WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/GEN/91 
11 February 2010 
 (10-0764) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
REPORT ON THE WORKSHOP ON AGRICULTURE NOTIFICATIONS 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The present note provides a report on the Workshop on Agriculture Notifications which was 
held in Geneva, Switzerland, on 22-24 September 2009, back-to-back with the 56th regular session of 
the Committee on Agriculture. 
2. Members requested the organization of the workshop , on a priority basis, as part of the Work 
Programme carried out by the Committee on Agriculture and aimed at improving the timeliness and 
completeness of notifications and other informa tion flows on trade measures falling within the 
purview of the Committee.  The elaboration of  the programme for the workshop was guided by 
Members' needs, especially those arising from the results of the questionnaire-based survey conducted 
earlier in 2009.  
3. The last section of this report provides an ove rview of notification performance over the last 
five years.  
_______________ 
 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 2  
 
  Table of contents
 
 
I. HIGHLIGHTS ..................................................................................................................... .....4 
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION.........................................................................................4  
A. ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKSHOP ..............................................................................4  
B. OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................5  
C. PROGRAMME AND SPEAKERS .........................................................................................6  
D. MODES OF DELIVERY .....................................................................................................6  
III. SUBSTANTIVE TOPICS COVERED....................................................................................7  
A. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND FORMATS .............................................................7  
B. QUESTIONS RAISED BY PARTICIPANTS ..........................................................................7  
1. Market access ..................................................................................................8  
2. Export subsidies, export prohibitions and restrictions and 
NFIDC Decision ..............................................................................................8  
3. Domestic support ............................................................................................9  
C. REFERENCE AND DISSEMINATION TOOLS ....................................................................10  
1. The IDB and the CTS ...................................................................................10  
2. Documents Online .........................................................................................10  
3. Agriculture web site......................................................................................10  
D. MEMBERS ' EXPERIENCES IN PREPARING AND REVIEWING NOTIFICATIONS ................11  
1. Notifications as a "process" .........................................................................11  
2. An institutional framework..........................................................................11  
3. Data collection and handling .......................................................................13  
4. Preserving and transferring know-how......................................................14  
5. Role of industry and exporters ....................................................................14  
6. Participation in the Review Process ............................................................15  
IV. CHALLENGES HIGHLIGHTED  BY PARTICIPANTS...................................................16  
A. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND HUMAN RESOURCES ..................................................16  
B. PASSWORD ACCESS TO THE MEMBERS ' WEB SITE ........................................................17  
C. FORMAT OF SUBMISSIONS ............................................................................................17  
D. REVIEWING OTHER MEMBERS ' NOTIFICATIONS ...........................................................18  
V. EVALUATION OF THE WORKSHOP...............................................................................18  
VI. LOOKING AHEAD................................................................................................................20  
A. IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH NOTIFICATIONS .............................................20  
B. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING ....................................................................21  
C. MEMBERS HELPING EACH OTHER ...............................................................................22  
D. ENHANCING PARTICIPATION IN THE REVIEW PROCESS ...............................................22   G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 3 
 
 
  VII. OVERVIEW OF NOTIFICATION PERFORMANCE......................................................24  
A. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................24  
B. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW 2005-2009............................................................................25  
C. STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN BY REGUL AR NOTIFICATION OBLIGATION ........................26  
 
 
List of annexes  
Annex A – Programme ............................................................................................................ ..............28 
Annex B – Background Note...................................................................................................... ...........33 
Annex C – List of Speakers ..................................................................................................... ..............35 
 
List of graphs  
Graph 1 – Regional Distribution of WTO-funded Participants .............................................................19 
Graph 2 – Notificati on Performance 2005-2009................................................................................... .26 
Graph 3 – Compliance with Regul ar Notification Obligations..............................................................27 
 
  G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 4  
 
  I. HIGHLIGHTS  
• The Workshop on Agriculture Notifications was held in Geneva, Switzerland, on 22-24 
September 2009.  This technical assistance activity was organized at Members' request by the WTO Agriculture and Commodities Divi sion (AGCD), and focused exclusively on 
agriculture notifications and re lated information needs.   
• The sessions, some of which were attended by over 200 capital- and Geneva-based 
participants, covered agriculture notifi cation requirements and formats and the 
availability of reference tools that can be u seful in preparing and reviewing notifications. 
• Participants were also given an opportuni ty to share their own experiences and best 
practices in preparing notifications as well as in  participating in the Review Process.  The 
contributions of 16 guest speakers and numerous interventions by participants enriched the discussions and enhanced the level of interaction. 
• In general, the workshop was well received.  Many participants commended the contents 
of the programme, the quality of the referenc e materials and the clarity of presentations 
and explanations provided by the resource pe rsons as well as the logistical arrangements. 
• Several participants noted that they woul d use the acquired knowledge and skills in 
establishing the necessary coordination mechanisms to improve compliance with notification obligations, and that they would share the information about the existing tools 
with domestic stakeholders.   
• Some participants indicated that they pla nned to focus on building a dedicated team to 
handle notifications.  They highlighted the need for developing a strategic plan to 
promote the "who, what, when, why and where" with respect to notifications and to 
ensure the sustainability of this effort.   
• Others commented that they would now be in a better position to advocate the importance 
of improving transparency through notifica tions and ensuring the quality and timeliness 
of notifications as well as the need to participate in the Review Process. 
• An examination of the compliance record shows that, although the situation improved 
significantly last year, many notifications remain  outstanding.  Participants suggested that 
there was an ongoing need to  raise awareness in capitals, including on the part of 
management, of the commitments made by  Members and the need for timely and 
complete notifications, and that Members had the ultimate responsibility to put in place 
the necessary resources to fulfil notification obligations. 
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 
A. O
RGANIZATION OF THE WORKSHOP  
4. The possibility to organize a workshop on agricultu re notifications was first contemplated in 
March 2009 when Members began discussions on th e timeliness and completeness of notifications. 
The need for technical assistance and training, especi ally for capital-based officials, was mentioned by 
many Members who believed that such discussions should start with, or contain, some form of 
technical assistance.  This view was re iterated in the questionnaire-based survey.2  Following 
                                                      
2 G/AG/GEN/85.  G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Members' decision at the 2 July 2009 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, the WTO Secretariat 
undertook to organize the workshop.    
5. The workshop was the first of its kind.  It w as organized by the AGCD with the assistance of 
other WTO Divisions, and with financial and logistical support by the Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation (ITTC).  WTO funding was made  available to one capital-based official from 
each WTO Member except from developed countries, a llowing 76 participants to attend on that basis.  
In addition, more than 30 other capital-based and numerous Geneva-based delegates attended the 
workshop.  
6. An invitation letter was sent to all Heads of Delegations in July 2009, indicating that the 
workshop would not be an introductory course on the Agreement on Agriculture as participants were 
expected to be already familiar with its main pr ovisions and have direct responsibility in preparing 
and/or analyzing notifications.   
7. In preparing for attendance, participants were requested to:   
(a) get acquainted with the status of comp liance with the notification obligations 
assumed by their respective governments under the Agreement on Agriculture;   
(b) identify any challenges in the preparation, s ubmission, or analysis of notifications;  
and,  
(c) where relevant, come prepared to Geneva with technical questions.   
8. To encourage active involvement, participants we re also requested to consider a number of 
questions and identify the kind of specific actions th at would be needed to ensure that, in their 
particular case, the notification obliga tions could be met in a timely manner. 
B. O
BJECTIVES  
9. The workshop focussed on the estab lished agriculture notification requirements and formats, 
related information needs, and Members' respective experiences in that area.  By the end of the 
workshop, participants were expected to have: 
(a) become familiar with the specific notifica tion requirements and formats in the areas 
of market access, domestic support, e xport subsidies, export prohibitions and 
restrictions, and the follow-up to the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Progra mme on Net-Food Importing Developing 
Countries (thereafter "the NFIDC Decision"); 
(b) improved their knowledge of the existing tools that might be useful in preparing and 
analyzing notifications; 
(c) gained a better understanding of the purpo se and procedures of the Review Process 
under the Committee on Agriculture; 
(d) learnt from other Members' experiences about the institutional capacity building 
necessary to prepare and analyze notifications and actively participate in the Review Process;  and 
(e) identified specific actions they could take (i .e. develop an Action Plan) to ensure that 
relevant notification obligations are fulfilled in a timely manner. G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 6  
 
  C. P
ROGRAMME AND SPEAKERS  
10. The detailed programme, the background note and the list of speakers are reproduced in 
Annexes A to C to this report.  
11. The core technical sessions on notification requi rements and formats were delivered by the 
four AGCD staff members directly responsible for implementation and notification matters, and more 
broadly, for the servicing of the Committee on Agriculture in regular session.  Their presentations 
focussed on the established notification requirements and formats3 and the applicable submission 
procedure to the Central Registry of Notifications (CRN).  
12. Staff members from the Languages,  Documentation, and Information Management Division, 
the Economic Research and Statistics Division, and the Information and External Relations Division 
made specific contributions on the tools available to the membership to fu lfil data needs in the 
monitoring and surveillance (thereafter "M&S") contex t.  Detailed presentations were therefore made 
on existing tools, reference materials, databases and other sources of information available to the 
membership as a whole through the public as well as the Members' password-protected web sites, 
notably the CRN, the WTO Documents Online  system; the Integrated Data Base (IDB); the 
Consolidated Tariff Schedule (CTS) database, a nd the recently-enhanced agriculture web site. 
13.   Moreover, 16 guest speakers, drawn from am ong the participants in the workshop, shared 
their own experiences and best practices in preparin g and reviewing agriculture notifications, and in 
participating in the Review Process.  Their contri butions shed light on the type of problems faced by 
Members in preparing and reviewing notifications, and the specific solutions found to overcome these 
challenges, for example by implementing changes in the domestic institutional framework, or by 
introducing a number of best practices. 
D. MODES OF DELIVERY  
14. The workshop topics were presented using Powe rPoint slides and were followed by question 
and answer sessions.  Interactive sessions comprisi ng two sets of exercises on the special safeguard 
and domestic support enabled the participants to seek  further clarifications and to share their own 
experiences.  As the workshop was organized back -to-back with the 56th Session of the Committee 
on Agriculture, capital-based participants also be nefited from attending the regular meeting.  One 
session was devoted to discussing participants' future  action plans while a roundtable discussion held 
on the last day of the workshop focussed on highligh ting the merits and challenges of the Committee's 
Review Process.   
15. All participants were provided with hard copies of reference materials and exercises.  Copies 
of the presentations delivered by the Secretariat and guest speakers were posted on the agriculture 
page of the WTO public web site in the week following the event.4 
16. On the sidelines, AGCD notification officers contact ed participants to offer further assistance 
concerning Members' notifications which had been received, but in respect of which a request or 
suggestion by the Secretariat for additional informati on or clarification had yet to be supplied.  Also, 
upon the request of capital-based officials, inform al consultations were held to assist in the 
preparation or finalization of such notifications. 
                                                      
