WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/R/66 
9 May 2012 
 (12-2521) 
Committee on Agriculture  
   
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 MARCH 2012 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  1. The Committee on Agriculture held its sixty-fifth (65
th) regular meeting on 21 March 2012 
under the Chairmanship of Mr Jonas Skei of Norway. 
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/3901 was adopted with the following 
modifications: 
(a) before Part 1 (Review Process), inclusion of  "overview of the recent General Council 
Decision to achieve cost savings in  document production and meetings"; 
(b) under Part 1 (Review Process): 
(i) modification of questions to Egypt and India raised by the European Union 
under Article 18.6 (paragraphs 5 and 8 of G/AG/W/93); 
(ii) withdrawal of questions to Paraguay by the European Union (paragraph 96 
of G/AG/W/93); 
(iii) addition of a question from Switzerland in respect of Canada's Table MA:2 
notification (G/AG/N/CAN/89) under agenda item 1B(ii); 
(c) under Part 2 (Other Matters within the Purview of the Committee): 
(i) agenda item 2A:  consideration of a pr oposal to discontinue the preparation 
and circulation by the Secretariat of the compendium of documents on implementation-related issues.  In this  context, the Chairman noted that 
regarding the latest addendum to the compendium of documents 
(G/AG/W/70/Rev.3/Add.1) one delegation had observed that, in its view, one 
of the documents referenced therein only partly related to implementation 
issues; 
(ii) under agenda item 2D:  consideration of a proposal by the Chairman to renew 
IICA's (Inter-American Institute  for Cooperation on Agriculture) ad hoc  
observer status on a yearly basis; 
(iii) under agenda item 2F:  addition of a brief factual report by the Chairman on 
the informal consultations held on 19 March 2012. 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/R/66 
Page 2  
 
  I. OVERVIEW OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION TO ACHIEVE COST 
SAVINGS IN DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND MEETINGS 
3. The Chairman provided a brief overview of th e recent General Council Decision to achieve 
cost savings in document production and meetings , drawing Members' attention to a number of 
proposals that aim to streamline procedures and docum entation and to make a more efficient use of 
resources.  For example, the distribution of official  documents previously circulated in meeting rooms 
and at the document centre had been discontinue d as of 1 January 2012.  The overall volume of 
official documents would also be controlled by reducing the length of reports, annexes and 
statements.  Furthermore, reducing the number and length of meetings and st arting meetings on time 
would achieve savings on transla tion and interpretation costs. 
4. In this regard, the AGCD Secretariat had al ready taken a number of additional steps to 
streamline the Committee's documentation, notably by: 
(a) re-structuring Section B of the convening airgram by directly referring to the 
document compiling the full version of questi ons raised thus avoiding the duplication 
of annotations in the airgram itself.  From March 2012 onwards, both the convening 
airgram and the compilation of questions will be circulated on the same day; 
(b) reformatting the Compliance Document (G/AG/GEN/86 series) by, inter alia , linking 
the notification obligations with the relevant Members only; 
(c) discontinuing the circulation of the room document listing the notifications circulated 
after  the issuance of the convening airgram and posting the relevant notifications on 
the webpage dedicated to Committee documentation. 
5. The Chairman invited the Committee to take  note of the above points and welcomed 
receiving further inputs and ideas from Members to im prove the scheduling and conduct of meetings.  
The additional points subsequently made by Members specifically concerning the Review Process are reflected under Section II.B.(h) below.  A proposal  by the Chairman dealing with the Committee's 
procedure to renew IICA's ad hoc  observer status is reproduced under Section III.D below. 
II. PART 1:  THE REVIEW PROCESS 
A. M
ATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMEN TATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
6. The eleven implementation-related issues rais ed as well as the responses provided thereto and 
follow-up exchanges are compiled in paragraphs 1-16 of document G/AG/W/94.  These relate to: 
(a) Obstruction of market access through regul ations without scientific or technical 
justification in a manner inconsistent with  WTO agreements (raised by Argentina); 
(b) Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commi tments (raised by the United States); 
(c) Egypt's import ban on cotton (raised by the European Union and the United States); 
(d) India's export ban on cotton (raised by the European Union and the United States); 
(e) Switzerland's compliance with Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture (raised 
by the European Union and New Zealand);  G/AG/R/66 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (f) Canada's Ice Cream Promotion Initiative (raised by New Zealand); 
(g) Brazil's domestic support programmes (raised by the United States); 
(h) China's Cotton Reserves Purchasing Syst em (raised by the United States); 
(i) Ecuador's import licensing of certain food and agricultural products (raised by the 
United States); 
(j) India's programme to waive agricultura l debts (raised by the United States); 
(k) Indonesia's quantitative and other import rest rictions on certain food products (raised 
by the United States). 
B. REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
7. The Chairman informed Member s that since the November 2011 meeting, the Committee had 
received 62 notifications which had been distri buted electronically to all delegations.   
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram 
8. The questions raised, responses provided as well as Members' follow-up comments in 
connection with the 22 notifications in respect of  which questions were raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram2 are fully reflected in pages 17-81 of document G/AG/W/94 . 
(b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram 
9. The Committee took note of the 24 notifications  circulated before 9 March 2012, including 
notifications carried over from the previous meetin g but in respect of which no questions had been 
raised by that date under the Committee's Working Procedures.3  Switzerland took the opportunity to 
raise a question to Canada as rega rds G/AG/N/CAN/89, the full version of which is reproduced in 
paragraph 82 of G/AG/W/94 . 
(c) Notifications circulated or made available after the issuance of the convening airgram 
10. The Committee took note of two notifications circ ulated after the issuance of the convening 
airgram on 9  March 2012, i.e. Table MA:5 by Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/95)for 2011;  and 
Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3 by the European Union (G/AG/N/EU/6) for 2009/2010.  Both 
notifications will be reverted to for substantive review during the June 2012 meeting, in accordance 
with paragraph 9 of the Working Procedures. 
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings 
(e) Counter-notifications (Article 18. 7 of the Agreement on Agriculture) 
(f) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process 
11. There were no requests for the floor under  the above-mentioned three agenda items. 
                                                      
