WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/R/63 
9 November 2011 
 (11-5795) 
Committee on Agriculture  
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29-30 SEPTEMBER 2011 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
  1. The Committee on Agriculture held its sixty-th ird regular meeting on 29-30 September 2011 
under the Chairmanship of Mr. Jonas Skei of Norway. 
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/3803 was adopted with the following 
modifications:  (i) the addition of a statement by the United States under agenda item 1.A on the 
withdrawal of India's export restrictions on cotton;  (ii) the retitling of agenda item 2.D to "Reports";  
(iii) the report by the AGCD Director, Mr. C. Boonekamp, under agenda item 2.H "Other business" on the G-20 Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) initiative. 
I. THE REVIEW PROCESS 
3. Pursuant to the Committee's decision in 2009
2, Section I of the present summary report should 
be read in conjunction with documents G/AG/W/ 87 and G/AG/W/88 which respectively compile all 
the questions and responses that were made availabl e 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) Brazil's PEP—Prêmio para Escoamento de Produto  Programme:  Export subsidies for rice 
and wheat3 
4. Noting that the figures provided by Brazil differed from those reported in media, the United 
States sought details on the movement of rice  in volume terms under the PEP, broken down by 
domestic and export channels.  The United States expr essed concerns about the price effects of abrupt 
changes in supply in a fairly thin world rice market. 
(ii) Canada's dairy policies4 
5. The EU and New Zealand reiterated their concerns on the Canadian special milk class system. 
                                                      
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 Paragraph 38(a) of G/AG/R/57 refers. 
3 Paragraphs 1-3 of G/AG/88 refer. 
4 Paragraphs 4-5 of G/AG/W/88 refer. G/AG/R/63 
Page 2 
 
 
  (iii) Thailand's new rice policy5 
6. The Philippines acknowledged that their bilate ral discussions with Thailand had provided a 
useful insight on the matter, but more detailed in formation was expected.  The Philippines expressed 
concerns on (i) the impact of the new policy on other Members' food security where dependence on 
rice staples is high;  (ii) the trade disruptions that  would likely be caused by a major supplier such as 
Thailand on the thin global rice market;  (iii) Thai land's ability to keep its Current Total AMS within 
the commitment level as a result of the new policy. 
(iv) State-of-play of Costa Rica's reform pol icies to address breach in AMS commitments6 
7. Australia, Canada, EU, Pakistan, Peru, the Ph ilippines and the United States, flagged their 
concern with the continuing lack of reforms that would ensure no further violations of Costa Rica's 
Total AMS commitment.  The Philippines was also concerned that there seemed to be no avenues 
available to other Members to address persisting s ituations where one Member was not conforming to 
its commitments while the EU warned against the ri sk of corrosiveness of the system.  Costa Rica was 
urged to put in place the necessary reforms as soon as possible and report on the progress made at the next meeting of the Committee. 
(v) India's milk tariff quota
7 
8. The United States looked forward to a Table MA:1 notification from India. 
(vi) India's export restrictions on cotton8 
9. The United States pointed out that, due to their trade-distorting impact, India's export 
restrictions on cotton had been a cause of serious c oncern.  India's recent withdrawal of the measure 
was welcomed. 
B. REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram 
10. Since the 23 June 2011 regular session, 37 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) Special Safeguard measures (Tables MA:3 to MA:5) 
11. The United States looked forward to Japan's Table MA:2 notification to compare actual 
imports under the "other dairy products for general use" TRQ and the allocated quantities.9 
(ii) Domestic support (Table DS:1) 
12. Australia welcomed the additional transpar ency provided by Costa Rica through its 
explanation of the adjustment and reclas sification of domestic support programmes.10 
                                                      
5 Paragraph 7 of G/AG/W/88 refers. 
6 Paragraph 8 of G/AG/W/88 refers. 
7 Paragraph 9 of G/AG/W/88 refers. 
8 Paragraph 15 of G/AG/R/62 and paragraph 10 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refer. 
9 Paragraph 12 of G/AG/W/88 refers.  G/AG/R/63 
 Page 3 
 