3 G/AG/2 and G/AG/2/Add.1. 
4 See http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/wkshop_sep09_e/wkshop_e.htm   G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 7 
 
 
  III. SUBSTANTIVE TOPICS COVERED 
A. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND FORMATS  
17. The notification requirements and formats were adopted by the Committee on Agriculture in 
1995 with a view to facilitating the review of Me mbers’ compliance with the scheduled and rule-
based obligations and commitments assumed as part of the results of the Uruguay Round multilateral 
trade negotiations.  Importantly, it was recalled that the Committee's overseeing functions mainly 
stemmed from Article 18 of the Agreement on Agriculture  and the terms of reference stipulated in the 
Decision by the General Council on 31 January 1995.5   
18. The participants benefited from a comprehe nsive exposition of the entire scope of the 
Committee's Review Process, encompassing five distinct areas, namely: market access, domestic 
support, export subsidies, export prohibitions a nd restrictions, as well as the follow-up to the NFIDC 
Decision.  In introducing the notification requirement s relating to each area, the Secretariat followed a 
common presentational pattern in order to ensure ad equate coverage of the fundamental elements of 
the current M&S system, i.e.: 
(a) scope of each notification requirement, in relation to the specific policies and data 
elements that are to be specifically reported;  
(b) the prescribed formats to be used, most of which are in tabular form and use distinct 
suffixes for differentiation purposes applying to each of the five areas covered, hence "MA" is used for market access; " DS" for domestic support; " ES" for export subsidies, 
"ER:1 " for export prohibitions and restrictions; and " NF:1 " for the actions undertaken 
by donor countries in the context of the NFIDC Decision; 
(c) the membership coverage under each reportin g requirement, to be determined based 
on (i) each Member's scheduled commitments;  (ii) rule-based commitments and other 
provisions set out in the Agreement on Agriculture; (iii) the notification procedures themselves, as contained in docum ents G/AG/2 and G/AG/2/Add.1;  
(d) the timelines and frequency of reporting,  which differ according to whether the 
notification requirement in question is a "regular", annual, " one-off ",  or " ad hoc " 
reporting obligation;  
(e) other related procedures, including submission procedures to the CRN, designed to 
ensure the prompt preparation and circulation of notifications by the Secretariat.  In 
this context, the importance of Members' adherence to the generally applicable WTO 
submission procedures for notifications was highlighted.
6  
B. QUESTIONS RAISED BY PARTICIPANTS  
19. The workshop was an opportunity to explore technical matters and seek clarifications with 
respect to the notification requirements and format s.  Each session was accompanied by questions and 
comments from the participants.  These are briefl y summarized below.  Where the matters touched 
upon a possible interpretation of the Agreement on Agriculture, participants with experience in 
preparing and reviewing notifications were enc ouraged to share their views and experiences. 
                                                      
5 WT/L/43. 
6 WT/INF/124. G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 8  
 
  1. Market access 
20. The Secretariat's presentations in the area of market access notifications covered two tables 
related to tariff and other quotas (Tables MA:1 a nd MA:2) and three tables related to the special 
agricultural safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5).  
21. With respect to the administration of, and imports under, tariff and other quotas (TRQs), some 
limitations as regards the existing notification require ments were noted by participants.   For example, 
the current formats did not require notifying Memb ers to provide a breakdown of imports under TRQs 
by supplying country.  A view was also expressed  that, as regards Members who renegotiated the 
extension of certain provisions under the Agreem ent on Agriculture (e.g. Annex 5 concerning the 
extension of the "special treatment"), notifications were made to the Committee on Market Access 
rather than the Committee on Agriculture.  Conse quently, better coordinati on mechanisms between 
Committees should be devised so that Members' atte ntion is appropriately drawn to documents of 
similar relevance.  Finally, there was an interest  in the processes established by Members to ensure 
that business operators be timely informed of th e market access opportunities made available under 
TRQs. 
22. The presentation on the special safeguard notifica tions was followed by a practical exercise 
which was highly appreciated by the participants.  Participants whose Member governments did not 
schedule SSG rights were particularly keen to grasp the calculations details relating to the 
establishment of trigger levels, partly arising from an interest in the Special Safeguard Mechanism 
discussed under the DDA negotiations. Relevant questi ons were raised concerning the data sources; 
the role of domestic consumption data in calculatin g volume triggers;  the procedures applicable to 
amend schedules;  the notification of additional du ties; the impact of currency fluctuations on the 
calculation of trigger prices; the reasons for using average reference prices in the 1986-88 period; and definitional issues.    
23. The lack of predictability associated with pr ice-based actions was highlighted where the "up-
front" notification system was adopted, in the sense that  exporters faced un certainty as regards the 
actual triggering of the safeguard .  In response to  such concerns, it was pointed out that, in case of 
doubts regarding the notified actions,  Members coul d always seek further clarifications during the 
Review Process. 
2. Export subsidies, export prohibitions  and restrictions and NFIDC Decision 
24. In this session, specific requirements and format s for notifications in the areas of export 
subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3), export pr ohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1) and the 
monitoring of the follow-up to the NFIDC Deci sion (Table NF:1) were explained in detail. 
25. A wide range of questions followed.  In res ponse to a query concerning a possible revision to 
the list of "significant exporters"
7, it was noted that the list had remained unchanged since 1995 
although current procedures allowed Members to revi ew it after two years, in consultation with the 
Chairperson.  At each November meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, Members had been 
afforded an opportunity to discuss this matter under th e consultations held pursuant to Article 18.5 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture. 
26. There was also some interest in the ki nd of recourse available to Members where 
notifications, in particular those relating to export su bsidies remained outstanding.  It was recalled that 
detailed information could be generally obtained by consulting Members' web sites or by raising the 
matter in the Committee.  Furthermore, a counter- notification option was available to Members:  
                                                      
7 G/AG/2/Add.1.  G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Article 18.7 provides that any Member can bring to  the attention of the Committee any measure which 
it considered ought to have been notified by anothe r Member.  That option, however, had never been 
used since 1995, either because it was generally view ed as a rather confronta tional step; because the 
questions posed during the review process sometimes implied a similar approach; or because it was found to involve a rather resource intensive preparation process. 
27. Other matters were raised, for example:  
(a) in the export subsidy area: whether food ai d should be notified only with respect to 
scheduled products, and if so, the notifica tion procedure applying to non-scheduled 
products; availability of export subsidy data when notifica tions only referred to broad 
product categories, for example, " dairy products " or " cereals ";   
(b) in the context of export prohibitions and restrictions: the definition of "net-food 
exporter"; whether any consultations had ever been held between Members; the 
definition and product coverage of " food"; the Committee's consideration of whether 
"due consideration " of the effects of a measure on importing Members' food security 
had been taken; 
(c) in the context of the NFIDC Decision: the difference between " grants " and 
"international food aid "; whether technical and financial assistance provided via 
international organizations was granted by  developed countries; and trends towards 
increased development assistance away from the provision of food aid to recipient 
countries, and aiming at, for example, improving local agricultural production. 
3. Domestic support 
28. The session on domestic support covered details of the formats contained in Table DS:1 (and 
its relevant Supporting Tables) and Table DS:2 notifi cations. It was followed by practical exercises.  
During the latter, participants gained hands-on e xperience in placing mock domestic support measures 
into the respective "boxes".  Based on a hypothetical example of a developing country Member, a detailed presentation of the calculations required to calculate the Current Total AMS was delivered.   
29. The questions posed by the particip ants related, for example, to: 
(a) the Uruguay Round scheduling, in annual instalments, of Members' reduction 
commitments; 
(b) the calculation methodology stipulated in Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture; 
(c) the calculation of total value of producti on of a given agricultural product, and 
recourse to the de minimis  clause when calculating the Current Total AMS, 
(d) classification issues involving support in favour of the producers of a basic 
agricultural product versus  non-product-specific support in favour of agricultural 
producers in general;  
(e) the influence of inflation, and how it could be accounted for in calculating the Current 
Total AMS.   G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 10  
 
  C. R
EFERENCE AND DISSEMINATION TOOLS  
30. Participants were advised that a range of refere nce tools and materials were available to assist 
Members in preparing and reviewing notifications.8  Some could be directly consulted and/or 
downloaded from the public WTO web site , including under the recently-launched " Members' 
Transparency Toolkit " web page found under the " Agriculture " section.  Additional tools were 
available on the Members' web site.  Direct access to  all notifications was available through the WTO 
web site.  Moreover, the suggestion to dissemina te datasets on information notified since 1995 was 
considered by the Committee in November 2009.9 
31. While several existing tools were presented in  detail to raise awareness and encourage their 
use, a selected few are briefly described below.  
1. The IDB and the CTS 
32. The data contained in the IDB and the CTS data bases are publicly disseminated at the 6-digit 
level of the Harmonized System (HS) nomenclature via the Tariff Download Facility  on the WTO 
web site.10  Information at the tariff line level has been accessible by authorized users via the Internet 
Analysis Facility  (IAF) or via a portable version on a DVD/CD -ROM.  On 3 February 2010, detailed 
tariff information was also made available to the public via the Tariff Analysis Online (TAO ).11  
Through yet another tool, the File Transfer Facility , authorized users have access to the most recently 
processed data and can download all ID B submissions and CTS database files. 
2. Documents Online  
33. While the presentation focussed on the identifica tion and retrieval of documents using the 
CRN interface of Documents Online , participants were also advised that, in the second half of 2010, a 
new application of interest would be launched.  A simple and user-friendly graphical interface would 
assist end-users to identify notifications by Memb er, requirement, date; and full text searching would 
also be incorporated.  The development of elect ronic subscriptions facilities will increasingly allow 
Members to identify broad topics or specific document ser ies of particular interest that they wish to 
receive on a regular basis via electronic mail. 
3. Agriculture web site 
34. In advance of the workshop, the agricultu re public web site was revamped. While 
notifications continue to be accessible by notifica tion requirement and by Member, new facilities have 
been added to improve access to notification-rela ted information, beyond the materials available 
under the " Members’ Transparency Toolkit " mentioned above.  A subscription facility now allows the 
public to receive all unrestricted documents rela ted to the Committee on Agriculture by e-mail on a 
weekly basis.  Requests for Secretariat assistan ce on notification-related matters can also be 
channelled directly to the relevant  staff using a specific e-mail address.12   
                                                      
