WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/R/62 
12 September 2011 
 (11-4384) 
Committee on Agriculture  
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 23 JUNE 2011 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
  1. The Committee on Agriculture held its sixty-second regular meeting on 23 June 2011 under 
the Chairmanship of Mr. Jonas Skei of Norway. 
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in WT O/AIR/3765 was adopted with the addition of:  
(i) a statement by IICA under agenda item 2.B. on the Workshop on Agriculture Notifications 
organized jointly with the WTO;  (ii) a request by Cuba under agenda item 2.C. for exemption from 
Table ES:2 notification requirement;  and (iii) a stat ement by Pakistan under agenda item 2.E. on an 
interagency report entitled "Price Volatility in F ood and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses". 
3. The Chairman recalled the Committee's Working Procedures
2 which, inter alia , require that 
questions be transmitted to both the Secretariat and the concerned Members within the prescribed 
timelines in order to be included and proper ly annotated in the convening airgram. 
I. THE REVIEW PROCESS 
4. Pursuant to the Committee's decision in 20093, Section I of the present summary report should 
be read in conjunction with documents G/AG/ W/84 and G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 which respectively 
compile all the questions and responses that were made  available to the Secretariat in writing.  Any 
follow-up comments to the concerns raised under the Review Process are reflected in Parts A and B 
below. 
A. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMEN TATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
(i) United States' Dairy Import Assessment Program 
5. In light of the United States' confirmation that  the Dairy Import Assessment Program did not 
necessarily provide assistance but rather increased the promotion of all dairy products in general4, 
Australia sought further clarification as to whether so me particular dairy proteins such as caseins and 
caseinates benefitted from the existing promotional programmes.  New Zealand reserved the right to raise further specific questions at the next meeti ng.  Supporting Australia and New Zealand, the EU 
expressed similar concerns. 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 Paragraphs 8 and 10 of G/AG/1 refer. 
3 Paragraph 38(a) of G/AG/R/57 refers. 
4 Paragraphs 1-3 of G/AG/86/Rev.2 refer. G/AG/R/62 
Page 2 
 
 
  6. The United States indicated its readiness to discu ss the programme bilaterally with Australia, 
the EU and New Zealand. 
(ii) United States' subsidies on upland cotton: compliance with ruling 
7. Further to the United States' response5, India pointed out that its question was not linked to 
the dispute and the terms of the agreement between  the United States and Brazil.  Rather, India was 
seeking information as to the effe ctive steps undertaken to remove the trade-distorting subsidies on 
upland cotton.  Brazil shared India's concern re garding the conformity of US support with the 
Agreement on Agriculture and other WTO Agreements .  Referring to the important share of cotton 
production in GDP and the exports  of many developing and least-developed countries, as well as the 
effect of subsidies on internationa l prices and their impact on cotton growers, Brazil highlighted the 
temporary nature of the current b ilateral understanding.  In Brazil's view, this was only "a second-best 
solution" that could in no way substitute the full im plementation of the Appellate Body ruling.  Brazil 
further noted that bilateral consultations with the United States had been held on a regular basis with a 
view to reaching full implementation.  Brazil express ed hope that the programmes considered to be in 
breach of WTO Agreements would be reformed by the United States as soon as possible. 
(iii) Argentina's import restrictions on agricultural products 
8. Israel reiterated its systemic concern with th e import restrictions maintained by Argentina on 
a long list of products which appeared to restrict or delay imports of goods competing with locally 
produced agricultural goods or foodstuffs.  Israeli exporters had been facing various border measures.  
In one case, a fruit shipment had been retained in port without much explanation from the local 
authorities, and only a small number of the containe rs had been released for importation after a long 
delay thus affecting the transaction due to the perishable nature of the product.  As a result of the 
unreasonable delay in the release of goods a large part of the shipment had to be re-exported to a third 
market.  Alluding to the discriminatory nature of the measures, Israel was of the view that the lack of 
transparency and unpredictability in their implementation de facto  disrupted trade flows and thus 
adversely affected the interests of Israeli exporters .  Bilateral consultations  had been held on this 
matter.  Israel expressed hope that a definitive solu tion to the problems would be found in the near 
future. 
9. Noting similar experiences and complaints from several shippers, the United States 
encouraged Argentina to maintain appropriate im port policies.  The EU and Switzerland shared the 
systemic concerns expressed by Israel and the United States.  While its specific problem with Argentina had been resolved bilaterally in 2010, Switzerland remained concerned that no appropriate 
measures had been taken despite the fact that th e issue had been raised already several times at 
various WTO bodies, such as the Council for Trade in Goods and the Committee on Import 
Licensing. 
10. Argentina highlighted that the comments continue d to be unsubstantiated.  The capital-based 
officials had been unable to provide concrete answer s as the "questions" raised were not specific, and 
were no more than an opinion.
6 
(iv) Canada's dairy policies 
11. Appreciating Canada's clarification with resp ect to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative and 
Milk Class 4(m)7, the EU and New Zealand indicated their likel y intention to seek more detail through 
further questions at the next meeting. 
                                                      
5 Paragraph 4 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refers. 
6 See also paragraphs 5-6 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2.  G/AG/R/62 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (v) State-of-play of Costa Rica's reform polici es to address the breach in AMS commitments 
12. Whilst praising Costa Rica's on-going transp arency in reporting on the steps undertaken 
domestically to reform its policies8, Australia, Canada, Colombia, New Zealand, Pakistan, the 
Philippines, Thailand and the United States register ed serious concerns about the ever-increasing 
breach of the Final Bound Total AMS.  The concerned Members strongly urged Costa Rica to 
implement the steps necessary to bring its Curre nt Total AMS within the bound limits as soon as 
possible and looked forward to an update at the next  meeting.  The United St ates was alar med at the 
Current Total AMS figure of US$109.6 million which ha d been notified shortly before the meeting.  
Canada and New Zealand also pointed out that the Current Total AMS for 2010 exceeded the 
commitment level seven-fold, which highlight ed the urgent need to address the matter. 
13. Noting its ambivalence on the issue due to common concerns on food security in rice, the 
Philippines sought further elaboration on the nature  of Costa Rica's National Rice Policy and an 
indicative timeline for its adoption.  The Philippi nes underlined that continued violation of 
commitments could impact significantly the credibility of the WTO system. 
14. Costa Rica took note of the interventions made and concerns expressed and indicated that for 
the moment, the Government was not in a position to announce when the National Rice Policy might 
come into effect. 
(vi) India's export restrictions on cotton 
15. In light of India's view that its current export restrictions on cotton fell outside of the purview 
of the Committee on Agriculture9, the United States maintained that a discussion on India's export 
restrictions was appropriate in this Committee give n the impact of such measures on the global cotton 
market and, in particular, their contribution to pr ice volatility.  Pakistan also flagged its concern. 
B. REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram 
16. Since the 31 March 2011 regular session, 51 notif ications had been circulated.  Annex 1 
compiles those notifications in respect of which quest ions have been raised in advance of the issuance 
of the convening airgram. 
(i) Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) 
17. Praising the timeliness and accuracy of Ukraine's response regarding sugar TRQ 
administration10, Colombia hoped that the contemplated pr ocedure would allow sugar trade to take 
place as provided for under the Protocol of Accession of Ukraine to the WTO.  El Salvador reiterated 
its interest in this important issue, the developmen t of which had been monitored closely since the end 
of 2010.  El Salvador noted that the responses to  the questions it posed at the Committee meeting in 
March 2011 remained pending.11 
                                                                                                                                                                     
7 Paragraphs 7-8 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refer. 
8 Paragraph 9 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refers. 
9 Paragraph 10 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refers. 
10 Paragraph 11 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refers. 
11 Paragraph 6 of G/AG/R/61 refers. G/AG/R/62 
Page 4 
 
