RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/R/55 
15 September 2009 
 (09-4351) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE ME ETING HELD ON 2 JULY 2009 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its fifty-fifth regular meeting on 2 July 2009 under the 
Chairmanship of Ms. Valeria Csukasi of Uruguay. 
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/3394 of 22 June 2009 was adopted with 
the following modifications: (i) the addition of ques tions by Australia to Chinese Taipei relating to 
notifications in the context of the special safeguard  under Section II.B.(a) below; (ii) the addition of 
questions by Australia to various Members rega rding overdue notifications under Section II.B.(g) 
below;  and (iii) the withdrawal by Turkey of a question posed to Chile under agenda item 2.B.(iii). 
I. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON 
3. At its last meeting on 24 March 2009, the Counc il for Trade in Goods nominated Ms. Valeria 
Csukasi as Chairperson of the Comm ittee on Agriculture until March 2010.
2  The Committee elected 
Ms. Csukasi of Uruguay as Chairperson by acclamation in accordance with its Rules of Procedure.   
II. THE REVIEW PROCESS 
A. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMEN TATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
(a) Argentina:  Export financing by the United States, in particular the GSM-102 Program  
4. Argentina sought details regarding the amount  of expenditures in 2009 and whether this 
reflected an increase in the use of this credit facility compared to previous years.  Argentina further 
wondered if there had been any changes in the fina ncing criteria and, if so, the nature of those 
changes.  
5. The United States replied that as of 18 J une 2009 GSM-102 registrations totalled US$3.6 
billion for fiscal year 2009.  For the whole fiscal year 2008, registrations had been US$3.1 billion. Data for previous years were available in the September reports at the website of the Foreign 
Agricultural Service.
3  The Food, Conservation and Energy Ac t of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) had capped 
the Export Credit Guarantee Program at US$5.5 billion per year, and had removed authority for the Supplier Credit Guarantee Program and the Interm ediate term Credit guarantees (GSM-103).  The 
2008 Farm Bill had also removed the cap on origina tion fees (previously at 1 per cent) and required 
that the fees charged cover, but do not exceed, th e operating cost of the programme over the long 
                                                     
 
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 G/C/M/96, Item V, refers. 
3  http://www.fas.usda.gov/ex credits/Monthly/ecg.html  G/AG/R/55 
Page 2  
 
  term.  The President's budget for the Export Credit Guarantee Program projected an operational profit 
for fiscal year 2010.  
6. The EC noted the intensification of the United States' export credits over the last month, 
expressed interest in this matter, and indicated that any further development would be followed 
closely. 
(b) Argentina:  Total value of agricultural production for EC-27
 
7. Argentina maintained that the r esponses supplied by the EC  to the questions it raised during 
the 54th Session of the Committee on Agriculture were not satisfactory4.  Argentina recalled that 
information on the total value of production of b asic agricultural products would be relevant for 
determining the base for reduction of overall trad e-distorting support referred to in the Draft 
Modalities.  Argentina asked the EC to provide data  showing the total value of agricultural production 
of basic products for each year of the 1995- 2000 base period in the 27 EC member States.  
8. Argentina argued that only unconfirmed data ha d been available in the information provided 
by the EC at the 54th Session5 and in document TN/AG/S/21/Rev.1 for each year of the base period 
for EC-15, Hungary and Romania, and as of 1997 for Bu lgaria.  Argentina further pointed out that full 
data for every year of the base period had been pr ovided for Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia 
and Bulgaria, but not for each of the years of the base period for Romania and Hungary, which already appeared in document TN/AG/S/21/Rev. 1. Argentina asked for the reason for this 
discrepancy.  In addition, the data provided appeared  to contain typing errors.  In the interest of 
transparency, the EC was invited to supply the rele vant information before any agreement could be 
reached on the Draft Modalities. 
9. The EC referred to Annex 1 of G/AG/R/54 a nd acknowledged that it contained an error in 
relation to the reported unit of measure.  A corrigendum had been issued.
6  The EC advised that the 
use of different sources, e.g., Secretariat's notifications  and Eurostat in that particular case, might lead 
to different results as regards the value of production. 
10. Argentina pointed out that one item regarding the value of agricultural production for EC-27 
remained unanswered.  The discrepancy in WTO doc ument TN/G/S/21/Rev.1 with regard to the total 
value of agricultural production for EC-15 could be a ttributed to the inclusion of data for Hungary and 
Romania.  Argentina therefore invited the EC to clar ify this point whether at the next meeting, or in 
writing.  
(c) Argentina: Details of proposed consolidati on of export subsidy commitments for EC-25 and 
EC-27  
11. Without prejudice to existing WTO disciplines, and in the interest of obtaining the 
information before any agreement on Draft Modaliti es, Argentina requested the EC to promptly 
provide details for the netting-out of subsidy co mmitments between the EC-15 and its 10 members 
States who had acceded to the EC in 2004.  For instance, it was not clear how matching between the 
new member States and the EC-15 had been done for the final categories of subsidized products, 
despite EC's reference to nomenclature matching problems. 
                                                      
4 G/AG/R/54, paragraph 3, refers.  
5 Annex 1 of G/AG/R/54 refers. 
6 G/AG/R/54/Corr.1  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 3 
 
 
  12. The EC referred to a working document circulated at the 53rd Session of the Committee 
concerning EC-25 commitments on do mestic support and export comp etition.  The working document  
outlined the methodology followed by the EC in consolidation export subs idy and domestic support 
commitments pursuant to its 2004 enlargement.  Th e EC recalled that this information had been 
circulated in the Committee on Agriculture.7  The methodology used for previous EC enlargements, 
i.e. that from EC-12 to EC-15, had also been used  in the subsequent enlargement process.  The EC 
underlined that Part IV of the new EC-25 Sche dule did not result in an overall increase of export 
subsidy commitment levels.  Moreover, no new ex port subsidy product groups had been created by 
the netting-out procedure.  
13. Argentina considered that there was a lack of clarity as to the types of products that had been 
included in the export subsidy categories, and a lack  of information on exports between original and 
new EC-25 member States.  Responding to a request for information regarding consolidated figures at 
the EC-27 level, the EC advised that the exercise of consolidating export subsidy commitments of EC-25 with those of Bulgaria and Romania had no t yet been finalized.  Argentina sought further 
clarification on the netting-out methodology.  
(d) Argentina:  EC recourse to GA TT XXVIII procedures (G/SECRET/25/Add.1)
 
14. In Argentina's view,  document G/SECRET/25/ Add.1 provided a good example of restriction 
on access to the EC market.  Argentina indicated that it was still in the process of examining the document and reserved the right to provide furt her comments.  Argentina enquired about EC's 
intention to explicitly set out tariff quota volumes for other Members in the Draft Schedule CXL of tariff concessions (Section B of the communication); and, if this was not the case, whether the two 
Members with country-specific tariff quotas, namely  Brazil and Thailand, would also have access to 
the remainder of the tariff quota not specifically a llocated to them.  The EC provided supplementary 
information under its Draft Schedule of tariff concessions.
8 
15. For the purposes of classification under the tiered formula for tariff reduction pursuant to the 
Draft Modalities, Argentina wished to know the ad valorem  equivalent of the specific tariff proposed 
in G/SECRET/25/Add.1 for HS tariff item 0210 99 39. The EC stated that the corresponding ad 
valorem  equivalent was 55.29 per cent.  This tariff line had undergone a code ch ange in 2002, before 
which it had been HS 0210 90 29.  The EC furthe r clarified that the base period used for the 
calculation of the ad valorem  equivalent had been 1999-2001, as stipulated in the Paris methodology.  
16. Argentina expressed concern with regard to  the extensive recourse to procedures under 
Article XXVIII of GATT 1994, as reflected in docum ent G/MA/W/23/Rev.5.   Argentina pointed out 
that of 28 procedures, 16 were still underway.  In  all cases, the negotiations were related to 
agricultural products.  In seven cases, the procedures currently underway pertained to the EC and 
covered 24 different rubrics.  In Argentina's vi ew, this would certainly have an impact on the 
commitments assumed in the Uruguay Round.  
                                                      
7 See paras. 3-7 and Annexes 1-4 of G/AG/R/53. 
8 See Annex 1. G/AG/R/55 
Page 4  
 
  (e) Australia:  Beef hormones dispute - opera tion of the tariff quota agreed between EC and 
United States   
17. With reference to the agreement entered into between the EC and the United States relating to 
the EC-US/Canada Beef Hormones dispute, Australia noted that a new tariff rate quota for beef would 
be opened on 3 August 2009.  Aust ralia appreciated the opportunity to discuss the tariff quota 
conditions, requirements, administ ration and implementation bilatera lly.  While thanking the EC for 
the information provided to date, Australia wished to  further explore the operation of the tariff quota.  
In particular, Australia wondered whether the cu rrent exporters of high quality beef had been 
consulted about the establishment of the tariff qu ota and its definition prior to the announcement 
posted on the U.S. Trade Representative website of 13 May, announcing that the agreement had been 
signed.   
18. The EC clarified that no consultations with expor ters of high quality beef had been held.  The 
criteria had been subject to negotiations and had b een developed in that framework.  The tariff quota 
would be accessible to suppliers of beef on an MF N basis as required by the WTO.  The EC did not 
consider that the tariff quota might result in trade di stortions due to the significant difference in tariff 
rates for the current country-specific tariff quotas (2 0 per cent) compared to the new tariff quota, 
which is duty-free.  In the EC's view, if any trad e distortion would occur at all, this would happen on 
the internal EC market and not on the international markets. 
19. Australia thanked the EC for its replies and a dditional comments.  EC's  comments in other 
WTO fora, such as the recent meeting of the Disput e Settlement Body, were also welcomed to the 
extent that they confirmed the application of the new tariff quota on an MFN basis and reinforced that 
this key WTO principle would be respected in the Committee on Agriculture as well. As a substantial 
beef exporter, Australia welcomed the opportunity for improved market access, expressed its interest 
in exploring further the operation and administration of the tariff quota, and looked forward to further 
engagement with the EC on this issue. 
20. Brazil appreciated the efforts made in searching for solutions of a long-standing dispute 
between the EC and the United States and looked fo rward to the notification of the Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) to the WTO. Brazil further no ted that any mutually accepted solution by the 
parties meant that the MOU, and any further inst rument, or any form of compensation, should be 
consistent with the covered agre ements, including in particular compliance with the MFN principle, 
and should neither nullify or impair  benefits accruing to any Member , nor impede the attainment of 
any objective of those agreements. The administra tion and the implementation of the tariff quota for 
high quality beef provided for under the MOU would be followed with interest. 
21. Uruguay expressed concern at the bilateral ag reement recently signed between the EC and 
United States.  There had been many doubts regardi ng the form in which such an agreement could be 
compatible with the WTO standards.  From that point-of–view, Australia's questions to the EC had 
been highly relevant.  The EC's responses, however , had not been considered entirely satisfactory by 
Uruguay.  The fundamental question of how a tari ff quota with a single destination for high quality 
meat could be considered as an MFN tariff quota remained unanswered.  Uruguay observed that the 
current list of EC commitments included five different  definitions of "high quality beef".  The EC was 
a main destination market for Uruguay's high quality beef.  As an exporter of that product, Uruguay 
would follow the developments very closely, and hoped to receive assurances that the tariff quota 
would genuinely be applied on an MFN basis.   G/AG/R/55 
 Page 5 
 
