WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/R/65 
3 February 2012 
 (12-0683) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON 17 NOVEMBER 2011 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its sixty f ourth regular meeting on 17 November 2011 
under the Chairmanship of Mr Jonas Skei of Norway. 
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/3855 was adopted with the addition of 
three items under "other business" relating to (i) a recent rice trade policy in itiative by the Philippines, 
(ii) Pakistan's federal system for agriculture, and (iii) a factual brief by the Chairman on the 
16 November 2011 informal open-ended consultations. 
I. THE REVIEW PROCESS 
A. M
ATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMEN TATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
3. The nine implementation issues raised as well as the responses supplied thereto and follow-up 
exchanges are compiled in pages 5-12 of document G/AG/W/92.  These relate to: 
(a) Obstruction of market access through regul ations without scientific or technical 
justification in a manner inconsistent with  WTO agreements (raised by Argentina); 
(b) Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitm ents (raised by Canada and the United 
States); 
(c) Switzerland's compliance with Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture (raised 
by the European Union and New Zealand); 
(d) Canada's Ice Cream Promotion Initiative (raised by New Zealand); 
(e) Brazil's support to rice under PEP (raised by the United States); 
(f) China's Cotton Reserves Purchasing Syst em (raised by the United States); 
(g) Ecuador's import licensing of certain food and agricultural products (raised by the 
United States); 
(h) Egypt's import ban on cotton (raised by the United States); 
(i) Thailand's rice procurement policies (raised by the United States). 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/R/65 
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 
4. The questions raised, responses supplied as  well as Members' follow-up comments in 
connection with individual notifications are fully  reflected in pages 12-34 of document G/AG/W/92. 
(b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram 
5. The Committee took note of the notifications circulated before 7 November 2011 including 
notifications carried over from the previous meeting,  but in respect of which no questions had been 
raised by that date under the Committee's Working Procedures.2 
6. Noting that Cuba had omitted to submit a Tabl e ES:2 as part of its annual export subsidy 
notification3, Canada maintained that G/AG/2/Add.1 con tinued to be the only relevant basis for 
designating "significant exporters" for the purposes of that notification requirement.  Canada 
reiterated that autonomous decisions by Members as to whether a given notification requirement 
established by the Committee still applied to them  raised serious systemic concerns.  While 
sympathizing with Cuba and its view that recent export statistics no longer supported its "significant 
exporter" status for sugar, Canada recalled that, unfortunately, the Committee on Agriculture had been 
unable to reach a decision regarding an updated List.  Canada urged Members to address this systemic 
issue which had caused the dilution of th e established notification requirements. 
(c) Notifications circulated or made available after the issuance of the convening airgram 
7. The Committee took note of the circulation of two notifications after 7 November 2011, i.e. 
one Table MA:2 by Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/63) for 2010;  and one Table DS:1 by Barbados 
(G/AG/N/BRB/20) for financial years 2002/2003 to 2006/200 7.  Both notifications will be reverted to 
for substantive review at the March 2012 meeting,  in accordance with para graph 9 of the Working 
Procedures.  
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings 
8. Delegations have the possibility to inform the Committee of the outcome of discussions 
which are of general interest but which may have b een pursued bilaterally as a result of the review of 
notifications.  There was no request for the floor under this agenda item. 
(e) Counter-notifications (Article 18. 7 of the Agreement on Agriculture) 
9. The Committee took note that no counter-notifications had been received. 
                                                      