 
  (ii) Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2) 
18. Canada reserved the right to follow up on the issue of EU's beef TRQ fill rates after 
consideration of the responses provided by the EU.12  Similarly, the EU indicated that additional 
questions might be posed with regard to Norway's auctioning system13 and South Africa's applied 
rates for out-of-quota imports where TRQs had been fully utilized.14 
19. Australia observed a clear pattern of nil to low (less than 20 per cent) fill rates for several of 
Chinese Taipei's TRQs over the last couple of years which perhaps could not be attributed solely to 
market conditions.15 
(iii) Special Safeguard measures (Tables MA:3 to MA:5) 
20. Australia pointed to the invocation of Jap an's volume-based SSG on extremely small 
quantities: 1.31 tonnes in the case of milk and cr eam, and 2.75 tonnes in relation to yoghurt.  
Referring to the objective of the SSG mechanism, i. e. to ensure that domestic producers are not 
affected by sudden import surges, Australia questione d whether there was a genuine need to invoke 
the measure, as well as its consistency with Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.16 
(iv) Domestic support (Table DS:1) 
21. Regarding Australia's Table DS:1 notification,  India noted with interest the change from 
partial cost recovery to full cost recovery of in spection fees and charges.  India sought clarity as to 
whether this change was part of a reform proces s or rather a move to bring the measure into 
compliance with Australia's commitments.  India furt her indicated its intention to raise supplementary 
questions at a later stage.17  Australia replied that the change  was only a stage in the biosecurity 
reform process which had been undertaken. 
22. The United States looked forward to receiving and reviewing the response from Bahrain with 
regard to the compliance of its "poultry sector" programme with Article 6.2 criteria.18  The EU 
recalled its question on a similar issue, the response of which had remained pending since March 
2011.19 
23. Referring to Israel's support included in th e category "Investment in Agriculture", New 
Zealand commented that some of the covered programmes appeared to relate to on-farm 
infrastructural services and as such might not be cons istent with the criteria applicable to Green Box 
support.20  In this regard, New Zealand encouraged Me mbers to exercise diligence in notifying their 
Green Box measures so as to ensure that the cate gorization of such measures was consistent with 
Green Box criteria. 
                                                      
12 Paragraph 13 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refers. 
13 Paragraph 17 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refers. 
14 Paragraph 18 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refers. 
15 Paragraphs 19-20 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refer. 
16 See also paragraph 21 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2. 
17 Paragraphs 24-29 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refer. 
18 Bahrain's responses to the United States were subsequently incorporated in paragraph 30 of 
G/AG/W/86/Rev.2. 
19 Bahrain's response to the EU was subsequently incorporated in paragraph 20 of G/AG/W/83/Rev.2. 
20 Paragraphs 34-35 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refer.  G/AG/R/62 
 Page 5 
 
 
  24. In relation to Tunisia's Table DS:1 notification,  Canada shared the concerns expressed by the 
United States in its written question rega rding the calculation of reference prices.21 
25. Concerning Ukraine's external reference price for sugar22, Canada put down a marker 
regarding the use of Article 18.4 which had not been mentioned in Ukraine's Table DS:1 notification.  
In Canada's view, even if it had been mentioned, th is provision could not authorize an adjustment of 
the fixed external reference price.  Canada furthe r noted that Ukraine's Current Total AMS calculated 
without adjusting the fixed external reference pr ice was still below its Final Bound Total AMS.  
Canada continued to look forward to a revised Ta ble DS:1 notification prepared in line with the 
provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture.   The United States highlighted the importance of using 
the agreed methodology to ensure accurate notificatio ns and that the use of different methodologies to 
calculate fixed external reference prices would ch ange the resulting AMS for individual commodities.  
Japan shared Canada's and the United States' concerns  with reference to Article 18.4 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
26. Pakistan voiced its understanding that external re ference prices were fixed and needed to be 
calculated in accordance with the constituent data and methodology used in the tables of supporting 
material incorporated by reference in Part IV of  Ukraine's Schedule.  As Ukraine had mentioned the 
Secretariat's assistance in the preparation of its fi rst Table DS:1 notification, Pakistan wondered about 
the Secretariat's advice concerning the existence of different methodologies  and asked that all 
Members be apprised.  The Secretariat confirmed that it regularly offered technical assistance to 
delegations in the preparation of their notifica tions, however, it was the prerogative of each Member 
to interpret the provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture in finalizing its submissions.  
27. Ukraine expressed its readiness to provide  additional information as requested.  
(v) Export prohibitions and rest rictions (Table ER:1) 
28. Reiterating its on-going concern on Ukraine's e xport restrictions notified in G/AG/N/UKR/5 
and addenda, Israel took comfort in  the announcement that some grains would be excluded from the 
scope of the temporary export quota.  Neverthe less, Ukraine's measures seemed unwarranted and 
exceeding the scope of the relevant provisions of Article XI of GATT 1994, Article 12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and the obligations assumed by  Ukraine in its Protocol of Accession.  As a 
net food-importer, Israel was against non-tran sparent, non-predictable and burdensome export 
restrictions in general and, in particular, agai nst export quotas instituted by food-exporting Members.  
Such measures could impact severely net food-im porters' ability to guarantee undisrupted supply of 
foodstuffs - an aspect which the Ukrainian au thorities were urged to take into account. 
29. Israel and Japan hoped that the remaining export restrictions would be repealed promptly.  
The United States remained concerned by the extensi on of the export restrictions via export taxes and 
looked forward to Ukraine's notification. 
30. Acknowledging the recently-improved notification record in the area of export prohibitions 
and restrictions and with reference to Ukraine a nd other Members who had notified restrictions, Japan 
insisted that such restrictions s hould be avoided.  Japan praised the transparency shown by the Kyrgyz 
Republic in notifying its export taxes.  While the imposition of export taxes by developing countries 
for fiscal reasons could not be questioned, the app lication of these measures in circumvention of the 
disciplines on export prohibitions and restrictions was a cause for serious concern for Japan and 
Switzerland.  Japan saw room for improvement in making the disciplines more operational and 
effective, e.g. with regard to notifications' timing,  submission of data in evidence of the existence of 
                                                      
21 Paragraph 39 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refers. 
22 Paragraphs 40-41 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refer. G/AG/R/62 
Page 6 
 
 
  critical shortages, or a clear definition of "net food-exporter of the specific foodstuff concerned" 
referred to in Article 12.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Japan believed a discussion on these 
issues with the Membership would contribute to  enhancing the rules-based trading system. 
31. In relation to the introduction of temporary e xport duties by Ukraine, and in more general 
terms, the EU remained concerned with the use of export restrictions and w ould continue to monitor 
the actions taken by Members in the future. 
32. In light of Israel's comments, Ukraine stated th at its WTO obligations had not been violated.  
While it had every right to avail itself of the rele vant provisions of WTO agreements, in particular 
Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, in the fu ture Ukraine would give preference to measures 
allowed under WTO agreements which contribute to th e development of international trade relations 
on the basis of predictable and transparent market access.23 
(b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram 
33. The Committee took note of the notifications ci rculated in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram but in respect of which no ques tions had been raised by that date under the 
Committee's Working Procedures (Annex 2).  There was no discussion under this agenda item. 
(c) Notifications circulated or made available after the date on which the notice convening the 
present meeting was issued 
34. The Committee took note of the notifications ci rculated after the issuance of the convening 
airgram (Annex 3).  These notifications will be revert ed to for substantive review at the September 
2011 meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working Procedures. 
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings 
35. The Chairman 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.  There was no discussion under this agenda item. 
(e) Counter-notifications 
36. The Committee took note that no counter-notifi cations had been received under Article 18.7 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(f) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process 
37. The Chairman recalled that WTO/AIR/3760 contained a reminder concerning outstanding 
responses to questions raised under the Review Pro cess.  The Secretariat maintained contact with 
delegations still owing written responses to ensure the completion of the relevant sections of the 
compilations of responses.24 
                                                      
23 Paragraphs 47-51 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refer. 
24 With respect to Albania, see paragraph 16 of G/AG/W/75/Rev.4; with respect to the Kyrgyz 
Republic and Thailand, see paragraphs 82 and 10, respectively, of G/AG/W/83/Rev.2.  Bahrain's and Egypt's 
responses are respectively contained in paragraphs 20-22 and 95 of G/AG/W/83/Rev.2.   G/AG/R/62 
 Page 7 
 