 
  22. Argentina joined in expressing its interest in th is issue and underlined the high relevance of 
Australia's questions.  The EC's confirmation that  the new tariff quota would be applied on an MFN 
basis was reassuring.  The EC had also provided ad ditional information bilaterally.  Argentina needed 
further clarification, especially as regards tariff quota administration.  New Zealand, Paraguay and 
South Africa also expressed their interest in the operation and implementation of the new tariff quota 
and sought further detail.  
(f) China:  EC's recognition of China as "a party with substantial interest" in poultry tariff quota 
negotiations   
23. China had raised concerns with respect to its non-recognition as a pa rty with "substantial 
interest" several times.  However those concerns  remained unaddressed.  China's interest stemmed 
from its position as the second largest world poultry pr oducer.  Its prospects continued to be damaged 
as exports to the EC and the United States remained unduly restricted.  China upheld the view that the 
matter should be resolved through bilateral consultations, but reserve d its right to take any further 
actions as necessary. 
24. The EC maintained that it had scrupulousl y followed the procedures laid out in 
Article XXVIII of GATT 1994.  China emphasized th at, whenever an SPS measure was in place, the 
import volume could not be taken as a major standard  for defining the tariff quota allocation since it 
could not possibly reflect the real export capacity of  the Member concerned.  China believed that its 
poultry products were competitive on all markets and th at it should have a reasonable market share in 
the EC without such restrictions.  Poultry exports to the EC had reached 30,000 tonnes per year before 
1996, and, at the time, Chinese poultry had been appr eciated by European customers. Restrictions 
related to the bird flu virus had been introduced in 2004.   They had been removed only partly in 
September 2008, thus allowing exports to the EC  to resume from nine enterprises in Shandong 
Province.   
(g) China and New Zealand:  Reintroduction of export subsidies by the EC and by the United 
States on dairy products  
25. China referred to the reintroduction of export su bsidies for dairy products by the EC in 
January, and by the United States in May 2009, as typical "beggar-thy-neighbour" behaviour.  China 
reiterated its deep concern in that regard and urge d the United States to remove the subsidies, in line 
with the commitment made by the G20 leaders in Washington and London. 
26. The United States assured that it was fully c ognizant of the need to defend against 
protectionist measures in the current economic e nvironment.  The United States remained strongly 
committed to the pledge by the G20 leaders to refrai n from such measures.  Subsidized dairy products 
entering the world market had seriously undermin ed the competitiveness of US dairy products and 
had forced the United States to respond.  In its view , this measured response had been fully consistent 
with its WTO commitments and had been crafted to  keep the US domestic dairy industry from being 
artificially displaced by subsidized exported products. 
27. Since the United States also seemed to have  been harmed by expo rt subsidies, China 
suggested that all Members who had been harmed al ike should fight against such measures instead of 
emulating them.  China hoped that both the United St ates and the EC would remove these subsidies.  
28. New Zealand noted its disappointment at the recent decision by the United States to re-
introduce the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP).  Referring to the U.S. characterization of the 
decision as a temporary measure, New Zealand asked  the United States to comment on its expected 
duration.  The United States replied that, on 22 May 2009,  the DEIP allocations had been announced 
for the period through 30 June 2009, as allowed under WTO rules.   G/AG/R/55 
Page 6  
 
  29. Referring to the reintroduction of export subsidies on dairy products by the EC and the United 
States, New Zealand stated that in the context of  the global economic crisis, it was essential for key 
players not to yield to domestic pressures and ins titute protectionist policies.  This was even more 
important in agriculture since collective actions dete rmined the ability of global markets for food to 
operate effectively while the global economy recove red.  Such measures had an impact on developing 
countries as well.  Developing markets required both access to food at reasonable cost, and clear and 
non-distorted price signals, so that they could cont ribute to the food production base.  New protective 
actions taken by developed countries aimed to furthe r insulate their already highly protected markets 
and only caused more damage to the global balan ce of supply and demand of food.  Given their 
market distorting effect and the damaging effect  on unsubsidized producers, New Zealand remained 
opposed to all export subsidies in principle and ur ged the United States and the EC to cease using 
them. 
30. Australia shared concerns with regard to reintroduction of export subsidies by the two 
Members.  Australia recalled the Cairns Group pos ition on this matter, as expressed during the recent 
Cairns Group Ministerial meeting in Bali, Indonesia, from 7 to 9 June 2009.  At this critical time of 
the global economic downturn, it was essential to guar d against increased protectionism in agriculture 
which included not only tariffs but also subsidies and other restrictive non-tariff measures.  The recent 
reintroduction of export subsidies for a major co mmodity had deepened that risk.  Cairns Group 
ministers remained deeply disappointed by the re introduction of such measures and had encouraged 
the EC and United States to show leadership by re moving these in the shortest time possible.  The 
Cairns Group was of the view that even measure s applied within WTO commitments could have a 
significant protectionist effect.  Australia therefore urged WTO Members to exercise their utmost 
restraint and not follow the EC's and United States' example.  
31. Argentina welcomed the answer provided by the United States and supported the statement 
made by Australia. As a developing country with export interests, Argentina insisted that export 
subsidies should be eliminated, and recalled the agreement reached in Hong Kong for their prompt 
elimination.  Echoing other delega tions, Brazil supported the view that protectionism both in tariffs 
and in export subsidies posed a major systemic risk at a time of economic crisis.  
32. New Zealand referred to  the EC's comments regarding the temporary nature of their export 
subsidies and wondered if the EC had given any furt her thought as to the duration of the subsidies.  
The EC replied that against the background of the cu rrent situation on the dairy market, the EC could 
not at this stage give any timeline for the length of the temporary application of export refunds on 
dairy products.  The EC stressed that it had con tinued to meet it WTO commitments.  New Zealand 
reiterated its opposition to export subs idies, as a principle, whether commitment levels had been met 
or not.  
B. R
EVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram  
33. Since the 12 March session, 66 notifications had been circulated by the Secretariat.  The 
Committee reviewed the notifications as listed in the agenda.  Specific points raised with respect to 
these notifications and the responses thereto are summarized in Annex 2  to this report.9  
                                                      
9 Annex 2 includes additional questions by Australia to Chinese Taipei raised in connection with 
notifications in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)    G/AG/R/55 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram  
34. The Committee took note of the notifications whic h had been circulated in advance of the 
date on which the notice convening the present mee ting was issued, but in respect of which no 
questions had been raised by that date under the Committee's Working Procedures (G/AG/1).  These 
notifications are listed in Annex 4.    
(c) Notifications circulated or made available after the date on which the notice convening the 
present meeting was issued  
35. The following notifications were subject to prelim inary review and are to be reverted to at the 
next meeting for substantive review in accordan ce with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working 
Procedures. 
(i) in the context of imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table 
MA:2): from Canada (CAN/77) and El Salvador (SLV/29); 
(ii) in the context of domestic support commitments (Tables DS:1 and DS:2):  
from Jamaica (JAM/7);  and 
(iii) in the context of export subsidy co mmitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):from 
Estonia (EST/13) and Trinidad and Tobago (TTO/11). 
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings  
36. The Chairperson recalled that delegations have the possibility to inform the Committee of the 
outcome of discussions which are of general interest , but which may have been pursued bilaterally as 
a result of the review of notifications.   
37. Following up on Australia's questions at the regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture 
on 12 March 2009, Iceland stated that the Ministry  of Fisheries and Agriculture intended to submit 
Iceland's outstanding notifications before the end of the summer. 
(e) Counter-notifications  
38. The Committee took note that no counter-notif ications had been received under Article 18.7 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(f) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process  
39. There were no deferred replies to questions previously raised. 
(g) Overdue notifications  
40. An updated room document, date d 30 June 2009, showing the current status of compliance 
with notification obligations, was made available by the Secretariat. G/AG/R/55 
Page 8  
 
  41. Referring to the questions raised to a number of  Members with regard to their intention of 
submitting outstanding notifications
10 Australia expressed interest in receiving responses from these 
Members soon and welcomed the effort by other Me mbers in updating their notifications.  The United 
States encouraged Members to keep up with their notification obligations. 
III. OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. IMPROVEMENT OF TIMELI NESS AND COMPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHER 
INFORMATION FLOWS ON TRADE MEASURES  
42. The Chairperson recalled the background for incl uding this item in the Committee's agenda.11   
The Committee had itself started to look more intensiv ely at notification matters in recent meetings as 
the situation with regard to outstanding notificati ons continued to weaken the Members' capacity to 
effectively monitor the implementation of commitm ents.  For the period 1995-2007, only 17 Members 
had fully complied with their notification obligations.  In this light, there had been general support to 
maintain this topic on the Committee' s agenda in order to ensure its careful consideration, analysis 
and the necessary follow-up, in a comprehensive a nd structured manner.  Since the last formal 
meeting of the Committee, the Chairperson ha d called two additional informal open-ended 
consultations on the same topic, i.e. on 26 March and 19 June, respectively.   
43. In the course of the consultations held on 26  March, the Chairperson had informed Members 
on the contents of her letter to the Chairman of the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) which outlined 
the preliminary results of the informal discussions held on 12 March 2009.12   Members were also 
afforded an opportunity to consider a questionnaire in  draft form.  That draft had been developed by 
the Secretariat based on a proposal by Argentina, with a view to id entify the difficulties faced by all 
Members in preparing and analyzing notifications.  Constructive and useful feedback was received, 
allowing the Secretariat to subsequently circulate a final version.13 Possible technical assistance 
activities on notification requirements and analysis, as well as notification-related information needs 
and dissemination, were also briefly disc ussed during those informal consultations. 
44. In view of the limited number of responses received by 30 April 2009, during the Geneva-
Week the Chairperson had encouraged the non-Gene va based delegations to play a part in the 
questionnaire-based survey. She had conveyed the im portance of developing c ountry participation, 
stressing the primary objectives of the survey, i.e. (i) to improve the timeliness and completeness of 
notifications under existing procedures; (ii) to eval uate Members' experiences in preparing, submitting 
and analyzing notifications, and (iii) to identify possible solutions with a view to enhancing the 
quality of the Review Process.   
45. A report containing the findings of the ques tionnaire-based survey was released thereafter14, 
shortly followed by a second round of informal consultations on 19 June to allow Members to 
exchange preliminary comments.  Delegations had praised the balanced nature of the report and  
showed readiness to explore some of the options ou tlined, on a priority basis.  They had stressed, 
however, the need to improve the response rate (less than 30 per cent of Members has supplied a 
response) and to approach the survey itself as an  on-going exercise.   The outcome of the 19 June 
consultations had been the inclusion of four specific points in the agenda of the present meeting, i.e.: 
                                                      
