RESTRICTED

G/AG/R/73
10 March 2014
(14-1487) Page: 1/8
Committee on Agriculture


SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29 JANUARY 2014
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT
1

The Committee on Agriculture held its seventy-second (72
nd
) regular meeting on 29 January 2014
under the Chairmanship of Mr Guilherme Marquardt Bayer.
The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/4238 was adopted with the following
modifications:
Part 1 (Review Process):
addition of a question from the United States with respect to India's export of
wheat at prices below acquisition costs.
Part 2 (Other Matters within the Purview of the Committee):
addition of an item under agenda item 2.D (other business) to provide
information on the agriculture notification workshops planned for 2014 by the
Secretariat.
1 THE REVIEW PROCESS
1.1 Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the Reform
Programme: article 18.6
1.1. The 15 implementation-related issues raised as well as the responses provided and follow-up
exchanges are compiled in section 1 of document G/AG/W/118. These relate to:
a. Brazil's domestic support programmes (raised by the United States);
b. Canada's proposed changes to tariff schedule (raised by the United States);
c. China's cotton domestic support (raised by the United States);
d. Costa Rica compliance with AMS commitments (raised by Canada and the
United States);
e. Ecuador's import licensing of certain agricultural products (raised by the United States);
f. Egypt's export restriction on rice (raised by the United States);
g. European Union's levy on fruits and vegetables (raised by Canada);
h. European Union's sugar production levies (raised by Canada);
i. India's rice exports (raised by Pakistan);

1
This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.
G/AG/R/73
- 2 -

j. India's wheat stocks and exports (raised by Canada);
k. Japan's new agricultural policy (raised by Canada);
l. Saint Lucia's domestic purchase requirements for poultry and pork (raised by the
United States);
m. Thailand's paddy pledging scheme (raised by Canada and the United States);
n. Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale (raised by the United States); and
o. India's export of wheat at prices below acquisition costs (raised by the United States).
1.2 Review of Notifications
1.2. The Chairperson informed Members that since the September 2013 meeting, the Committee
had received 43 notifications which had been distributed electronically to all delegations.
1.2.1 Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the
issuance of the convening airgram
1.3. The questions raised, responses provided as well as Members' follow-up comments in
connection with the 21 notifications in respect of which questions were raised in advance of the
issuance of the convening airgram
2
are fully reflected in section 2 of document G/AG/W/118.
1.2.2 Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram
1.4. The Committee took note of the 21 notifications circulated before 17 January 2014, including
notifications carried over from the September 2013 meeting but in respect of which no questions
had been raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.
3

1.2.3 Notifications circulated or made available after the issuance of the convening
airgram
1.5. The Committee took note of eight notifications circulated after the issuance of the convening
airgram on 17 January 2014:
Imports under Tariff and other quota Commitments (Table MA:2):
Norway (2012): G/AG/N/NOR/74
Ukraine (2013): G/AG/N/UKR/16
Annual summary of Special Safeguard actions taken (Table MA:5):
Costa Rica (2013): G/AG/N/CRI/45
Czech Republic (2004): G/AG/N/CZE/59)
Switzerland (2013): G/AG/N/CHE/65
Domestic Support Commitments (Table DS:1):
Norway (2012): G/AG/N/NOR/73
Export Subsidy Commitments (Table ES:1):
Costa Rica (2013): G/AG/N/CRI/46
Czech Republic (2004): G/AG/N/CZE/60
1.6. These notifications would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular
meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the working procedures.

2
WTO/AIR/4238, Attachment Section B.
3
WTO/AIR/4238, Attachment Section C.
G/AG/R/73
- 3 -

1.2.4 Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings
1.2.5 Counter-notifications (Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture)
1.7. There were no requests for the floor under the above four agenda items.
1.2.6 Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process
1.8. The Chairperson noted that a total of 16 delegations had outstanding replies in the context of
the review of notifications. The Chairperson strongly advised them to submit the replies to the
Secretariat in order to enhance the efficiency of the review process. There were no requests for
the floor.
1.2.7 Overdue notifications
1.9. The Committee took note of document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.16 dated 17 January 2014
reflecting the current status of Members' compliance with notification obligations.
1.10. The Chairperson highlighted a few numbers with respect to the outstanding notifications.
For the period 1995 to 2012:
15% (92) of notifications in the MA:2 series,
14% (83) of notifications in the MA:5 series,
43% (783) of notifications in the DS:1 series,
39% (817) of notifications in the ES:1 series, and
15% (73) of notifications in the ES:2 series remain outstanding.
1.11. Two questions were raised under this agenda item: (i) European Union's question regarding
Turkey's overdue notifications, and (ii) Australia's question regarding Viet Nam's pending
notifications. These questions and their respective answers, and follow-up comments, can be found
on G/AG/W/118 pages 36 and 37.
2 PART 2: OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE
2.1 Implementation-related Issues and Concerns (G/AG/16 and Add.1; G/AG/22)
2.1. The Chairperson noted that the situation had not changed since the circulation of the 2003
and 2006 reports to the General Council.
4