 
  13. Welcoming India's Table DS:1 notification11, several delegations acknowledged the value of 
the review process for gaining a better understanding  of the development of Members' agricultural 
trade policies .  Australia pointed out that the actual defi nition of low-income, resource-poor farmers 
was not available through the website indicated by  India while Canada cautioned against excessive 
referencing to web-links due to their lack of perm anency over time.  Where possible, important details 
should be indicated in the notification itself.  Against the background of a general rise in input 
subsidies, Australia noted the increasing number of holdings and the simultaneous decline in operated 
area.  Supported by the EU, Canada flagged concer ns about India's non-adhere nce to "the constituent 
data and methodology" in calculating the level of support, as prescribed by the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  This was due to the use of US dolla r currency in the notification, which differed from 
the use of Indian rupees in the relevant AGST document.  Canada also reiterated its concern with the 
reporting of negative values of product-specific AMS and consistency with Article 1(a), calling for 
such negative values to be notified as zero.  Conse quently, Canada reiterated its request that India 
submit a revised notification.  Japan drew attenti on on issues like recourse to exchange rates or the 
definition of "eligible production" as warranting further general debate. 
14. With reference to the questions it posed to both Tonga and Uruguay12, the EU clarified that 
the objective was to examine Members' practices in  notifying domestic support financed by external 
organizations.  The United States praised Tonga's  well-organized presentation of Green Box support 
programmes in accordance with the criteria contai ned in Annex 2, and which could perhaps be 
supplemented by a simple total.  Tonga's Gr een Box support accounted for over 30 per cent of 
agricultural production, reflecting, in the United Stat es' view, the particular condition of a small island 
with unique characteristics for agricultural production.  
15. Echoed by Canada, Japan flagged systemic concer ns with Ukraine's adjustment of the fixed 
external reference price to take account of exchange  rate fluctuations in its notification.  Japan 
reported that bilateral consu ltations with Ukraine had ta ken place and would continue.13 
16. Referring to the United States' practice to no tify countercyclical payments (CCP) as non-
product-specific14, the EU sought a breakdown of expenditure by product as such information was not 
available on the website to which it had been directed.  The United States clarified that historical data 
relating to CCPs applied to base acres for historical production but that they could not be ascribed to 
current production or to current activity . 
17. The United States welcomed the transparency provided by Tonga and Uruguay by including 
value of production data and co mmended such best practices for improving the operation of the 
Committee by encouraging more meaningful and c onsistent submissions.  The United States also 
encouraged India to include information on the value of production substantiating its de minimis  
claims.  The United States hoped that, by taking no te of such best practice, a better understanding 
would emerge as to the steps that the Committee might need to undertake to reach agreement on 
possible enhancements to notification guidelines . 
                                                                                                                                                                     
10 Paragraphs 14-16 of G/AG/W/88 refer. 
11 Paragraphs 17-42 of G/AG/W/88 refer. 
12 The question to Tonga is contained in paragraph 55 of G/AG/W/87.  The question to and the 
response by Uruguay are included in paragraphs 69 of G/AG/W/88. 
13 For Ukraine's responses to Japan's question, see paragraph 51 of G/AG/W/88. 
14 Questions to and responses by the United States are contained in paragraphs 52 to 66 of G/AG/W/88. G/AG/R/63 
Page 4 
 
 
  (iii) Export subsidies (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3) 
18. The United States expressed appreciation for I ndia's use of time-limited export subsidies 
exempted from reduction commitments.15  Australia noted that some of these programmes had been 
extended until 2007-2008 and, supported by Pakistan, sought India's views on the consistency with 
the provisions of Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture as regards the implementation period. 
(iv) Export prohibitions and rest rictions (Table ER:1) 
19. The EU welcomed the positive news from th e Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and 
Ukraine on the discontinuation of their respectiv e export restrictions and, supported by Japan, 
expressed appreciation of the transparency provided to the Committee.16 
(b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram 
20. 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 
21. The Committee took note of the notifications ci rculated after the issuance of the convening 
airgram (Annex 3).  These notifications will be reve rted to for substantive review at the November 
2011 meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working Procedures. 
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings 
22. There was no discussion under this agenda item. 
(e) Counter-notifications 
23. 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 
24. The Chairman recalled that WTO/AIR/3792 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.17 
25. Referring to Canada's reminder of deferre d replies from the September 2002 meeting18, since 
many of the issues raised then had been covere d in its responses at the current meeting, India 
                                                      