10 See Annex 3. 
11 G/AG/R/54 paras 72-73 refer. 
12 A copy of the letter had been circulated to all delegations electronically.  It is reproduced in Annex 5. 
13 G/AG/GEN/83 dated 2 April 2009 refers.  The questionnaire was distributed to all delegations on 3 
April 2009 with a deadline for responses of 30 April.  On 30 April, the deadline was extended to 8 May 2009. 
14 G/AG/GEN/85 dated 15 June 2009.  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (a) the elaboration of a Work Programme by the Secretariat setting out possible elements 
for discussion by the Committee on practical solutions to the problems identified in 
the survey;   
(b) the organization of a Geneva-based Workshop on Agriculture Notifications in 
September 2009, back-to-back with the 56th Regular Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture; 
(c) the enhancement of the electronic dissemination of notifications; 
(d) re-designing of the public and Members' only websites. 
46. Argentina expressed concern with the sugges tion made by some respondents that more 
flexible submission deadlines be adopted. 15  In Argentina's view, this could well contravene the initial 
objectives established by the Chairman of the General Council on improving the " timeliness and 
completeness of notifications ".  Rather, Argentina believed that by concentrating their efforts in 
devising a set of " best practices ", Members should be able to meet the deadlines established in 
document G/AG/2 and G/AG/2/Add.1.   Costa Ri ca and Cuba supported Argentina's approach. 
47. Japan expressed concern as regards the very low number of responses received to the 
questionnaire.  Japan considered that improving th e timeliness and completeness of notifications was 
especially relevant in the case of developing count ries, and that more responses from this group of 
Members were required. Japan encouraged Me mbers who had not done so to submit their 
questionnaire as soon as possible.  The survey report provided a valid estimation of the current situation, in general, but some of the responses were  rather predictable in Japan's view.  For example, 
the survey report highlighted that the heavy invol vement of capital-based officials in the DDA 
negotiations had left little time to address notificat ion matters; and that capital-based officials could 
not participate in the Review Process since this task  was reserved to Geneva-based staff.  Japan found 
that reporting such specific circumstances in doc ument G/AG/GEN/85 was to the benefit of all 
Members.  On respondents' suggestions concer ning the revision of existing procedures, Japan 
believed that improvement measures should be carried  out within the current notification system, and 
that the approach adopted by the Chairperson satisfi ed this condition.  As pointed out in paragraph 32 
of the survey report, new notification templates would be devel oped subsequent to the successful 
conclusion of the Doha Round. 
48. Cuba considered that the inclusion of this ma tter in the regular agenda of the Committee on 
Agriculture, as well as Members' consideration of the current work progra mme, was definitely the 
way forward.   Cuba hoped that this matter would b ecome an integral part of the Committee's regular 
work, and urged the Chairperson, Members, and the Secretariat to maintain the momentum.  In this 
context, Cuba encouraged Members to continue tabling innovative ideas to address the timeliness and 
completeness of notifications. 
                                                     
 
15 Paragraph 31 of G/AG/GEN/85 refers. G/AG/R/55 
Page 10  
 
  Elaboration of a work programme 
49. The Chairperson briefly introduced the suggested  work programme that was prepared taking 
account of:  (i) the specific suggestions made by th e 36 respondents participating in the survey;  and 
(ii) the three main "actors" id entified by the 36 respondents: i.e.  the Committee on Agriculture, 
Members, and the Secretariat.
16 The Chairperson encouraged non-responding delegations to fill in the 
questionnaire as soon as possible in order to ensure that the suggested work programme covered their 
needs. 
50. The Chairperson announced the convening of fu rther informal open-ended consultations on 
13 July 2009 to allow Members to carefully consider  the work programme as it related to the action 
points suggested by respondents for the Committee on Agriculture as well as for the Secretariat.  
Members were also invited (i) to send their suggesti ons in writing to the Secretariat as to what might 
constitute "best practices" and (ii)  to reflect on the prioritization of some of these action points. 
Geneva-based workshop on agriculture notifications 
51. The Chairperson reported that, with logisti cal support from the ITTC, the Agriculture and 
Commodities Division (AGCD) had initiated, on a prel iminary basis, the preparations necessary for a 
workshop to take place back-to-back with the Se ptember meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  
Should there be support for such an initiative at th e present meeting, the Secretariat would be in a 
position to send the invitation letters and the tentativ e programme in the course of the following week.  
Responding to the Chairperson's query, there was general support for this initiative.  
52. In this light, the Chairperson informed Memb ers that the workshop would be held on 22-24 
September. The number of candidates that could be  designated by each Member would not be limited 
but financing would only be provide d to one participant from each developing country Member.  The 
objective of the Workshop was to enable Members to  fulfil their notification obligations in a timely 
manner.  The workshop would also provide a platfo rm to discuss specific te chnical issues Members 
faced when preparing agriculture notifications or analyzing notifications submitted by their trading 
partners.  It was also envisaged that some Members would share their experiences as regards 
institutional capacity to prepare/analyze notifications  and participate in the Review Process under the 
Committee.   The Chairperson encouraged delegations to contact the Secretariat directly should they 
wish to enrich the workshop programm e by sharing their specific experiences. 
53. Switzerland supported the early revision of the Handbook on Notification Requirements so 
that it would constitute a substantive reference document for participants. 
Electronic dissemination of notifications 
54. The Chairperson informed Members that the WT O Secretariat was currently considering the 
creation of an online dissemination facility to address Members' increasing needs for instant access to a number of WTO documents, including notifications , on a subscription basis.  That facility, however, 
would not be operational before 2010/ 2011.  In the interim, the AGCD was studying the possibility to 
set up a list server on a subscription basis, emul ating the facility currently available for SPS 
documentation.  Cuba and Switzerland fully supported this initiative. Th e EC agreed in principle, but 
considered that a more detailed reflection on supply and demand factors was required.  The 
Chairperson clarified that such a system would be demand-driven since it would be based on subscriptions only. 
                                                     
 
16 Annex 6 contains a snapshot of those action points suggested by the 36 respondents participating in 
the survey.  The PowerPoint presenta tion by the Chairperson was made available on the Members' only website.   G/AG/R/55 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Re-designing the public and Members' only websites 
55. The Chairperson informed Members that the Se cretariat had initiated consultations with 
various WTO Divisions with a view to examining wa ys in which the agriculture pages of the public 
and Members' only websites could be enhanced in  terms of data management and accessibility of 
notification-related information.17  The implementation of such e nhancements could begin as of the 
fall of 2009. 
B. IMPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES AND CONCERNS  
56. The Chairperson noted that a Compendium of Documents on Implementation-Related Issues18 
was first circulated on 16 March 2009 with a view to  consolidating information with respect to the 
outstanding work in the area of implementati on. An addendum and corrigendum had been recently 
circulated to reflect the recent circulation of (i) a Table NF:1 notification by Japan and (ii) Table 
MA:1 notifications by Switzerland and the United States.   
57. Furthermore, at the 100th Session of the Food Aid Committee (FAC) held on 5 June 2009 in 
London, and in view of the imminent expiry of the Food Aid Convention, 1999 , FAC members had 
agreed to extend the Convention  by one year to 30 June 2010  pending the outcome of the DDA 
negotiations.  Such information will be duly reflected  in the background note to be facilitated by the 
Secretariat when the follow-up to the Marrakesh NF IDC Decision is monitored by the Committee in  
November 2009.   
58. Cuba requested the maintenance of the topic of  implementation-related issues on the agenda 
of the Committee on Agriculture. Furthermore, Cuba  expressed concern about the lack of engagement 
by Members and international observer organizations in more substantive discussions in the context of 
the Committee's follow-up to the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision, despite the annual circulation of a 
valuable background note by the Secretariat. 
59. Argentina stated that, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 10.1 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, the establishment of additional and sp ecific disciplines on export credits, export credit 
guarantees and insurance programmes remained an  outstanding implementation issue resulting from 
the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.  Argen tina therefore requested that this item be 
retained on the agenda of the Comm ittee on Agriculture in regular session. 
C. OTHER BUSINESS : DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
60. The next (56th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agri culture is scheduled to be held on 
24 September 2009.  On this basis, the conveni ng airgram will be issued on 14 September 2009.  
                                                      
17 Such enhancements would complement the Central Registry of Notifications (CRN) through which 
users can already retrieve notifications by notifying Memb er, requirement, subject, pro duct, type of measure and 
time period, and print the results in a standard format.  Access to the CRN is currently available on the Internet through Documents Online .  Existing CRN search and browsing features will be enhanced in the future. 
18 See G/AG/W/70/Add.1 and Corr.1. G/AG/R/55 
Page 12  
 
  Annexes 
 
   Page
 
 Annex 1 Supplementary information on the Draft EC Schedule CXL of tariff concessions 13 
 
Annex 2 Summary of points raised with respect to notifications 14 
   Administration of tariff and other quotas (Table MA:1) 14 
  Thailand - G/AG/N/THA/66 
  
  Imports under tariff and other quotas (Table MA:2) 14 
  Canada - G/AG/N/CAN/75 14 
  Korea - G/AG/N/KOR/40 16 
  Chinese Taipei - G/AG/N/TPKM/67 16 
 
  Special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5) 17
  Chinese Taipei - G/AG/N/TPKM/65, TPKM/66, TPKM/67 and TPKM/1 17 
Chinese Taipei - G/AG/N/TPKM/43,  TPKM/43/Corr.1 TPKM/57 and TPKM/66 18 
   Domestic support (Table DS:1) 19 
  European Communities - G/AG/N/EEC/12/Rev.2, 16/Rev.2, 26/Rev.1,  
30/Rev.1, 38/Rev.1, 49/Rev.1, 51/Rev.1 and 53/Rev.1 19 
  European Communities - G/AG/N/EEC/59 19 
  Oman - G/AG/N/OMN/7 22 
  United States - G/AG/N/USA/66 23
  
  Domestic support (Table DS:2) 24 
  Canada - G/AG/N/CAN/73 24 
  European Communities - G/AG/N/EEC/58 26   United States - G/AG/N/USA/70 27 
 
  Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)  27
  Australia - G/AG/N/AUS/72 27   Canada - G/AG/N/CAN/74 28 
 