8 See for example the Annex in G/AG/GEN/83. 
9 Since then, the Committee on Agriculture requested th e Secretariat to take th e necessary steps to post 
such datasets on the WTO public web site. 
10 See http://tariffdata.wto.org/  
11 See http://www.wto.org/english/trat op_e/tariffs_e/tao_help_e.htm  
12 The address is:  agnotifenquiries@wto.org  G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 11 
 
 
  D. MEMBERS ' EXPERIENCES IN PREPARING AND REVIEWING NOTIFICATIONS  
35. During the workshop,  participants exchanged views and learnt from the experiences and best 
practices of 16 guest speakers.  In their presenta tions, many speakers flagged numerous challenges as 
well as the instances where solutions ha d been successfully implemented. 
1. Notifications as a "process" 
36. It was highlighted that preparing notifications  was often a multi-agency data management and 
reporting process which involved data collection, calcula tion, reporting and verification.  That process 
needed to be accompanied by a careful application of WTO rules and accurate data and methods. Multiple challenges could arise during the coordi nation, communication and documentation stages 
and these could be addressed by establishing clear processes. 
37. It was underlined that the preparation of notifications required steady attention while 
simultaneously maintaining the circulation of ot her Members’ notifications on the radar screen.
13  
While this was not necessarily a full time job, the re lated tasks were often allocated to several people.  
Sustained coordination was therefore paramount.  In this light, one speaker described the functioning 
of an internal process aimed at ensuring that all a nnual notification obligations be duly met.  The steps 
identified were as follows: 
(a) to set and communicate the relevant deadlines, ensuring that they were understood 
and well-integrated in the work routine; 
(b) to ensure that inputs fed into the proc ess were supplied by those who were most 
knowledgeable of the relevant sectors:  if a measure involved the cereals sector, then cereal specialists needed to be consulted;   
(c) to minimize the negative effects of sta ff turnover by creating self-explanatory and 
easily accessible documentation and guiding systems.  To illustrate this point, a system of interlinked spreadsheets containing instructions, calculation formulas, data sources and other background information, and logging details, was described;   
(d) to ensure that policies were presented as accurately as possible: this may involve  
translation, and supplementing the descrip tion with relevant hyperlinks to online 
sources in order to facilitate gene ral understanding of complex issues. 
2. An institutional framework 
38. The need for a system or structure to manage the preparation and review of notifications was 
highlighted by a number of speakers.  Its purpose w ould be to submit notifications in a timely manner 
and to obtain any inputs that may be required for th e Review Process.  In establishing the system, data 
handling processes should be simplified to the extent  possible while maximizing transparency of data 
and methods. 
(a) Internal and multi-agency coordination 
39. As there are often multiple ministries or agen cies involved, effective coordination and good 
communications to obtain data or to circulate draf t notifications for review and feedback play a key 
role in avoiding delays.  Sustainable communications networks also help to deal with frequent staff 
                                                     
 
13 The enhancements recently made with the introduction of new info rmation dissemina tion tools, in 
particular the electronic su bscription facility, could be helpful in this respect. G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 12  
 
  turnover as noted in paragraph 37(c).  Working in te ams also has the advantage of bringing together 
knowledge and competencies from diverse areas. 
40. The designation of focal contact points or "WTO units" in the relevant ministries and agencies 
in charge of data collection and analysis was cite d as a way to improve coordination.  A database of 
knowledgeable resource persons could also be estab lished for reference purposes. Direct coordination 
and communication with resource persons by way of regular face-to-face meetings, workshops, phone 
calls and e-mails was considered to be particularly effective. 
41. Taking the area of export subsidies as backgr ound for the discussion, one speaker underlined 
the crucial importance of two elemen ts in designing the system, i.e. the legal framework as well as the 
institutional framework.  The legal framework st emmed from agricultural policy reforms, where 
export licences were considered as an efficient inst rument in tracking subsidized exports.  The 
institutional framework comprised the licence issui ng agencies as well as the customs authorities. In 
this particular case, a strict structure for data  collection coupled with limited policy changes had 
facilitated the timely preparation and subm ission of export subsidy notifications. 
42. In another example, the establishment of a sub-committee on agriculture involving staff from 
various ministries (e.g. finance, industry, foreig n trade, customs and excise, and agriculture) had 
allowed the Member to overcome the backlog of ou tstanding notifications.  However, capacity to 
analyze notifications remained weak due to  staff involvement in many other duties. 
(b) Anticipation of workloads 
43. To ensure the timely flow of information, some participants indicated that they had developed 
internal guidelines aimed at streamlining the data collection process, or established a calendar for 
planning purposes to anticipate workloads. 
44. Laying down an efficient work schedule was part icularly relevant in order to meet tight 
notification deadlines, for example when the SSG was invoked.  In well-functioning schemes,  
pertinent information such as the volume of imports  could be shared among the relevant authorities 
well in advance of triggering the SSG action.  Th is also allowed the necessary procedures for the 
application of the SSG to be promptly completed, including with respect to (i) the preparation of a 
draft notification (based on supplied information), and (ii) announcing the measure in the official 
gazette.  Once the SSG was invoked, the draft no tification could be quickly checked, finalized, 
transmitted to the Permanent Mission in Geneva and submitted within a day to the WTO Secretariat. 
(c) Multiple causes of delays 
45. Participants recognized that, generally, there ha ve been considerable delays in meeting the 
notification obligations.  In their experi ence, deadlines have been missed due to: 
(a) the insufficient timeframes provided for the submission of notifications in light of 
comprehensive data requirements;   
(b) the need to reconcile the data in view of different reporting practices (i.e. fiscal year 
versus calendar/marketing/agricultural year) by various agencies or different units 
dealing with the management of specific products. The delays in the publication of 
official statistics, and the fact that different marketing years are applied to different products,  may also delay data  collection and reporting;    G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 13 
 
 
  (c) the need to hold consultations with lega l services, and other similar procedures, add 
up to the time required for internal compila tion, verification and final submission to 
the WTO; 
(d) understaffing, or staff in the WTO unit being occupied with other tasks, mainly the 
DDA negotiations. 
46. It was also observed that the involvement of multiple stakeholders and the lack of 
coordination in the data collection and analysis we re the most important contributing factors to the 
delays.  Often the unit responsible for notifications  would not be responsible for generating official 
quantitative information and therefore had limited cont rol over the information required to elaborate 
notifications and faced lengthy delays in obt aining the data.  Good cooperation among the many 
authorities involved and specialized staff were theref ore essential to managing the delays and ensuring 
timeliness and completeness of notifications. 
(d) Dedicated human resources 
47. Some speakers pointed to having "designated" staff dealing with notifications although the 
examples showed a wide range of situations, from one or two people involved in the notifications to 
having in place a "WTO unit" with up to 10 people.  The staff usually covered a wide range of topics 
and functions, including the Review Process under the Committee on Agriculture a well as the DDA negotiations.  The latter seemed to have priority, foll owed by notification obligations and the analysis 
of other Members' notifications with a view to  tabling questions during the Review Process.   
48. To manage the workload, participation in the Review Process was facilitated, for example, by 
the analysis of notifications in the WTO unit usin g the know-how of the pillar "specialists" (market 
access, domestic support, export subs idies), consultations with bilate ral desks (dealing with specific 
regions and countries) and communications  with other relevant stakeholders. 
(e) Other institutional means 
49. Some participants observed that a Trade Policy Review often served to raise awareness of the 
Member being reviewed with its own compliance record.  The Secretariat confirmed that the CRN 
continued to send annual calls for notifications and semi-annual remi nders of unfulfilled notification 
obligations to all Members under all WTO agreements. 
50. By analogy to the SPS and TBT fields, comment s were also made that national Enquiry 
Points could perhaps be useful in helping Member s prepare their notifications and participate more 
efficiently in the Review Process, although th is was not mandatory under the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  A suggestion was also made to institu te a different Enquiry Point for each notification 
requirement and introducing proper coordination mechanisms.  Not all participants were convinced, in 
view of the complexity of agriculture notifica tions and the extent of coordination required. 
3. Data collection and handling 
51. Participants highlighted that, in many cases, the data gathering process heavily relied on the 
maintenance of individual contacts with ministries  and agencies that were responsible for generating 
the data.  While a solid record of data sources a nd contacts might exist, it should be recognized that 
data sources and computer environments cha nged over time, making access to such records and 
methods increasingly complicated.  In addition, hand ling the data flow between various ministries, 
agencies, at national and sub-national levels, coul d be quite challenging during verification, updating 
and final reporting.  Where policy changes were  implemented, new data sources, methods, and 
adjustments could also be required to establish simple and clear processes. G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 14  
 
