission and total 
exports are reported by Statistics Canada .  It should be noted that Statistics 
Canada may revise its data up to four years afterwards. 
 
(b) The total exports of cheese and "other milk" products (Table ES:2) were 
significantly higher than the amounts reported as subsidized (Table ES:1), 4,843 tonnes and 41,152 tonnes higher respectively.   Given that Canadian dairy prices 
are often 2-3 times world prices, can Cana da explain the incentive for producers 
to export, when internal prices make th e internal market more profitable?  How 
is the price of milk used in exported dair y products is calculated?  Is it based on 
the cost of production , U.S. prices, world prices, or some other basis?  If some 
other basis, please specify? 
During the 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2008 marketing year, world prices for 
certain dairy products were high, creating an incentive for some Canadian processors to export their products.  Regardless of the product's final destination, no pricing differential is ap plied to the milk used in the product's 
production.  
 
(c) Could Canada clarify whether dairy export s are eligible to receive export credit 
guarantees from the Canadian Government?  If so, could Canada provide details of the value and volume of any credit guarantees actually provided to dairy exports?  Are other products eligib le for export credit guarantees from the 
Canadian Government and if so, can Cana da provide details of the actual value 
and volume of the credit guarantees? 
Export Development Canada (EDC) is an autonomous, Crown-owned 
corporation with a commercial mandate  that serves as Canada's national 
export credit provider. EDC is financ ially self-sustaining and operates on 
commercial terms.  EDC does not offer a single programme covering the agriculture sector in its entirety; however, agricultural exporters, including 
exporters of dairy products, are eligib le to apply for export credit guarantees 
and other financing arrangements thr ough various EDC programmes including 
EDC's bulk agriculture programme.  A dditional information on the operations 
of EDC can be found at EDC's website, www.edc.ca
  
 
 G/AG/R/56 
Page 26  
 
  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/30 
  
(ii) imports under tariff and other quot a commitments (Table MA:2):   
- Dominican Republic G/AG/N/DOM/17 
- El Salvador G/AG/N/SLV/29 - Indonesia G/AG/N/IDN/29 - New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/58 - Nicaragua G/AG/N/NIC/23 
 
 (iii) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):   
- El Salvador G/AG/N/SLV/31  
- Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/27 - Indonesia G/AG/N/IDN/28 - New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/57 
 - Nicaragua G/AG/N/NIC/21 
- Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/69 - Uruguay G/AG/N/URY/37 
 
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  
- Dominican Republic G/AG/N/DOM/18 
- Israel G/AG/N/ISR/42  - Jamaica G/AG/N/JAM/7  - Nigeria G/AG/N/NGA/9  - South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/71  - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/68  
 
(v) new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction  
(Table DS:2) 
 - Australia G/AG/N/AUS/74  
 
(vi) in the context of export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): 
- Barbados G/AG/N/BRB/18 
- Cape Verde G/AG/N/CPV/1 - China G/AG/N/CHN/15 - Cuba G/AG/N/CUB/37 - Dominican Republic G/AG/N/DOM/19 
- Estonia G/AG/N/EST/13 
- Honduras G/AG/N/HND/28 - Honduras G/AG/N/HND/29 - Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/28 - Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/28/ADD.1 
- Indonesia G/AG/N/IDN/27  G/AG/R/56 
 Page 27 
 
 
  - Indonesia G/AG/N/IDN/27/CORR.1 
- Nicaragua  G/AG/N/NIC/22 - Nigeria  G/AG/N/NGA/10 - South Africa  G/AG/N/ZAF/70 - Trinidad and Tobago  G/AG/N/TTO/11 
- Uruguay  G/AG/N/URY/36 
 G/AG/R/56 
Page 28  
 
  Annex 3 
 
Additional questions on notifications raised by Australia
 
under agenda item 2.B(vii) "overdue notifications"  
 
 Question for China  
1. Australia notes that the Room Document entitled " Compliance with notification obligations " 
dated 7 September 2009 (thereafter the " Compliance Document ") indicates that China has outstanding 
Table DS:1 notifications for the period 2002-20 08.  Could China please advise when it intends to 
submit these outstanding notifications? 
Question for Egypt 
 
2. Australia notes that the Compliance Document  indicates that Egypt still has outstanding 
domestic support and export subsidy notifications for the period 1999-2008.  Could Egypt please 
provide an update on when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications? 
Questions for India 
 
3. Australia further notes that the Compliance Do cument indicates that India has the following 
outstanding notifications:  Table MA:1;  Table MA:2   for the period 2003-2008;  Table DS:1 for the 
period 1998-2008;  Table ES:1 for the 1995 and the period 2001-2008.  Could India please provide an 
update on when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications? 
Questions for Israel 
 
4. Australia further notes that the Compliance Docu ment indicates that Israel has outstanding 
Table MA:1;  Table MA:5; Table DS:1; Tables ES: 1 and ES:2 notifications.  Could Israel please 
provide an update on when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications? 
Question for Korea 
 
5. Australia notes that the Compliance Document  indicates that Korea has outstanding Table 
MA:5; Table DS:1 and Table ES:1 notifications. C ould Korea please provide an update on when it 
intends to submit these outstanding notifications? 
Question for Turkey 
 
6. Australia notes that the Compliance Document indicates that Turkey has outstanding Table 
DS:1; Tables ES:1 and ES:2 notifications. Could Turk ey please provide an update on when it intends 
to submit these outstanding notifications?  G/AG/R/56 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Annex 4 
 
Costa Rica:  Value of rice production and GDP (2004-2007)  
 
 
 
Value of total rice production  Agricultural GDP Year 
(in US$) (in US$) Share of rice in 
agricultural GDP 
(per cent) 
2004 51,886,541 1,451,799,621 4 
2005 50,871,841 1,622,464,039 3 
2006 53,700,723 1,808,079,532 3 
2007 69,782,513 1,948,156,766 4 
 
Source : MAG, on the basis of information provided by CONARROZ and COMEX. 
 
 
__________