  Actions taken within the framework of the Marrakech NFIDC Decision 
  (Table NF:1) 29 
  Japan - G/AG/N/JPN/144 and 145 29  
Annex 3 Additional questions on notifications raised by Australia 30 
  under agenda item 2.B(vii) "overdue notifications"  
Annex 4 Notifications subject to review in resp ect of which no questions have been  
  raised in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram 32  Annex 5 Letter from the Chairperson to the Chairman of the TPRB outlining  
  preliminary results of the informal discussions, dated 26 March 2009 34 
 
Annex 6 Suggested work programme, 2 July 2009 36  
  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Annex 1 
 
Supplementary information on the Draft EC Schedule CXL of tariff concessions  
 
Product CN code Total 
tariff rate 
quota 
(tonnes) Brazil Thailand Others In quota 
duty (%) MFN 
duty 
(€/tonne) 
Salted poultry meat 0210 99 39 264,245 170,807 92,610 828 15.4 1,300  
Seasoned turkey 1602 31 11 103,896 92,300 - 11,596 8.5 1,024  
Cooked chicken 1602 32 19 250,953 79,477 160,033 11,443 8 1,024  
 
 G/AG/R/55 
Page 14  
 
  Annex 2 
 
Summary of points raised with respect to notifications
 
 
 
I. ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTAS (TABLE MA:1) 
A. THAILAND  - G/AG/N/THA/66 
1. Question by the United States - The United St ates would like to reiterate a question that 
was not fully answered during the 12 March 2009 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture:  
Could Thailand please explain what steps are take n to ensure that tariff quota allocations for 
tariff quota products, including soybeans, soybea n meal, fresh potatoes, corn, and non-fat dry 
milk, are transparent and predictable?  
Thailand manages each tariff quota differen tly. As Thailand's domestic production for 
soybeans, soybean meal, fresh potatoes, and non-fat dry milk cannot meet the domestic consumption, Thailand has allo wed imports of these products above the 
WTO-bound tariff quota commitment quantities at special lower rates (sometimes at 
0-5 per cent) as compared to the releva nt current in-quota rates.  Tariff quota 
allocation for these products is based on the "licensing on demand" method.  Eligible 
importers may submit their requests specifying the required amount of import along with the required documents to a committ ee which is competent for issuing import 
licences that meet industry requests.  
There is no domestic purchasing requirement imposed by the government as a 
condition for eligible importers to obtain an import licence.  Where there is excess 
demand, the private sectors import the produc ts from foreign sources; in these cases, 
the allocation is made through automatic licensing as mentioned above. Therefore, 
Thailand believes that its tariff quota administration is in line with the obligations 
specified in Article III:5 of GATT 1994  
II. IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTAS (TABLE MA:2) 
A. C
ANADA  -  G/AG/N/CAN/75 
2. Questions by Australia - During the ma rketing year 2005/06 and calendar year 2006, 
there are a number of tariff quotas with in-quota imports during the period being greater than 
the tariff quota quantity, e.g. wheat and barley products, chicken (live/meat and products) and 
broiler hatching eggs and chicks.  Can Canada  please explain why additional imports were 
allowed in that period and what in-quota duty was applied to these additional imports; and clarify if the reported in-quota imports during the period include imports for re-export, which 
may be already subject to lower import duties as  part of a separate programme for Canadian 
producers?  
In marketing year 2005/2006, in-quota im ports for Canada's wheat products and 
barley products tariff quotas have exceeded their WTO-bound tariff quota quantity commitment levels mainly due to market circumstances in the domestic market.  In the case of the wheat products tariff quota, in-quota imports have been greater than the tariff quota quantity since 1999/2000 and, for barley products, since 2004/2005.  This has resulted from a combination of f actors including market circumstances in the 
domestic market and how these tariff quotas are administered.    G/AG/R/55 
 Page 15 
 
 
  For both wheat products and barley products  there has been high demand (especially 
for malt in the barley products tariff quota) in the domestic market. These tariff quotas are administered on a first-come, fi rst-served basis at the border, by the 
Canadian Border Services Agency.  When  in-quota imports approach the volume of 
the tariff quota commitment, the Export and Import Controls Bureau of the 
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade may issue a Notice to 
Importers announcing that the tariff quota w ill be closed by a certain date for the 
balance of the tariff quota year, based on the level of current and projected imports.  The respective in-quota tariffs for wheat products and barley products have been applied to the total notified volum e of imports of these products. 
In the case of the chicken tariff quota and th e broiler hatching eggs and chicks tariff 
quota, the level of notified in-quota imports  has been greater than the tariff quota 
quantity in Canada's Schedule V since 1995.   Canada had responded to questions 
about this when our first tariff quota fill notification, G/AG/N/CAN/4, had been reviewed at the September 1996 mee ting of the Committee on Agriculture.
1  In the 
case of both chicken and broiler hatching eggs  and chicks the annual tariff quota is 
opened for the larger of the tariff quota co mmitment in Canada's Schedule V or the 
volume of tariff quota access to be provided on a global basis pursuant to commitments made under NAFTA.  The respective in-quota tariffs for chicken and broiler hatching eggs and chic ks have been applied to th e total notified volume of 
imports of these products. 
Imports for re-export are not counted in Cana da's tariff quota fill notified to the WTO. 
3. Questions by Australia - For the tariff quota for "fluid milk" (64,500 tonnes), there is no 
available in-quota import data.  The relevant f ootnote states that imports of fluid milk by 
consumers are not counted and that any resident of Canada may import fluid milk.  In Canada's Table MA:1 notification on the admi nistration of tariff quotas (G/AG/N/CAN/45), the 
fluid milk tariff quota is a "global tariff quota" and there are no alloca tions to importers.  
Canada's Uruguay Round Schedule also states that "the quantity represents the estimated annual 
cross-border purchases imported by Canadian consumers".   Can Canada explain why the tariff 
quota is not open to any importer to import fl uid milk and not just residents of Canada; how 
the tariff quota is a "global" tariff quota, when  there are restrictions based on personal use; 
why the tariff quota is limited to personal use by  Canadian residents, since this restriction does 
not appear in Canada's schedule?  
Canada had answered similar questions on th e administration of its fluid milk tariff 
quota at the 46
th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture on 12 May 2006.2  
Canada's Table MA:1 notification on the administration of tariff quotas 
(G/AG/N/CAN/45) notes that the tariff quota for fluid milk is administered on a 
global basis and is subject to Genera l Import Permit #1, which regulates the 
importation of dairy products for personal use,  so that any resident of Canada may 
import fluid milk.  There are no formal app lications for any resident of Canada to 
import fluid milk in Canada.  Consumer s importing fluid milk must only invoke 
General Import Permit #1 when completi ng the normal customs entry document. 
Canada considers the administration of this  tariff quota is consistent with its WTO 
commitments.  
                                                      
1 See p. 20 of G/AG/R/6 pertaining to the review of Canada's Table MA:2 notification 
(G/AG/N/CAN/4) 
2 The responses are summarized in report G/AG/R/46, para 3 of Annex 5. G/AG/R/55 
Page 16  
 
  B. K
OREA  - G/AG/N/KOR/40 
4. Questions by Australia - During the ca lendar years 2005-2007, there are a number of 
tariff quotas with no imports.  For example, for the calendar year 2005, 14 of 63 notified tariff 
quotas had a zero per cent fill rate , covering many products from  breeding animals, whole milk 
powder, bird's eggs, honey and potatoes and many others.  Can Korea : (i) indicate whether the 
SSG was triggered on any of these products (notific ations for that period are not available); (ii) 
identify whether sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) were the reason behind the lack of 
imports; (iii) indicate whether it has a plan to reform its tariff quota administration methods to 
enable better fill of these tariff quotas?  
Generally, there have been more tariff quot as with fill rates of 90 per cent or higher 
than tariff quotas with low or 0 per cent fill rate.  For the year 2005, for example, the 
tariff quotas of butter, natural honey, potatoes, onions, garlic, beans, soya beans, manioc, oranges, ginger, maize, rice, gr ain, buckwheat, malt, among others, have 
registered fill rates of 90 to 100 per cent.  
Low fill rates have been the exception, rather  than the rule.  For some tariff quotas, 
low fill rates are apparently due to: (i) a fall in domestic demand as a direct 
consequence of rising international prices, a nd/or (ii) a general decline in domestic 
demand. 
No SSG has been invoked with respect of  products with fill rates of 0 per cent 
between 2005 and 2007.  Breeding cows and bone powders have been subject to SPS 
measures during that period. Tariff quotas have been administered in a market-
oriented manner, in line with the establis hed WTO rules. Korea is committed to 
continue doing so in the future. 
C. C
HINESE TAIPEI  - G/AG/N/TPKM/67 
5. Questions by the United States: 
(a) Clarification sought on the source of the estimate of 21,464 tonnes that is 
mentioned in the second rice footnote ;  from which tenders and from which 
tariff quota year is this number; wheth er this footnote means that the total 
estimate of 105,539.2 tonnes was not actually imported under the 2008 tariff quota period and that, instead, accord ing to the reported figures, only 84,075 
tonnes were imported under the 2008 tariff quota year. 
 The figure of 105,539.2 tonnes is the actual in-quota import volume for rice 
in the year 2008.  Due to the import practices and the statistical methodology 
adopted by the relevant authority, the figure includes 21,464 tonnes which had been subject to the 2007 tariff quota.  In other words, a certain volume of rice under the 2008 tariff quota would be imported in the following year and would therefore be indicated in Chinese Taipei's Table MA:2 notification for 
2009. 
(b) The United States understands that small quantities of rice have been allowed to 
enter Kinman Island for processing and re- export.  Please specify how much rice 
was part of this special import-re-export permit regime?  
 The project to process and re-export rice products in Kinman was not 
implemented in 2008.  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (c) The estimate of 1,707.1 tonnes of in-quota imports for garlic during calendar 
year 2008 is far off the estimate of 3,235 tonnes that the U.S. Government has calculated for the period.  It appears th at the 2008 tariff quota imports for garlic 
eligible to be imported only from Octob er to December were not final at the time 
this notification was made.  If that is the case, the United States suggests that an 
updated estimate of in-quota imports of garlic for 2008 be submitted.  
 The actual imports of garlic in 2008 shoul d be 3,235 tonnes, as the United States had 
indicated. Chinese Taipei undertakes to correct this figure accordingly by a 
corrigendum to the current notification. 
III. SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5) 
A. C
HINESE TAIPEI - G/AG/N/TPKM/65,  TPKM/66  , TPKM/67  AND TPKM/1 
6. Questions by Australia:   
(a) Volume-based SSG for shaddock: point 1 of TPKM/66 describes the notified 
product as "shaddock" relating to tariff item number 0805 40 20.  Page 3 of TPKM/65 also notes the product "shaddock" against the same tariff item.  
According to Chinese Taipei's Schedule, tariff item number 0805 40 20 refers to 
the product "Grapefruit, fresh or dried" (either October-December or January-September) which does not have a scheduled SSG entitlement. The tariff line for shaddock is 0805 90 10. Explanation sought as to whether this is a typographical error, or reason why the SSG was applie d to 0805 40 20 Grapefruit fresh or 
dried, when no SSG applies to this tariff line.  
 After re-evaluation by the relevant authorities in year 2006, Chinese Taipei  
considered it more appropriate to cla ssify the tariff line number of shaddock 
under the subheading HS 0805 40, instead of the HS 0805 90.  In June 2008, a notification for the change of the sh addock's tariff line number to HS 0805 
40 20 had been submitted and circulat ed to all WTO Members as document 
G/MA/TAR/RS/142. After the lapse of the three-month commenting period, 
the modification was certified as WT/Let/632 on 1 October 2008.  A revision of G/AG/N/TPKM/67 is to be submitted soon.  
(b) Assuming tariff code 0805 90 10 relates to  shaddock, then Australia's question 
relates to TPKM/65, TPKM/67 and TPKM/1.  Article 5.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture states that current and minimum access commitments (i.e. tariff 
quotas) shall be counted for the purpose of determining the volume of imports 
required to invoke the SSG, but import s under such commitments shall not be 
subject to any additional SSG duties.  Chinese Taipei has a scheduled tariff quota of 4,300 tonnes for shaddock (as we ll as the SSG entitlement) for which.  
TPKM/67 shows a 0 fill rate.  However, TPKM/57 shows that 0.6 tonnes of 
shaddock were imported in 2008, contribut ing to the activation of the SSG from 
22 January to 31 December 2008.  Can Chinese Taipei explain: 
(i) whether it has applied the SSG from 22 January to 31 December 2008 to 
shaddock imports within this tariff quota?  
(ii) whether the SSG has been applied to shaddock imports out-of-quota, 
why shaddock is being imported at out–of-quota duty rates of 184 per 
cent when the in-quota duty rate is 25 per cent?   G/AG/R/55 
Page 18  
 