15 See paragraphs 77-78 of G/AG/W/88. 
16 See paragraphs 79-80 of G/AG/W/88. 
17 With respect to Albania, see paragraph 16 of G/AG/W/75/Rev.4; with respect to the Kyrgyz 
Republic, see paragraph 82 of G/AG/W/83/Rev.2. 
18 Paragraph 88 of G/AG/W/87 refers.  G/AG/R/63 
 Page 5 
 
 
  suggested that Canada might wish to update its qu estions in this light.  India undertook to supply the 
information sought earlier should Canada so request. 
26. With reference to Thailand's responses to ques tions raised in March, June and September 
201119, the United States indicated its intention to submit follow-up questions with respect to the 
difference between the rice stocks acquisition pri ce and the price at which export sales were made.  
The Philippines flagged its interest in this matter. 
(g) Overdue notifications 
27. Document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.7 dated 28 September 2011, showing the current status of 
Members' compliance with notification obligations , was made available.  Referring to its past 
comments under this agenda item, Australia apprec iated the responses that had been provided by 
various Members.  Australia and the United States welcomed the recent submissions by India and Korea
20 and encouraged all Members to submit their notif ications on a timely basis.  Catching up with 
notification obligations was considered importa nt for maintaining the Committee's relevance. 
28. China announced that the internal procedur es for the preparation of its Table DS:1 
notification for years 2005-2008 had been completed and that the notification would be submitted in 
the coming days.21  China reiterated its engagement to m eet properly its notification obligations. 
II. OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE 
PEOPLES ' REPUBLIC OF CHINA (WT/L/432) 
29. The Committee held its final review under paragr aph 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of 
the People's Republic of China.  No issues had been  raised by Members in advance of the meeting. 
(a) Comments by Members 
30. Commenting on the first ten years of WTO memb ership, the United States applauded China 
for having implemented a set of sweeping commit ments in a timely manner during the initial phase-in 
period.  These included reduction of tariffs; eliminati on of non-tariff barriers that previously denied 
national treatment and market access for goods a nd services; improvements in intellectual property 
protection and transparency.  However, the full pote ntial of such commitments had not been realized 
for some products due to the application of a variet y of non-tariff barriers.  While quotas had been 
eliminated, the tariff rate quota administration syst em that had been applied for bulk agricultural 
commodities had not been functioning as smoothly as originally envisioned.  The system continued to 
be impaired by inadequate transparency and low fill rates, and benefitted state-trading enterprises 
rather than the private sector.  In the absence of timely notifications, the United States had found it 
difficult to assess China's adherence to its commitm ents to limit production- and trade-distorting 
domestic support;  eliminate all export subsidi es upon accession;  as well as withdraw all export-
contingent benefits under Chinese programmes.  Concerns remained regarding China's partial 
implementation of cross-cutting transparency obligat ions, especially as regards the regulation of the 
agricultural sector, the use of subsidies, and the discriminatory application of VAT to agricultural 
products which was found to be detrimental to fo reign producers and their products.  From the 
standpoint of the United States, the overall pict ure remained complex against the background of a 
troubling trend towards increased interventi on in the Chinese economy in recent years. 
                                                      
19 G/AG/W/83/Rev.2/Add.1 refers. 
20 G/AG/N/IND/7, G/AG/N/IND/8 and G/AG/N/KOR/43 refer. 
21 Circulated after the m eeting as G/AG/N/CHN/21. G/AG/R/63 
Page 6 
 