 
  38. In response to the United States' reminder of  deferred replies from the March 2011 meeting25, 
Thailand informed the Committee that after several m eetings with the relevant agencies within the 
Ministry of Commerce, responses to the United States ' questions had been prepared and submitted for 
internal approval. 
(g) Overdue notifications 
39. Document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.6 dated 22 June 2011,  showing the current status of Members' 
compliance with notification obligations, was made available.  Responses were given by China, 
Egypt, India, Korea and Turkey to  questions raised by Australia.26  Referring to the importance of 
notifications in terms of transparency and de veloping an understanding of  where Members positioned 
themselves, e.g. as regards domestic support, Austra lia recalled that it had b een posing questions on 
this topic to some Members since the 52nd Committee on Agriculture.  Au stralia appreciated the fact 
that efforts had been made by Members to prepare their overdue notifications. 
40. Australia and the United States welcomed India' s latest Table DS:1 notification and looked 
forward to the opportunity to review it at the next  Committee meeting.  The United States encouraged 
China and India to submit their overdue notif ications for more recent reporting periods. 
41. India pointed to an inconsistency with the terms used in this context:  while in the documents 
of the G/AG/GEN/86 series "outstanding notifica tions" was used, the agenda item referred to 
"overdue notifications".  The Chairman stated that  the Secretariat had no specific references to share 
with the Committee at the present meeting on th e reasons for this choice of terminology. 
II. OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. IMPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES27 
42. The Chairman recalled that the situation had not changed since the circulation of the 2003 and 
2006 reports to the General Council.28  In advance of the meeting, an addendum to the Compendium 
of Documents on Implementation-Related Issues  had been circulated29 to account for (i) WTO's 
participation in the 33rd session of the International Grain Council  held in June 2011;  and (ii) the 
relevant Tables NF:1 and MA:1 notifications that had been circulated since 21 March 2011. 
43. 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.   
44. With reference to statements by some Me mbers, as summarized under paragraph 30 above, 
that there was "space" for the Committee to work on the development of additional disciplines 
relating to Article 12 of the Agreement on Agricult ure, Argentina believed that there was an ever 
larger space to work on this outstanding implemen tation-related issue.  Argentina expressed readiness 
to contribute to that work. 
                                                      
25 Paragraphs 6-7 of G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 refer. 
26 Paragraphs 53-57 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refer. 
27 WT/MIN(01)/17 refers. 
28 G/AG/16 and Add.1 refer. 
29 G/AG/W/70/Rev.2/Add.2 refers. G/AG/R/62 
Page 8 
 
 
  B. BEST PRACTICES  
(a) New AGCD information bases 
45. The Chairman reported that, as foreshadowed during the March 2011 meeting, the Secretariat 
had been working on a new product.  The existi ng SSG modules compiling information from Tables 
MA:3 and MA:4 had been enhanced in order to co mplete the SSG dataset currently available on the 
WTO public website.  In line with the suggestions ma de during the most recent consultations on "best 
practices", the compendium of all notified SSG actions under Tables MA:3, MA:4 and MA:5 cross-
referenced individual SSG notifications.30 
46. With reference to the presentation by the Secr etariat at the March 2011 meeting on databases 
maintained by the Agriculture and Commodities Division31, the United States suggested that the 
Committee could perhaps reflect upon a more co mmon format, as well as try to reach a better 
understanding of what these projects aimed to accomplish. 
(b) Technical assistance 
47. In relation to the Committee's on-going work on  improving the timeliness and completeness 
of notifications, the Chairman noted that the Secr etariat had been assigning resources in the provision 
of notification-specific technical assistance activities, in particular the well-appreciated Workshops on 
Agriculture Notifications.  The next workshop, ta rgeted at twenty French-speaking government 
officials, would take place on the margins of the September 2011 meeting.  In order to optimize the 
learning process during the workshop, candidates must have completed the WTO e-training course on 
agriculture.  The selection process would be finalized  mid-July.  Subject to the availability of funds, 
another workshop would be held from 15  to 17 November 2011 in English. 
48. As part of its work plan in operation sin ce March 2010, IICA had been carrying out capacity 
building events in Latin America with a view to strengthening technical co-operation to its member 
states.  The representative of IICA informed the Committee of the Regional Workshop on Agriculture 
Notifications which had been held in San Jose, Co sta Rica, on 13-14 April 2011 with the participation 
of 28 representatives from 19 countries in Latin Am erica, including Cuba.  Taking cognisance of the 
importance of keeping up with WTO commitments, the focus had been on notification requirements 
and improvement of notification preparation, with the experience of countries in the region also being 
presented.  IICA continued to be interested in hol ding this type of activit y in conjunction with the 
WTO in the future.  Costa Rica thanked IICA for th e workshop which had been well appreciated by 
the participants. 
49. Referring to the latest document showing the current status of Members' compliance with 
notification obligations32, Pakistan noted that notifications for some LDCs had remained outstanding 
for a number of years probably due to limited capaci ty.  Pakistan suggested that dedicated workshops 
be organized for these Members under the WTO Techni cal Assistance programme to help them fulfil 
their notification obligations.  The Secretariat point ed out that such initiatives were directly addressed 
by the Committee on Trade and Development wher e consultations on the TA plan for 2012-2013, 
including on agriculture-related activities, were ta king place.  Additionally, in 2010 the AGCD had 
launched an e-learning package allowing government  officials to directly access specialized training 
on notification procedures.  In the short-term, th e WTO Introduction Course to LDCs being held in 
July 2011 would be a timely opportunity to deliv er such assistance to re presentatives from French-
speaking LDCs. 
                                                      
30 Copies were made available to delegations  for verification purposes in July 2011. 
31 Paragraph 39 of G/AG/R/61 refers. 
32 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.6 refers.  G/AG/R/62 
 Page 9 
 
 
  50. Acknowledging the advancements made so fa r under "best practices" from which everyone 
could benefit, the United States highlighted that cer tain areas could be looked at more closely with a 
view to improving them.  Following up on Pakist an's ideas, the United Stat es stated that while the 
route of formal technical assistance had been foll owed, other techniques could also be used such as 
organizing more focused information sessions in which Members helped other Members. 
51. With regard to the current practice under whic h summary reports of the Committee are drawn 
up as separate documents containing reference to  a document compiling questions and responses, 
India suggested that, had that compilation document been annexed to summary reports, it would no 
longer be necessary for the reader to refer to two di stinct documents.  Noting that the current practice 
was in line with the decision taken by the Comm ittee in November 2009 to no longer attach a 
summary of questions and responses to the reports, but ra ther have their original versions circulated as 
official restricted documents33, the Secretariat undertook to consult with the Languages, 
Documentation and Information Management Division.   Reference was also made to the Questions 
and Answers Database, to be launc hed in the second half of 2011 in order to address delegations' 
information needs as regards the original versions of  all questions and responses that belonged to the 
examination history of the Committee since 1995. 
52. The Chairman expressed his readiness to meet with delegations and discuss how the 
reflections raised could be advanced at a future meeting of the Committee. 
C. LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EXPORTERS34 
(a) Chairman's oral report 
53. The Chairman delivered an oral report on the results of his consultations and other steps 
undertaken in the course of the last two months with a view to ensure appropriate follow-up in 
reviewing the List of "significant exporters" for the purposes of the Table ES:2 notification requirement.
35  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the EU, 
Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Switzerland and Thaila nd thanked the Chairman for the consultations 
held and for his comprehensive report and supported an immediate update of the List of "significant 
exporters" as contained in G/AG/W/82/Rev.1 for reasons  of relevance, transparency and credibility.  
Argentina, Australia, Brazil and Canada flagged their readiness to comply with the additional 
notification obligations which would arise from the new List. 
54. Noting that Table ES:2 was arguably the simplest notification requirement under the 
Agreement on Agriculture, Canada underscored that, after the updating,  Members could take the time 
to explore other ideas, including product groups.  This idea was supported by Argentina, Brazil, 
Colombia, the EU, Japan and Mexico.  With regard to the product list, Argentina held the view that 
any substantive change should not affect the co mparability between Tables ES:1 and ES:2.  In 
addition, during the second phase Members could work on an indicative list to determine what exactly 
was behind the list of product categories.  Australia noted that the extension of the product list as 
contained in G/AG/W/82/Rev.1 to cover all 22 pr oducts included in the original Uruguay Round 
modalities36 would bring on equal footing Members w ith export subsidy reduction commitments and 
Members who were "significant exporters".  Several Members reiterated their readiness to participate 
in further discussions of experiences accumulated in the notification process aimed at providing comfort to newly-listed "significant exporters" through assistance and advice.   
                                                      