  (c) With the exception of 2002 when imports were approximately 60 tonnes 
(according to World Trade Atlas) or  16 tonnes (according to TPKM/1), 
shaddock imports have never exceeded 1 tonne since the accession of Chinese 
Taipei to the WTO in 2002.  Since accession, the SSG has been activated in 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008, and 2009.  Can Chinese Taipei explain : 
(i) why, prior to accession, annual sha ddock imports were in excess of 
69,000 tonnes for the years 1998, 1999, and 2000, but almost nothing since its accession to the WTO?  
(ii) if, as indicated in previous answers, additional SSG duties are not levied 
on in-quota imports, why the SSG is activated at all (given that the 4,300 
tonne tariff quota is never filled), an d why imports in every year appear 
to cease after activation of the SSG?  
 Chinese Taipei confirms that the calculation of the remedies and the 
SSG actions were in full compliance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The SSG remedy would not be applied to the 
imports with a tariff quota certificate. 
 According to G/AG/N/TPKM/3, only tariff quota holders may import 
shaddock subject to the in-quota tariff rate.  In the case raised by Australia, the import volume of shaddock had been very small, and the importers who had not been able to acquire a tariff quota certificate in advance still had the possibility to import at the out-of-
quota tariff rate. 
7. Follow-up comments: Referring to the change of HS classification for shaddock at the 
subheading (6-digit) level, Australia further enquired if the change has taken place after consideration 
of tariff classification rules by the World Customs Organization or upon administration's advice. Chinese Taipei undertook to convey the follow-up questi on to the relevant authorities and to provide a 
feedback to Australia bilaterally. 
B. C
HINESE TAIPEI - G/AG/N/TPKM/43,  TPKM/43/C ORR.1, TPKM/57  AND TPKM/66 
8. Questions by Australia - Volume-based SSG  for shaddock.  The information required 
for calculation of the SSG trigger level relating to imports in the 3 preceding years, is provided in TPKM/43 and 43/Corr.1, 57 and 66,. Can Chinese Taipei explain: (i) why in TPKM/43 and TPKM/57 import figures for 2005 are 0 tonnes, bu t in TPKM/66 import figures for 2005 are 0.1 
tonnes.  Should these figures be consistent, and does Chinese Taipei intend to issue a revision or 
corrigendum?  (ii) why in TPKM/57 import figures for 2006 are 0 tonnes, but in TPKM/66 import figures for 2006 are 0.2 tonnes.  Should these figures be consistent, and does Chinese 
Taipei intend to issue a revision or corrigendum? 
Chinese Taipei confirms that, as specified in G/AG/N/TPKM/1, there have been no 
imports of shaddock in 1998, 1999 and 2000.  The 69,000 tonnes mentioned in the 
question refer to the volume of domestic consumption.  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 19 
 
 
  IV. DOMESTIC SUPPORT (TABLE DS:1) 
A. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - G/AG/N/EEC/12/R EV.2, 16/R EV.2, 26/R EV.1, 30/R EV.1, 
38/R EV.1, 49/R EV.1, 51/R EV.1 AND 53/R EV.1 
9. Questions by Canada: 
(a) The revised notifications now incl ude product-specific support for " Ethyl alcohol 
of agricultural origin " in Supporting Table DS:8, a measure type described as 
"National Aid ".  Could the EC indicate the EC member State, measure name, 
and support amount, for each component of  the notified support to producers of 
"Ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin "? 
 The support measure is traditionally applied in Germany. The national 
support is currently allowed under Article 10 of Regulation 670/2003. 
(b) The revised notifications G/AG/N/EEC /30/Rev.1, 38/Rev.1 and 49/Rev.1 now 
include support for " Grapes for processing " in Supporting Tables DS:4 (for all 
years), Supporting Tables DS:6 (1998/99 and 1999/00) and Supporting Table DS:7 (2000/01).  Whether it is the gr ape producers or the grape processors who 
receive the notified support;   whether the EC could indicate the EC member 
State, measure name, and support amount for each component of the notified support to producers of " Grapes for processing "? 
 The revision corrects an omission in the notif ications for the two years concerned. It 
concerns a Community measure and the benefit of this support accrues to the producers. 
10. Question by the United States - Would the EC explain what changed about its data or 
methodology that led it to revise AMS estimates over this eight-year period? 
The revisions concern support for " ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin " and " grapes 
for processing " 
B. E
UROPEAN COMMUNITIES  - G/AG/N/EEC/59 
1. Decoupled Income Support – Single Payment Scheme (SPS) and supplementary aid 
11. Questions by Australia - The SPS is notified as  coming within paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, with the legal basis being " Council Regulation (EC) No. 
1782/2003 and national expenditure ".   
(a) Article 51 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1782/20033 provided that farmers 
could use the parcels of land they declared under Article 44(3) " for any 
agricultural activity except for permanent cr ops …;  the production of the products 
referred to in Article 1(2) of Council Re gulation (EC) No. 2200/96 and in Article 
1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/96 [and] potatoes other than those intended for the manufacture of potato starch for which aid is granted under Article 93 ".  That is, the parcels of land in respect of which a farmer was entitled 
to payment under the SPS under Article 44 co uld not be used for the production 
of certain products.   
                                                     
 
3 Consolidated version as of 1 January 2006. G/AG/R/55 
Page 20  
 
  Paragraph 6(b) of Annex 2 provides that the amount of payments notified under 
paragraph 6 " shall not be related to, or based on, the type or volume of production 
… undertaken by the producer in any year after the base period ".  In United States 
– Subsidies on Upland Cotton , the Appellate Body found that similar planting 
flexibility limitations imposed by the United States in respect of its direct 
payments (and their predecessor, the pro duction flexibility contract payments) 
meant that the amount of the payments was related to the type of production 
undertaken by a producer after the base period, within the meaning of paragraph 6(b) of Annex 2 to the Agreeme nt on Agriculture.  Accordingly, the 
Appellate Body upheld " the Panel's finding … in paragraphs 7.413 and 7.414 of 
the Panel Report, that production flexib ility contract payments and direct payments 
are not 'decoupled income support' within the meaning of paragraph 6, [and] are not green box measures exempt from th e reduction commitments by virtue of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture ".
4  At its meeting on 21 March 2005, 
the Dispute Settlement Body adopted th e Appellate Body report and the panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  Article 3 of the 
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes provides that the " dispute settlement system of th e WTO … serves to  preserve the 
rights and obligations of Members under the covered agreements, and to clarify the 
existing provisions of those agreements in accordance with customary rules of 
public international law ".   
Given that the WTO dispute settlement system has clarified that conditioning 
payments on the non-production of certain products means that they " are not 
"decoupled income support " within the meaning of paragraph 6" of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, on what  basis does the EC assert that its SPS 
meets the criteria for decoupled income  support in paragraph 6 of Annex 2? 
 The EC believes that the payments as notified meet the criteria for decoupled 
income support in paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In 
addition, under the current EC legislati on, the option of Article 51 of Regulation 
1782/2003, which Australia had refe rred to, no longer exists.   
(b) Article 33(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003
5 provided that 
"farmers shall have access to the single pay ment scheme if they have been granted 
a payment in the reference period … under at least one of the support schemes 
referred to in Annex VI ".  Paragraph 6(a) of Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture provides that " eligibility for " payments classified under paragraph 6 
"shall be determined by clearly-defined criteria such as income, status as a 
producer or landowner, factor use or produ ction level in a defined and fixed base 
period ". Could the EC explain how the receipt of subsidies is a "criteria such as  
income, status as a producer or landowner, factor use or production level "? 
 Even though not explicitly mentioned in pa ragraph 6(a) of Annex 2, the EC considers 
public support payments granted in a refere nce period as a criterion for eligibility as 
valid as any other criterion explicitly menti oned in §6(a) of Annex 2. The criteria 
listed there are preceded by the mention "such as". 
                                                      
4 See paragraph 342 of the Appellate Body report. 
5 Consolidated version as of 1 January 2006.  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 21 
 