 
  31. The EU congratulated China for the completion of the Review.  In light of the importance of 
agriculture for the Chinese econom y and China's increasing role in global agricultural production and 
trade, the EU found that it was important to re cognize the contribution of China's fundamental 
reforms to poverty reduction.  These reforms had involved a major shift towards direct support.  
Looking forward to a fruitful co-operation with Ch ina in the Committee, the EU called on China to 
improve transparency with respect to its policies as well as with respect to timely compliance with 
notification obligations. 
32. Emphasizing the positive spirit with which Chin a had answered numerous questions from 
Members over the last ten years, Japan praised th e Transitional Review Mechanism as an effective 
tool in providing transparency.  Japan remained concerned, however, with the imposition of export 
taxes and charges in 2008 and 2009 on agricultural products such as wheat, wheat flour, buckwheat, maize and rice, which were not listed in its Prot ocol of Accession (Annex 6, Section 11.3).  Japan 
hoped that China would not reintroduce such m easures and would abide by its commitments. 
33. Pakistan applauded the positive contribution of China's investment in Green Box measures to 
the Millennium Development Goals, pointing out that  this had set a direction for other Members and 
served as an example of agriculture being used as a vehicle for poverty reduction. 
(b) Comments by China 
34. China underlined that its accession commitments ha d been fulfilled seriously over the past ten 
years.  In the area of agriculture, these include d reduction of tariffs, el imination of quotas and 
licensing procedures, establishment of new WTO- consistent TRQ administration systems and 
elimination of all export subsidies.  As a result,  market access opportunities and trade with Members 
had expanded.  China had progressively enhanced  its capacity in understanding and implementing 
WTO rules, including those on agricultural trade and transparency obligations.  Serious efforts had 
been made to catch up with notification obligations .  China would continue to take its rights and 
obligations seriously and to participate in the ac tivities of the Committee on Agriculture in an open 
and cooperative spirit.  China believed that excha nges with Members on its agricultural policies under 
the regular mechanisms of the Committee would not  only continue but would also be further 
enhanced. 
(c) Report to the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) 
35. With respect to the Committee's report on the tr ansitional review to the CTG, the Committee 
took note that the Chairman would submit a fact ual report on his own responsibility.  The report 
would make reference to the Secretariat's summary report of this meeting reflecting the discussions 
held under this agenda item.22 
B. IMPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES23 
36. The Chairman recalled that the situation had not changed since the circulation of the 2003 and 
2006 reports to the General Council.24 
37. 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 
                                                      
22 The report was subsequently circulated in document G/AG/27 (dated 4 October 2011). 
23 WT/MIN(01)/17 refers. 
24 G/AG/16 and G/AG/16/Add.1 refer.  G/AG/R/63 
 Page 7 
 
 
  the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.  Argentina requested that this item be retained on the 
agenda of the Committee on Agriculture in regular session. 
C. LIST OF "SIGNIFICANT EXPORTERS "25 
38. The Chairman delivered an oral report on th e results of his consultations held on 
28 September 2011.26 
39. With reference to paragraph 7 of the report, Paki stan clarified that its proposal was to reflect 
on the possibility to further divide product categor ies from G/AG/2 where these were considered too 
broad rather than include corn, nuts and fresh fruit as these were already covered.  In Pakistan's view, 
it was also appropriate to include the most importa nt products from those currently falling outside the 
scope of G/AG/2, such as ethyl alcohol.  Costa Rica  reiterated its readiness to immediately update the 
list of "significant exporters" on the basis of G/AG/W/82/Rev.1, as well as its openness to discuss product coverage as long as guidelines and clear timef rames were defined.  New Zealand and the 
Philippines encouraged Members to continue reflect ing with a view to devising concrete, practical 
and operational proposals. 
D. R
EPORTS  
40. The Chairman reported on the informal exch ange which took place on 29 September 2011 
based on preliminary ideas by the Cairns Group, Japan  and the United States to reinvigorate the work 
of the Committee.  Australia looked forward to holdi ng more informal consulta tions with the broader 
membership with a view to developing further th e initial ideas presented by the Cairns Group, while 
maintaining an open and inclusive process within the purview of the Committee. 
41. Pakistan suggested that many of the ideas put forward could take the form of technical 
assistance in order to enhance the effectiveness of  LDCs' participation in the Review Process.  
Colombia recommended that the Committee improve its wo rk in two areas:  (i) strengthen the work in 
formal sessions through enhancing and updating the no tification system and improving the ability to 
carry out assessments, under a clearly defined mandate;  and in parallel;  (ii) discuss issues of a more 
general nature which are not directly linked to  notifications, such as food security, food price 
volatility, difficulties associated with supply and de mand, etc., in an informal setting, and with the 
participation of relevant specializ ed international organizations.  Argentina pointed out that in its 
regular and informal sessions, the Committee needed  to follow some objectiv e guidance with the aim 
to improve transparency, quality and accuracy of not ifications.  Both Argentina and India underlined 
the importance for the Committee to remain within its mandate, insis ting that any new issue should be 
brought for discussion only after consulting Members. 
42. To allay these concerns, the Chairman invited Members to indicate in any future requests for 
inclusion of agenda items, how these fell within the purview of the Committee.  Moreover, the 
Chairman recalled that during the informal consu ltations a number of critical "anchor" points were 
raised by Members, such as the core business of the Committee in regular session;  the fundamental 
importance of its margin of manoeuvre as delineate d by G/AG/1, WT/L/43 and Article 18 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, and WT/L/161-Annex 3;  the reminder that the General Council and the 
Ministerial Conference alone have the authority to in terpret the rules, and that as a guiding principle, 
there would be no focus on individual Members' policies or practices without their prior consent. 
                                                      