2 Section B of WTO/AIR/3901 refers. 
3 Section C of WTO/AIR/3901 refers. G/AG/R/66 
Page 4  
 
  (g) Overdue notifications 
12. The Committee took note of document G/AG/GE N/86/Rev.9 dated 9 March 2012 reflecting 
the current status of Members' compliance with notification obligations. 
(h) Additional comments by Members regardi ng the efficient conduct of meetings 
13. Supported by Japan and Brazil, the United States pointed out that the discussions under the 
agenda item related to notifications had been e volving over time.  The Secretariat's efforts in 
structuring Members' questions under different th ematic headings were commended.  The United 
States suggested that it might also be useful, when  reviewing a specific notification, that similar or 
related questions from different Members on that notification be grouped by thematic headings 
(e.g. General Services, Direct Payments etc.) in the 'questions document' (e.g. G/AG/W/93) rather 
than retaining the whole set of questions by a Me mber together, as was currently the practice.  The 
United States clarified that the proposed reorgani zation would be limited to the set of questions 
received from various Members concerning a single no tification under review rather than attempting a 
thematic reorganization of all questions across all notifications.  Pakistan complemented the 
suggestion with their understanding that under transparency, Members had already agreed to the 
availability of data on an issue-basis.  Japan observe d that the suggested restructuring of the 'questions 
document' could make it easier for the responding Member to explain how a certain measure was operated without having to repeat the same explan ation if the same questi on was raised by several 
Members. 
14. Argentina expressed doubts regarding the United St ates' suggestion and concluded that they 
would need more time to reflect upon it.  In Argent ina's view, the Committee's  task was to evaluate 
Members' implementation against their notification ob ligations.  Argentina felt that a focus by subject 
would dilute and could possibly contradict this objective, notwithstanding a clear interest from a 
didactic point-of-view.  The Eur opean Union observed that the topi c could be discussed at a later 
stage.  India stated it did not want to start a discussion on the topic before some additional thought 
went into it.  India noted that the issue was about Members' notifications and that there were systemic 
concerns on splitting the questions related to a Member 's notification.  India also recalled that what 
was discussed under the agenda item was Members' notifications. 
15. The Chairman underlined that transparency and dialogue should be supported.  Members 
were encouraged to table additional inputs and th oughts on how to enhance efficiency in the conduct 
meetings as instructed by the General Council.  In doing so however, Members should communicate 
with each other in order not to jump into proposal s or conclusions that the rest of the membership 
might not feel comfortable with.   The Chairman therefore invited the Committee to take note of the 
suggestion made by the United States and to think about how to follow-up on it. 
III. PART 2:  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. I
MPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES AND CONCERNS (G/AG/16  AND G/AG/16/A DD.1;  
G/AG/W/70/R EV.3/A DD.1) 
16. The Chairman noted that the situation had not  changed since the circulation of the 2003 
and 2006 reports to the General Council.4 
17. 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 
                                                      