33 See paragraph 4 above. 
34 G/AG/2/Add.1 dated 16 October 1995 refers. 
35 See Annex 4. 
36 Paragraph 7 of Annex 8 of MTN.GNG/MA/W/24 refers. G/AG/R/62 
Page 10 
 
 
  55. India advised that it needed to reflect carefully  on the Chairman's oral report so as to respond 
to it, if necessary, at a later stage.  Since discussi ons had so far been held in informal settings, India 
wished to bring on record its position, particular  as, in its view, a clear understanding as well as 
agreement on process was necessary before moving on to  substance.  In this context, it was important 
to fully understand the roles of the Chairperson, Members and the Committee in establishing the List.  
India believed that the first List had been estab lished by the Chairman in 1995 pursuant to the 
mandate given to him by the Members, as contained in G/AG/2, but that this was not a blanket 
mandate for all subsequent reviews.  For such revi ews, India believed that the question of whether the 
mandate would lie with the Chairman or with th e Committee needed to be addressed first.  India 
recalled the objection it had raised in March 2011 with respect to the erroneous impression that was 
created by the Chairman, from India's standpoint, as having a mandate to review the List.37  India's 
own understanding was that the mandate lay with Me mbers.  Further, this issue had not been 
addressed or contested in subsequent discussions.  I ndia considered that a revised List of "significant 
exporters" had been issued on 6 April 2011 without  discussions in the formal Committee meeting in 
March 2011.  According to India, this was clearly upon the Chairman's individual decision, and in its 
view, in contradiction with established Committee' s procedures.  India believed therefore that 
document G/AG/W/82 ought to be completely disregar ded and could not be acted upon.  India further 
read paragraph 27 of G/AG/R/57 as clearly establishi ng that any subsequent review of the List was a 
prerogative of the Committee, with the Chairman's ta sk being only to organize consultations so as to 
facilitate that review.  In India's view, the drawi ng up of a List ought to be discussed in the Committee 
and a decision taken by consensus.  India further stre ssed that despite the rec ognition of a deadlock in 
the informal discussions held in May 2011, tw o new documents, namely G/AG/W/76/Add.1 and 
G/AG/W/82/Rev.1, had been issued without consensus or clarity.  India insisted that consensus be 
followed, and that any drawing up of a List in the first instance and subsequent revision by the 
Chairman without discussion and jurisdiction were ultra vires ab initio . 
56. As regards substance, India believed that the lis t of product categories needed to be looked at 
closely to ensure that coverage reflected and capture d trade reality and that the categories were clearly 
understood.  India stated that it did not dispute f acts or shy away from its notification obligations.  
India sought a comprehensive and transparent discussion on the revision of the list of notification 
requirements, as well as clarity and understanding on  the notification obligations on which India did 
not wish to be in the dark, especially since a nu mber of issues had not been addressed and lacked 
clarity.  For instance, a question needing an an swer was whether Members with export subsidy 
reduction commitments were also "si gnificant exporters".  India's interp retation of the first sentence of 
paragraph (iii) on page 24 of G/AG/2 was that "si gnificant exporters" were those exporting more than 
5 per cent of total world exports.  That being the case, the Committee needed to  revisit all documents 
which had been prepared without discussi on in the Committee, namely G/AG/W/82, 
G/AG/W/82/Rev.1 and G/AG/W/76/Add.1.  India furthe r suggested that a list of product groups be 
drawn up at an appropriate HS level for Members w ho export more than 5 per cent of the total world 
exports and are thus "significant exporters", i rrespective of whether they have export subsidy 
reduction commitments.  This list would be different  from the list of Members who have obligations 
under the Table ES:2 notification requirement.  In light  of the obligation applicable to Members with 
export subsidy reduction commi tments, as laid out in the sixth sen tence of paragraph (iii) on page 24 
of G/AG/2, India stated that products or groups of  products to be included in Table ES:2 by Members 
without export subsidy commitments was unclear.  Referring to varying scheduling practices (e.g. at 
HS heading, sub-heading, or 8-digit level) Indi a also wondered about the level at which Members 
without export subsidy commitments would notify.  The lack of uniformity amongst Members in 
scheduling products was also pointed out.  India stated that the "coarse grains" category did not 
include corn for the United States,  and only beans were included in  the "vegetables" category for 
Mexico.  According to India, the comparability between product categories for Members with and 
without export subsidy reduction comm itments, and the respective nature of notifications needed to be 
                                                      
37 Paragraph 60 of G/AG/R/61 refers.  G/AG/R/62 
 Page 11 
 
 
  addressed.  Referring to paragraph 5 of G/AG/W/76, I ndia underlined the urgent need to obtain clarity 
on the coverage of each of the 22 product categori es.  The disaggregation of FAO product definitions 
at HS level would, in India's view, provide unders tanding on how to move forward, and an HS-level 
List of "significant exporters" might need to be drawn up thereafter.  
57. India reiterated that, while urgency had been cite d as the basis for the revision of the List of 
"significant exporters", only two working documents  had been produced, i.e. G/AG/W/82 and Rev.1, 
without any clear authority and mandate from the Committee.  The first document had only reviewed 
the list of Members, without any change in the product categories, and the second had added three 
more products to the list, but none of the docum ents had addressed the fundamental questions of 
Members seeking an understanding on the implica tions of a new notification obligation.  The 
proposals by China and Pakistan to consider data at  HS level, or by Argentina to establish a HS-based 
illustrative list, had also not been taken into account.  India believed that a troubling question 
remained as to the usefulness of  a transparency exercise on export subsidies if the list to be 
established lacked clarity with regards to the pr oduct groups, and if diffe rent product coverage 
obligations existed for different Members.  Accord ing to India, the situation of urgency had been 
created artificially, and in that context, both pro cess and substance had been overlooked.  Questions 
on process had not been answered from the outset.  In  the rush to review the List of "significant 
exporters", India's suggestions on substance had not been given adequate attention.  Thus, India was 
not in a position to agree to G/AG/W/82 and Rev.1 as the basis for future discussions. 
58. China was pleased to see progress being made and believed that the review and update of the 
List needed to take place urgently, in order to refl ect the present situation.  In China's view, some of 
the current product groups were too broadly defined, and in the case of "coarse grains", "fruit" and 
"vegetables" general export statistics in volume term s lacked meaningfulness.  For example, although 
in 2009 and 2010 China imported several million tonnes of maize, it was still listed as a "significant 
exporter" for "coarse grains" for 2005-2007.  Si milarly, China imported bananas, mangoes and 
tropical fruit and vegetables while at the same  time exporting processed fruit and vegetables.  
Supported by Pakistan and Turkey, China proposed that:  (i) the review should not only cover the List 
of "significant exporters" but also the list of product groups;  (ii) all product gr oups be defined at the 
sub-heading level of the Harmonized System;  (iii) the most recent three-year period, i.e. 2007-2009, 
be used for defining the "significant exporters".  The Philippines shared China's view but indicated 
that it was nonetheless ready to adopt the draft revi sed List contained in G/AG/W/82/Rev.1.  The EU 
flagged that data collection for the period 2007-2009 may prove difficult. 
59. Canada registered its disagreement with I ndia's interpretation on a number of issues, 
including with respect to G/AG/2.  The United Stat es felt overwhelmed by the interventions in terms 
of what the actual concerns were.  The US delega tion had come to the meeting prepared to adopt the 
List, and remained ready to do so if that was th e wish of the Committee.  However, very specific 
concerns had just been heard which would probably not allow su ch an outcome at the present 
meeting.  Supported by Chile, the United States w as ready to show pragmatism towards consideration 
of sensible changes, but only to a certain degree sin ce most of the concerns outlined had already been 
discussed in some of the informal sessions.  There was a need for clarity of what the Committee was 
trying to achieve.  In this light, the United States suggested that a practical approach be taken to 
address such concerns.   
60. In response to India's point that discussions ha d been held so far in informal settings, the 
United States emphasized that the present meeting w as formal.  If it was Members' wish, all future 
discussions on this topic could take place in formal m eetings, although this woul d be regrettable.  The 
United States hoped that work would continue in a collaborative way in informal sessions, so that 
further deliberations could be fruitful.  India explai ned that the purpose of raising its concerns in the 
formal meeting was to bring all the thoughts which ha d been voiced in an informal setting but which, 
in India's view, had not been captured properly.  India was ready to work constructively with all G/AG/R/62 
Page 12 
 