25 G/AG/2/Add.1 dated 16 October 1995 refers. 
26 See Annex 4. G/AG/R/63 
Page 8 
 
 
  E. BEST PRACTICES  
43. Recalling the discussions held during the June 2011 meeting of the Committee27, in particular, 
the suggestion to focus on some specific areas, th e Chairman invited Members to share ideas on how 
best to pursue further discussions on this issue in the Committee. 
44. The Committee noted that the Secretariat had been progressing with the development of its 
information systems relating to notified data and th at a presentation of the "Questions and Answers" 
Database would be delivered during, or after, th e November 2011 meeting.  The Chairman underlined 
that an important responsibility lay on Members to make efforts toward improving the timeliness of 
their notifications so as to add value to AGCD da tabases and enhance the effectiveness of the Review 
Process. 
F. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CTG 
45. In line with past practice, a short and factual draft report for the CTG on the work undertaken 
by the Committee in the course of 2011 had been circul ated before the meeting in order to facilitate 
Members' consideration of this matter.  The m odifications suggested in advance of the meeting 
included bringing forward the date of the Nove mber 2012 meeting by one week, and a textual 
amendment involving the removal of the reference to G/AG/82/Rev.1.  Regarding the latter proposal, 
the Chairman was of the view that the mentione d document captured the work in progress on an 
important notification component of the Committee's monitoring of export subsidy commitments and 
anti-circumvention. 
46. The Committee took note of the draft report and th e statements made and agreed that, after 
updating as appropriate, it would be submitted to  the CTG on the Chairman's responsibility.28 
G. RENEWAL OF AD HOC OBSERVER STATUS TO INTER -AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR 
AGRICULTURAL COOPERATION (IICA)29 
47. The Committee agreed to invite IICA to par ticipate in the November 2011 regular session as 
an ad hoc  observer. 
H. OTHER BUSINESS  
(a) G-20 Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) 
48. The Director of the AGCD, Mr. C. Booneka mp, briefed Members on the Secretariat's 
participation in the AMIS initiative. 
(b) Provisional schedule of meetings for 2012 
49. According to the Committee's rules of procedure,  regular meetings of the Committee are to be 
held in March, September and November.  The date s for each regular meeting would continue to be 
confirmed at the preceding meeting of the Committee.  The Committee took note of the provisional 
schedule of meetings for 2012 as follows: 
(a) 21-22 March 2012;  
                                                      
27 Paragraphs 45-52 of G/AG/R/62 refer. 
28 The report was later circulated in  G/L/965 (dated 11 October 2011). 
29 See also G/AG/W/29/Rev.7.  G/AG/R/63 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (b) 20-21 June 2012;  
(c) 26-27 September 2012;  and 
(d) 14-15 November 2012. 
(c) Date of next regular meeting and reminder of upcoming agenda 
50. The next (64th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agri culture is scheduled to be held on 
17 November 2011.  On this basis, the Secretar iat would issue the reminder airgram on 26 October 
2011 and the convening airgram on 7 November 2011. 
_______________ 
  
 G/AG/R/63 
Page 10 
 
 
  Annex 1 
 
Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised 
under the Committee's Working Procedures1 
 
 
(i) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): 
 
 Norway G/AG/N/NOR/53 and G/AG/N/NOR/56 
 Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/87 
 (ii) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): 
  Japan G/AG/N/JPN/165 and G/AG/N/JPN/166  Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/88 
  
(iii) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): 
 
 Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/30/ Rev.1 and G/AG/N/CRI/34 
 India G/AG/N/IND/7  Japan G/AG/N/JPN/167 and G/AG/N/JPN/167/Corr.1 
 Tonga G/AG/N/TON/2 
 United States G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/USA/80  Ukraine G/AG/N/UKR/9 
 Uruguay G/AG/N/URY/42 
 
(iv) new or modified domestic support meas ures exempt from reduction (Table DS:2): 
 
 Australia G/AG/N/AUS/83 
 Japan G/AG/N/JPN/168 
 (v) export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): 
 