2 See Section C of WTO/AIR/3855 (i.e. 24 notifications). 
3 G/AG/N/CUB/42 refers.  G/AG/R/65 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (f) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process 
10. The Committee took note of the circulation of  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2/Add.1 dated 24 October 
2011.  The Secretariat confirmed that, in order to reduce the carbon footprint of the Committee, 
deferred responses would be circulated by way of  addenda as soon as available.  A comprehensive 
revision of the compilation relating to each Comm ittee meeting would only be issued once all 
deferred responses have been supplied in writing.  The Chairman strongly urged the delegations 
having outstanding replies to submit those to the Secr etariat in order to enhance the efficiency of the 
Review Process.  The United States pointed to the relevance of the database on questions and answers 
(under development). 
(g) Overdue notifications 
11. Document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.8 dated 16 November 2011, showing the current status of 
Members' compliance with notification obligations, was made available.  The observations made in 
relation to overdue notifications are full y reflected in Section III of G/AG/W/92. 
II. OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. ANNUAL MONITORING EXERCISE ON THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE MARRAKESH NET 
FOOD -IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (NFIDC ) DECISION UNDER ARTICLE 16.2 
12. The annual monitoring exercise w as undertaken on the basis, inter alia , of contributions by 
Members, including Table NF:1 notifications, as we ll as contributions by observer international 
organizations. 
13. The Committee took note of the background note4 revised annually by the Secretariat at the 
Committee's request in November 1998.  Commenti ng on Chart 1, Argentina pointed out that the 
reduction in food aid from 10.5 million tonnes in 2001 to 5.5 million tonnes in 2010 may have been 
caused by the price depression of 2001.  In Argen tina's view, this was what usually happened with 
food aid, as it tended to follow a cyclical pattern , increasing when prices were low, for commercial 
reasons stemming from the need to dispose of su rplus produce by countries where production was 
subsidized.  Argentina believed that the full implem entation of paragraph 3(i) of the NFIDC Decision 
would impede the cyclical pattern of food aid.  Egypt wondered whether the elements laid out in 
paragraph 9 of the FAO note5 had been taken into account by th e WTO Secretariat in outlining the 
reasons behind such declines.  The Secretariat e xplained that the FAO note had been received on 4 
November 2011, i.e. after the circulation of  the WTO Secretariat's note on 21 October 2011.  
However, as was customary, FAO's current inputs would be duly incorporated in the note to be 
prepared by the Secretariat in connection with the November 2012 monitoring exercise. 
14. Referring to Chart 2, Argentina observed that the share of project food aid in global food aid 
deliveries had remained unchanged at 23 per cent during the period 2000-2010.  When considering 
this category of food aid, Argentina suggested that the volume of the monetized portion should be specified in future.  Monetization was a highl y questionable practice as  it required the entities 
responsible for managing development projects to become selling agents, a situation which clearly 
reinforced the need for effective disciplines in the area of internati onal food aid under the DDA.  The 
Secretariat undertook to liaise with WFP to obtain re levant information at the global level and also 
pointed to Members' Table NF:1 notifications for more specific data when made available. 
                                                      
4 G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 dated 21 October 2011. 
5 G/AG/GEN/98 dated 7 November 2011. G/AG/R/65 
Page 4  
 
  15. Argentina found that Section B did not clearly describe Members' efforts in the fields of 
technical and financial assistance, where a breakdow n of measures was also perhaps warranted.  The 
Secretariat recalled that the contributions from ob server organizations constituted the main sources for 
the elaboration of Section B given that the brea kdown of measures specifically implemented by donor 
Members was already contained in Table NF:1 notifications.  Finally, Argentina did not share the 
analysis or the recommendations made by the Hi gh Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and 
Nutrition referred to in paragra ph 51 of the background note.  
(a) Contributions by Members 
16. The Committee took note of the circulation of the following notifications in the Table NF:1 
series since the 2010 monitoring exercise6:  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/88);  Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/43);  
Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/160); New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/68 and G/AG/N/NZL/71); Norway 
(G/AG/N/NOR/62); South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/72); Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/53); United States (G/AG/N/USA/83).  Furthermore, a new Table NF:1  by the European Union was under preparation. 
The Chairman recalled that in November 2010,  the Committee had also benefitted from detailed 
presentations made by the European Union and Switzerland on their food aid policies.  Members were 
invited to comment on the detailed information c ontained in these Table NF:1 notifications, or on 
recent developments in their own national food aid or technical assistance policies and strategies. 
17. Pakistan expressed appreciation for the notifica tions submitted by Members, particularly the 
details concerning technical assistance.  In Pakistan's  view, the nature of technical assistance required 
by NFIDCs and LDCs for the effective implemen tation of paragraph 3(iii) of the NFIDC Decision 
should focus on:  competitiveness studies; developing wa ter efficiency to ensure sustainable levels of 
production; strengthening research institutes in LDCs and NFIDCs to de velop drought-resistant 
varieties; controlling post-harvest losses; and disse minating technology to small farmers.  In that 
respect, NFIDCs and LDCs were looking forward to  work with organizations like the Consultative 
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGI AR) and the International Maize and Wheat 
Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), and interested in  devising effective mechanisms to transfer 
technology to small farmers. 
18. Pakistan and Peru also hoped that the NFIDC proposal contained in G/AG/W/90 would 
provide the opportunity to have more dedicated discu ssions and a work plan on technical and financial 
assistance.  Peru further suggested that, after 15 y ears of monitoring of the NFIDC Decision, and in 
the absence of concrete DDA outcomes, the Comm ittee should now develop a comprehensive work 
programme on food security based on G/AG/W/90.  Barbados concurred that, after MC8, some 
informal discussions might be necessary.  Paki stan reiterated the importance of competitive 
production and the removal of market distortions to ensure food security. 
(b) Contributions by observer international organizations 
19. The Committee took note of the contributions made by: FAO in G/AG/GEN/98 and 
G/AG/GEN/98/Corr.1; International Grains C ouncil (IGC) in G/AG/GEN/99; World Bank in 
G/AG/GEN/96; World Food Programme (WFP) in G/AG/GEN/100; and the Inter-American Institute 
for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) in G/AG/GEN/97.  UNCTAD, IMF and OECD did not participate in the 2011 monitoring exercise.  India encouraged observer organizations to supply any contributions to the annual monitoring exercise well  in time before the Committee meeting so as to 
afford Members an opportunity to review and analyse them in detail.   
                                                      