 
  (c) Does the EC consider that the " clearly-defined criteria " referred to in paragraph 
6(a) must be of a similar kind to the criteria listed (i.e. of a similar kind to "income, status as a producer or landow ner, factor use or production level ")? 
 Criteria need to be " clearly-defined ", which is the case for the SPS.   
(d) Article 44(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003
6 provided that " any 
payment entitlement accompanied by an e ligible hectare shall give right to the 
payment of the amount fixe d by the payment entitlement ".  Paragraph 6(a) of 
Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture provides that " eligibility for " 
payments classified under paragraph 6 " shall be determined by clearly-defined 
criteria such as income, status as a producer or landowner, factor use or 
production level in a defined and fixed base period ".  Could the EC explain how 
the holding of an eligible hectare at the time of payment is a " criteria such as 
income, status as a producer or landowner, factor use or production level in a defined and fixed base period "? 
 The holding of an eligible hectare is not a criterion determining eligibility for 
payments; this eligibility is in the SPS framework expressed via the payment 
entitlements, which are determined by pa yments received in a past fixed base 
period.  
2. Product-specific AMS 
12. Question by Canada - Could the EC provide the legislative references for the support 
notified in Supporting Table DS:6 for nuts in 2004/05 and 2005/06, and bee keeping in 2005/06? 
The reference for nuts is Chapter IV, title 4 of Regulation 1782/2003, and for bees, it 
is Regulation 797/2004. 
13. Questions by the United States:   
(a) Council Regulation (EC) No. 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common 
organization of the market in beef and ve al, the basic price for beef was set at 
2,224 € per tonne beginning 1 July 2002.  However, the EC calculated its AMS 
with an applied administered price of 1,560 € per tonne /MT.  Could the EC 
explain why the basic price was not used as  the administered price in calculating 
the AMS? 
 The basic price is not the administrative pr ice with which the price gap in the beef 
sector is calculated. This support has always  been calculated using the intervention 
price. The intervention mechanism has now b een reduced to a safety net outlet with an 
applied administered price of 1,560 € per tonne, which is in fact lower than the external reference price. 
(b) The AMS for marketing year 2004/05 includes a line for olive oil for over 
€2.5 billion.  However, in marketing ye ar 2005/06, olive oil is not referenced.  
Could the EC explain why it is no longer referenced?   
                                                     
 
6 Consolidated version as of 1 January 2006. G/AG/R/55 
Page 22  
 
   The support had been reformed in 2006. The price gap no longer exists. Producers 
now receive Blue Box support as no tified in Table DS:2 notification 
G/AG/N/EEC/58. 
C. O
MAN  - G/AG/N/OMN/7 
14. Questions by the United States:  
(a) The measure " Establishment of fodder production company in Najd " is notified as 
infrastructure support qualifying as "G reen Box" under paragraph 2(g) of 
Annex 2,  Could Oman explain how the establishment of a specific production facility for a specific product fits into the infrastructure criteria under 
paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2? 
 This project is concerned with the cons ultancy study carried out by the government 
within the framework of infrastructure require d in this farm which includes electricity 
power distribution, roads and the irrigation system needed for its establishment.  
Therefore it is considered as under Annex 2, pa ragraph 2(g), "infrastructural services".  
(b) Please describe what is meant by the " Establishment and development of 
agricultural and veterinarian quarantine "; and how does this fits into the 
infrastructure criteria under paragraph 2( g) of Annex 2.  The United States 
considers that it might be more appropriate to classify this measure under paragraph 2(b), "pest and disease control". 
 The amount spent on this item includes estab lishment of the quarantine buildings and 
purchasing of equipment and does not include the cost of quarantine services.  Oman 
would be open to notify it under paragraph 2(b).  
(c) Please describe what is meant by the " Development of traditional agricultural 
systems, " and how does this fits into the infrastructure criteria under paragraph 
2(g) of Annex 2. 
 The development of traditional agricultural systems project is just a form of 
development of irrigation system through Fa lajs which serve the whole region, the 
government is contributing to the installati on of the irrigation system represented in 
water reservoirs, pumps and the related connection.  
(d) Please describe what is meant by the " Development of natural pastures ," and 
how does this fits into the infrastructu re criteria under paragraph 2(g) of Annex 
2. 
 This is an infrastructure project associated with environmental programmes to develop 
and maintain natural pastures on government land.  
(e) The United States notes that Oman has not provided Table DS:2 notifications 
for the above-mentioned measures although they appear to be new.  When will 
Oman submit these notifications, includi ng justification for classifying such 
programmes as "Green Box" support under Article 6? 
 Oman has already provided the Table DS:2  notification and also a clarification 
regarding the category on " Investment subsidies available to agriculture " in 
Supporting Table DS:2.  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 23 
 
 
  D. UNITED STATES  - G/AG/N/USA/66 
15. Question by Brazil - Countercyclical payments  (CCPs) - As a follow-up question to the 
12 March 2009 meeting of the Committee7, given the levels of international prices for cotton in 
2006 and 2007 and taking into consideration the Unit ed States reference prices for cotton, could 
the United States confirm whether all CCP ex penditures were allocated to holders of cotton 
contracts? If not, which percentage of tho se expenditures were allocated to cotton-related 
contracts? 
As previously stated, the entire amount of acreage which received CCP payments 
based on historical cotton acreage, could have been planted to other crops entirely, or 
not planted at all.  Because any eligible crop can be grown on the base acres, 
payments cannot be attributed to a specific product.  Brazil can locate the payments to 
eligible base acres by commodity at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/ .  
16. Given the levels of internati onal and reference prices for co tton in the United States, Brazil 
sought additional clarification as to whether it coul d be assumed that substantial, if not all, CCP 
expenditures for the period notified had been allocat ed to cotton contractors.   The United States 
responded that any crop could be plan ted and that payments would still be received even if there had 
been no crops at all.  The United States undertook to convey Brazil's follow-up question to the capital. 
17. Question by China - The Current AMS for soybean and corn decreased dramatically 
during 2005-2007, as prices of major crops soared during that period.  Can the United States provide details of the calculations, including pri ce and production data which the calculation is 
based on, so that China better understands ho w such changes in subsidies took place? 
The calculated AMS for corn and soybeans is primarily accounted for by payments 
under the Marketing Assistance Loan Program  (MALP).  Actual expenditure data 
under this programme are used in the measurement of the AMS for corn and 
soybeans. Price and production data are not used directly in the calculation, although 
the amount of government expenditure will va ry depending on market prices, the loan 
rate determined by statute, and production levels.  The actual expenditure data used, 
as well as other supporting data, can be found at: 
 http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA _File/pb10_commodity_estimates.pdf
. 
                                                      
7 Paras. 41-41 of Annex 5 to G/AG/R/54 refer. G/AG/R/55 
Page 24  
 
  V. NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2) 
A. C
ANADA - G/AG/N/CAN/73 
1. Grains and Oilseed P ayment Program (GOPP) 
18. Questions by Australia: 
(a) The programme provided a payment to grain and oilseed producers in FY 
2005/2006, purportedly based on net sales from 2000-2004 or net sales in 2005.  
When was the programme publicly announced, i.e. was it during 2005? 
The GOPP was announced in November 2005. 
(b) Why were two eligibility criteria used to determine producer eligibility i.e. 
average sales from 2000-2004 or sales in 2005? 
The eligibility for GOPP payments had been de termined by a producer's eligible sales 
of grains, oilseeds or special crops. Produ cers who had reported sales of eligible 
grains, oilseeds or special crops in 2004 had received payments based on their five-year average net sales of eligible grains, oilseeds and special crops for the 2000-2004 
tax years (or the number of years available if less than five).  New producers, those 
who had not have eligible net sales prior to 2005, who had reported sales of eligible 
grains, oilseeds or special crops for the 2005  tax year had received payments based on 
2005 eligible sales. Each producer has had onl y one eligibility period. The amount of 
payment had not been related to, or based  on, the type or volume of production 
undertaken by the producer in any y ear after their respective base period. 
(c) What was the average payment per producer? 
A total of Can$755 million was provided to pr oducers of eligible grains, oilseeds and 
special crops under GOPP. The Audit Report - Grains and Oilseeds Payment Program (GOPP), October 2008, stated that 111,000 producers, excluding Quebec, had received approximately Can$708 million in payments under GOPP. This report also 
stated that approximately Can$47 million had been provided to producers in the 
province of Quebec under GOPP. However, the report did not provide the number of 
Quebec producers who received a GOPP payment. The figures provided allow to get to the average but strictly speaking th ere had been no average payments.  
(d) How was the amount per producer dete rmined?  For example, did producers 
who suffered a 50 per cent downturn in net sales/prices receive more than producers who suffered a 25 per cent downturn  in net sales?  Did producers who 
suffered a downturn in net sales/prices between 2000 and 2004 receive a higher 
payment than producers who only suffered a downturn in net sales in 2005? 
Payments under GOPP had been based on a fi xed percentage of a producer's average 
net sales in the relevant eligibility period, a nd not on the extent of the change in net 
sales over the eligibility period.  Producer payments had been calculated as 8.75 per 
cent of a producer's average of net sales of eligible grains and oilseeds for the 2000-
2004 tax years (or the number of years availabl e if less than five years are available) 
or a producer's net sales of eligible grains and oilseeds for the 2005 tax year.  The disbursement of the payment had been  split into an initial and final amount.  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 25 
 
 
  2. Farm Investment Fund (FIF), Nova Scotia 
19. Questions by Australia: The Farm Investment Fund " provides investment for projects  
that enhance economic viability, farm and food safety, and promote environmental stewardship ". 
Applicants can receive up to $1 0,000 per programme year.   
(a) Two FIF components, namely the Business Management and Human Resource 
Development component, and the Regu latory Compliance and Food Safety 
component, are notified under paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture respectively.  Programmes notified under paragraph 
2 of Annex 2 cannot involve direct payments to producers and are for programmes which provide services or benefits to agriculture or the rural 
community.  Can Canada clarify whether producers are receiving payments or 
subsidies from these programmes? For example to purchase: occupational 
health and safety equipment (like tractor roll bars, seat belts or other devices), animal health equipment (like animal ha ndling facilities) or to attend training 
conferences? 
Activities funded under these components f acilitate farm business development and 
focus on increased awareness of farm safety and public protection. The support provided is for training and extension a nd does not provide direct payments to 
producers. 
 
(b) If producers are being provided with actu al items, how does that comply with 
the requirement in paragraph 2 that th ere be no direct payments to producers? 
Activities funded under these components f acilitate farm business development and 
focus on increased awareness of farm and pub lic protection. The support provided is 
for training and extension and does not pr ovide direct payments to producers. 
 
(c) Different components of the fund provi de money for environmental programmes 
and are notified under paragraph 12 of Annex 2. Project activities include manure storages, fuel storages, amongst others. What, if any, are the environmental or conservation benefits flowing from the Agro-Environmental 
Initiatives?  Did eligible participants, or  any other entity, have to carry out any 
sort of environmental planning or impact studies to determine the 
environmental benefit of proposed activities under the initiative? 
The Agri-Environmental Initiatives under the FIF promote the adoption of practices to 
address environmental risks identified as part of a farm's Environmental Farm Plan (EFP). The EFP identifies and assesses the environmental risks on established farms and develops an action plan to mitigate th e on-farm issues as well as those which 
serve the public interest. Regardless of pa rticipation in the EFP, FIF applicants are 
responsible to seek out regulatory requirem ents, obtain required permits and ensure 
environmental compliance.  Where identified, and prior to project approval, FIF projects may be required to obtain third-party assessments. 
 
