RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/R/58 
20 April 2010 
 (10-2008) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10 MARCH 2010 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its fifty- eighth regular meeting on 10 March 2010 under 
the Chairmanship of Ms. Valeria Csukasi of Uruguay. 
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/3521 of 26 February 2010 was adopted 
with the following modifications:  (i) the addition of a question by Brazil to the EU relating to the notification in the context of new or modified  domestic support measures under Section 2.B.(a) 
below; and, (ii) the withdrawal by Australia  of a question posed to Romania 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 
3. Points were raised by Australia, New Zeala nd and the United States in respect of EU25 and 
EU27 export subsidy commitment leve ls, Canada's trade restrictive measures on dairy products and 
Thailand's requirement to export rice stocks, respectiv ely.  All specific points raised with respect to 
these matters as well as responses thereto, are compiled in documents G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 and G/AG/W/75/Rev.1, respectively.
2 
4. On the issue of EU25 and EU27 export subsid y commitment levels, Argentina supported the 
systemic concern raised by Australia in its question to the EU. 
B. REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram  
5. Since the 19 November session, 68 notifications had been circulated by the Secretariat.  The 
Committee reviewed the notificati ons as listed in the agenda.   
6. All specific points raised with respect to these notifications, and responses thereto, are 
compiled in documents G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 and G/AG/W/75/Rev.1, respectively.  Any follow-up comments are reflected below. 
                                                     
 
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 In line with the decision taken at the November  2009 meeting of the Committee (see paragraph 38(a) 
of G/AG/R/57), the Secretariat circ ulated G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 and G/AG/W/75/ Rev.1 as restricted documents. G/AG/R/58 
Page 2  
 
  7. Regarding Ukraine's Table MA:1 notificati ons (G/AG/N/UKR/1/Add.1 and G/AG/N/UKR/3), 
the EU considered that its concern over whether allocations to three individual EU member States would be replaced by a commitment to the full EU27 in Ukraine's list of traditional suppliers, had not 
been addressed in Ukraine's respon se.  Ukraine reiterated that the a llocation of the tariff rate quota for 
raw cane sugar was based on traditional suppliers whic h explained its allocation to three members of 
the EU customs territory. 
8. Regarding Albania's Table DS:1 notificati on (G/AG/N/ALB/4), the delegation was not 
represented in the meeting and no written response was provided. 
9. On the issue of the Czech Republic's Tabl e DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/CZE/57), the 
delegation of the EU added a genera l remark on support systems, clarifying that currently for the new 
member States, the CAP applied in full, contrary to arrangements prior to their accession to the EU.  
Current support systems had been notified in G/AG/N/EEC/58 concerning market price support and decoupled payments, and in G/AG/N/EEC/65 concer ning sugar, and rural development programmes. 
10. Concerning the European Union's Table DS:2  notification (G/AG/N/EEC/65), Australia 
sought further clarification on the "Young farmers" programme.
3  Australia understood that the 
programme focused on supporting new farmers but queri ed whether there was an age criterion and if 
the criterion for a new establishment included a transfer  in production focus.  The EU confirmed that 
a maximum age of 40 years was a criterion under the programme, to deal with the problem of an ageing farming population and to enable young farmer s to engage in the programme on the basis of 
concrete business plans and investment schemes judged case-by-case. 
(b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram  
11. 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 1. 
(c) Notifications circulated or made available after the date on which the notice convening the 
present meeting was issued  
12. 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 imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): 
from Costa Rica (CRI/29) and the United States (USA/72);  
(ii) in the context of domestic support commitm ents (Tables DS:1 and DS:2):  from 
Colombia (COL/6/Rev.1, COL/7/Rev.1, COL/8/Rev.1, COL/20/Rev.1, COL/30/Rev.2, COL/36/Rev.1 and COL/40);  and  
(iii) in the context of export subsidy commitme nts (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Colombia 
(COL/39/Corr.1). 
13. Based on the preliminary review of the Table MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/USA/72) from the 
United States, South Africa noted the underfilling of tariff quotas, which was particularly worrying in 
                                                     