4 G/AG/16/Add.1 and G/AG/22 refer.  G/AG/R/66 
 Page 5 
 
 
  the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.  Argentina requested that this item be retained on the 
agenda of the Committee on Agriculture in its regular session. 
18. The Chairman recalled that as requested by th e Committee in 2008, the Secretariat had been 
preparing a compendium of documen ts on implementation-related issues.5  This document contained a 
bibliography of documents of varied scope that were  directly or indirectly related to implementation 
issues.  No value judgement was being made on the documents referenced therein.  In view of the 
current efforts to streamline documentation pursuan t to the General Council Decision, the Chairman 
invited the membership to consider a specific request  by the Secretariat to discontinue the preparation 
and circulation of the G/AG/W/70 documen t series, primarily for two reasons: 
(a) all the reports and events referenced therei n were also referenced in the Secretariat 
background note on NFIDCs (G/AG/W/42 series); 
(b) all Table MA:1 and NF:1 notifi cations could be accessed through Documents 
On-Line  or the Members' Transparency Toolkit . 
19. The Committee agreed to discontinue the issu ance of the compendium of documents on 
implementation-related issues. 
B. REVIEW OF THE LIST OF "SIGNIFICANT EXPORTERS " FOR THE PURPOSE OF TABLE  ES:2  
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT  
20. The Chairman delivered an oral report sharing his assessment of the situation as well as 
reporting on the informal consu ltations conducted on 19 March 2012.6 
21. Cuba thanked the Chairman for his detailed re port and reiterated its request to the Committee 
to be exonerated from the Table ES:2 notification obligation.  Cuba unders tood that this depended 
upon the decision of the on-going review of the lis t but asserted that for Cuba, the current conditions 
were fundamentally different to the situation in 1995.  Cuba's contribution to international sugar 
exports had decreased substantially since then and was far below 5 per cent.  The Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela supported Cuba's intervention. 
22. Supported by Australia, Brazil, Canada a nd Chile, New Zealand acknowledged Cuba and 
Zimbabwe's requests, but pointed out that it w ould have concerns to the Committee agreeing to 
specific exemptions from a notification obligation.  Rather, it supported an update of the list on the basis of G/AG/W/82/Rev.1 with the understanding th at the remaining concerns would need to be 
subsequently addressed.  While sharing the con cerns expressed by Cuba and Zimbabwe on their 
continued inclusion in the list, Australia, Brazil, Canada and Chile believed that the best solution 
forward was to update the list of significant exporters .  Chile also shared th e Chairman's assessment 
regarding the amount of work and efforts that  had already gone into addressing this topic 
notwithstanding the absence of written contributions by those Members who had raised specific concerns.  Australia, Brazil and Chile insisted that  the update be based on G/AG/W/82/Rev.1 in order 
to strengthen transparency. 
23. The United States thanked the Chairman for his re port but considered that greater details on 
various concerns and their treatment so far might have been usefully reflected with a view to finding a 
way forward.  The Chairman clarified that his oral report did not attempt to be exhaustive. 
                                                      