 
  Members, whether formally or informally.  It was cl ear that the List could not be adopted just because 
five or ten Members were saying it needed to be adopted.  India could not walk in this exercise 
blindly and needed to gain full understanding before taking a commitment.  Chile voiced its 
disagreement with India's assumption that only five  or ten Members supported the update, pointed to 
the vast convergence in favour of updating the List  and warned against falling into further loss of 
credibility through not facing up to the r ealities of the work accomplished so far. 
61. The EU reiterated that bringing the notifica tion obligations with respect to "significant 
exporters" in line with reality should be done sooner rather than later.  Discussions on improving the 
product coverage should not get in the way of the u pdate.  In the EU's view, the chance of achieving 
an update with a little bit more time and effort, in light of some of the concerns expressed, was worth 
seizing in order to bring everyone along.  The provi sion of an operational certainty for Members, i.e. 
what needed to be notified precisely in terms of the 22 products, seemed a reasonable concern for the 
EU, but further reflection on the base period of sourcing the data was also legitimate.   
62. The Chairman indicated that he had taken a pragmatic approach of pursuing informal 
consultations so as to allow for existing concerns  to be addressed.  Recognizing that the Committee 
would be at its strongest with all of its Members on board, as recalled by India, the Chairman stated 
that, clearly, process had been a difficult topic.  As  no agreement had been reached on mandates, the 
Chairman stated that Members' pursuit of con sensus should not prejudge any interpretation on 
mandates.  The Chairman considered that the el aboration of Members' legitimate concerns in a 
comprehensive manner had been welcomed so far.  For instance, the idea to look at the product 
categories in G/AG/W/76 in terms of HS codes ha d been useful.  By way of a compromise, the 
Chairman outlined two possible courses of action:  (i) an immediate update of the List of "significant 
exporters" while simultaneously setting up a work plan, a list of targets to be ac hieved so as to ensure 
that all legitimate concerns expressed had been recognized and addressed; and (ii) providing comfort 
to Members by trying to narrow down the number of concerns before updating the List.  While 
encouraging Members to work towards compromise pr agmatically, the Chairman  pointed out that the 
Committee should not be detracted fr om the task before it, i.e. to update the List of "significant 
exporters".  
63. Responding to the Chairman's call, Brazil and New Zealand proposed that alongside the 
adoption of the List of "significant exporters",  as contained in G/AG/W/82/Rev.1, the Committee 
adopt a work programme with a reasonable ti meframe to conclude the discussion on product 
categories and other relevant concerns. 
64. In Pakistan's understanding, the first option suggested by the Chairman had already been 
rejected.  Pakistan recognized, however, that addr essing all Members' concer ns might take two or 
three years which would prevent the Committee from reaching its objective.  Pakistan believed that 
eight months was a reasonable period of time.  The adoption of the List by consensus would allow 
Members having concerns to consult and engage constructively, both in  formal and informal settings.  
Furthermore, Pakistan believed that a pro cedure to carry out future updates should be 
institutionalized.  China supported the idea of settin g up a timeframe to allow Members narrow down 
their differences through further discussions until con sensus was reached.  Howe ver, in consideration 
of the fact that some Members were still require d to submit Table ES:2 notification without being 
"significant exporters" anymore, in China's view th e appropriate timeframe was from eight months to 
one year. 
65. Supported by New Zealand, Australia disagreed wi th Pakistan's understanding that the first 
option had been rejected by all.  A number of Me mbers had expressed their preference to adopt the 
List of "significant exporters", including at the present meeting.  In the spirit of compromise and 
genuine attempt to understand other Members' concerns, Australia was open to engage in a specified 
timeframe.  In that respect, the reasonableness of the task at hand and the time period mattered.  This  G/AG/R/62 
 Page 13 
 
 
  was especially relevant for Members who were no longer "significant exporters" but were still 
required to submit Table ES:2 notifications.  New Ze aland expressed strong reluctance to consider the 
timeframe indicated by China and, supported by Me xico, insisted on keeping the prospect of adopting 
the List at each future meeting of the Committee.  
66. The United States warned against the setting up of specific timeframes.  Three substantive 
issues needed to be addressed in a practical way as e xpeditiously as possible, but preferably, without a 
timeline:  (i) core comparison data, i.e. the type of data contained in G/AG/W/76;  (ii) the nature of 
information to be notified, e.g. reporting in HS c odes;  and (iii) a possible expansion of the list of 
products.  Australia and the United States reiterated  that some work on these issues had already been 
carried out.   
67. India disagreed with the adoption of a new List of "significant exporters" before having 
addressed all unanswered questions of process and s ubstance outlined in its detailed intervention.  
India believed that adopting the List first and only then starting the review would be tantamount to 
kicking off notification obligations  without having addressed some impor tant questions.  Furthermore, 
India would not like to operate on the basis of a work programme or be a prisoner of time.  From the 
Philippines' standpoint, the important questions we re why an update was required, and why Members 
needed to notify. 
(b) Request by Cuba for exemption from Table ES:2 notification requirements 
68. The Chairman pointed out that one avenue of fulfilling requests for exemption would be 
through updating the List of "significant exporters", as repeatedly highlighted in previous as well as current discussions by several Members. 
69. Cuba understood that Members had reached a consensus on its exemption from the Table 
ES:2 notification requirement already in March 2011.  However, in light of the systemic concerns 
reflected in the Chairman's oral report, Cuba sought  an explanation from delegations as to the nature 
of difficulties they would have with such an exempt ion.  While fully agreeing with the importance of 
updating the List and taking into account the concerns  expressed with respect to product categories, in 
the interim, i.e. until the List was updated, C uba informed the Committee that it had taken the 
decision to discontinue submitting Table ES:2 notifica tions given that, for 10 years, the country had 
no longer been a "significant exporter" of sugar.  Cuba further recalled that it had been notifying for 
six years without needing to do so.  
70. China and the Philippines stated that they di d not object to the exemption.  Pakistan 
acknowledged the legitimacy of Cuba's request.  Howeve r, it would be in the interest of the system if 
more time were invested in attempting to deliv er a better end product as outlined in paragraph 64 
above.  Referring to paragraph 6 of the Chairman's oral report, Canada recalled its systemic concern 
and objection.  Likewise, the EU believed that  exemptions should not be allowed.   
71. Argentina believed that a "legal approach" ought to apply, i.e. that notification requirements 
continued to be defined by the List  as contained in the document currently in force, G/AG/2/Add.1.  If 
"trading reality" were the relevant criteria for as sessing whether exemption should be granted or not, 
then Cuba and other Members who were no longer "significant exporters" should be exempted from 
the List, and as such, from the Table ES:2 notificatio n requirement.  However, the same criteria ought 
to be applied to those Members who had become "si gnificant exporters".  In other words, the criteria 
ought to apply equally to exem ptions and inclusions.   
72. Pointing to the exemplary notification record of Cuba in terms of Table ES:2 notification, the 
Chairman proposed to continue the deliberations of this matter at the next Committee meeting. G/AG/R/62 
Page 14 
 