 
3 Paragraph 29 of G/AG/W/75/Rev.1 refers.  G/AG/R/58 
 Page 3 
 
 
  light of the ongoing DDA negotiations, and flagged that it would be examining closely this 
notification in advance of the next meeting of the Committee. 
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings  
14. 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  
15. 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  
16. As regards questions raised by Canada and th e United States at the September and November 
2009 meetings of the Committee concerning the amo unt of the Current Total AMS notified for 2007 
(G/AG/N/CRI/24), Costa Rica stated that it had undertaken a process of review and improvement of its domestic support notifications.  Further to its request for technical assi stance in this area, a 
workshop, with the support of the WTO Secretariat,  was held in December 2009 in San José with the 
participation of officials from the Ministries of Foreign Trade (COMEX), Agriculture and Livestock 
(MAG) and the Economy, Industry and Trade (MEIC). 
17. Costa Rica was examining the methodology for analysis and calculation of the Aggregate 
Measurement of Support, reviewing the figures and making the relevant calculations in order to 
update its notifications.  It noted that this topi c had also been addressed bilaterally with the 
delegations concerned.  Costa Rica reiterated that  it attached the utmost importance to compliance 
with its WTO commitments and respect for the principle of transparency. 
18. In the follow-up comments, Canada noted Cost a Rica's efforts at transparency in the 
notification process but continued to be concerned about the breach of the Total AMS commitment in 2007.  Canada looked forward to obtaining furthe r information as Costa Rica's review of the 
programmes goes underway and the necessary mechanisms  are put in place to ensure that Costa Rica 
remains within its Total AMS commitment in th e future.  The United States echoed Canada's 
concerns; as did Uruguay and Australia who al so expressed interest in this issue. 
19. Trinidad and Tobago provided its responses to questions raised by Canada and the United 
States at the November 2009 meeting of the Committ ee with respect to its Table DS:1 notification 
(G/AG/N/TTO/12).
4 
20. Jordan provided its responses to questions rai sed by Canada and the United States at the 
November 2009 meeting of the Committee with respect to its Table DS:1 notifications 
(G/AG/N/JOR/10 and JOR/11).5 
21. The Dominican Republic provided its response to the question raised by the United States at 
the November 2009 meeting of the Committee with respect to its Table DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/DOM/18).
6 
                                                      
4 See Annex 2. 
5 See Annex 3. 
6 See Annex 4. G/AG/R/58 
Page 4  
 
  (g) Overdue notifications
 
22. Document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.2 dated 9 March 2010, showing the current status of 
compliance with notification obligations, was made available. 
23. Australia raised questions to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, China, Egypt, India, 
Korea and Turkey on the issue of overdue notificatio ns.  The full points raised, and responses thereto, 
are compiled in documents G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 and G/AG/W/75/Rev.1, respectively.  
24. In a follow-up comment, Australia noted the va rious difficulties and challenges experienced 
by different Members in compiling the necessary data  and the best efforts they had been making to 
meet the notification obligations.  In this light,  Australia asked the Bolivaria n Republic of Venezuela, 
India, Korea, and Turkey to provide indicative timeframes in which their outstanding notifications 
might be available. 
II. OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. IMPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES7 
25. In advance of the meeting, the Compendium of Documents on Implementation-Related Issues  
had been updated to note relevant documents  circulated since 16 November 2009 and the 
developments in the Food Aid Committee m eeting held on 9 December 2009 in London.8   
26. The Chairperson advised the Committee that with  respect to the S&D Category II proposal by 
the African Group she had been asked to provide, u nder her own responsibility, an oral report to the 
General Council at its meeting held on 17 December 2009.  In that report, the Chairperson stated that 
between 2003 and 2006, the African Group proposal had been considered both in the context of the monitoring of the Marrakesh NFIDCs Decision as well as the Doha Ministerial Decision on 
Implementation-related Issues a nd Concerns.  The proposal had been subject to review and 
consultations in the Committee on Agriculture but in  light of the diverging views, no headway had 
been made since 2006.  Given this deadlock, the Chairperson indicated that the situation had remained 
the same as reflected in the report made to the General Council by her predecessor
9, but underscored 
that in the course of the last four years several  issues addressed in th e African Group proposal, for 
example export credits and international food aid, had been analyzed in the context of the DDA 
negotiations, successful conclusion of which would have  been part and parcel of the solution to this 
matter. 
27. 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. 
                                                      
7 See WT/MIN(01)/17 dated 14 November 2001. 
8 See G/AG/W/70/Rev.1/Add.1 dated 5 March 2010. 
9 See G/AG/22 dated 15 May 2006.  G/AG/R/58 
 Page 5 
 