  52. Members' experiences showed that simple and transparent data collection and reporting 
processes were extremely useful.  For example: 
(a) Excel spreadsheets could helpfully rep licate the notification templates and 
automatically perform the required calculations; 
(b) data sources and methods, as well as the rele vant legislation, could be placed in 
footnotes and updated on a regular basis to build a solid documentation record;   
(c) in case of high staff turnover,  recourse to common drives can be advisable to store all 
documentation gathered.  Recent advances in information technology might also 
facilitate further transition to electronic filing systems and web sourcing. Indeed, some speakers mentioned that they we re now taking advantage of web-based 
reporting and had access to data compiled and regularly updated by other agencies. 
4. Preserving and transferring know-how 
53. It was noted that, even where structured sy stems and procedures were in place, these could 
suffer from limited resources and loss of corporate me mory due to turnover of capital-based staff.  
Rebuilding contacts and networks was time-consuming.  To overcome these challenges, various 
solutions could be implemented, as alread y highlighted under paragraph 52(c) above. 
54. For example, a system of internal hand-over notes was developed containing detailed 
information on contacts, list of agencies as well as  the process and procedures involved in preparing 
notifications. In another case, no internal ha ndbook describing procedures and guidelines was made 
available but key information and electronic data we re maintained on hard copy files for reference 
purposes.  Contacts were also maintained w ith retired staff and knowledgeable personnel. 
55. Several participants considered that the ITTC Handbook remained the first source of guidance 
and reference.  Real notificati ons generally helped to clarify the mock examples used in the 
Handbook.  However, it was noted that SSG-rela ted notifications sometimes generated more 
confusion when attempts were made to go beyond the mock examples to clarify certain issues. 
5. Role of industry and exporters 
56. Participants expressed interest in knowing the extent of exporters' involvement in the 
notification process.  They inquired whether there were any newsletters publis hed to make exporters 
aware of, and obtain comments on, Members' no tifications; whether there were any databases 
recording the major agricultural exports, and the me asures imposed on products of export interest into 
key markets; and whether this type of information was in any way integrated with that available under 
other agreements, e.g. SPS or Import Licensing. 
57. On the involvement of industry representatives an d exporters in preparing notifications, one 
speaker noted that, as it had not provided export subs idies in recent years, notifications had been easy 
to elaborate (in just one day), and in this particul ar area, there had been no need to consult with the 
exporters.  Another speaker pointed out that exporters did not take part directly in any preparation or 
review process as far as notifications were c oncerned.  However, exporters needed to supply 
information on quantities exported to the agencies in charge of collecting statistics.  
58. Two specific examples were provided to illustra te the process of reviewing notifications 
internally.    G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 15 
 
 
  59. In the first case, the government me t on a six-weekly basis with an " Agriculture Trade 
Forum " that had been established to create general awareness of, and exchange views on, all trade-
related developments, including the review of WTO Members' notifications. The Forum brought 
together various stakeholders, including industr y groups, labour, trade unions, consumers and sub-
national governments.  In particular, under the Foru m, industry groups were given the opportunity to 
alert the government about specific trade problems.  Such industry feedback could prove to be helpful 
in preparing for the Review Process, in bilate ral work as well as in the DDA negotiations.   
60. In the second case, consultations were held w ith the private sector to discuss negotiation 
issues and certain WTO notifications which were sent  in advance with an explanation of the context 
and the possible implications of the notified measures on any productive sectors.  Feedback was 
sought from the relevant industry as to the likely effects of such measures on exports to certain 
markets.  When concerns were raised, further co mmunications were exchanged to analyze the details 
of compliance with the Agreement on Agriculture. 
6. Participation in the Review Process 
61. During one session of the workshop, participan ts also highlighted the merits and the 
challenges of Members' involvement in the Commi ttee’s Review Process.  The importance of the 
Review Process was emphasized by one speaker as stemming from the following aspects:  
(a) economic – the Review Process was important  in drawing attention to the domestic 
and trade policies implemented by notifying Members that could affect agricultural producers and exporters;  
(b) systemic – the process helped Members to evaluate compliance.  It was important that 
the multilateral rules-based system be resp ected and its agreements upheld; and,  
(c) source of learning for domestic policy fo rmulation – the Review Process was a 
powerful tool to acquire knowledge about ag riculture, trade policy and reform, as 
well as Members' respective experiences in trying to achieve their policy goals. 
62. In practical terms, the Review Process pr ovided Members with an opportunity to raise 
questions with respect to notified programmes or fi gures, to clarify policy issues, and to defend their 
interests.  However, as evidenced by the many  challenges mentioned by the participants, there 
appeared to be a mismatch between the perceived utility of the Review Process, which ranked high, 
and the limited resources available in capitals.   
63. One speaker described the reviewing of notifi cations as an ongoing and participatory process 
involving industry contacts, sub-national government s and other government departments, as well as 
feedback and follow-up with the Permanent Missi on.  All these entities played a major role in 
obtaining and processing the data and background information that are required to formulate the 
questions to be posed during the Committee on Agriculture  at a later stage.  In order to fully benefit 
from such inputs, there needed to be  sufficient lead time for this pr eparatory process to unfold.  A set 
of guidelines for reviewing notifications was used an d a brief analysis was prepared and kept on file, 
especially for new staff.  The timing of this work was driven by the Committee's agenda and working 
procedures, especially as regards timelines.  Ideally , the review of notifications needed to be 
completed about three weeks before the meeting of the Committee on Agriculture. G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 16  
 
  IV. CHALLENGES HIGHLIGHTED BY PARTICIPANTS 
64. A number of challenges, many of which we re already flagged in the survey report
14, were 
stressed again during the workshop.   
A. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND HUMAN RESOURCES  
65. The difficulties most commonly cited by the participants were the following: 
(a) preparing WTO notifications, especially those on domestic support, was a time-
consuming process involving a number of data  sources.  Moreover, the information 
required for notification purposes usually or iginated in several ministries and 
agencies at various levels of government, a ll of which often lacked coordination;   
(b) there were limited human resources in te rms of number of personnel and properly 
trained staff.  One particular challenge was that some staff were not always familiar 
with the relevant provisions of the Agre ement on Agriculture nor with Members' 
obligations under the WTO. By contrast, staff working in dedicated WTO units 
displayed a sound knowledge of the WTO framework but were usually unfamiliar with the details of Member s' agricultural policies; 
(c) institutional memory was lost due to staff transfer, posting, promotion or retirement 
and lack of well-documented archives.  This was compounded by attrition of 
specialized staff, lack of dedicated agricu lture notification desks at the national and 
sub-national levels, simultaneous functions assigned to staff (e.g. agriculture policy, 
market analysis and research, responsibility for both SPS and agriculture notifications, DDA negotiations);   
(d) limited infrastructure and technological resources coupled with a fast changing policy 
environment and technological progress re ndered existing data sources and systems 
quickly obsolete; 
(e) notification matters were not a prior ity when Members had been under the DDA 
negotiation pressure. 
66. Human resource challenges were particularly acute and were cited as one of the main 
contributors to the delays in meeting notification obligations.  It was underlined that there was a need for constant training and re-training as knowledgeab le and dedicated staff with clear responsibilities 
were key to the proper functioning of a notification process.   
67. A few strategies to build human resources capacity were mentioned, namely the recruitment 
of the best available technical staff; an internal training programme incorporating on-the-job training 
and training for staff at sub-national levels of government and in relevant agencies; and, timely 
dissemination of all relevant materials to the stakehol ders.  In addition to the incorporation of trained 
human resources into the offices responsible for notifications, improving infrastructure and technological resources was seen as helpful in enhancing communications. 
                                                     
 
14 G/AG/GEN/85.  G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 17 
 
 
  B. PASSWORD ACCESS TO THE MEMBERS ' WEB SITE  
68. Some participants observed that passwords were not always communicated to the capital-
based officials working in various ministries.15  Despite repeated requests to the Geneva-based 
delegation, passwords remained difficult to obtain,  considerably impairing access to the pertinent 
trade, tariff, or Committee-related information that  was subject to limited or restricted distribution 
policies.  One participant suggested that passwor ds be communicated by the WTO Secretariat not 
only to the Heads of WTO Delegations but also to those capital-based staff attending the present 
workshop in an official capacity, or those serving as focal points for notification matters in capitals. 
69. Participants were advised that the current password dissemination policy was limited to the 
Heads of WTO Delegations.16  At present, Heads of Delegations needed therefore to be contacted 
directly should capital-based officials require the passw ord.  This policy also applied in the case of the 
WTO Reference Centres.17  In parallel to the forthcoming revamping of the WTO Documents Online  
facility, the Secretariat planned to streamline the way contacts with delegations were managed.  In the 
future, delegations would be requ ested to appoint coordinators r esponsible for the generation of 
passwords and decision-making on the granting of access ri ghts.  In this light, it was expected that the 
importance for capital-based officials to maintain close contact with th eir respective delegations to the 
WTO, especially as regards access to restricted databases and document dissemination facilities, 
would rather increase. 
C. FORMAT OF SUBMISSIONS  
70. It was noted that some documents available onlin e could not be accessed directly as they were 
in WordPerfect (wpf) format.  Indeed, as the Notification Requirements and Formats  (G/AG/2) were 
adopted by the Committee on Agriculture in 1995, th e templates for notifications contained in that 
document were only available in wpf format.  Some pa rticipants suggested that it would be useful to 
also have these templates in Excel  format.  This would facilitate the preparation and review of 
notifications, especially where calculations were required.   
71. Participants were advised that documents coul d be stored both in text (MS Word) or in 
spreadsheet format (MS Excel).   Under the existing Documents Online  system, documents had to be 
prepared in text format (MS Word) for subse quent translation purposes.  These documents could 
always be accompanied by additional document modul es in spreadsheet (xls), database (mdb) or other 
text (pdf) formats which were not translated.   It was noted that this practice had proved to be helpful 
in light of the growing number of  documents requiring the prompt in clusion and posting of large data 
series, especially in the negotiations context.  So  far, the Secretariat had only been circulating 
agriculture notifications in text format.  Gene rating MS Word documents (for translation purposes) 
directly from notifications in MS Excel format would not only be time-consuming but also resource-
intensive.     
72. A suggestion was also made that the Secretariat set up a computerized system for Members to 
directly submit their notifications by filling in the required fields online.  The Secretariat noted that 
within the Information Management Systems (IMS) in the areas of SPS and TBT, a similar feature 
was being developed whereby Members would be able  to notify online.  Such a system could be 
envisaged for agriculture notifications where a great number of tables required calculations.   
                                                      
15 A similar comment was also made concer ning the copies of the IDB/CTS CD-ROM. 
16 See details at http://members.wto.org/members/ , under " WTO Resources ", "Contacts ". 
17 http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e /devel_e/train_e/ref_centres_e.htm  G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 18  
 