2.2. Argentina, with the support of Australia and Brazil, stated that without prejudice to the
provisions of Article 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the establishment of additional and
specific disciplines on export credits, export credit guarantees and insurance programmes
remained an outstanding implementation issue resulting from the Uruguay Round Agreement on
Agriculture. Argentina requested that this item be retained on the agenda of the Regular CoA.
2.2 Review of the List of "Significant Exporters" for the Purpose of Table ES:2
Notification requirement
2.3. The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting held on 29 January regarding the review
of the list of significant exporters. The chairperson noted that based on a number of consultations
had in 2013 as well as the progress made in earlier consultations, he had presented to Members
the result of discussions on this subject as contained in two room documents: (i) recommended
revision to Table ES:2 notification (RD/AG/24), and (ii) list of "significant exporters" for the
purposes of the notification requirements in respect of export subsidy commitments (RD/AG/25).
The chairperson reminded Members about some basic principles and parameters within which the
work on the revision of the list of significant exporters had been carried out, specifically referring
to the common understandings recorded in paragraph 2.12 of G/AG/R/69 and paragraph 2.5 of
G/AG/R/71. On 24 January the chairperson had circulated a summary of the discussions which
provided more details and included examples to clarify how the revised list and the proposed

4
G/AG/16/Add.1 and G/AG/22.
G/AG/R/73
- 4 -

modifications to Table ES:2 notifications would address the various issues and concerns that had
been raised.
5

2.4. The Chairperson outlined how the three fundamental issues of "comparability",
"disaggregation", and "new products" were addressed and incorporated in the documents. Some
Members expressed a strong desire to adopt the list and the suggested modifications to Table ES:2
notification at the January meeting especially considering the amount of time that had been spent
in arriving at that stage and the progress that was reflected in those documents. Members further
confirmed that disaggregation of Table ES:1 was not within the mandate of these discussions.
2.5. Members, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, New Zealand
Pakistan, United States and Uruguay, welcomed the report made by the Chairperson and noted
that the outcome, as explained by the Chairperson in his report, had already achieved the required
maturity. These Members emphasized the importance of concluding the review of the list of
significant exporters in the March committee meeting by also referring to fact that the work on this
issue had been ongoing for more than 4 years.
2.6. Some delegations including India, the Philippines and China raised one issue that they
believed required additional work so that it could also be reflected and addressed in the proposed
Table ES:2 notification package. This concerned the disaggregation of total exports provided by
Members with reduction commitments in section I of the draft Table ES:2 notification format.
These delegations believed that not requiring a disaggregation in section I of the Table ES:2
format implied weaker transparency requirements on the part of Members with reduction
commitments. These Members also raised the issue of the criteria to be used for identification of
new products. Malaysia and Egypt expressed a willingness to engage in further discussions on this
topic.
2.7. Other Members clarified that reduction commitment Members were no longer excluded from
the revised list of significant exporters. Thus, reduction commitment Members included in the list
would also be subject to disaggregation of information in section II of the revised Table ES:2
notification format. Members expressed willingness to look at the issue raised at the informal
meeting and requested additional details from the proponents. Members emphasized that the
proposed disaggregation in section I of Table E:S2 shouldn't require a modification in the
presentation of information in Table ES:1 since this was not within the scope of the exercise.
2.8. The chairperson noted that lack of convergence necessary to conclude discussions at the
January meeting of the Committee on Agriculture. Simultaneously, the chairperson recognized the
strong desire on the part of all Members to conclude this discussion by the March Committee
meeting, especially considering the busy agenda arising from Bali discussions to be pursued in the
Committee. A number of Members emphasized that until the March meeting, consultations should
be limited on the disaggregation of data in section I of Table ES:2. One Member suggested that
some additional consideration was required on the issue of "new products".
2.9. The chairperson noted his intention to begin consultations soon after the meeting focusing on
the unresolved issues. The objective would be to facilitate an agreement on the revised list of
significant exporters along with the Table ES:2 notification package in the March Committee
meeting. Members were encouraged to examine the feasibility of reaching convergence on
disaggregation of data in section I of Table ES:2. He encouraged Members to keep their capitals
fully informed on the work being done so that a final resolution on this topic could be reached at
the March 2014 CoA meeting.
2.3 Chair Report on Informal Meeting, Including Follow-up from Bali Ministerial
2.10. The Chairperson reported on three aspects discussed at the informal meeting held on
29 January: (i) Article 18.4, (ii) Export Restrictions and (iii) follow-up to Bali Ministerial.
2.11. Under the topic of Article 18.4, the Chairperson noted that Canada had recalled the
discussion in the September 2013 informal meeting regarding its written communication
(RD/AG/18). This paper aimed at improving Members' understanding of Article 18.4 with a view to