 
  B. FOLLOW -UP: IMPROVEMENT OF TIMELINESS AND CO MPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATIONS AND 
OTHER INFORMATION FLOWS ON TRADE MEASURES (G/AG/GEN/83,  G/AG/GEN/85,  
G/AG/GEN/91  AND THE REVISED WORK PROGRAMME ) 
1. Revised Work Programme 
28. Referring to the latest version of the Revi sed Work Programme dated 18 February 201010, the 
Chairperson noted that progress had been made in th e implementation of various items since the last 
meeting of the Committee in November 2009. 
(a) Possible action plan for the Committee  
29. Further to the Committee's decision: 
(i) the Secretariat circulated a compilation of questions posed by Members under the 
Review Process and, after the meeting, would circulate a compilation of written 
responses supplied by Members.  Both woul d be circulated as restricted documents, 
in line with the distribution procedures laid  out in the 2002 General Council Decision.  
Such documents would be automatically de restricted 60 days after the date of 
circulation, unless requested otherwise by a Member.  In the latter case, the document 
would remain restricted for one additional period of 30 days after which it would be 
derestricted.11 
(ii) the Secretariat made publicly available on the WTO web site the datasets on 
information notified by way of Table MA:2 , MA:5; DS:1 and ES:1 notifications.  The 
latest posting on 5 March 2010 had updated the datasets to include notifications 
circulated up to the end of February 2010 .  The Chairperson encouraged delegations 
to verify the datasets and, if necessary,  to contact the Secretariat directly. 
(b) Possible action plan by the Secretariat  
30. In the area of technical assistance and training:  
(i) the Secretariat circulated the Report on the Workshop on Agriculture Notifications 
held on 22-24 September 2009 in Geneva.12  The report highlighted that the majority 
of participants had indicated their satisfac tion with the results of the workshop and 
provided useful recommendations for similar activities in the future, including that: 
(i) notification workshops should be carried  out regularly, for example on an annual 
basis; (ii) there should be smaller a nd tailor-made sessions suited for certain 
categories of Members (i.e. developing countries without Total AMS, LDCs, 
NFIDCs) or linguistic groups to better target the audience with specific exercises, 
practical examples and hands-on experience in computer labs; and, (iii) there was a 
need for a follow-up through regional and national TA activities, e-learning and 
devising ways for Members to exchange vi ews and help each other, such as an e-
forum for discussion on notification matters.   
In identifying ways to improve Members’  compliance with notification obligations, 
the participants underlined that: (i) notifica tion matters needed to gain more attention 
in capitals; (ii) there was a need to rai se awareness of the commitments made by 
                                                      
10 See Annex 5. 
11 Paragraph 2(b) of WT/L/452 refers. 
12 See G/AG/GEN/91 dated 11 February 2010. G/AG/R/58 
Page 6  
 
  Members and the need for timely and complete notifications to ensure a robust 
Review Process; and (iii) Members had the ultimate responsibility to put in place the necessary resources to fulfil notification obligations.   
The last section of the report highlighted  that although many notifications remained 
outstanding, the situation had improved mark edly last year as there was a significant 
increase in the number of new notifications issued in 2009, and the number of 
obligations covered by such notifications more than doubled.  
In light of the importance of capacity build ing, an organization of a similar event 
back-to-back with the September sessi ons of the Committee on Agriculture was 
included in the WTO's Biennial Technical Assistance and Training Plan 2010-2011 . 
(ii) as the elaboration of the Notifications Handbook was underway, the Chairperson 
indicated that in the beginning of April a prototype version would be posted on the 
Members' web site for review and comments by Members. 
(iii) as regards the self-training module on agri culture notifications, an initial version 
would be completed in the beginning of May.  With respect to the module 
incorporating user-support, the Chairperson me ntioned that at present there were no 
funds to undertake this project but the Secretariat would continue to explore 
alternatives with a view to finding a solution. 
31. In the area of data requirements, the Chairper son noted that approvals of funding had been 
obtained with respect to two projects: (i) setting up of a database on implementation-related concerns 
raised since 1995 during the Review Process; and ( ii) online submission of notifications by Members 
directly to the WTO Central Registry of Notifications.  The Chairperson pointed out that the 
allocation of funds had been made for 2011 and, in the meantime, the IT specialists would be 
establishing an action plan and preliminary studies to carry out these projects.  As the management of information became increasingly important and timely,  especially in the contex t of transparency and 
strengthening of the WTO, the approval of both projects was therefore a unique opportunity to 
facilitate an easier dissemination of data as well as more efficient information management.  The 
Chairperson also urged Members with experien ce in building the Q&A databases to contact the 
Secretariat to exchange ideas about th e development of such a database. 
2. Best Practices  
32. The Chairperson recalled that the updated compila tion of Members' suggestions with respect 
to "best practices" was contained in document G/ AG/W/73/Rev.1 dated 1 December 2009 and that an 
informal open-ended consultations on this subject  took place on 16 December 2009, with a summary 
of the discussions circulated in an an notated compilation by the Secretariat.
13   
33. In the latter compilation, some follow-up measures had been included on the understanding 
that the implementation of the "best practices" would be guided by a set of general principles such as: 
(i) the need to use existing procedures and notification formats; (ii) any improvement should be 
without prejudice to the positions of Members, or to their rights and obligations under the WTO or in 
the DDA negotiations; and (iii) any impr ovement should be implemented on a voluntary  basis. 
34. The Chairperson noted that on 15 January 2 010, written suggestions were received from 
Argentina and had been made available for discuss ion as a room document at the present meeting.  
                                                      