  73. It was noted that the Committee on Agriculture  would address some of the above mentioned 
suggestions as part of its Work Programme on notification matters.
18 
D. REVIEWING OTHER MEMBERS ' NOTIFICATIONS  
74. The obstacles hindering Members' participation in the Review Process were similar to those 
already mentioned in the preparation of notifications , namely the diversity of institutions involved in 
the process of review and analysis of notifications , compounded by the lack of internal coordination 
between different ministries and agencies and the tu rnover of personnel.  Participants also cited the 
short timeframe for compiling answers to questions, especially as the necessary information was required from various sources. 
75. Small countries in particular faced difficulties in  reviewing the large volume of notifications 
due to limited personnel capacity in capitals.  A lack  of human resources also meant that delegates 
had to deal with too many subjects and could not cope  with the frequency of mee tings held in Geneva.  
While many Committees' work was based on notifica tions, there was generally little sense of urgency 
to deal with notifications.  This was attributable to the fact that delegations' staff held simultaneous 
responsibilities, most notably those relating to the DDA negotiations. 
76. It was also noted that the Agreement on Agricu lture was complex; so was the analysis of 
notifications as agricultural policies were not easy to understand in the context of the WTO rules.  
Generally, the available staff lacked the necess ary skills required to understand, assess and identify 
issues of interest, for all the reasons already iden tified in paragraphs 65 and 66 above.  Members 
therefore needed to look at various opportunities to  train new staff and transfer know-how.  Possible 
approaches to achieve this objectives are d escribed in paragraphs 48 and 53-55 above. 
V. EVALUATION OF THE WORKSHOP 
77. The total cost of the workshop amounted to 294, 238 Swiss francs.  The costs related to the 
participation of 76 officials (a return economy class  ticket, daily subsistence allowance, including 
lodging, and transport expenses) were borne by the WTO.   
78. Among the 76 officials, 43 were men and 33 were  women.  Twenty participants represented 
the least developed countries.  In terms of regiona l distribution, Africa accounted for 26 participants 
(34 per cent), followed by South and Central Americ a and the Caribbean (21 participants) and Asia 
and the Pacific (18 participants). 
                                                     
 
18 See summary reports in G/AG/R/55, 56 and 57; and  G/AG/W/73/Rev.1 and Add.1.  G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 19 
 
 
   
GRAPH 1 -   REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WTO-FUNDED PARTICIPANTS 
 
ASIA AND PACIFIC
23.7%AFRICA
34.2%SOUTH/CENTRAL 
AMERICA AND 
CARIBBEAN
27.6%
MIDDLE EAST
5.3%NORTH AMERICA
1.3%EUROPE
7.9%
 
 
79. The evaluation forms showed that the majority of  participants were satisfied with the results 
of this activity and would recommend it to their coll eagues.  In general, participants commended the 
contents of the programme, the quality of the refe rence materials, the clarity of presentations and 
explanations provided by the resource persons, as well as the logistical arrangements.   
80. Participants generally considered that th e workshop was well planned and efficiently 
delivered.  They observed that the workshop raised  their understanding of the notification formats and 
deadlines as well as their awareness of the various refere nce tools at their disposal.  Some participants 
indicated that the detailed knowledge they gained would help them in "catching up" with overdue 
notifications and enhancing their pa rticipation in the Review Process.  They would now be in a better 
position to advocate the importance of improving tran sparency , ensuring the quality and timeliness of 
notifications.   
81. Several participants indicated that they would use the acquired knowledge and skills in 
establishing the necessary coordination mechanisms or a national system in data collection, analysis 
and management in order to prepare and submit any outstanding notifications. Information about 
existing tools would also be shared with domestic st akeholders.  Some partic ipants planned to focus 
on building a dedicated team to handle notifications.  They also highlighted the importance of developing a strategic plan, not only for the promotion of "who, what, when, why and where"  with 
respect to notifications, but also for the purpose of ensuring sustainability. 
82. Technical assistance was considered by partic ipants as necessary to build institutional and 
human resources capacity in capitals. In this light, suggestions were made that such workshops should 
be carried out on a regular basis (for example, annually ) in order to widen the circle of trained capital-
based officials.  Holding such a workshop regul arly would create continued awareness of the 
importance of strengthening the monitoring and surveillance aspects under the WTO, and motivate 
Members to improve their compliance record.  So me participants observed that the notification 
process required inputs to be drawn from many ag encies.  Consequently, the WTO should perhaps 
consider financing the participati on of two or three officials from each Member in future events of 
this kind. G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 20  
 
  83. Pointing to the complexity of the agriculture  notification requirements and formats, some 
participants expressed the view that such events should be of at least five days to allow them to fully 
benefit from the user support extended by the S ecretariat. An extended programme could have 
included more sessions oriented to practical work ("best practices"), the study of specific notifications, and additional exercises on domestic su pport and the special agricultural safeguard.  In 
view of the importance accorded by participants to practical exercises, some even suggested that the 
number of national experiences could have been  reduced, reallocating the time for hands-on 
experience with WTO databases using computer la bs facilities.  There was also support for the 
organization of follow-up activities on a regional or  national basis, or through e-learning sessions, 
with a view to assessing progress made in the submission of outstanding notifications and in the 
participation in the Review Process.  E-learning, in  particular, was identified as an efficient follow-up 
medium for capital-based officials. 
84. Participants found that a large, formal setting did not promote interaction and technical level 
discussions.  Breaking certain sessions into smaller groups, or specific target audiences (e.g. developing countries without Total AMS reduction commitments, LDCs, NFID Cs) would have better 
addressed the diverse range of Members' needs and been conducive to a "working group" atmosphere.  
It would have facilitated the sharing of experiences and best practices and perhaps enhanced the level 
of interaction during the session dedicated to the development of action plans. Such break-out 
sessions could be organized by notification, by re gion, or around a mix of experiences in order to 
better work through the problems identif ied and share technical expertise.  
85. On the logistical side, some participants ob served that taking notes based on simultaneous 
interpretation was difficult.  Language-specific wo rkshops (or sessions) were therefore supported.  
There were suggestions for copies of slides to be di stributed beforehand, and for all materials to be 
made available on CD-ROM or sent via e-mail.
19  Finally, comments were made on the location of the 
hotel accommodation to be closer to the WTO and on  the appropriateness of on-site lunch facilities. 
VI. LOOKING AHEAD 
86. In addition to studying the specific requireme nts and formats, the workshop was also an 
opportunity to identify ways to improve Members'  compliance with notification obligations.  As 
overdue notifications were not unusual, it was hoped that the solutions that some Members had 
implemented and shared during the workshop coul d become a source of inspiration to address 
difficulties and challenges.  Participants were ther efore encouraged to look ahead and discuss possible 
action plans by focusing on such questions as:   
(a) the kind of follow-up actions that were needed;  
(b) ways to improve the status of compliance with notification obligations; 
(c) the type of actions by Members, the AGCD, or the WTO that would be helpful;  
(d) the usefulness of a mentoring programme, whereby Members could help each other 
address certain challenges. 
A. IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH NOTIFICATIONS  
87.  It was noted that, in general, notification was treated as a best endeavour obligation.  A view 
was expressed that non-compliance, or poor complia nce, was not actionable.  Therefore there seemed 
                                                      
19 See also paragraph 15 above.   G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 21 
 
 
  to exist no urgency around notification matter s by comparison with negotiation matters which 
attracted attention and were treated with priority.   
88. It was recalled that the Marrakesh Decision on Notifications Procedures stipulated that: (i)  
the CRN shall draw the attention of individual Me mbers to regular notification requirements which 
remain unfulfilled; (ii) the Council for Trade in Goods is to undertake a review of notification 
obligations and procedures by a working group estab lished immediately after the entry into force of 
the WTO Agreement; and, (iii) the CRN shall in form each Member annually of the level of 
notification obligations to which that Member w ill be expected to respond in the course of the 
following year.   
89. While certain aspects such as compliance, timeliness, quality of notifications and 
simplification of the notification process were also highlighted in the Singapore Ministerial 
Declaration20, it was pointed out that the subsequent Mini sterial meetings remained silent on this 
subject.  It was therefore suggested that the next  Ministerial Declaration include strong language on 
notification requirements concerning the timely submission of notifications.21  Should Ministers 
decide to undertake such a commitment, they woul d need to dedicate more time and resources to it. 
90. One participant expressed the view that notifica tion obligations could easily be linked to trade 
policy reviews since their fulfilment was a measure  of a Member's compliance with the WTO rules 
and contributed to bringing transparency to its trad e policies.  As already noted in paragraphs 35 and 
50, an Enquiry Point on agriculture should also be designated and made responsible for fulfilling 
notification obligations. 
B. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING  
91. Participants often mentioned the need to focu s on various aspects of technical assistance and 
training since institutional capacity building was a critical element in helping Members develop a 
viable notifications system.  One participant e xpressed the view that while there was a need for 
technical assistance in the area of notifications, eith er bilateral or multilateral,  it should not be tied up 
with the Aid for Trade framework. 
92. Some participants remarked that they were not fully aware of the kind of TA activities on 
offer, especially at regional or national level.  Clearly, the familiarity with, and the use of, TA 
activities as outlined in the Biennial Technical Assistance and Training Plan needed to be improved.22 
93. In supporting their efforts to meet notification obligations, participants flagged the need to 
enhance or revise the existing ITTC Handbook on a prio rity basis.   As observed in paragraph 55, the 
Handbook should contain more extensive examples, sa mples of completed notifications, preferably 
inspired from actual notifications,  and it should also incorporate examples of Members' best 
practices. 
                                                      
20 Paragraph 11 of the Singapore Mini sterial Declaration states that "Compliance with notification 
requirements has not been fully satis factory.  Because the WTO system re lies on mutual monitoring as a means 
to assess implementation, those Members which have no t submitted notifications in a timely manner, or whose 
notifications are not complete, should renew their efforts.   At the same time, the relevant bodies should take 
appropriate steps to promote full compliance while considering practical proposals for simplifying the notification process."  
21 The Chairman's Summary of the Ministerial Conference held in Geneva in 2009 noted that in a 
discussion on enhancing the institu tional effectiveness of the WTO, there was "substantial convergence on the 
need to improve notifications as well data collection, analysis and dissemination". 
22 For details see http://www.wto .org/english/tratop_e/dev el_e/teccop_e/tct_e.htm  G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 22  
 