 
  (c) Concluding remarks by the Chairman 
73. The Chairman expressed appreciation of Memb ers' willingness to continue the informal 
consultations.  To focus future debates, the Chairm an invited all delegations, particularly those who 
had expressed specific concerns during the meeting, to communicate their views on the following 
three questions:38 
(i) What are the specific outstanding concerns that  need to be addressed in the context of 
the review of the List of "significant exporters"? 
(ii) Which, among the concerns identified under (i) above, would logically have to be 
addressed before updating the List? Which on es could be addressed at a later stage, 
i.e. after updating the List? 
(iii) Is there any information that would be requi red either from (i) the Chairman, (ii) the 
Secretariat, or (iii) individual Members, th at could facilitate an expeditious resolution 
to this issue? 
D. RENEWAL OF AD HOC OBSERVER STATUS TO INTER -AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR 
AGRICULTURAL COOPERATION (IICA) 
74. The Chairman recalled the Committee's decision in March 2010 to grant ad hoc  observer 
status to IICA39 and the need for invitations in this c ase to therefore be extended on a meeting-by-
meeting basis.  The Committee agreed to invite IICA to participate in the September 2011 regular 
session as an ad hoc  observer. 
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
(a) Statement by Pakistan 
75. In Pakistan's view, the report entitled "Price volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: 
Policy Responses",  which was made available at the begi nning of June 2011, set a good example of 
cooperation and coordination among multilateral institutions such as the FAO, IFAD, IMF, OECD, 
UNCTAD, WFP, the World Bank, WTO, IFPRI and the UN High-Level Task Force on Global Food 
Security.  With focus on price volatility of food and other agriculture commodities and suggestions 
for a systematic and internationa lly coordinated response to it, the initiative seems to be a move 
towards better global governance on agriculture issues.  Given its direct relationship to agricultural 
and trade policies, Pakistan suggested that detaile d discussions be held on this report on the margins 
of the Committee meeting in November 2011. 
76. The Chairman invited Members to communicate to him or to the Secretariat their preferences 
on how best to address this topic.  Noting its work  in the area over the past two years, IICA expressed 
interest in contributing to the future discussions. 
                                                      
38 A fax dated 28 June 2011 was sent to that effect  to all delegations.  All suggestions received were 
posted on the Members' pa ssword-protected website. 
39 See also G/AG/W/29/Rev.7.  G/AG/R/62 
 Page 15 
 
 
  (b) Date of next regular meeting and reminder of upcoming agenda 
77. The next (63rd) regular meeting of the Committee on Agri culture is scheduled to be held on 
29 September 2011.  On this basis, the reminde r airgram was issued on 1 September 2011 and the 
convening airgram will be issued on 19 September 2011. 
78. The Committee took note that, at the next meeting, the Committee will hold its final 
Transitional Review under paragraph 18 of the Prot ocol of the Accession of the People's Republic of 
China and that any questions or comments that Me mbers may have in the context of the Transitional 
Review should be submitted in writing as soon as possible, with a copy to the Secretariat. 
79. The Chairman noted that the consideration of his Annual Report to the Council for Trade in 
Goods would be one of the agenda items for the September meeting.  In order to facilitate its 
consideration during the meeting, the draft report w ould be distributed to Members in the early days 
of September. 
_______________ 
 
  G/AG/R/62 
Page 16 
 
 
  Annex 1 
 
Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised 
under the Committee's Working Procedures 
 
 
(i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1): 
 
 Ukraine G/AG/N/UKR/8 and Rev.1 
  
(ii) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): 
 
 Chile G/AG/N/CHL/36 
 European Union G/AG/N/EEC/67  Japan  G/AG/N/JPN/162 
 Norway G/AG/N/NOR/59 
 South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/75  Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/87 
 
(iii) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): 
 
 Japan G/AG/N/JPN/163 
 Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/86   
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): 
  Australia G/AG/N/AUS/76 
 Bahrain G/AG/N/BHR/5  European Union G/AG/N/EEC/68 
 Hong Kong, China G/AG/N/HKG/30 
 Israel G/AG/N/ISR/47  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia G/AG/N/SAU/4 
 Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/21 
 New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/69  Tunisia G/AG/N/TUN/40 and Corr.1 
 Ukraine G/AG/N/UKR/9 
 United States G/AG/N/USA/77  
(v) export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): 
 
 European Union G/AG/N/EEC/70 
 
(vi) export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1): 
  Former Yugoslav Republic G/AG/N/MKD/13     of Macedonia 
Kyrgyz Republic G/AG/N/KGZ/3 
Moldova G/AG/N/MOL/3/Add.1 Ukraine G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2 and Add.3 
  G/AG/R/62 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (vii) in the context of the follow-up to the D ecision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative 
Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-D eveloped and Net Food-Importing Developing 
Countries (Table NF:1): 
 
 Australia G/AG/N/AUS/80 
 Australia G/AG/N/AUS/81 
 G/AG/R/62 
Page 18 
 
 
  Annex 2 
 
Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram 
 
 
(i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) 
  United States G/AG/N/USA/79/ADD.1 
 
(ii) imports under tariff and othe r quota commitments (Table MA:2) 
  Croatia G/AG/N/HRV/15 
  Ecuador G/AG/N/ECU/26 
  New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/65 
  Nicaragua G/AG/N/NIC/25   Tunisia G/AG/N/TUN/41 
 
(iii) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5) 
  Ecuador G/AG/N/ECU/27 
  El Salvador G/AG/N/SLV/34 
  New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/66   Nicaragua G/AG/N/NIC/26 
  South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/76 
 
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1) 
  Bangladesh G/AG/N/BGD/3 
  Botswana G/AG/N/BWA/10 
  Chile G/AG/N/CHL/31/CORR.1 
  Chile G/AG/N/CHL/34   Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/34 
  Ecuador G/AG/N/ECU/29 
  India  G/AG/N/IND/7   Macao, China G/AG/N/MAC/28 
  Nigeria G/AG/N/NGA/13 
  South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/73   Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/55 
  
(v) export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3) 
  Armenia G/AG/N/ARM/19 
  Bangladesh G/AG/N/BGD/4 
  Chile G/AG/N/CHL/35   Croatia G/AG/N/HRV/14 
  Ecuador G/AG/N/ECU/28 
  Japan G/AG/N/JPN/164 
  Macao, China G/AG/N/MAC/29 
  Nigeria G/AG/N/NGA/14   New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/67 
  Paraguay G/AG/N/PRY/18 
  South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/74   G/AG/R/62 
 Page 19 
 
 
  (vi) export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1): 
  Ukraine G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.4 G/AG/R/62 
Page 20 
 
 
  Annex 3 
 
Notifications circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram 
 
 
(i) export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3) 
Qatar   G/AG/N/QAT/7 21 June 2011 
  G/AG/R/62 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Annex 4 
 
Informal consultations on the List of "significant exporters" 
for the purposes of the Table ES:2 notification requirement 
 