5 G/AG/W/70/-- document series. 
6 See Annex 1. G/AG/R/66 
Page 6  
 
  24. India stated that following the long discussion held on the topic during the informal meeting 
of 19 March 2012, it believed that it was important to repeat what it had already stated, seeing that 
other Members were repeating what they had said.  India recalled that in spite of the talk on 
suggestions by Members, India's recollection was that the two papers submitted were inconclusive 
and could not lead to any outcome.  A lot of ques tions had been raised as a consequence of those two 
submissions.  As regards the Chairman's request for Members to state their concerns, India noted that 
this had already taken place during June/July 2011.   The important question therefore was whether 
those questions and concerns had been addressed and whether a healthy debate had taken place on 
those issues; India believed this had not b een the case.  Further, India believed that 
document G/AG/W/82 had been rushed into in a way in which transparency had been overlooked; the 
document was based on the revision of a working document which had come up during informal 
discussions and had never been formally discussed  in the Committee prior to its presentation to 
Members.  Hence, fair questions that had to be  asked and which were be ing avoided included the 
manner in which the revision had to take place.  I ndia questioned whether the review should be based 
on the existing product list when specific suggestions  on the possible addition of products were made 
by Members.  Those issues had never been discussed  and the current document had not been tested in 
a fair, transparent and inclusive manner. 
25. Responding to India regarding the alleged in conclusiveness of two written contributions, 
Australia recalled that it had put forward a working document during informal meetings in an attempt 
to be constructive.  Australia also disagreed w ith India that the Committee was "rushing" into an 
outcome given that the matter had been considered for over two years. 
26. Pakistan believed it was important to finalise th e list with consistent work and suggested the 
addition of ethyl alcohol into the product list.  In th is context, Pakistan recalled that in the course of 
the past two years, some Members had expressed read iness to review the possibility of including other 
products.  Pakistan would contribute to move the issue forward by presenting data on trade in ethyl 
alcohol during the next Committee meeting. 
27. The Chairman reiterated his understanding that fo remost among the concerns was an apparent 
lack of clarity on the linkage between the Table ES:1 and Table ES:2 notification obligations.  He 
urged Members to translate their concerns into concrete proposals and recalled that assistance from 
both the Chairman and the Secretariat were available, as appropriate. 
C. WTO
 LIST OF NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (NFIDC S) 
28. The Chairman recalled that within the framework  of the Marrakesh Decision, and pursuant to 
the Decision of the Committee (G/AG/3), the Comm ittee was required to review the list NFIDCs, 
including on the basis of specific requests from Memb ers for inclusion into the list.  The Chairman 
noted that applications had been received from An tigua and Barbuda and El Salvador to be included 
in the list.  The relevant supporting statistical data had been provided in  line with paragraph 2 
of G/AG/3.  As with other applicants, this supp orting data were available for inspection in the 
Agriculture and Commodities Division. 
29. Saint Lucia (on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda ) and El Salvador presented the requests and 
notified the Committee of the decision to be inscr ibed in the NFIDC List.  Cuba supported these 
requests. 
30. The Committee agreed to revise the WTO List  of Net Food-Importing Developing Countries 
to include Antigua and Barbuda and El Salvador.7 
                                                      
7 G/AG/5/Rev.10 refers.  G/AG/R/66 
 Page 7 
 
 
  D. RENEWAL OF OBSERVER STATUS TO IICA  (PARAGRAPH 35 OF G/AG/R/65) 
31. The Chairman stated his understanding that ther e had been no change in Members' positions 
with regard to the ad hoc  observer status of the Inter-Ame rican Institute for Cooperation on 
Agriculture (IICA) since the last meeting.  The Ch airman then recalled his specific request for the 
Committee to consider the possibility of extending ad hoc  observer status to IICA on an annual basis 
in order to expedite procedures, unless the issue was to be specifically placed on the agenda by a 
Member in the intervening meetings.  In order to  facilitate the consideration of this issue, the 
Secretariat gave a brief overview of current WTO practice in other bodies.  The preliminary findings appeared to indicate that WTO bodies did not follow a uniform practice. 
32. The Committee agreed to invite IICA to particip ate in its next regular meetings in June, 
September and November 2012. 
E. E
LECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN  
33. The consultations by the Chairman of the C ouncil for Trade in Goods on possible candidates 
for appointment to chair the subsidiary bodies were on-going.  Consideration of this agenda item was 
consequently deferred to the next m eeting of the Committee on Agriculture. 
F. OTHER BUSINESS  
(a) Continuation of special treatment for rice by the Philippines 
34. The Philippines briefed the Committee on its effo rts to maintain Special Treatment on rice 
beyond 30 June 2012 (G/AG/W/92) for food security  and livelihood security objectives.  A waiver8 
was being sought. 
(b) Factual report on the 19 March 2012 informal consultations 
35. The Chairman informed Members that an informal meeting had taken place in which 
Members (i) exchanged views on notification matters dealing with export prohibitions and restrictions 
as well as export subsidies;  (ii) considered the issu e of "significant exporters";   (iii) were briefed on 
recent efforts by the Secretariat to streamline Committee-related documentation. 
(c) Date of next regular meeting 
36. The next (66th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be held on Wednesday 
20 June 2012.   
37. Due to the organization of the WTO Public  Forum in autumn, the September session was 
rescheduled for 20-21 September 2012. The sche duling of the November meeting remained 
unchanged (on 14 and 15 November 2012).  
_______________ 
 