6 A reminder (WTO/AIR/3845) was also circulated on 26 October 2011.  G/AG/R/65 
 Page 5 
 
 
  20. Pakistan and Peru expressed concerns relating to the deterioration of the overall food security 
situation as well as food price volatility.  The rapidly rising import costs and food import bills for grains, vegetable oils, sugar, meat and dairy, and the need for sustainable solutions to address price 
hikes were cited.   Egypt, Pakistan, Peru and the Philippines strongly believed that the WTO and the 
DDA had an important role to play in ensuring food security in the longer term, but first and foremost 
with the immediate removal of all trade distortions .  In this respect, Egypt considered that the 
mandates emanating from the NFIDC Decision and ot her Ministerial and General Council Decisions 
had largely remained unfulfilled.  While the Committee on Agriculture was a useful forum to 
exchange ideas, more tangible engagements were re quired, hence the tabling by Egypt of a proposal 
for MC8 on behalf of the NFIDCs. 
21. In the light of concerns raised about the effect of export restrictions on humanitarian food 
purchases discussed in the MC8 context, and which c ould severely compromise the food security of 
some developing countries, the Philippines sough t further details on WFP's food procurement 
policies.  WFP explained that it relied on efficien t procurement officers based in countries where food 
was being procured, either locally or regionally.  Prior to the actual procurement phase, a certain 
number of preliminary steps needed to be completed aimed at ensuring that local or regional markets 
would not be affected by greater food insecurity as a result of WFP's food procurement policies. 
22. Argentina expressed concern on some of the ob servations made in G/AG/GEN/96.  Argentina 
specifically questioned the World Bank's assessment of the causes of food insecurity and disagreed 
with the recommendation contained in paragraph 25.  Argentina found that the report was silent on the 
decades of production and trade-distorting policies (e .g. import restrictions, including unjustified SPS 
and TBT measures, tariff peaks, tariff escalation; out put subsidies; and export subsidies) applied by 
developed countries which had discouraged agricultura l investment and development in vast regions 
in the world.  On the other hand, export restricti ons were cited as the unique cause of food insecurity.  
Argentina highlighted that production and trade-di storting policies had crowded out investment in 
agriculture, condemning vulnerable developing countri es to poverty and hunger.  These policies were 
the real causes of the current food insecurity. 
23. Echoed by the Philippines, Argentina, however, shared the views outlined by the World Bank 
in paragraph 10, relating to the need to promot e investment in agricultural production, enhance 
productivity and raise farmers' incomes.  In this context, FAO recalled that the report by the nine participating international organi zations, coordinated by FAO and OECD, had clearly established that 
the solution to food insecurity was through increased food production, particularly in food-deficit 
countries that are endowed with natural resources.  During the last decade, FAO and the World Bank 
had been warning the international community that investment in agriculture had reached 
unsustainably low levels.  The current crisis was another opportunity to a ddress this situation and 
FAO was encouraged to see renewe d consensus on the need for mo re investment, research and 
development as well as the sharing of know-how. 
24. Pakistan and the Philippines welcomed the establishment of the Agricultural Market 
Information System (AMIS) by the G-20.  Pakistan would keenly observe the work of the Global Food Market Information Group and the Rapid Res ponse Forum (RRF) in debating policy responses, 
and hoped that the RRF would closely collaborate with the Committee on World Food Security.  The 
Philippines found that an initiative aiming at the ti mely transmission of information by governments 
was laudable.  However, since price formation, par ticularly in the grains markets, also depended on 
private sector activity, the Philippines sensed that th e transparency objective might be hampered.  
FAO clarified that the AMIS would be open to private sector participation.  Furthermore, no single set 
of stakeholders monopolized information on the gr ains sector: production data were supplied by 
governments; import data were provided by importing countries; customs offices constituted the 
major source of export data.  By pooling information from all these sources, the AMIS precisely 
aimed at preventing the type of policy responses, su ch as import restrictions or export controls, that G/AG/R/65 
Page 6  
 