 
Oral report by the Chairman on 23 June 2011 
 1. The purpose of the present report is to brief you on the steps that I have undertaken in the 
course of the last two months with a view to ensu re appropriate follow-up in reviewing the List of 
"significant exporters" for the purposes of the Tabl e ES:2 notification requireme nt.  I have tried to 
concentrate on substance while trying to organize my thoughts around the most recurrent themes, to 
give you as clear a picture as possible, although you will quickly realize that many areas are 
overlapping.  
2. During the 31 March 2011 regular meeting, ma ny delegations had re iterated that, from the 
systemic point-of-view, there was an urgent need for the Committee on Agriculture to update the List 
of "significant exporters" contained in G/AG/2/A dd.1 for a number of reasons.  Building on the 
preparatory groundwork that was accomplished by my predecessor, on 16 April 2011, I circulated a 
Note from the Chairman under my own responsibility drawing up a draft List of "significant 
exporters" for the purposes of the Table ES:2 notification requirements.
1  In view of the various 
concerns that had been expressed at the time, wh ether on procedure, substance, or requests for 
exemption, it is probably fair to say that, at the out set, my intention was to have a concrete Note that 
could serve as a basis for our further deliberations. 
3. Immediately thereafter, I consulted informally  and incrementally.  This has proven to be 
useful in improving everybody's awareness of the issues at  stake, as well as the need for prioritization.  
On 9 May, I sent a response to Cuba 's official request for exemption.2  On 24 May, I organized a 
preliminary gathering with the 16 Members who were  listed in my Note as "significant exporters", 
followed by informal open-ended consultation to ex amine any remaining concerns and hear directly 
from the proponents how suggestions could be operationalized .  Having heard a couple of 
constructive suggestions, I circulated a draft revised  version of the proposed new List to consolidate 
our work and organized follow-up consultations in  open-ended format on 16 June.  Once again, 
recently-captured feedback was incorporated in a re vised version of the List which was circulated 
under the reference G/AG/W/82/Rev.1 on 17 June 2011.  Despite the progress realized in the course 
of the last two months, several questions remain pending. 
 Exemption from the Table ES:2 notification requirement 
4. As mentioned, the delegation of Cuba has offi cially submitted to the chairmanship a request 
for exemption from the Table ES:2 notification requirement.  Costa Rica, Honduras, Pakistan, the Philippines and Zimbabwe are also among those Members who continue to be considered by this 
Committee as "significant exporters" based on the origin al List.  I have, of course, invited Members to 
share their views on how this situation could be collectively addressed. 
5. During the consultations, Cuba re newed its request for exemption and asked that it be placed 
in today's agenda for the Committee's decision.  You will agree that, with less than 1.3 per cent of 
                                                      
1 G/AG/W/82:  In keeping with past practice (G/AG/2/Add.1), Members who are de facto  subject to the 
Table ES:2 requirement because they have assumed export subsidy reduction commitments for the product 
categories concerned are not listed in this document, even if they satisfy the 5 per cent criterion specified in 
page 24, point (iii) of G/AG/2. 
2 G/AG/W/85 and Annex 5 refer. G/AG/R/62 
Page 22 
 
 
  world sugar exports, Cuba can hardly  be considered a "significant exporter".  Similarly, with a world 
export share of tobacco that is close to zer o per cent, Zimbabwe has signalled that it was 
contemplating taking a similar action.  But exem pting Members from the notification requirements 
agreed by the Committee on Agriculture is not a simple matter. 
6. There are some systemic concerns about the notion of "exempting" selected Members from 
existing notification obligations without simultaneous ly updating the current List and introducing the 
same requirement for those who are now "significan t exporters" based on objective facts.  From the 
standpoint of some delegations, this would amount to loosening transparency obligations.  For some, it is hard to accept this kind of "no man's land" where the transparency role of the Committee on 
Agriculture is definitely weaken ed.  A few Members have observed that no exemptions would be 
needed if the List were immediately updated. 
7. While most delegations continue to share a se nse of urgency in addressing this matter, the 
delegations who support a comprehe nsive review of countries and pr oducts within a longer timeframe 
remained silent under that agenda point. 
 Procedures, including frequency of reviews 
8. Once again, Members' views are nuanced, rangi ng from those who want to carry on with 
current work in a pragmatic way, and one Member who would like to detain the current debate to 
focus on the procedural aspects of the review, de velop a standard operating procedure, and then 
examine all related matters during an eight-month tim eframe.  One important point, in my view, is 
that, in many instances, the participants who support the immediate updating of the List do not object to at a later stage pursuing the discussion on future  reviews, or on product categories.  Some have 
recommended the tabling of specific proposals by Me mbers and/or verification of recent export data 
within clear timelines as a possible way forward.  So me Members have also observed that the problem 
was not one of process and timelines, but rather of su bstance, including with respect to gaining clarity 
on the actual updating of the List. 
9. In between, we may find one participant w ho, while not opposing the current review per se , 
nor the newly-listed "significant expor ters", is wondering whether all the facts are at hand to carry out 
a thorough review.  Based on a reading that G/AG/2 calls for a comprehensive review of both 
products and exporters, this participant believes that a partial revi ew could only produce partial results 
in terms of apprehending current trade realities.  This is why a review of product categories should 
also be pursued as vigorously as possible so that, at the end of the day, a single decision can apply to 
both exporters and products.  Finally, another Memb er opposes the two-step procedure and wishes to 
carry a comprehensive review of both products and "significant exporters". 
 Preparing Table ES:2: enhanced transparen cy with regard to product composition  
10. A few Members have expressed concerns relating to the broad nature of the products groups 
defined in G/AG/2, for example, "coarse grains", "fruit" or "vegetables".  A number of ideas to 
redefine such groups at the sub-heading level (6-d igit) of the Harmonized System (HS) nomenclature 
have been presented, including: 
(a) the elaboration of a correlation table to associate each G/AG/2 product category to the 
HS nomenclature in a transparent manner.   The resulting "supporting tables" would 
then be appended to the revised List for enhanced clarity.  Another Member, 
however, remains opposed to the mandatory standardization of HS codes as it may 
well render the notification process unduly burdensome.  In other words, some 
flexibility in reporting export volumes should be retained.  There would always be an  G/AG/R/62 
 Page 23 
 
 
  opportunity under the Committee's Review Pr ocess to pose questions to notifying 
Members should there be concerns about data sources and coverage.  
(b) Another Member suggests that an "illustrativ e list" of HS codes be compiled to cover 
all G/AG/2 products at a level of disaggreg ation to be suitably determined.  The 
compilation could be sourced, for example, from Members' scheduled reduction 
commitments.  Here again, the objective w ould be to facilitate transparency without 
compromising the comparability between th e information notified respectively by 
way of the Table ES:1 and Table ES:2 formats, where such comparability is a requisite.  However, the Member underlines th at such work should not be an obstacle 
to the approval of the new List. 
11. One delegation also made the point that, since the IDB was the only data source available to 
the WTO, and since it was limited to import statistics,  the development of a systematic way to collect 
export statistics might be worth discussing with a view to facilitate future reviews.  From the technical 
side, the point was made that, should Members wish  that export data (for agricultural products) be 
collected in the IDB context, the Committee on Mark et Access would need to be advised at some 
point. 
12. There was quite a few exchanges regarding the questions of "compara bility" or consistency 
between Table ES:1 and Table ES:2 as well as Members' reporting practices.  One Member has 
pointed out that the situation differed dependi ng on whether Members had export subsidy reduction 
commitments or not. In the latter case, "signifi cant exporters" were not tied by the "comparability" 
requirement.  Furthermore, Members had scheduled  reduction commitments at  various disaggregation 
levels of the HS Nomenclature which had an incide nce on the collection of statistical information for 
the purposes of preparing Table ES:2.  Once agai n, newly-listed "significant exporters" had no 
guidance as to the level of disaggregation to be a pplied in preparing Table ES:2.  Finally, Members 
who had reduction commitments were bound by yet di fferent groupings, such as, for example "coarse 
grains excluding corn" or "beef including live animals" or "dairy products excluding butter".  This 
gave rise to situations where major exporters of, fo r example, "vegetables" only had to report export 
statistics on "beans" because the whole "vegetable" grouping was not scheduled.  By contrast, a 
"significant exporter" of "vegetables" had to co mpile export statistics for the entire category.  
According to the Member, this raised another significant issue of comparability.  From this 
perspective, a gap was clearly visible when sch eduled commitments across the membership were 
examined. 
 Product categories 
13. I am, of course, fully aware that at least three delegations would prefer to conclude the work 
on product categories prior to the adoption of th e new List.  However, most delegations have 
continued to advocate the immediate updating of th e List based on the product coverage already 
identified in G/AG/2.  One participant stressed th at those who are keen to discuss product coverage 
have never claimed that going ahead with a ne w List would somehow irreversibly damage any 
position, or make it impossible to arrive at a better result, at a later stage, on product coverage.  With 
this in mind, I kicked off consultations on the qu estion of product categories in a pragmatic manner. 
14. As mentioned before, a few delegations str ongly believe that a simultaneous review of 
products and countries must take place independently of the timeframes involved.  By contrast, most 
intervening delegations counter that there was no need, let alone a mandate, to modify the product 
categories enumerated in the notification requirements and formats adopted by the Committee on 
Agriculture in 1995.  While supporting an immediate re view of the List, a small group of participants 
have signalled that they were not fundamentally o pposed to having a discussion on product categories.  
They would likely participate in such a debate on  the condition that there was more clarity, or G/AG/R/62 
Page 24 
 