13 See G/AG/W/73/Rev.1/Add.1 dated 26 January 2010.  G/AG/R/58 
 Page 7 
 
 
  The Chairperson urged delegations that were  unable to attend the December 2009 informal 
consultations to express their views. 
35. Referring to the room document, Argentina stated  that with respect to item II.3(c) of the 
compilation, it had suggested modifying the current text, taking into account that under Article 5.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, the special safeguard  can not be applied on in-quota imports.  The 
Chairperson suggested that instead of making modifications to other Members' contributions as 
reflected in the compilation, Members' ideas, in cluding Argentina's concern with respect to the 
interpretation of Article 5.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, could be included in the "Comment" 
column of the annotated compilation.  The Chai rperson also recalled that during the informal 
consultations there were diverging views with respect  to the "best practices" put forward in section III 
and therefore so far there was insufficient basis for their acceptance.  Argentina noted that its proposal 
was not intended to be an interpretation of Article  5.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and to avoid 
any misunderstanding suggested quoting the text of th e Article in question in the compilation.  The 
European Union made a reservation, pe nding an analysis by a specialist. 
36. As regards the institutional capacity building under section VI of the compilation, Argentina 
proposed an institutionalization of a national service and focal point for notifications responsible for 
preparing the Member's notifications and supplying information relating thereto.  Argentina pointed 
out to the difficulties, especially in the case of th e developing country Members, to comply with the 
timelines for submitting notifications due mainly to the human resource constraints.  Its proposal 
therefore was a way to facilitate contacts, in pa rticular with the WTO Secretariat, related to 
notification matters. 
37. In response to Canada's query as to whethe r a national service would be established to 
respond to information requests from Members or for internal coordination purposes, Argentina 
underlined that the former might be premature at the present stage in light of various constraints, 
including human resources.  The Bolivarian Republic  of Venezuela indicated that should the proposal 
imply a practice similar to that in the SPS area, it s hould be noted that in its particular case, several 
offices were dealing with agriculture and not a si ngle office had full competence in such matters.  
Argentina noted that while its idea was modelled on the experience in the SPS area, the workload 
involved in annual notifications on agriculture was inherently different than in the case of SPS 
notifications.  Short of adding new layers of bureaucracy, Argentina envisaged that the enquiry point would be responsible for preparing notifications as well as would ultimately need to be prepared to respond to, and formulate, questions.  The EU under scored that in the current exercise on improving 
timeliness and completeness of notifications, solutio ns should be found, as much as possible, within 
the existing administrative structure, i.e. without adding supplementary services.  The Dominican Republic supported Argentina's proposal as in its view the instutionalization of a focal point to provide agriculture notifications would not only help strengthen the rules-based system but also 
provide a better guidance in the exercise at hand.  El  Salvador noted that section VI of the compilation 
referred to "sharing experiences" and if Argentina's pr oposal to "establish" enquiry points were to be 
carried forward, appropriate adjustments to the text  would need to be made.  New Zealand pointed out 
that "best practices" were to be implemented on a volunt ary basis.  It also noted that the suggestion in 
the annotated compilation had been to remove sec tion VI and place it as part of the Revised Work 
Programme, hence, Argentina's proposal would need to be placed accordingly.  
38. The Chairperson suggested that the Secretaria t update the annotated compilation taking into 
account the points made by Members in the current discussion. G/AG/R/58 
Page 8  
 
  C. WTO
 LIST OF NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (NFIDC S) 
39. The Chairperson noted that in line with  the Decision adopted by the Committee on 
21 November 199514, the WTO list of NFIDCs was considered at the regular March meetings of the 
Committee.15   Notifications by the Members concerned needed to be accompanied by the relevant 
statistical data concerning the total and net imports , on a value and quantity basis, and their relative 
importance as a proportion of domestic consumption of the products concerned.  The notifications 
should be presented at least 15 days before the regular March meeting of the Committee and the 
Secretariat would make them available for review by Members, upon request. 
40. The Chairperson informed th e Committee that, on 26 February 2010, a request had been 
received by Grenada to be included in the WTO lis t of the NFIDCs.  The Chairperson also recalled 
that at the March 2009 meeting, Swaziland had expr essed similar interest and indicated that it had 
been in the process of gathering the necessary statistical data. 
41. Swaziland informed the Committee that due to  a number of challenges in reconciling the 
import and production statistics it had not yet been able to complete this process.  Swaziland 
undertook to submit the necessary data as soon as the collection and collation stages are finalized, and 
asked that its request be included in the agenda of the next Committee meeting.   
42. In a statement delivered on behalf of Grenad a who is a non-resident delegation in Geneva, 
St. Lucia stated that Grenada had submitted a requ est and noted that the required data were being 
compiled and would be submitted as soon as possible. 
43. The Chairperson indicated that  both requests would remain pending until the requisite data 
are provided, and urged the delegations concerned to submit it as soon as possible. 
D. REQUEST FOR AD HOC OBSERVER STATUS BY INTER -AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR 
AGRICULTURAL COOPERATION (IICA) 
44. Further to the informal consultations held  on 10 March 2010, the request by the Inter-
American Institute for Agricultural Cooperation (IICA) for ad hoc  observer status in the regular 
meetings of the Committee on Agricult ure was considered by the Committee.16   
45. The Chairperson recalled that the horizontal question of observershi p by international 
intergovernmental organizations wa s still pending at the General C ouncil and that IICA's request for 
ad hoc  observer status was to be considered by the Committee on Agriculture for the first time.  The 
Chairperson noted that in the morning's consultations  on that topic, several delegations had supported 
IICA's request. 
46. Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica and El Salvador  reiterated their support and highlighted the 
relevance of IICA's work, particularly its technical cooperation and capacity building activities in the 
areas of agriculture and sanitary and phytosanitary measures.  IICA's ad hoc  observer status in the 
WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) was also cited.   
47. The Committee discussed the implications of IICA' s request in light of concerns raised: (i) by 
South Africa as regards access to documentation a nd its potential impact on transparency and 
information sharing in the Committee; and (ii) by South Africa and India as to whether the granting of 
ad hoc  observer status to IICA would establish a pr ecedent for the eleven other international 
                                                      