 India G/AG/N/IND/8 
 
(vi) export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1): 
 
 Former Yugoslav Republic G/AG/N/MKD/13 
    of Macedonia 
Ukraine G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2 
 
 
                                                      
1 See G/AG/W/88 and subsequent revisions for responses provided by notifying Members.  G/AG/R/63 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Annex 2 
 
Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram 
 
 
(i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1): 
 El Salvador  G/AG/N/SLV/35 
 Former Yugoslav Republic G/AG/N/MKD/14 
    of Macedonia 
 Ukraine  G/AG/N/UKR/8/Rev.2 
 
(ii) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): 
 El Salvador G/AG/N/SLV/36 
 Former Yugoslav Republic G/AG/N/MKD/15 
    of Macedonia 
 
(iii) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): 
 Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/89  United States G/AG/N/USA/81  Uruguay G/AG/N/URY/44 
 
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): 
 Australia G/AG/N/AUS/82 
 Fiji G/AG/N/FJI/8 
 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia G/AG/N/SAU/6 
 Korea G/AG/N/KOR/43 
 
(v) new or modified domestic support measur es exempt from reduction (Table DS:2): 
 Korea G/AG/N/KOR/44 
 (vi) export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): 
 Albania G/AG/N/ALB/5  Burkina Faso G/AG/N/BFA/8  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia G/AG/N/SAU/5 
 Madagascar G/AG/N/MDG/3 
 Qatar G/AG/N/QAT/7  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines G/AG/N/VCT/1 
 Tonga G/AG/N/TON/1 
 United States G/AG/N/USA/82  Uruguay G/AG/N/URY/43 
 G/AG/R/63 
Page 12 
 
 
  Annex 3 
 
Notifications circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram 
 
 
(i) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): 
 Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/90 
(ii) domestic support commitments (Tables DS:1 and DS:2): 
 Japan G/AG/N/JPN/168/Corr.1  
 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia G/AG/N/SAU/6 
 New Zealand G/AG/N/NZL/70  
(iii) export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): 
 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia G/AG/N/SAU/5 
 Madagascar G/AG/N/MDG/3  
  G/AG/R/63 
 Page 13 
 
 
  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 30 September 2011 
 1. On 28 September, Members met informally in order to address the concerns expressed by a 
few delegations during the June re gular session. I had then invited a ll delegations to respond to three 
fundamental questions.
2  Ten Members have responded and sent detailed non-papers that considerably 
enriched our debate on at least five specific areas.  All these contributions are, and will continue to be, 
posted on the Members' website for your convenience. 
2. First of all, some respondents  have recurrently referred to the necessity to clarify product 
coverage at the sub-heading level of the Harmonized System (HS).  A background file prepared by the 
Secretariat helped us to shed some light on this matter.  It consists of a table that links (i) G/AG/2 
product categories to (ii) FAO codes as used in G/AG/W /76.  In yet another step, the table then links 
(i) FAO codes to (ii) the HS Nomenclature.  As  it represents an amalgamation of two separate 
correlation tables, this file therefore does not necessarily establish a direct correlation between 
G/AG/2 product categories and the HS items. 
3. The Secretariat also explained that, in prepar ing G/AG/W/76, the aim was to obtain the best 
possible approximation of export shares in volume term s for G/AG/2 products.  It should also be clear 
that the information contained in that document does not prejudice the data that a given Member 
might need to notify by way of a Table ES:2 notifica tion.  This is especially true for Members with 
scheduled reduction commitments.  Rather, the ove rriding objective of G/AG/W/76 was to construct a 
coherent basis in quantity terms that would enab le Members to review the list of "significant 
exporters". 
4. The second area that we clarified was the kind of  information that needs to be reported in 
Table ES:2, as well as what is sometimes perceived as "different" product disaggregation practices in 
notifications.  We had already touched upon this issu e in February this year.  At that time, the 
Secretariat had supplied us with detailed comp ilations of Members' export subsidy reduction 
commitments sorted out by Member and by scheduled tariff line.  As you know, this category of 
Members is required to supply Table ES:2, whether they are significant exporters of the product in 
question or not.  During the consultations, we benefited from the presentations made by three 
participants who described their notification practices.  The detaile d interventions have illustrated 
cases where export subsidy commitments applied for th e product concerned;  as well as cases where 
no export subsidy commitments applied but where th e Member was a significant exporter.  There was 
also a suggestion to have Members provide greater  transparency in the HS coverage of their 
respective Table ES:2 notifications by way of a "one-off" submission. 
5. As a result of this transparency exercise, th ere is now a growing realization that neither 
product coverage nor levels of disaggregation are uniform across the membership.  This is 
fundamentally due to scheduled product information wh ich has to be faithfully reproduced in order to 
present the required information both in Tables ES:1 and ES:2 on a comparable basis, as required by 
G/AG/2.  In this respect, some participants believe  that what has been sometimes construed as a major 
issue seems to be just a factual reflection of th e reality of bound commitments whether these have 
been established at 4, 6, 8 or 10 digits. 
                                                      