  94. As regards improvements to the TA and tr aining courses, there were suggestions to: 
(a) develop online courses on agriculture notifications;  
(b) include a teaching module on agriculture notifications more prominently in any 
training courses on the Agreement on Agriculture; 
(c) disseminate statistical tools to help Members analyze notified information;   
(d) organize regional programmes to trai n trainers on notification matters. 
95. As WTO workshops exclusively devoted to notifi cations had been rare, it was suggested that 
among the two national TA activities available to de veloping countries (three for LDCs) on an annual 
basis, one should focus on notifications.  Such  TA activities could be organized by the WTO 
Secretariat in cooperation with other institutions (e .g. UN, FAO, ITC).  In addition, LDCs' TA and 
training needs relating to the strengthening of c oordination mechanisms should be met by the WTO 
Secretariat through advisory services and capacity  building programmes.  In this light, it was 
suggested that a dedicated workshop be held at the WTO headquarters for LDCs.  The event would 
focus on practical aspects, using examples of special  relevance to LDCs, with  a view to  developing 
LDCs' technical skills. 
96. The need to maintain contact with WTO staf f to improve the quality of notifications was 
recognized.  Concerns regarding the lack of access to  passwords were reflected in the participants' 
evaluation forms, in line with the comments alr eady made in paragraphs  68 and 69 above.   
C. M
EMBERS HELPING EACH OTHER  
97. A suggestion was made that Members with greater  experience in a given area should be asked 
to share their best practices in preparing and revi ewing notifications, drafting relevant legislation or 
establishing coordination mechanisms among the vari ous ministries and agencies.  For example, it 
was noted that the application of  the SSG required setting up a domest ic system, and possibly even an 
early alert system, for exporters to note that imports  were likely to exceed a given trigger level.  The 
sharing of practical solutions by Members who might  have already established such systems would be 
appreciated.   
98. In the absence of a national Enquiry Points for agriculture, it was proposed that an informal 
forum be created for Members to  exchange views about agricultural policies and measures, or 
alternatively, an e-mail list or a forum among t hose attending the workshop be  created to facilitate 
interaction.  Alternatively, an interactive e-foru m for discussion on notification matters, or a blog of 
questions and answers could be designed to promot e a better understanding of the issues raised during 
the Review Process.   This would help clarify some technical issues.  It would also bring capital-based 
officials closer to those willing to contribute  their views or offer technical assistance.    
99. Members could also be helping each other on a regional basis, involving capital-based 
officials from countries in close proximity, or facing similar situations.  Work shops would be valuable 
in sharing experiences and finding solutions in a regional context. 
D. ENHANCING PARTICIPATION IN THE REVIEW PROCESS  
100. While Members were making efforts to prepare no tifications, many participants remarked that 
there was still scope for improvement.  Moreover, a greater involvement by Members in the Review 
Process depended on their capacity to prepare notifi cations, to learn how to analyze their trading 
partners' notifications, and formulate questions.    G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 23 
 
 
  101. One speaker observed that in th e absence of direct economic interests it might be difficult to 
justify the extensive use of resources that could be  allocated to the Review Process.  However, its 
usefulness went beyond exploring Member's economic  interests, and the impacts of various policy 
developments. From a systemic point-of-view, a mult ilateral review served to enforce the rules-based 
system.  Adherence to commitments and willingn ess to explain and inform signalled that the 
Agreement on Agriculture was being respected.  He nce, there was real value-added in approaching 
the Review Process as a source of learning and sharin g of policy experiences.  In this light, Members 
needed to ensure that notifications were timely , informative and accessible.  The Review Process 
itself needed to be demystified, i.e. Members had to realize that tabling questions during the 
Committee meetings did not amount to a form of dispute settlement on a reduced scale.   
102. To encourage better participation, a number of  practical solutions and best practices were 
suggested taking account of two important considerati ons, i.e. (i) prioritization and organization, and 
(ii) capacity building and transfer of know-how.  As regards the first element, the following ideas 
were put forward: 
(a) identify specific notifications of interest (Members, issues, products),  list them and 
start reviewing the most important ones; elaborate consolidated data series in order to 
facilitate analysis and identify changes and trends; 
(b) establish a collaborative network among the stak eholders to circulate notifications for 
review and comments; establish an early alert system to enhance coordination of inputs; hold discussions at the technical level; maintain contacts with Permanent 
Mission in Geneva whose updates are essential; 
(c) involve staff in bilateral units  in relevant ministries and agencies as they have detailed 
knowledge of the specific countries and policies;  ensure that these staff have a sound 
knowledge of WTO rules, especially the Agreement on Agriculture; 
(d) when elaborating responses, prepare detailed answers.  Replies that merely reference 
web sites where information could act as a disincentive to participating in the Review 
Process.  If comprehensive information is provided, it can also be incorporated in 
subsequent notifications thus preventing fu rther questions.  Similarly, comments from 
Members can be used to upgrade the comprehensiveness of subsequent notifications thus heading off questions in the future; 
103. As regards the capacity building and transfer  of know-how, the following ideas and best 
practices were shared in addition to tho se mentioned in paragraphs 53-55 and 67: 
(a) offer training, including e-learning, to develop the necessary human resources 
knowledgeable about domestic agricultural  policies as well as the WTO rules and the 
reference tools; disseminate availabl e information to all stakeholders; 
(b) prepare a guide to reviewing notifications, with explanations, data sources, etc; 
identify important or systemic issues; to avoid duplication, check the issues that had 
already been considered during the Review Pr ocess.  In this regard, Australia, on 
behalf of the Cairns Group made available to the participants a guide entitled WTO 
Committee on Agriculture:  What to Look for When Reviewing Notifications  which 
was subsequently posted on the Members' web site; 
(c) encourage stakeholders to work together, either with other Members and regionally;  
smaller countries could use the capacity of other Members having the ability to G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 24  
 
  review a greater number of notifications;  learn from questions and answers 
previously raised and use them as starting points to draft their own. 
104. The establishment of an interactive electronic database containing questions and answers 
supplied by Members during the Review Process w as also advocated to help Members follow the 
history of an issue and consider how to frame ow n questions.  This recommendation has been pursued 
as part of the Committee's Work Programme.
23 
105. In short, the underlying reason for submitting and reviewing notifications was to improve 
transparency and promote a better understanding of agri cultural policies.  Partic ipants stressed that 
transparency was a critical element of the functioning  of the multilateral trading system but in order to 
have an effective Review Process, it was Members'  responsibility to submit notifications to the 
Committee.  
VII.  OVERVIEW OF NOTIFICATION PERFORMANCE 
106. To complete this report, an overview of Members' performance with regard to their 
notification obligations is presented below.  The ques tion of "overdue notifica tions" is not new nor is 
it limited to the agriculture area.  This topic is  a standing item in the Committee's agenda and has 
received increased attention in the course of the past five years.   
A. BACKGROUND  
107. In January 2006, the Chairman drew Members' attention to the deterioration of the overall 
compliance status, stressing that, for the 1995 implem entation year alone, more than 40 notifications 
remained overdue,  while for the implementation y ear 1999, that number reached 90.   The Chairman 
urged Members to comply with the notifica tion requirements adopted by the Committee on 
Agriculture in 1995, given the crucial importance of  notified data for the Review Process, as well as 
in the context of the agriculture negotiations.24 
108. By October 2006, notifications from 70 Members remained outstanding for the 1995-2000 
implementation period.25   At that stage,  the Chairman stress ed that, in his view, a critical point, had 
been reached as such delays hindered the work of  the Committee; constitute d a growing obstacle to 
the transparency principle advocated by the WTO;  could possibly undermine the balance between 
Members' rights and obligations between notifyi ng and non-notifying Members; and also compelled 
negotiators to base their calculations on inform ation sought from outside the WTO, sometimes 
drawing it from non-reliable sources or sources that were not accessible to all Members, thus creating further imbalances between dele gations endowed with substan tial human resources and small 
delegations.   
109. In March 2007, despite a slight improveme nt, the general picture remained bleak.
26  I n  
September 2007, the incoming Chairperson underlined that notifications from 78 Members were still 
outstanding for the implementation period 1995-2001.  For the implementation period 1995 to 2005, 
                                                      
23 See summary reports in G/AG/R/55, 56 and 57. 
24 Paragraph 13 of G/AG/R/45 refers.  Thereafter the situation was closely monitored in statistical 
terms.  See for example, paragraph 30 of G/AG/R/46 relating to the meeting held in May 2006. 
25 Paragraphs 30-40 of G/AG/R/47 refer. 
26 Paragraphs 46-47 of G/AG/R/48 refer.  G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 25 
 
 
  545 notifications were missing in the domestic support area.27  Since then, individual Members started 
regularly to express concerns about the delays registered by specific non-notifying Members.28 
110. In March 2009, the Chairman of the General Council instructed the Chairs of all WTO 
Councils and Committees to start consultations on wa ys to improve the timeliness and completeness 
of notifications and other information flows on trade measures.29  The September 2009 Workshop on 
Agriculture Notifications resulted from th e Committee's efforts in this endeavour. 
B. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW 2005-2009 
111. A count was carried out of the number of notif ications issued annually over the period 2005-
2009.  A distinction was established between two categories of documents, i.e.:  (i) "new" notifications, and (ii) any revisions, corrigenda, or addenda to notifica tions already issued.  
Simultaneously, a separate count was made of the ob ligations covered by the new notifications in 
each year, where an "obligation" is defined as the fulfilling of a single notification requirement  for 
any single implementation year .  
112. Graph 2 below illustrates that the total numbe r of notifications issued (left-hand scale) 
levelled-out in 2007, picked up in 2008, and definite ly intensified in 2009, including with respect to 
the number of corrigenda and revisions submitted by no tifying Members.   The number of obligations 
covered (right-hand scale) started improving in 20 08, and grew significantly the following year. 
113. The results are therefore noteworthy in statistical terms and clearly demonstrate the 
intensified attention to notifica tion-related matters under the Committee on Agriculture.   Not only 
was there an increase in the number of new notif ications issued, up from 111 in 2007 to 165 in 2009, 
but the number of "obligations" covered by those notifications circulated more than doubled, i.e. from 
197 to 450.
30  Members have undoubtedly made an effort  to "catch up" with their outstanding 
notification obligations, in particular by forw arding submissions that often covered multiple 
implementation years.   
                                                      