14 See G/AG/3 dated 24 November 1995. 
15 See G/AG/5/Rev.8 dated 22 March 2005. 
16 See paragraph 49 of G/AG/R/57, and G/AG/GEN/89 dated 27 November 2009.  G/AG/R/58 
 Page 9 
 
 
  intergovernmental organizations that had requested observer status17.  The Chairperson noted that in 
line with Annex 3 of document WT/L/161, access  to documentation would follow standard 
procedures listed therein and any future request for ad hoc  observer status would have to be 
considered by the Committee on a case-by-case basis. 
48. In light of the discussions, the Committee agreed to grant ad hoc  observer status to IICA on 
the same basis as under the SPS Committee.  Invitation of IICA would therefore be made on a 
meeting-by-meeting basis.  The Chairperson also took note of the suggestion by South Africa that the General Council be urged to complete the discussi on and take a decision on the horizontal question of 
observership for international inte rgovernmental organizations.   
E. E
LECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
49. The Chairperson noted that there were no de velopments for the Committee to discuss under 
this agenda item. 
F. OTHER BUSINESS  
1. EU "out-of-quota" sugar exports:  stat ement by Australia, Brazil and Thailand 
50. On behalf of Australia, Brazil and Thailand, Australia stated that as a result of the rulings and 
recommendations of the DSB in the EC Sugar dispute,  the EU had been require d, and had undertaken, 
to reduce its subsidized sugar exports to its a nnual WTO scheduled quantity commitment level of 
1.2735 million tonnes.   
51. In that context, the co-complainants in the EC Sugar dispute, namely Australia, Brazil and 
Thailand, were extremely concerned with the EU's  recent decision to authorize the export of an 
additional 0.5 million tonnes of "out-of-quota" suga r, with the EU forecasting that it would export 
almost 2 million tonnes of "out-of-quota" sugar in 2009/10. 
52. Australia noted that the decision by the EU to  increase exports had been made without any 
consultation with Australia, Braz il and Thailand, and that the increased EU exports had already 
negatively affected market sentiment and had driv en world prices down. By signalling to EU sugar 
producers that excess "out-of-quota" sugar could be exported, the EU risked a continuous cycle of 
overproduction and artificially depressed global pric es, unwinding the important reforms undertaken 
by the EU following the EC Sugar dispute findings. 
53. Noting the dialogue with the EU since the measu re in question was adopted, Australia, Brazil 
and Thailand urged the EU to provi de data on its sugar production costs and prices in order to clarify 
the rationale for its additional sugar exports.   
54. Brazil joined Australia and referred to the st atement it had made on this matter at the DSB 
meeting in February 2010. 
55. Thailand joined Australia and Brazil in expressi ng a deep concern at the EU's decision made 
in February 2010 allowing export of 0.5 million tonnes of "out-of-quota" sugar to the world market.  
Thailand believed that the "out-quota-sugar" e xport had exceeded the EU's quantitative limit bound 
under the WTO commitments. 
56. Thailand was disappointed that the EU had not consulted with the co-complainants prior to 
the decision despite the annual technical meeting on EU sugar held in Brussels.  As had been 
                                                      