  had contributed to price spikes and which had inde ed triggered speculative behaviour by the private 
sector.  
25. Barbados sought some clarification on the guidelines for oral interventions by observer 
organizations, taking into account the rules of proce dures contained in WT/L/161.  Barbados called on 
Members and observers to focus their interventions sp ecifically on areas, ideas or proposals that were 
under consideration by the Committee on Agricultur e in regular session, or directly linked to the 
NFIDC Decision.  The Chairman referred Barba dos to Annex 3 of WT/L/161 as well as to the 
Committee's customary practice to invite observers to  contribute to this agenda item which certainly 
served to promote an interactive debate. 
26. India observed that it was unsure whether WFP's contribution was relevant to the present 
agenda item as it covered recent developments in gl obal food insecurity and the role of WFP in that 
context, but there was not a single mention of the term "NFIDCs" in the document. 
B. I
MPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES  
27. The Chairperson noted that the situation had no t changed since the circulation of the 2003 and 
2006 reports to the General Council.7  In advance of the meeting, the Compendium of Documents on 
Implementation-Related Issues  had been revised.8 
28. 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.  Argentina requested that this item be retained on the 
agenda of the Committee on Agriculture in regular session. 
29. Egypt reiterated the view that the Committee ha d a clear mandate to examine possible means 
of improving the effectiveness of the implementation of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision but that there was no room, in the Committee, for discussion on this issue.  Egypt argued that there was a need for a 
dedicated forum, such as the one advocated by Egypt in G/AG/W/90, involving other WTO committees and under the supervision of the General Council, to discuss in greater detail the serious 
challenges faced by NFIDCs in light of the current  food crisis.  In this connection, the Chairman 
encouraged Members to also reinvigorate the debate on NFIDC-related matters under the present 
agenda item, notably with specific contributions, inputs, proposals and ideas in order to carry the discussions forward. 
C. 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  
30. The Chairman recalled that the November 1996 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture was 
the first occasion on which these Article 18:5 consul tations were held.  Me mbers' understanding was 
that one of the main bases for such consultati ons "within the framework of the commitments on 
export subsidies" was the full picture notificati ons which cover not only subsidized exports and 
related budgetary outlays but also total food aid a nd total export volumes (i.e. Tables ES:1, ES:2 and 
ES:3).  In that sense, it was clear that compliance with notification obligations in the export subsidy 
area was crucial to enable the Committee to undertake such consulta tions.  Members were referred to 
G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.8 which reflected the state-of-pla y of submissions in the export subsidy area.  
These points were later emphasized by Australia who noted that, in future, the Secretariat might 
                                                      