27 Paragraphs 30-31 of G/AG/R/49 refer. 
28 See, for example, paragraph 28 of G/AG/R/50 and paragraph 31 of G/AG/R/51, paragraphs 47-55 of 
G/AG/R/52; paragraphs 26-28 of G/AG/R/53; and paragraphs 49-71 of G/AG/R/54.   
29 Paragraphs 72-73 of G/AG/R/54 refer. 
30 Only "new" notifications issued in a given year were considered in the calculation of the total 
number of obligations covered (i.e., discounting the corrigenda, revisions, and addenda). G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 26  
 
   
GRAPH 2 -   NOTIFICATION PERFORMANCE 2005-2009 
 
04488132176220
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Number of notifications
090180270360450
Number of obligations
New notifs Other notifs Obligations covered
 
 
C. STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN BY REGUL AR NOTIFICATION OBLIGATION  
114. While many notifications remain outstandi ng, Graph 3 below shows that significant 
improvements have been made in all areas subject to regular notification obligations31 in the course of 
2009. Two distinct implementation periods, i.e.  1995-2006 and 1995-2007, have been taken as 
benchmarks for comparison.  In each case, the numb er of Members that were fully compliant with 
their regular notification obligations by 31 De cember 2008 and by 31 December 2009 respectively, 
was counted.   The Graph shows that, for example, in the case of  Table MA:2, 57 per cent of relevant 
Members were fully compliant by the end of 2009,  compared to 44 per cent one year earlier at the 
same year end cut-off date.  Table MA:5 and Ta ble ES:2 notification obligations score the best 
compliance status, with 74 per cent and 82 per cent, respectively. 
                                                      
31 See paragraph 18(d).  G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 27 
 
 
  GRAPH 3 -   COMPLIANCE WITH REGULAR NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS 
Table Period 1995-2006 as at 31 December 2 008 Period 1995-2007 as at 31 December 2009 
MA:2 44%
56%
 57%43%
 
MA:5 54%46%
 74%26%
 
DS:1 18%
82%
 25%
75%
 
ES:1 24%
76%
 35%
65%
 
ES:2 47%53%
 82%18%
 
Key:  Not in compliance  In full compliance G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 28  
 
  Annex A  
PROGRAMME  
Tuesday, 22 September 
8:00-8:30 REGISTRATION  
8:30–9:00 OPENING SESSION   
- Ms Valeria Csukasi, Chairperson, Committee on Agriculture (regular session) 
- Mr. Clem Boonekamp, Director, Agriculture and Commodities Division (AGCD) 
9:00–9:30 OVERVIEW OF NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS  
The notification requirements and formats adopted by the Committee in 1995 will be 
introduced in each substantive area, based on documents G/AG/2 and G/AG/2/Add.1. 
- Ms Majda Petschen, Counsellor, AGCD;  Secretary, Committee on Agriculture 
(regular session)  
9:30-10:30  PRESENTATION OF EXISTING TOOLS :  SCHEDULES , DOCS ONLINE , ETC . 
Participants will be introduced to those currently available tools (such as Schedules of 
commitments, Supporting Tables, Notifications Handbook, etc.) that they may wish to  consult when preparing and analyzing agriculture notifications. 
Participants will also learn how to identify and retrieve agriculture notifications using 
the Central Registry of Notifications (CRN) search interface of Documents Online, which is the WTO web archive of official documents.  Documents Online is currently under re-development and the ne w application is scheduled for rele ase in the second half of 2010. 
Hence, the  features of the new application will also be briefly described. 
 - Ms Tatyana Petrova, Economic Affairs Officer, AGCD 
- Mr. John Dickson, Chief of Section, Official Documents and Records -  
Languages, Documentation and Info rmation and Management Division 
10:45-11:30 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND FORMATS :  TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTAS  
(TABLES MA:1  AND MA:2) 
Who is required to notify the administration of, and imports under, tariff and other 
quotas?  When?  For which products?  In what format?  What are the data needs?  
- Majda Petschen  G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Tuesday, 22 September 
11:30-12:30 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND FORMATS :  SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO 
MA:5) 
Who is required to notify the recourse to Article  5 of the Agreement on Agriculture? When?  For 
which products?  In what format?  What are the data needs?  
- Mr. Diwakar Dixit, Economic Affairs Officer, AGCD 
Lunch break 
14:00-14:45 PRACTICAL EXERCISE :  SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (SSG) 
This session will provide hands-on experience in calculating the trigger level for the volume-
based SSG to be notified in Table MA:3;  and will concentrate on data needs for both volume-  and price-based (Table MA:4) safeguards. 
- Diwakar Dixit 
14:45-15:45 PRESENTATION OF EXISTING TOOLS :  THE INTEGRATED DATA BASE (IDB)  AND  
THE CONSOLIDATED TARIFF SCHEDULE (CTS) 
The contents of these two databases, i.e. the IDB and the CTS, will be briefly introduced with a 
special focus on the availability of agriculture-related data and query tools allowing users to 
identify and extract and download the relevant information. 
- Ms Antonia Diakantoni, Senior Statistical Officer, IDB, Economic Research and 
Statistics Division 
- Ms Alya Belkhodja, Senior Statistical  Officer, IDB, Economic Research and 
Statistics Division 
16:00-16:30  PRESENTATION OF EXISTING TOOLS :  AGRICULTURE WEBSITE  
The recently-revamped public website will be presented.  Participants will be shown how to 
retrieve agriculture notifications and other information related to  the work of the Committee on 
Agriculture through the scripts on http://www.wto.org/english/tr atop_e/agric_e/agric_e.htm . 
- Mr. Steve Cooper, Internet Coordinato r, Web Team, Information and External 
Relations Division 
16:30-17:30  BUILDING TECHNICAL CAPACITY TO PREPARE /ANALYZE NOTIFICATIONS IN THE 
MARKET ACCESS AREA :  MEMBERS ' EXPERIENCES AND BEST PRACTICES  
Workshop participants will share experiences and best practices by describing the challenges 
they have faced in preparing, submitting and an alyzing notifications in  the market access 
area and how they have overcome those challenges. 
- Ms Emalene Marcus-Burnett, Counse llor, Permanent Mission of Barbados , Geneva  
- Ms Ruth Montes de Oca S., Director of the Office of Agricultural Trade 
Agreements, Ministry of Agriculture, Dominican Republic 
- Mr. Vincent Lin,  Agricultural Affairs, Permanent Mission of the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu to the WTO  
- Mr. Kazuhiro Takahashi, Director fo r WTO Negotiations, International Affairs 
Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 30  
 
   
Wednesday, 23 September 
8:30–10:00  SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND FORMATS :   
• EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1  TO ES:3) 
• EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1) 
• MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE NFIDC  DECISION (TABLE  NF:1) 
Who is required to notify?  When?  For which products?  In what format?  What are the 
data needs?   
- Majda Petschen and Tatyana Petrova 
10:00-10:45  BUILDING TECHNICAL CAPACITY TO PREPARE /ANALYZE NOTIFICATIONS IN THE 
EXPORT SUBSIDIES AREA :  MEMBERS ' EXPERIENCES AND BEST PRACTICES  
Workshop participants will share experiences and best practices by describing the challenges 
they have faced in preparing, submitting and analyzing notifications in the export subsidy area and how they have overcome those challenges. 
- Mr. Ken Gordon, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Australia to the WTO 
- Mr. Jose Alberto Cuellar, Specialist on Ag riculture and Trade Policy Evaluation, 
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food, 
Mexico 
- Mr. Henk Kok, Administrative Assistant – Negotiator, European Commission, 
Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development – WTO Unit  
11:00-12:30  SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND FORMATS :  DOMESTIC SUPPORT  
• CURRENT TOTAL AMS  (TABLE DS:1  AND SUPPORTING TABLES DS:1  TO DS:9) 
• NEW OR MODIFIED EXEMPT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2)  
Who is required to notify?  When?  Which domestic support policies?  In what format?  
What are the data needs?  
- Ms Alicja Wielgus, Counsellor, AGCD  
Lunch break  G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 31 
 
 
  Wednesday, 23 September 
14:00-15:30  PRACTICAL EXERCISE :  DOMESTIC SUPPORT  
Participants will gain hands-on experience in calculating the Current Total AMS and 
examples of classification of agricultur al policies in the exempt and non-exempt 
categories of domestic support will be provided. 
- Alicja Wielgus  
15:45-16:45  BUILDING TECHNICAL CAPACITY TO PREPARE /ANALYZE NOTIFICATIONS IN THE 
DOMESTIC SUPPORT AREA :  MEMBERS ' EXPERIENCES AND BEST PRACTICES  
Workshop participants will share experiences and best practices by describing the challenges 
they have faced in preparing, submitting and analyzing notifications in the domestic support area and how they have overcome those challenges. 
- Mr. Miguel Donatelli, Multilateral A ffairs Coordinator (WTO), National 
Market Directorate, Secretariat of Agri culture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food, 
Argentina 
- Mr. Lars Brink, Expert Advisor, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada 
- Mrs. Aisha Humera Moriani, Economi c Counsellor, Pakistan's Permanent 
Mission to the WTO  
- Ms Anne Effland, Social Science Analyst, Economic Research Service, 
United States Department of Agriculture 
16:45-17:30  DISCUSSION OF PARTICIPANTS ' ACTION PLANS  
Participants will be invited to identify specific actions to tackle any problems faced in 
preparing, submitting or analyzing notifications.  For example, ways to enhance the technical and institutional capacity and know-how related to notifications could be identified by means of an Action Plan with a view to ensuring that the relevant notification obligations are fulfilled in a timely manner.  
It is also envisaged that the Action Plans could become useful means and starting points for 
the relevant stakeholders to consider any ment oring or further technical assistance, either 
from the Secretariat or from other Membe rs having knowledge and experience in the 
identified areas.   
- Valeria Csukasi 
 G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 32  
 