                                                      
8 WTO/AIR/3915 and G/C/W/665 refer. G/AG/R/66 
Page 8  
 
  Annex 1 
 
Oral report by the Chairman under Agenda Item 2.B 
  
1. On my side, I have less to report on this topic than I would have wished, except to bring 
forward some observations that will hopefully sou nd familiar to those present during the informal 
meeting on Monday. 
2. I will recall, firstly, that the Committee has ye t to give a clear response to Cuba's written 
request, and Zimbabwe’s oral request, for exempti on from the Table ES:2 notification requirement.  A 
number of Members have indicated that they would be ready to see these countries exempted from 
their notification obligation, whereas others have  pointed out systemic concerns with granting 
exemptions on a piecemeal basis. 
3. Furthermore, I wish to note th at the current list of "significant exporters" remains obsolete; 
and that I have not been informed of any progr ess by those Members who wanted more time to 
explore solutions in the framework of small-group consultations among themselves. 
4. Having spent more than two years already on this  process, I would consider that this should 
be a time for all Members to make a very honest assessment to see which issues actually prevent agreement on updating the list. 
5. My understanding is that foremost among these concer ns is an apparent lack of clarity on the 
linkage between the Table ES:1 and Table ES:2 notifi cation obligations.  In that context, we have 
benefitted from two contributions specifically addressi ng this aspect.  In addition, we had heard calls 
for adding at least one product to the product list. 
6. In my view, one problem with this process is th at there is a mismatch between the degree of 
clarity that comes with the different points of view  in the discussion.  Many Members stand ready to 
update the list on the basis of G/AG/W/82/Rev.1.  There are no remaining conceptual problems in 
knowing how that would work, as far as I could see.  It would merely be a continuation of the current 
practice, but with updated information.  Newcomer s to the list may have questions on what exactly 
they are expected to do, but that seems to have  a potential fix through willingness from both current 
“listees” and the Secretariat to offer advice. 
7. On the other hand, we have heard a number of  concerns with going ahead with current, but 
updated, practice.  Those concerns may be fully legitimate, and we have had, I believe, some 
willingness from all sides to engage on finding soluti ons.  But as of yet, there is no clear operational 
solution in sight for how this would work – in te rms of table formats, possible G/AG/2 revisions, and 
so on.  And I think that is something that remains a key requirement if we are ever going to reach a solution that takes care of the concerns raised. 
8. During our last meeting I asked Members to work together on these issues.  During our 
meeting on Monday I heard no mention of progress in this respect, leaving me with two observations. 
(a) One, that the option of updating the list based on G/AG/W/82/Rev.1 remains on the 
table, and that I can understand that some Members will want to put that forward for 
decision once again. 
(b) Two, that any chance of finding a solu tion other than based on the mentioned 
working document will require an alterna tive document to be placed on the table.  G/AG/R/66 
 Page 9 
 
 
  9. Whether the various sides want to sit down t ogether and work towards a compromise (all the 
while remembering that a compromise between only a few Members cannot be assumed to be 
palatable for the entire membership, and that ever ything will have to be clearly and thoroughly 
multilateralised), or, whether it is more useful at  this stage to have those Members expressing 
concerns to come up with an operational proposal of their own, is in your hands.  Meanwhile, as 
always, both the Secretariat and I are at your disposal to help out in any role you see useful. 
10. For any comments on this short report, or ind eed anyone wanting to bring welcome and long 
awaiting good news on this topic – the floor is open.  For the sake of transparency, the report will be 
made available to Members.  
__________