17 See G/AG/W/29/Rev.6 dated 14 June 2004. G/AG/R/58 
Page 10  
 
  mentioned by Australia, Tha iland was concerned that the EU's de cisions would dramatically depress 
the world sugar price that directly affected de veloping countries such as Thailand where 1.5 million 
cane growers were among the lowest income group. 
57. Thailand expressed hope that the EU's "out-of-q uota" export measure would be annulled and 
joined Australia and Brazil in calling on the EU to discuss this matter soon. 
58. In its intervention, the EU stressed that its decision to export 0.5 million tonnes of sugar was a 
temporary measure, adopted in view of the excepti onal market conditions at both the EU and world 
level.  World prices were at a record high level a nd there was a shortage of sugar which was affecting 
importing developing countries.  The EU did not expect these market conditions to last beyond the season 2009-2010. 
59. The EU noted that the decision fully respect ed the EU's international obligations; the 
quantities on sale were not subsidized.  World suga r prices were at the moment higher than EU 
production costs and EU producers had become much more competitive following the drastic 
overhaul of the EU Common Market Organization for sugar. 
60. The EU reiterated that it continued to respect its  WTO commitments and ought to insist on its 
right to engage in international trade – even if  competing exporters of other WTO Members would, 
for rather obvious reasons of commerc ial interest, prefer otherwise.  To help dispel the doubts of other 
WTO Members, the EU was ready to provide an y necessary technical information underpinning the 
EU's temporary decision to export sugar. 
2. Date of next meeting 
61. The next (59
th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agri culture is scheduled to be held on 
23 September 2010.18  On this basis, the reminder airgra m will be issued on 26 August 2010 and the 
convening airgram will be issued on 13 September 2010.   
                                                      
18 The meeting was originally planned for 16 September but was rescheduled to avoid clashes with 
other activities (notably the WTO Public Forum).  G/AG/R/58 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Annex 1 
 
Notifications subject to review in respect  of which no questions have been raised  
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
 
 
(i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) 
- United States G/AG/N/USA/71 
  
(ii) imports under tariff and other quot a commitments (Table MA:2):   
- Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/25 
- Croatia G/AG/N/HRV/11 - Czech Republic G/AG/N/CZE/58 - Ecuador G/AG/N/ECU/24 - European Union G/AG/N/EEC/62/Corr.1 
- Japan G/AG/N/JPN/153 
 - New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/62  - Panama G/AG/N/PAN/20  - Romania G/AG/N/ROU/25  - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/67/Rev.1  - Thailand G/AG/N/THA/71 
 - Ukraine G/AG/N/UKR/2 
 - United States G/AG/N/USA/69/Corr.1  
 (iii) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):   
- Bulgaria G/AG/N/BGR/14 
 - Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/27  
- Ecuador G/AG/N/ECU/22   - European Union G/AG/N/EEC/63   - Israel G/AG/N/ISR/43   - Japan G/AG/N/JPN/152  - New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/63 
 - Romania G/AG/N/ROU/23 
 - Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/48  - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/71  - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/73  - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/74 
 
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  
- Macao, China G/AG/N/MAC/26 
- Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/48/Corr.1 - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/61/Corr.2 - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/68/Corr.1 
 
(v) new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction  
(Table DS:2) 
 - Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/26 
 G/AG/R/58 
Page 12  
 
  (vi) in the context of export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): 
- Bulgaria G/AG/N/BGR/15 
- Burkina Faso G/AG/N/BFA/4 - Colombia G/AG/N/COL/39 - Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/28  
- Croatia G/AG/N/HRV/10 
- Cyprus G/AG/N/CYP/16 - Ecuador G/AG/N/ECU/23 - Hong Kong, China G/AG/N/HKG/27 - Macao, China G/AG/N/MAC/27 
- Malta G/AG/N/MLT/11 
- New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/64 - Romania G/AG/N/ROU/24 - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/72 - Ukraine G/AG/N/UKR/4   G/AG/R/58 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Annex 2 
 
Deferred replies by Trinidad and Tobago  (G/AG/N/TTO/12) to questions raised by  
Canada and the United States  
  
1. Question by Canada - G/AG/N/TTO/12 shows fo r the first time an entry for the "Cocoa 
and Coffee Industry Board", claimed as "mar keting and promotion services" in General 
services (Green Box).  This situation in itself requires the submission of a Table DS:2 notification to show how the newly-notified meas ure meets the criteria of Annex 2, i.e., in this 
case the criteria in paragraphs 1 and 2(f) of Annex 2.  This Board seems to engage also in other 
activities than marketing and promotion services, such as administering a guaranteed price scheme for cocoa and coffee, as well as offering loan guarantees and providing cocoa plants to the industry.  On what grounds is this meas ure claimed as meeting the Green Box criteria?  
We wish to advise that the issue is being considered by our authorities in capital and a 
revised notification shall be submitted shortly. 
2. Question by the United States - In Supporting Table DS:1, under (iii) infrastructural 
services, could Trinidad and Tobago please expl ain how capital expenditures for establishing a 
packing house facility for fresh produce meet s the criteria under Annex 2, paragraph 2(g)? 
Trinidad and Tobago believes that the est ablishment of a packing house facility for 
fresh produce qualifies as infrastructural capital works, and therefore meets the 
criteria under Annex 2.   
Like many developing countries with limite d financial resources, capital works are 
usually completed over successive financial y ears.  In this instance, the capital works 
on the packing house has spanned a number of years, which is facilitated by the yearly 
financial allocation received from the Govern ment. This allows for the construction 
and/or establishment of the packing house to  occur incrementally or in phases until 
completion of the project.  
During the financial year 2006-2007 the allocation to this project, classified as 
infrastructural services under the Green Box, amounted to TT$959,839 or  US$152,355.40. 
 G/AG/R/58 
Page 14  
 