 
  transparency, on the nature of the concerns with regards to the preparation of Table ES:2 using the 
current product definitions.  In their view, such feedback would provide essential insights as to how 
the product issue should be dealt with at all by the Committee on Agriculture, and under which 
parameters. 
15. Two Members specifically sought the exte nsion of product coverage through the 
identification of "new" agricultural produc ts. Based on the information presented in 
G/AG/W/32/Rev.11, it was noted that the 13 liste d product groups constituted only 50 per cent of 
world trade in agriculture.  This meant that the membership was scru tinizing only half of world trade 
in agriculture and the current review  had to capture all trade realities.  In one Member's view, these 
"new products" should be identified based on their si gnificance in agricultural trade and by exclusion 
of both scheduled products and the 19 products co vered by G/AG/2/Add.1.  The case of ethanol or 
biofuels3 was cited by one participant as being now tr aded in significant quantities.  As such, these 
products should be subjected to Table ES:2 sin ce circumvention of export subsidy commitments 
could arise should incentives be granted to fuel exporte rs who mix ethanol in it.  To achieve this goal, 
the development of a common work framework was recommended with a view to extend product 
coverage, while clarification was sought as regards the legal implica tions arising from the addition of 
new products in G/AG/2. 
16. In this context, it was again recalled that the G/AG/2 product categories emanated from the 
Uruguay Round Modalities Paper.  One Member consid ered that modifying such product coverage 
would represent a significant departure from G/AG /2 which went beyond updating the List of 
"significant exporters".  It could also blur the Table ES:1/ES:2 notion of "comparability" in the case 
of Members who do have reduction commitments.  While prioritizing the updating of the List, another 
Member proposed addressing actual concerns about product coverage in detail in the course of the 
forthcoming year, particularly if Members start examining products such as ethanol. 
17. As I have mentioned before, the proposal to extend the product coverage to the 22 product 
groups originally specified in G/AG/2 has attracted a fair degree of consensus.  Such consensus has 
now been duly reflected in the new List that is be fore the Committee today, with the addition of three 
new product categories, namely live animals, eggs and wine. 
 G/AG/W/82/Rev.1 
18. I think it is equally important to emphasize th e outcome of our consultations which I have 
tried to capture in document G/AG/W/82/Rev.1.  To summarize, G/AG/2 criteria as well as statistical 
facts have been used to identify "significant e xporters".  Their designation is derived from the 
statistical compilation prepared by the Secret ariat in document G/AG/W/76 circulated in August 
2010.  Similarly to the original List, the export statistics are sourced from FAO, ISO (for sugar) and 
UN Comtrade (fruit, vegetables).  A number of Memb ers have supported the revision of the List on 
the basis of these objective facts. 
19. Moreover, the new List takes on board thr ee major suggestions tabled by Members: 
(a) the product coverage now matches the re quirement contained in G/AG/2;   
                                                      
3 On the technical and statistical side, it was noted that ethanol and biofuels were subject to the Table 
ES:2 notification requirement to the extent that they were listed in Members' Schedules of export subsidy 
reduction commitments.  As no specific customs classification was attributed to ethanol (which is an ex-out of 
HS 220710 and 220720), a precise product description associated to the 6-digit HS would be required to extract 
the relevant export statistics (in volume terms).  G/AG/R/62 
 Page 25 
 
 
  (b) the three-year reference period used to esta blish the List is now clearly mentioned in 
the introductory paragraph as relating to the years 2005-2007.  For further clarity on 
the exact export shares relating to this three- year period, the Secretariat has issued an 
addendum to document G/AG/W/76;  
(c) compared to the draft version that was distri buted to all delegations in advance of the 
16 June meeting, I have deci ded to take care of the con cerns expressed one delegation 
on wording, by removing the words "by the Chairman"   and " informal " from the 
introductory section.  
20. Other than the wording raised by one Member, nobody objected to the circulation of my 
revised Note to the membership, which was done on 17 June 2011. 
21. Two Members raised some concerns with regards to the use of certain data sources, especially 
the FAO, for the purposes of the designation of "s ignificant exporters".  Similarly, the FAO codes 
used in G/AG/W/76 were problematic and would ne ed to be associated to the HS nomenclature for 
greater clarity.  In their view, this work shou ld constitute the basis for the discussion on product 
categorization.  Another Member disagreed with these  suggestions.  In the context of the elaboration 
of G/AG/W/76, there had been plenty of opport unities since August 2010 to verify data sources and 
voice such concerns.  It was equally understood that when the time came to ac tually prepare the Table 
ES:2 notification, then it would be entirely up to  any Member to use their national statistics.  
Revisiting the question of data sources was also  redundant especially since FAO statistics were 
merely assisting Members in assessing who the "signi ficant exporters" might be (volume-based export 
shares).  If Members had raised objections to the results indicated in G/AG/W/76, it would have been 
their prerogative to put forward the data that w ould have proven otherwise.   However, no Member 
had done so. 
Concluding remarks 
22. This is, in substance, the result of my consulta tions in the past two months.  Several Members 
have shown support for the adoption of the new List, particularly in the light of the driving force 
represented by those Members who have no export subsidy reduction commitments nor meet the 
"significant exporter" criteria, but who are considered  to have an obligation to notify.  At the same 
time, I strongly believe that if we are asking the ne wly-listed participants to take on a new notification 
obligation, it is only fair that we do our utmost to  bring more clarity and guidance as to how this 
notification should be actually fulfilled.  Finally, as was expressed by one delegation two weeks ago, a 
key concern for this Committee, and a key concer n for this Organization, is its relevance and 
credibility in today's world.  To put it simply, a List of "significant exporters" that has not been 
updated since 1995 is a key example of the membership  losing credibility and relevance in the eyes of 
others looking at this Organization. G/AG/R/62 
Page 26 
 
 
  Annex 5 
 
Response from the Chairman of  the Committee on Agriculture 
to the letter received from the Delega tion of Cuba on 23 March 2011  
requesting exemption of Cuba from th e Table ES:2 notification requirement 
 
 
 
Geneva, 9 May 2011 
 
 Dear Ms Madrigal, 
 
 I would like to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 23 March 2011 requesting that the 
necessary steps be taken in order to exempt th e Government of Cuba from the annual Table ES:2 
notification requirement. 
  As you are aware, consultations aimed at updating the WTO List of Significant Exporters 
have been initiated in 20 10 and are currently underway.  Recent export statistics reveal that a number 
of other exporting Members included in the existing List of Significant Exporters are also facing a 
situation similar to Cuba's with respect to  relevant agricultural product categories. 
 
 This is why, building on the progress regist ered so far under the Committee on Agriculture, 
steps were taken soon after the 31 March 2011 meeti ng to circulate a working document containing a 
revised WTO List of "Significant Exporters" (G/ AG/W/82).  Please rest assured that this working 
document will be duly reviewed by the Committee at its upcoming meeting on 23 June 2011.  In this 
context, all Members, including Cuba, will have another opportunity to contribute to the discussion. 
  Meanwhile, should you wish further clarifica tion, please do not hesitate to contact me as I 
shall remain entirely available to di scuss this matter with you personally. 
  Please accept the assurances of my highest consideration. 
  
   Yours sincerely, 
 
  Jonas Skei   Chairman 
  Committee on Agriculture (regular session) 
  
 
 
 
Ms. Nancy Madrigal Muñoz Counsellor 
Permanent Mission of the Republic of Cuba to  
   the United Nations Office and Other    International Organizations  
 
__________