(d) What is meant by building manure and fuel storages and what is the 
environmental benefit of such activities? 
Manure storage increases storage capacity which allows better planning of manure 
application, increases protection of groundw ater and surface water and improves air 
quality due to the decreased frequency of ha ndling and the use of manure. The fuel G/AG/R/55 
Page 26  
 
  storage component decreases the negative impacts to soil, water and air quality 
associated with the storage of fuel.  
B. E
UROPEAN COMMUNITIES  - G/AG/N/EEC/58 
20. Question by Canada -  The EC claims that the "Single Payment Scheme" (SPS) qualifies 
as exempt from reduction under paragraph 6, Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Canada understands that in 2005/2006, 2006/ 07 and 2007/08 a farmer's payment entitlement 
could not be activated by hectares producing fr uit and vegetables, ware potatoes and permanent 
crops.  Can the EC clarify its claim that the SPS nevertheless conformed to the criterion that the 
amount of payments shall not be related to the type of production (paragraph 6(b)), especially 
in light of the findings in paragraph 7.388 of WT/DS267/R/Corr.1, United States – Subsidies on 
Upland Cotton ? 
Same response as already provide d under paragraph 11(a) above. 
21. Questions by the United States: 
(a) The EC states that "payments are granted where farmers have eligible hectares 
at their disposal to activate the appropriate number of entitlements.  Any 
payment entitlement accompanied by an eligible hectare shall give right to the payment..."  Could the EC further explain what is meant by "eligible hectares at 
their disposal" and how those are necessa rily connected to and/or activate a 
payment entitlement?  Are these "eligible hectares" different than those hectares used to establish payment levels? 
The eligibility for payment is once and for all established for those ar eas that had been  
eligible for support in a fixed base period a nd takes the form of payment entitlements 
that are determined as described in Arti cle 43 of Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003. 
Article 44(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003 establishes that "Any payment 
entitlement accompanied by an eligible hectare shall give right to the payments …". 
"Eligible hectares at their disposal" in  EEC/58 refers to hectares held for use as 
defined in Article 2 of Regulation 1782/ 2003 by the farmers concerned during the 
year in respect of which the payment is gr anted. This use does not require agricultural 
production. The "eligible hectares" referred to in Article 44 may be different from the 
hectares used for establishing the payment entitlements.  
(b) In reference to the modified and new bl ue box support measures, could the EC 
explain how each of these measures complies with the chapeau of part (a) of Article 6, paragraph 5, particularly gi ven the lack of a set-aside requirement? 
The payments are based on fixed area and yields or they are livestock payments based 
on a fixed number of head. In this mean ing, the support measures concerned are 
production-limiting by implication. Set-aside is not a prerequisite for compliance with 
Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 27 
 
 
  C. UNITED STATES  - G/AG/N/USA/70 
22. Question by Japan - It is stated that Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program and 
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program are cons istent with the criteria defined in Annex 2, 
paragraph 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.   Could the United States explain how these 
programmes meet these criteria, particularly para. 12(b)? 
As noted in the Table DS:2 notification,  these programmes will be delivered through 
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program  (EQIP) and all EQIP requirements and 
policies will apply. EQIP provides payments up to 75 per cent of the incurred costs and income foregone of certain conservati on practices and activities, although certain 
historically underserved producers (Limite d resource farmers/ranchers, beginning 
farmers/ ranchers, socially disadvantaged producers) may be eligible for payments up 
to 90 per cent of the estimated incurred costs and income foregone.  Therefore, 
payments will not exceed the costs or inco me forgone associated with implementing 
the approved conservation activities. 
VI. EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1 TO ES:3) 
A. A
USTRALIA - G/AG/N/AUS/72 
23. Questions by Turkey: 
(a) Table ES:3 shows that export subsidi es were given to wheat flour, wheat and 
rice in 2004 and only wheat flour in 2005.  Cash food aid was also given to the international agencies in 2006 and 2007. Can Australia could provide more detailed information on such measures covering the year 2005, 2006 and 2007 ? 
Australia notes that, according to notifi cation requirements under G/AG/2, Table ES:3 
relates to reporting food aid according to broad product categories. As notified under 
AUS/72, in 2005, Australia provided food ai d products under the product category 
"wheat and wheat flour", and this was, sp ecifically, Australian standard white wheat 
(ASW), not "wheat flour" as indicated by Turkey.   
The covering paragraphs of AUS/72 outlined  why the levels of food aid reported in 
Table ES:3 were zero after 2006. Only tho se commodities that Australia provided as 
physical food aid were notified.  Australia  untied its food aid in 2005. Australia has 
not provided Australian commodities since December 2005.  Instead, since December 
2005, Australia's food aid has been channelled through the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). All food aid 
provided by Australia, since the final shipment in December 2005, is now in the form 
of cash contributions, mainly to the WFP for the purchase of food which is in accordance with the established food bask et.  Hence, for calendar years 2006 and 
2007, Australia did not provide physical food aid, and therefore entries for Table ES:3 for these years are zero. 
 
All WFP operations, which are approved by the Executive Board (of which Australia 
is a member), require a needs assessment (including local market conditions) to be carried out to formulate the food basket, recipients, etc. All food aid provided by Australia is reported to the Food Aid Comm ittee, and the reports are available on the 
Food Aid Convention website.  Australia's f ood aid contributions are also notified to 
the Committee on Agriculture under the actions  taken within the framework of the G/AG/R/55 
Page 28  
 
  Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform 
Programme on Least Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries (Table NF:1).  
(b) Can Australia clarify whether this food aid was in the form of "Safe Box" and 
for emergency situations ? 
Australia had provided the food aid for the WFP's operations.  These contributions 
had been in accordance with the current Safe Box disciplines. They had been : 
(i) needs driven (based on WFP operational documentation);  (ii) provided in fully grant form;  
(iii) not tied directly or indirectly to comme rcial exports of agricultural products or of 
other goods and services;  
(iv) not linked to the market development objectives of donor members; and,  (v) were not re-exported.  
 
Although these contributions had not been  necessarily provided to emergency 
situations the food aid had been provided to alleviate chronic hunger in the recipient countries.  
(c) Whether food aid was specifically request ed by international agencies under the 
structural food aid programmes. 
Confirmed.  All food aid provided by Austra lia (prior to and after untying) had been 
(and still is) in accordance with the implemen ting agency's (in most cases WFP) food 
basket. 
(d) Whether food aid was given under the pressure of food shortages to eliminate 
chronic poverty and hunger. 
Confirmed. Australia is guided by  WFP's assessments and operational 
documentation when providing support in the form of food aid. 
B. C
ANADA   G/AG/N/CAN/74 
24. Questions by Australia - Canada provided export subsidies at around 100 per cent of the 
maximum budgetary outlay for butter, skim milk powder, cheese, other milk products and incorporated products for the marketing years 2005-06 and 2006-07.   
(a) Given that Canada's export subsidies for dairy products have been up at the 
maximum budgetary outlays, what reforms are being considered in preparing Canada's dairy sector for the eliminatio n of export subsidies once the Doha 
Round is concluded?  During 2007, global  prices for agricultural products were 
at record high levels, notably for dairy products.  During marketing year 2006-
07, most Members, including those that  have historically provided export 
subsidies, reduced the value and the volume of dairy export subsidies - some Members reduced the export subsidies fo r skim milk powder to zero during this 
period.  Can Canada explain why it retained  such high levels of export subsidies 
for its dairy products during the marketing year 2006-07?  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Canada's use of export subsidies is within  its WTO commitment.  Canada will meet 
any future export subsidy commitments whic h may be agreed as a result of the Doha 
Round.  
(b) Can Canada provide details of the ex port subsidy arrangements for their 
processed products, including clarifying what basic products are eligible for 
export subsidies under the incorporated products category? 
As defined in Annex I to Section II of Pa rt IV of Canada's Schedule V, Canada's 
export subsidy budgetary outlay commitment on incorporated products is limited to 
export subsidies on skim milk powder, bu tter, cheese and other milk products as 
ingredients incorporated into processed produc ts not included elsewhere in Annex I to 
Section II of Part IV of Canada's Schedule V.  
(c) Can Canada clarify whether those receiving  export subsidies for the export of 
these basic products also receive, for th e same product, additional export 
subsidies when these products are incorporated into processed products? 
The export subsidy commitments for the product categories of butter, skim milk 
powder, cheese and other milk products ar e separate and distinct from the export 
subsidy commitment for incorporated products .  Eligible exporters who use butter, 
skim milk powder, cheese, or other milk products as dairy ingredients in the manufacture of processed products are only e ligible to receive an export subsidy 
under the export subsidy commitment for inco rporated products (Annex I to Section II 
of Part IV of Canada's Schedule V).  
VII. ACTIONS TAKEN WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE MARRAKESH NFIDC 
DECISION (TABLE NF:1) 
A. J
APAN - G/AG/N/JPN/144  AND JPN/145 
25. Question by the United States - Is any minimu m access rice being re-exported for food 
aid.  If so, could Japan specify the quantity of the rice exported for food aid that came from minimum access stocks and what was the provenance of that rice? 
Imported rice is included in the food aid which is provided in compliance with WTO 
commitments. As food aid is provided upon request from recipient countries or 
international organizations, the amount and the provenance of minimum access rice 
used for food aid differs from one year to the next. G/AG/R/55 
Page 30  
 
  Annex 3 
 
Additional questions on notifications raised by Australia
 
under agenda item 2.B(vii) "overdue notifications"  
 
 Question for China  
1. Australia notes that the Room Document entitled " Compliance with notification obligations " 
dated 8 June 2009 (thereafter the " Compliance Document ") indicates that China has outstanding Table 
DS:1 notifications for the period 2002-2008. Coul d China please advise when it intends to submit 
these outstanding notifications? 
Question for Malaysia 
 
2. Australia notes that the Compliance Document indicates that Malaysia has outstanding Table 
MA:2 and DS:1 notifications for the period 1999-20 08. Could Malaysia please advise when it intends 
to submit these outstanding notifications? 
Question for Indonesia 
 
3. Australia notes that the Compliance Document indicates that Indonesia has outstanding Table 
MA:2, MA:5, ES:1, ES:2 and DS:1 notifications for the period 2001-2008.  Could Indonesia please 
advise when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications? 
Question for Egypt 
 
4. Following up on the questions asked to Egypt at the 54th regular meeting of the Committee 
on Agriculture held on 12 March 2009
8, Australia notes that the Compliance Document indicates that 
Egypt still has outstanding domestic  support and export subsidy notif ications for the period 1999-
2008.  Could Egypt please provide an update on wh en it intends to submit these outstanding 
notifications? 
Question for Mexico 
 