  Annex 3 
Deferred replies by Jordan (G/AG/N/JO R/10 and JOR/11) to questions raised by 
 
Canada and the United States  
 
1. Questions by Canada - G/AG/N/JOR/11 show s a very large increase in expenditures for 
research and infrastructural services between 2005 a nd 2006.  Is this increase a modification of 
existing services or is it a new measure?  Has Jordan considered submitting a Table DS:2 
notification to show how this expenditure meets the criteria of paragraphs 2(a) and 2(g) of 
Annex 2? 
Jordan hereby would like to clarify that the research expenditures normally increased 
due to the increase in research budgets by the public universities.  Similarly, the 
expenditures on the infrastructural services ha ve increased dramatically in 2006 and 
2007.  This increase was mainly attributed to the increasing expenditures on dams and 
irrigation systems where those two items repr esented about 60 per cent of the Jordan 
Valley Authority’s budget for this period. 
As this is not a new measure, there is no need to submit Table DS:2 notification. 
2. Questions by the United States -  Under Suppo rting Table DS:5 for both 2006 and 2007, 
USDA's production data indicate that Jordan’s production for wheat and barley was higher 
than what is reported in these tables, which would suggest that total market price support may also be higher.  The calculation of total market price support should be based on the quantity of production eligible to receive price support.  Co uld Jordan confirm the quantity of production 
eligible to receive price support during the notified time period? 
Jordan hereby confirms that the actual  quantities of wheat and barley production 
eligible to receive price support were 11, 105 tonnes and 1,904 tonnes respectively in 
2006; and 15,060 tonnes and 2,832 tonnes respectively in 2007. Such eligible production figures represent the quantities purchased by the Government, but do not 
equal the total quantity of production.  
   G/AG/R/58 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Annex 4 
 
Deferred replies by the Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/18) to questions raised by  
the United States  
 
 
1. Question by the United States - Could the Dominican Republic please further elaborate 
on expenditures for each measure found under (a ) General services in Supporting Table DS:1? 
1. The Dominican Republic hereby responds to th e question from the United States regarding its 
notification of domestic support for 2008, which c oncerns Table DS:1, (a) General Services, a 
category that includes "expenditures (or revenue foregone) in relation to programmes which provide 
services or benefits to agriculture or the rural co mmunity".  This notification covers expenditures 
incurred under the Annual Budget of the Ministry of  Agriculture of the Dominican Republic.  In 
response to the United States' request for a br eakdown of expenditures for each measure in the 
General Services category, we wish to specify the following: 
(a) Agricultural research 
2. This subheading includes expenditures for activ ities carried out by two research institutions 
relating to the agricultural sector, that is, the Nati onal Council for Agriculture and Forestry Research 
(CONIAF) and the Dominican Agriculture a nd Forestry Research Institute (IDIAF). 
3. Both are decentralized institutions.  Through th e CONIAF, the Ministry of Agriculture builds 
up, promotes and directs the National Agriculture and Forestry Technology Generation and Transfer 
System, providing financing from the research fund to  encourage scientific and technological capacity 
building in public and private institutions. 
4. The IDIAF implements the agriculture and fo restry research and validation policy of the 
Dominican Republic, and carries out programmes and pr ojects relating, inter alia, to food security and 
rural development. 
(b) Pest and disease control (plant and animal health and inspection services) 
5. These expenditures cover programmes to contro l diseases in cereals, diseases and pests in 
other crops, and fruit diseases and pests, which involve the following activities: 
• sanitary planning, plant safety, inspec tion and quarantine, epidemiology, and 
disease control and eradication; 
• sanitary research and production of biologicals (phytosanitary prevention and 
control programme using biological control organisms); 
• animal quarantine (to prevent the entry and spread of quarantine or exotic 
diseases which pose a threat to  animal health in the Dominican Republic, to help 
maintain disease-free zones and areas in which diseases are being eradicated, and to ensure sanitary control of liv estock goods for export);  and 
• risk analysis (sanitary and phytosanitary  surveillance, notification of pests or 
diseases). G/AG/R/58 
Page 16  
 