2 Paragraph 73 of G/AG/R/62 refers. G/AG/R/63 
Page 14 
 
 
  6. In this sense, there in itially seemed to be little appetite fo r considering the introduction of 
mandatory, or standardized, product c overage for all.  Three reasons were  cited for this:  (i) this would 
conflict with scheduled commitments undertaken in the Uruguay Round;  (ii) the comparability 
requirement stipulated in G/AG/2 that applies to  Members with scheduled commitments would be 
compromised;  or (iii) this would imply a re- opening of G/AG/2.  Despite these considerations, 
however, the view was reiterated that Tables ES:1 and ES:2 bear no relationship at all in the case of 
Members with no scheduled commitments.  A cons tructive proposal was then made to require only 
Significant Exporters to submit Table ES:2 while  Members with export subsidy commitments would 
provide the relevant information on scheduled produc ts by adding one extra column to the Table ES:1 
format showing the total volume of exports on the sam e basis in order to ensure comparability.  A few 
Members indicated that they would like to continue reflecting on this proposal. 
7. The third question evoked was the desirability to extend G/AG/2 to significantly traded 
products; and if so, on which basis. We examined Co mtrade export statistics in value terms (US$) for 
the period 2005-2007, at the sub-heading level.  Ap proximately 40 per cent of agricultural exports fall 
outside the scope of G/AG/2.  One Member suggested  that corn, nuts, fresh fruit, and Chapter 22 be 
included in G/AG/2 at the sub-heading level, and th at recourse to some form of numerical trigger 
mechanism be applied to identify "new" products.  This shows that, undeniably, and as evoked in 
certain submissions, there is some desire to cove r a little bit more of world agricultural trade. 
8. The expansion of products beyond  the scope of G/AG/2 also attracted some opposition.  For 
example, the point was made that the Committee's f unction is to monitor the volume of exports in the 
framework of export subsidy commitments and anti-ci rcumvention.  As such, a broader agricultural 
trade review exercise based on the relative trade shares in value terms was seen as falling outside the 
ambit of this Committee as delineat ed by its terms of reference a pproved by the General Council.  
There was strong reluctance to deviate from the or iginal intent of the Table ES:2 notification 
requirement.  Moreover, reliance on a mechanism to determine trade shares based on a unique 
currency, in this case US dollars, would almost inev itably generate other issues arising from exchange 
rate fluctuations in periods of financial instabilit y.  In view of these concerns, the suggestion was 
made to address the Table ES:2 review exercise sti pulated in G/AG/2 within the Committee's regular 
work via the development of a transparency toolkit for Table ES:2. 
9. The fourth theme touched upon the selection of "r eference periods".  As  in November last 
year, as well as in January and February this year, th e same points were reiterated.  Finally, nobody 
intervened on the last theme, which dealt with process and exemptions, and at that point, no other 
concern was cited.  A suggestion was made to addr ess these points at a later stage once more clarity is 
achieved on the first three points. 
10. In my view, we have certainly achieved progress.  An important leap forward was achieved 
on the transparency side, thanks to the contribu tions received, Members' presentations during the 
meeting on their respective notification practices, as well as the background statistical information 
prepared by the Secretariat.  We certainly gain ed a fuller understanding of what the submission of a 
Table ES:2 notification would entail. 
11. We now need to progress beyond the description of existing situations and the consideration 
of particular situations.  I would therefore like to  encourage Members to continue reflecting on our 
discussions with a view to developing as precise a nd specific proposals as possible.  Hopefully, initial 
concerns will be then turned into concrete, pr actical and operational proposals for the Committee to 
consider. 
__________