7 G/AG/16 and G/AG/16/Add.1 refer. 
8 G/AG/W/70/Rev.3 refers.  G/AG/R/65 
 Page 7 
 
 
  consider preparing a report based on Tables ES:1-ES: 3 in order to assist the Committee in assessing 
the trends in Members' notified recourse to export su bsidies.  This information could be looked at in 
tandem with that contained in the G/AG/W/32 document series and would provide a broader 
comparison of trends in notified export subsidie s against growth in world trade and Members' 
respective export shares. 
31. The Committee took note of the revised statistical background note.9  Australia, India, New 
Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines and the United States expressed appreciation for the paper and its usefulness in tracking the evolution of agricultural trade over the long-term.  On substance, the United 
States observed that a larger share of the worl d export markets was being increasingly captured by 
developing countries which were not subject to re duction commitments nor had been designated as 
"significant exporters".  Australia and India thanke d the Secretariat for having gradually refined the 
level of detail over the years by expanding covera ge from 8 product categories in 1996 to 20, based on 
specific proposals by Members.  India suggested th at, given that the liste d products covered 65 per 
cent of agricultural trade, the number of products  should be perhaps further expanded.  In this 
connection, Pakistan requested the addition of ethy l alcohol (HS 220710 and HS 220720) to the list of 
products to be covered by the note in future.  The Ch airman invited the Secretariat to take this request 
on board and report back on feasibility. 
D. R
EVIEW OF THE LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EXPORTERS  
32. The Chairperson informed the Committee that since the September 2011 meeting, two rounds 
of open-ended informal consultati ons were held on 31 October and 16 November respectively.  Based 
on two contributions by Australia and the United Stat es, a substantial amount of time was devoted in 
examining the linkages between Table ES:1 and ES:2 as regards the scope of products.  Participants 
concurred that both proposals promoted greater clarity to current or prospective "significant 
exporters" as to what exactly needs to be notified.   Participants have also organized small-group 
consultations among themselves to further examine such proposals.  Although preferences emerged 
for one or the other proposal, a large number of pa rticipants indicated readiness to update the list 
based on document G/AG/W/82/Rev.1.  The Chairman believed, however, that further interaction was 
necessary, perhaps at the beginning of 2012.  There was no objection. 
E. BEST PRACTICES  
33. The Chairman stated that this agenda item had been included at the request of one delegation 
and invited Members to share ideas on how discussions  could be fruitfully pursued under this point.  
Australia remarked that, throughout the Review Process undertaken at the present meeting, a number 
of Members had indeed referred to the adoption of some useful practices to enhance transparency, 
interaction and the receipt of timely responses to questi ons posed in that context.  Australia hoped that 
Members would continue to look at possible ways to improve efforts to notify on a timely basis and adopting some of the practices outlined in  G/AG/W/73/Rev.2 on a voluntary basis. 
34. The Chairman recalled that, in June 2011, the IICA had reported about various technical 
assistance and capacity building activities in Latin Amer ica particularly in the area of agriculture 
notifications.  IICA had also informed Members about its intention to step up efforts in this area.  
Based on a new contribution as contained in G/ AG/GEN/95, the IICA briefed the Committee on its 
work plan for 2012, including with respect to tec hnical assistance activities jointly undertaken with 
ITTC. 
                                                      
9  G/AG/W/32/Rev.12 dated 15 November 2011 refers. G/AG/R/65 
Page 8  
 
  F. R
ENEWAL OF AD HOC OBSERVER STATUS TO THE INTER -AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR 
AGRICULTURAL COOPERATION (IICA) 
35. The Committee agreed to invite IICA to par ticipate in the March 2012 regular session as an 
ad hoc  observer. 
G. OTHER BUSINESS  
(a) Recent rice trade policy initiative by the Philippines  
36. With reference to G/MA/TAR/RS/99/Rev.1, the Philippines stated that, in 2006, the 
provisions of Special Treatment - Annex 5 for rice were extended for a relatively short period 
(i.e. seven years) on the understanding that a Doha outcome was under way, including with respect to 
an alternative special mechanism th at would cushion the negative impacts of trade liberalization.  The 
uncertainty surrounding the DDA as well as increased  volatility and unreliab ility of global food 
supplies, especially in the thin rice market, had pl aced food security, small farmers' incomes and the 
pattern of investments at even greater risks.  C onsequently, the Philippines had decided to enter into 
bilateral negotiations with Members in order to  extend such Special Treatment to rice beyond 
June 2012.  An official notification to that effect  would be soon circulated inviting Members having a 
substantial interest in rice to communicate in writi ng their intention of participating in the negotiations 
within 60 days following the date of notification. 
(b) Pakistan's federal system for agriculture 
37. Pakistan informed the Committee that the Federa l Agricultural Ministry had been restructured 
and was now a Ministry on Food Security and Research. 
(c) Factual brief on the 16 November 2011 informal open-ended consultations 
38. The Chairman informed Members that an  exchange of ideas took place on (i) the 
implementation of Article 12 and (ii) other issues relating to the Committee's work.  There was an 
interesting exchange of views but neither of these discussions had been exhaustive. Several Members 
indicated their interest in continuing these discussions in 2012. 
(d) Date of next regular meeting 
39. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture is scheduled to be held on 
21-22 March 2012.  On this basis, the reminder and convening airgrams  will be issued on 27 February 
and 9 March 2012, respectively. 
 
__________