  (c) Training services 
6. Training services involve coordinating technical assistance and capacity-building 
programmes for professionals, experts and producers in  the country's agricultural sector, including 
farming school programmes.  The subheading also c overs some expenditures relating to scholarships 
for the training of young people in universities and study centres revolving around the agricultural 
sector. 
7. The expenditures relating to coordination betw een the Tropical Agricultural Research and 
Higher Education Center (CATIE) in Costa Rica and the Agricultural and Forestry Development Center (CEDAF) are provided for in the working agre ement for the training of human resources in the 
agricultural, forestry and natural resources sector , signed on 28 September 2006 between the Ministry 
of Agriculture and these two institutions, to be im plemented over a four-year period and providing for 
scholarships to enable professionals to study for Master's degrees, PhDs, short courses and seminars. 
(d) Extension and advisory services (agricultural) 
8. These services cover resources for the production and organizational reform process in a 
specified rural environment, the aim being to  alleviate rural poverty by promoting a new 
(i.e. non-agronomistic, non-productivist,  non-sectoral) outlook on rural development with a territorial, 
interdisciplinary and ma rket-oriented focus. 
9. The programmes concerned are geared towards reducing social, economic and environmental 
vulnerability, and involve hill farmi ng;  participatory research;  the socioeconomic aspects of rural 
farming;  alternative trade;  the land market;  in tegration of rural women and youth in productive and 
commercial activities;  and promotion of subs istence-level agricultural and non-agricultural 
enterprises, as a means of supplementing or supporting,  at least in the short term, the income of the 
poorest rural households. 
10. The project for the Institutional Strengtheni ng of the Dominican Republic's Agricultural 
Sector (FISADO) seeks to build up the institutiona l and technical capacities of extension services and 
to promote the development of producers' organi zations, by restructuring extension and expert 
training services;  to provide support for producers' organizations so that they can assume their share 
of responsibility in agricultural development and improve their agricultural production support 
mechanisms;  and to establish a national mechanism for the trai ning of extension personnel and 
contribute to the development of academic studies in  synergy with the countries of the Caribbean and 
Central America. 
(e) Marketing and promotion services 
11. These services contribute to the development of the production chain by identifying aspects 
that may hamper its expansion and strengthening its potential for making better use of opportunities - 
as part of the efforts to attain the objectives of the Sustainable Agriculture Project (PAS), which are to 
increase the number of traded products and rai se income levels among small-scale farmers. 
12. Under its marketing component, the project to support the transition to a competitive agrifood 
industry (PATCA), implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture in cooperation with the 
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), aims to increas e efficiency in domestic agriculture so as to 
enhance the competitiveness of the agrifood sector;  it includes activities geared towards reforming 
trade policy and making the necessary changes in th e organization of the government-run agrifood 
sector.  G/AG/R/58 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (f) Infrastructure services 
13. This subheading concerns Ministry of Agricultu re expenditures relating to the water and soil 
management component of the Special Programme for Food Security (PESA), which provides for the 
introduction of new irrigation and tilling methods and technologies for small-scale producers, and the 
intensification of training in rational and efficient management of these resources. 
14. The project for refrigerated distribution and greenhouses (PROMEFRIN) has been the driving 
force behind the installation of greenhouses and co ld-storage warehouses, and it is planned, among 
other things, to establish an agricultural produc t packaging and classification network and to 
rehabilitate tracks in areas where projects are under way. 
15. This project is coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture, with producer participation, and is 
implemented by a joint-management company run by the Ministry, the private sector and MERCASA, 
with financing from the Governments of Spain and the Dominican Republic. 
16. Lastly, we wish to point out that in preparing the response to this question we noted an error 
in the amount notified for technical assistance and training services in agriculture, which was entered 
twice, under both Training Services and Extension a nd Advisory Services.  An amended version of 
the notification in question will be sent to the WTO Secretariat today. 
  G/AG/R/58 
Page 18  
 
  Annex 5 
 
REVISED WORK PROGRAMME1 
10 March 2010 
 
Possible action by the Committee on Agriculture Suggested 
timelines 
Continued discussions on " best practices " 
Background documents: 
 G/AG/W/73/Rev.1  
 paragraphs 44-47 of G/AG/R/57  
 G/AG/W/73/Rev.1/Add.1.  10 March 2010 
Possible action by the Secretariat Suggested 
timelines 
A.  Technical assistance and training 
Agriculture Notifications Handbook 
Prototype version to be posted for comments on the Members' web site. Early April 2010 
E-learning:  Self-training module on agriculture notifications Early May 2010 
E-learning:  E-training module, incorporating user support features Long-term 
B.  Data requirements 
 Database on questions/a nswers supplied by Members since 1995 in the 
context of the Review Process  
 Online submission of notifications by Members to the CRN  IT Business 
Cases approved 
and part of the 
IT Strategic Plan 
for 2011 
 
 
__________ 
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and ob ligations under the WTO.  See paragraph 43 of G/AG/R/57 
for details.