   
Thursday, 24 September 
10:00   COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (56TH REGULAR SESSION ) 
15:00-16:45 
 ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE REVIEW PROCESS – Valeria Csukasi 
• PURPOSE AND PROCEDURES OF THE REVIEW PROCESS  
• INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS :  
MEMBERS ' EXPERIENCES AND BEST PRACTICES  
The participants will share experiences and best practices with respect to their participation 
in the Review Process under the Committee on Ag riculture by describing any problems they 
encountered, the domestic system/institutional  framework implemented to address these 
problems as well as the institutional capacity building necessary to preserve and transfer know-how related to notifications and/or participation in the Review Process.   
- Ms Gerda van Dijk,  Minister (Agriculture), South African Mission, Geneva 
- Mrs. Alma Sonia Nuila, Chief of Intern ational Trade Negotiations, Ministry of 
Economy, El Salvador 
- Mr. Md. Motaher Hussain, Economic  Minister, Permanent Mission of 
Bangladesh, Geneva 
- Mr. Jonas Skei, Counsellor (Agriculture ), Permanent Mission of Norway to the 
WTO 
- Mr. Luís Cláudio Carmona, Advisor of the Department of Multilateral 
Commercial Negotiations, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply, 
Brazil 
16:45-17:00  CLOSING SESSION   
- Valeria Csukasi - Majda Petschen 
  G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 33 
 
 
  Annex B 
BACKGROUND NOTE  
Introduction 
 
1. The Workshop on Agriculture Notifications is being organized in Geneva, Switzerland, from 
22 to 24 September 2009, back-to-back with th e 56th Regular Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture (CoA), so as to facilitate the particip ation of capital-based officials.  The Workshop is 
intended to be a technical assistance activity, a tr aining opportunity and a forum for exchange of 
information, and not an instance where participan ts or speakers would be expected to provide 
explanations on behalf of their governments.   
Objectives 
 
2. The objective of the Workshop is to enable Memb ers to fulfil their notification obligations in 
a timely manner and in line with the transparency  requirements contained in the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  The Workshop is aimed at studying  the existing notification requirements and formats 
(G/AG/2 and Add.1) and providing a platform to discuss specific technical issues Members may face 
when preparing agriculture notifications and anal yzing notifications submitted by their trading 
partners.  Some workshop participants will also sh are their experiences and identify or suggest best 
practices as regards institutional capacity to prepare and analyze notifications and participate in the 
Review Process under the CoA.   
3. By the end of the Workshop, participants will have:  
• become familiar with the specific notificati on requirements and formats in the areas of 
market access, domestic support, export subsid ies, export prohibitions and restrictions, 
and the follow-up to the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision; 
• improved their knowledge of existing tools th at might be useful in preparing and 
analyzing notifications; 
• gained a better understanding of the purpose and procedures of the Review Process under 
the CoA; 
• learnt from other Members' experiences about the institutional capacity building 
necessary to prepare and analyze notifications and to actively participate in the Review 
Process; 
• identified specific actions they could take (i.e. develop an Action Plan ) to ensure that 
relevant notification obligations are fulfilled in a timely manner. 
 
Preparatory work 
 
4. In preparing for the Workshop, participants are requested to: 
• get acquainted with the status of complian ce with the notification obligations assumed by 
their respective governments under the CoA;  
• identify any challenges in the preparation/s ubmission/analysis of notifications; and  
• where relevant, come prepared with technical questions.   
 G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 34  
 
  5. To assist in these preparations and to enc ourage active involvement in the Workshop, 
participants are also requested to consider the following queries
1, as may be appropriate: 
• What are the notification obligations  relevant to your delegation? 
• What is the status of compliance with your obligations?  (The latest status of compliance 
can be downloaded from the Members' password-protected web site.) 
• Which domestic stakeholders (i.e. departments/ ministries/agencies) would be involved in 
the data collection, preparation/approval/s ubmission of your notifications, analysis of 
notifications of your trading partners, prepar ation of questions/answers for the Review 
Process? 
• What domestic system/communication channe ls are in place through which notification 
requirements and deadlines can be circulated to all stakeholders? 
• Have you encountered any problems in pr eparing/submitting/analyzing notifications 
and/or in participating in the Review Pr ocess and if so, please identify those problems? 
• Have you been able to overcome those probl ems and if so, what solutions have been 
implemented?  
• Is there a need for any technical/institutiona l capacity building, technical assistance and 
training and if so, what would be needed to develop/preserve/transfer the necessary know-
how in the area of agriculture notifications? 
• Are you familiar with/have you ever used th e currently available tools? (Please see a 
listing of such tools in the Annex to document G/AG/GEN/83.) 
• What specific actions would it take to ensure that your notification obligations are 
fulfilled in a timely manner? 
 Action Plans  
6. The Action Plan  is aimed at tackling any problems that each participant faces in 
preparing/submitting/analyzing notifications, and at identifying ways to enhance the 
technical/institutional capacity and kn ow-how related to notifications  and the participation in the 
Review Process.  It is hoped that the preparatory work described above will be useful in helping 
participants identify possible subject(s) to be covered by the Action Plan .   
7. It is also envisaged that the Action Plans  could become useful means and starting points for 
the relevant stakeholders to consider any mentori ng or technical assistance, either from the Secretariat 
or from other Members with knowledge and experien ce in the identified areas.  To this end, and 
subject to participants' demands, the Secretariat c ould, for example, facilitate the establishment of a 
forum for mentoring and technical assistance in light  of the suggestions contained in paras. 90-91 of 
the survey report (G/AG/GEN/85). 
8. Moreover, as part of the follow-up, the Agricu lture and Commodities Divi sion staff remain at 
the disposal of delegations for consultations a nd technical assistance, as appropriate.  Any queries 
related to the preparation of notifications can also be sent using the e-mail form which is under 
development on the WTO public web site. 
                                                     
 
1 Some questions are similar to those used in the questionnaire-based survey conducted earlier this 
year.  In this regard, Members that have not yet sent th eir responses to the questionnaire circulated in document 
G/AG/GEN/83 dated 2 April 2009 are encouraged to do so as soon as possible by e-mail to:  
majda.petschen@wto.org.  G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 35 
 
 
  Annex C 
LIST OF SPEAKERS  
  Committee on Agriculture (Regular Session) 
 
 Chairperson:  Ms Valeria Csukasi (Uruguay) 
Secretary:  Ms Majda Petschen  
   C o u n s e l l o r      WTO Agriculture and Commodities Division 
 
 
Argentina  Mr.  Miguel Donatelli 
   Multilateral Affairs Coordinator (WTO) 
   National Market Directorate 
   Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food 
   A r g e n t i n a   
Australia  Mr. Ken Gordon 
   First Secretary 
   Australian Permanent Mission to the World Trade Organization 
   Geneva - Switzerland 
 
Bangladesh  Mr. Md. Motaher Hussain 
   Economic Minister 
   Permanent Mission of Bangladesh 
   Geneva - Switzerland  
 
Barbados  Ms Emalene Marcus-Burnett 
   C o u n s e l l o r  
   Permanent Mission of Barbados at Geneva    Geneva - Switzerland  Brazil   Mr. Luís Cláudio Carmona 
   Advisor of the Department of  Multilateral Commercial Negotiations 
   Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply    B r a z i l  
 
Canada  Mr. Lars Brink 
   Expert Advisor / Expert-conseiller 
  Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada / Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada     Ottawa - Canada 
 
Dominican Republic Ms Ruth Montes de Oca S. 
   Director of the Office of Agricultural Trade Agreements 
   Ministry of Agriculture of the Dominican Republic 
 
 G/AG/GEN/91 
Page 36  
 
  EC   Mr. Henk Kok 
   Administrative Assistant - Negotiator 
   European Commission    Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development - WTO Unit    Brussels - Belgium  El Salvador  Mrs. Alma Sonia Nuila 
   Chief of International Trade Negotiations 
   Ministry of Economy    El Salvador  Japan   Mr. Kazuhiro Takahashi 
   Director for WTO Negotiations 
   International Affairs Department    Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 
   Tokyo - Japan 
 
Mexico   Mr. Jose Alberto Cuellar 
   Specialist on Agriculture and Trade Policy Evaluation  
  Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food 
(SAGARPA) 
   M e x i c o  
 
Norway  Mr. Jonas Skei 
   Counsellor (Agriculture) 
   Permanent Mission of Norway  
   Geneva - Switzerland 
 
Pakistan   Mrs. Aisha Humera Moriani 
   Economic Counsellor 
   Pakistan's Permanent Mission to the WTO    Geneva - Switzerland 
 
South Africa   Ms Gerda van Dijk
 
   Minister (Agriculture) 
   South African Mission    Geneva - Switzerland 
 
Chinese Taipei  Mr. Vincent Lin 
   Agricultural Affairs 
  Permanent Mission of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu to the WTO 
   Geneva - Switzerland 
 
United States  Ms Anne Effland 
   Social Science Analyst, Economic Research Service  
   US Department of Agriculture (USDA)    United States of America 
 
  G/AG/GEN/91 
 Page 37 
 
 
  WTO Secretariat resource persons 
 
 Agriculture and Commodities Division 
 
  Mr. Clem Boonekamp 
  Director   
 
  Ms Majda Petschen 
  Counsellor   
   Ms Alicja Wielgus 
  Counsellor  
 
  Mr. Diwakar Dixit 
  Economic Affairs Officer 
   Ms Tatyana Petrova 
  Economic Affairs Officer 
 
 
 Languages, Documentation and Information Management Division 
 
  Mr. John Dickson 
  Chief of Section, Official Documents and Records 
   Economic Research and Statistics Division, Integrated Data Base Section 
 
  Ms Antonia Diakantoni 
  Senior Statistical Officer 
 
  Ms Alya Belkhodja 
  Senior Statistical Officer 
 
 
 Information and External Relations Division 
 
  Mr. Steve Cooper 
  Internet Coordinator, Web Team 
 
__________