5. Australia welcomes Mexico's recent submis sion of outstanding Table MA:2 and MA:5 
notifications. Following up on the questions asked to Mexico at the 54th regular meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture held on 12 March 20099, Australia notes that the Compliance Document 
indicates that Mexico still has outstanding Table DS :1 and ES:1 notifications. Could Mexico please 
provide an update on when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications? 
Question for Turkey 
 6. Following up on the questions asked to Turkey at the 54th regular meeting of the Committee 
on Agriculture held on 12 March 2009
10, Australia notes that the Compliance Document indicates that 
Turkey has outstanding Table DS:1, ES:1 and ES: 2 notifications. Could Turkey please provide an 
update on when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications? 
                                                      
8 Para 54 of G/AG/R/54 refers. 
9 Para 67 of G/AG/R/54 refers. 
10 Para 68 of G/AG/R/54 refers.  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 31 
 
 
  Question for Iceland 
 
7. Following up on the questions asked to Iceland at the 54th regular meeting of the Committee 
on Agriculture held on 12 March 200911, Australia notes that the Compliance Document indicates that 
Iceland has outstanding Table MA:2, MA:5, DS:1, ES:1 and ES:2 notifications. Could Iceland please 
provide an update on when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications? 
Questions for India 
 
8. Following up on the questions asked to India at the 54th regular meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture held on 12 March 200912, Australia notes that as yet, India has not submitted a 
notification. Australia further notes that the Co mpliance Document indicates that India has the 
following outstanding notifications:  Table MA:1;  Table MA:2  for the period 2003-2008;  Table 
DS:1 for the period 1998-2008;  Table ES:1 for the period  1995, 2001-2008. Could India please 
provide an update on when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications? 
Question for Korea 
 9. Following up on the questions asked to Kor ea at the 54th regular meeting of the Committee 
on Agriculture held on 12 March 2009
13, Australia notes that the Compliance Document indicates that 
Korea has outstanding Table MA:5, DS:1 and ES:1  notifications. Could Korea please provide an 
update on when it intends to submit these outstanding notifications? 
 
 
                                                      
11 Para 55 of G/AG/R/54 refers. 
12 Paras. 56-61 of G/AG/R/54 refer. 
13 Para 64 of G/AG/R/54 refers. G/AG/R/55 
Page 32  
 
  Annex 4 
 
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) 
- Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/13/ADD.11 
- United States G/AG/N/USA/63/REV.1 - United States G/AG/N/USA/68 
  
(ii) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):   
- Brazil G/AG/N/BRA/24 
- Chile G/AG/N/CHL/27 - Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/18 
- United States G/AG/N/USA/69 
  
(iii) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):   
- European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/60  
- Guatemala G/AG/N/GTM/35 - Japan G/AG/N/JPN/146 
- Japan G/AG/N/JPN/147 
 - Japan G/AG/N/JPN/148 - Japan G/AG/N/JPN/150 - Malaysia G/AG/N/MYS/23 - Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/19 
- Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/46 
- Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/43/CORR.1 - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/65 - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/66 
 
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  
- Burundi G/AG/N/BDI/4 
- Cuba G/AG/N/CUB/35  - Hong Kong, China G/AG/N/HKG/26  - Macao, China G/AG/N/MAC/25  - Panama G/AG/N/PAN/18  
 - Panama G/AG/N/PAN/19  
 - South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/58/REV.1   - South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/65/REV.1   - Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/47  
 
(v) new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction  
(Table DS:2) 
 - South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/68  
 (vi) in the context of export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): 
- Australia G/AG/N/AUS/4/REV.1 
- Australia G/AG/N/AUS/6/REV.1 
- Australia G/AG/N/AUS/8/REV.1  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 33 
 
 
   - Australia G/AG/N/AUS/11/REV.1 
 - Australia G/AG/N/AUS/17/REV.1 - Australia G/AG/N/AUS/19/REV.1 - Australia G/AG/N/AUS/24/REV.1 - Australia G/AG/N/AUS/28/REV.1 
- Australia G/AG/N/AUS/29/REV.1 
- Australia G/AG/N/AUS/31/REV.1  - Australia G/AG/N/AUS/33/REV.1  - Australia G/AG/N/AUS/40/REV.1 - Australia G/AG/N/AUS/47/REV.1 
- Australia G/AG/N/AUS/56/REV.1 
- Brazil G/AG/N/BRA/9/REV.1/ADD.1 - Brazil G/AG/N/BRA/15/REV.1/ADD.1 - Brazil G/AG/N/BRA/25 & CORR.1 - Burundi G/AG/N/BDI/3 
- Chile G/AG/N/CHL/23/REV.1 
 - Chile G/AG/N/CHL/29 - Chile G/AG/N/CHL/30 - Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/23 - Guatemala G/AG/N/GTM/34 - Japan G/AG/N/JPN/149 
- Lithuania G/AG/N/LTU/2 
- Macao, China G/AG/N/MAC/24 - Malaysia G/AG/N/MYS/24 - Chinese Taipei  G/AG/N/TPKM/64  
 G/AG/R/55 
Page 34  
 
  Annex 5  
 
Letter from the Chairperson to the Chai rman of the TPRB outlining preliminary 
 
results of the informal discussions, dated 26 March 2009  
 
 
H.E. Dr. István Major 
Ambassador 
Chairman 
Trade Policy Review Body   
 
Reg. Reference:   TPR/100 
 
 Subject : Improvement of timeliness and completeness of notifications and other information 
  flows on trade measures 
 
26 March 2009 
 Dear Mr. Chairman,   In response to the invitation by H.E. Ambassa dor M. Matus, Chairman of  the General Council, 
for the Committee on Agriculture to consider the abov e-mentioned topic at the earliest possible date, I 
have the pleasure to inform you that informal consultations were held on 12 March 2009.    
 As you may be aware, the notification proc edures and formats adopted by the Committee on 
Agriculture in 1995 are comprehensive.  These procedures currently enc ompass a range of trade 
policy areas: market access (tariff quota commi tments and recourse to the special agricultural 
safeguard); domestic support in favour of agricul tural producers; export competition rules and 
commitments; export restrictions and prohibi tions; and international food aid.   
 
 In the course of the consultations, partici pants recognized, however,  that the Committee's 
substantive monitoring and surveillance function s under its regular agenda could be reinforced 
through improvements in the timeliness and comple teness of Members' submissions.  Most 
participants shared the view that the operation of notification systems,  in both developed and 
developing country Members, often needed to be upgra ded. In this respect, a number of constructive 
ideas were suggested.  For exampl e, the strengthening of Members' capacity to participate more 
actively in the review process could be achiev ed by enhancing their understanding of existing 
notification requirements and provid ing guidance on the effective review of notifications.  A better use 
could be made of the support, advice, tools, res ources and technology already available from the 
Secretariat.  Several Members also expressed support for the launching of specif ic initiatives such as 
the sharing of "best-practices" among themselv es, the organization of annual workshops and the 
development of E-training modules.   
  In particular, it was felt that the design of  a questionnaire to evaluate Members' experiences 
in preparing, submitting and analyzing notifications  would be an important first step in focusing the 
Committee's discussion in future, and a good practical suggestion to move the work forward.  This questionnaire is currently under elaboration.  Fo llow-up informal consultations have also been 
scheduled this week in order to organize th e Committee's work and afford Members another 
opportunity to elaborate on the su ggestions previously made. 
 
 In conclusion, while a number of interesting ideas have been proposed, some participants also believed that discussions shoul d continue in the coming months in order to ensure their careful 
consideration and analysis.    
  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 35 
 
 
   Therefore, in my view, given the level of enga gement displayed by all participants, particularly 
developing countries, and the efforts recently m ade by a number of Members to improve their 
compliance status, it would be suitable to let the di scussions unfold, for the ti me being, in forthcoming 
informal meetings where constructive ideas can be profitably shared, and where appropriate, further 
developed.  
 Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the current global economic context, 
Members found that the request by the Chairman of the General Council was extremely timely, 
placing again transparency at the heart of the multilateral trading system.  The opportunity to 
contribute to the discussion on im proving Members' compliance with existing notification obligations 
under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agricu lture was consequently  welcomed by all. 
 
  Yours sincerely,  
  Valeria Csukasi 
  Chairperson   Committee on Agriculture (Regular Session) 
 
 cc: H.E. Mr. M. Matus, Ambassador 
 Chairman, General Council 
 
 
 G/AG/R/55 
Page 36  
 
  Annex 6 
 
Suggested work programme, 2 July 2009
 
 
2 July 2009 
 
SUGGESTED WORK PROGRAMME14 
 
Elements based on G/AG/GEN/85  
Possible action plan for the Committee on Agriculture 
 
Possible action Suggested timelines 
 Issue as official  and unrestricted  WTO documents the relevant 
documents that are currently made available during the regular 
sessions of the Committee on Agriculture, namely: 
- room document showing compliance with notification obligations 
- room document: questions posed by Members (either a 
compilation, or one document per Member) 
- written responses supplied by Members (one document per 
Member)   
 Electronic list of notifications: by notification requirement, Member, 
document symbol, date issued, and implementation year covered  
 Make publicly available any notifications-related datasets currently 
maintained by the AGCD on an internal basis  
 Open-ended consultations on " best practices "   
 Electronic transmission facility: set- up a list server allowing the 
dissemination of agriculture-related documents on a subscription 
basis (interim solution)   
 Consultations on prescribed notifi cation timelines and templates to 
harmonize reporting among the membership and facilitate the 
Review Process  
 Consultations on whether the Secretariat should be asked to prepare 
factual briefing notes on recently-issued notifications  
 
                                                      
14 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/R/55 
 Page 37 
 
 
  Annex 6 (cont'd) 
 
Possible action plan for the Secretariat 
 
Possible action Suggested timelines 
A.  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING  
 Revising the ITTC Notifications Handbook  
 Delivery of Geneva-based Workshop on Agriculture Notifications  
 Better targeting of training sessions towards notifications-related 
issues during WTO TA activities  
 E-learning:  develop a self-training module on agriculture 
notifications  
 E-learning: develop an E-training module, incorporating user support 
features  
 Specialized regional/national courses on notification requirements 
and formats  
B.  DATA REQUIREMENTS  
 Enhance the agriculture sections of the public  and Members'  
websites, notably through: 
- creation of an " agriculture notifications " site 
- hyperlinks to all notification-related documents and tools to 
improve accessibility and user-friendliness 
- including a " What's new " flag to increase awareness of newly- 
circulated notifications  
 Electronic transmission facility: set- up a list server allowing the 
dissemination of agriculture-related documents on a subscription 
basis ( interim solution, see next item below )  
 Online dissemination facility (including notifications) on a 
subscription basis (WTO-wide project)  
 Booklet to enhance Members' aw areness of, and accessibility to, 
existing tools  
 Database on questions/answers supplied by Members since 1995 in 
the context of the Review Process   
 Online submission of notifications by Members to the CRN   
__________