5
RD/AG/26.
G/AG/R/73
- 5 -

promoting best practices and transparency in notifications. Canada highlighted two main points
from the paper: (i) that the obligation to give due consideration to effects of excessive inflation
under Article 18.4 rested with the membership as whole in the context of the review process; and
(ii) that the paper suggested practical guidelines for supporting documentation to facilitate the
review process when a member sought to invoke Article 18.4 (annex to RD/AG/18).
2.12. In response to a request made by some Members to include historical context on this issue,
Canada had developed a compendium with a history of questions and answers raised in the
Committee on Agriculture related to Article 18.4 (RD/AG/18/Add.1). Since 1995, 29 notifications
had referred to Article 18.4 or excessive rates of inflation, and Members had provided 38 questions
and answers in the Committee on Agriculture on this issue. This issue had had a long history, and
Members" notification procedures varied. Canada noted that its objective create a useful reference
document that set out best practices on notification and transparency, with a view to give
Members seeking to invoke Article 18.4 a clear understanding on what is expected from them by
the Committee.
2.13. Several Members welcomed Canada's contribution noting that Members had not yet
achieved a common understanding on the application of Article 18.4, and recognizing that some
Members might have difficulties in complying with AMS commitments due to excessive rates of
inflation. Some Members stressed that Canada's paper should not be seen as an incentive for
Members to avoid reform.
2.14. Additionally, some Members supported Canada's view that Article 18.4 did not provide for
individual Members to unilaterally adjust their AMS when making a domestic support notification.
Rather, they considered that Article 18.4 provided an obligation for the Committee to take into
consideration, following a notification, if a violation to subsidy commitments had been caused by
excessive rates of inflation. One Member expressed scepticism on the need to develop guidelines.
2.15. Canada stated that it would circulate a revised paper and that it would organize a
plurilateral meeting before the March 2014 Committee meeting to discuss this issue with
interested Members. Canada's intention was to table the paper during the regular meeting of the
Committee on Agriculture in March.
2.16. On the topic of export restrictions, the United States referring to a paper it had presented in
September 2013 CoA meeting (G/AG/W/113) stressed the importance of improving transparency
in the application of agricultural export restrictions. The United States highlighted the analytical
work undertaken by the OECD to identify and categorize agricultural export restrictions. The
United States suggested that a more complete understanding of the types of measures that are
used globally would strengthen discussions that take place in the CoA on the transparency
provisions related to this issue.
2.17. A number of Members recognized the importance of enhanced transparency in the
application of export restrictions pursuant to Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture and
expressed willingness to carry out further work on this topic. Some Members noted that the OECD
data includes measures that do not fall within the legal scope of notification requirements under
the Agreement on Agriculture. Therefore the summary statistics generated from that dataset were
not strictly comparable with figures generated on the basis of information submitted to the WTO.
Other Members recalled the process led by Japan on this issue and observed that this process had
also led to improved transparency in this area.
2.18. To initiate the Committee's discussions on follow-up to the Bali Ministerial the Chairperson
highlighted the items that would have repercussions for the planning of Committee meetings in
2014 relating to the following Bali outcomes:
Export competition (WT/MIN(13)/40)
Understanding on TRQ administration provisions of agricultural products
(WT/MIN(13)/39)
Public stockholding for food security purposes (WT/MIN(13)/38)
2.19. In these three areas Ministerial guidance specifically indicated that the Committee on
Agriculture would undertake follow-up activities in terms of monitoring and review.
G/AG/R/73
- 6 -

2.20. The Ministerial Declaration on export competition called for dedicated discussions in this
area based on notifications and a questionnaire to be circulated by the Secretariat. The annex of
the Declaration included elements for enhanced transparency on export competition which would
form the basis of the Secretariat's questionnaire. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee on
Agriculture hold the annual discussion on export competition during the June 2014 Committee
meeting. This timing would also be appropriate in 2015 as it would provide adequate time between
the annual CoA meeting discussion on the topic and the review foreseen at the 10
th
Ministerial
Conference. The Chairperson noted that the Secretariat would circulate the questionnaire in the
following weeks with a view to circulating a summary of the questionnaire results in advance of the
June Committee meeting. While recognizing the ambitious timeline, Members supported the
proposed timing for work in this area.
2.21. With respect to the Decision on TRQ administration, the Committee on Agriculture was
expected to review and monitor the implementation of the Decision. The monitoring to be
conducted in the context of the TRQ underfill mechanism would depend on Members' submissions.
Some Members indicated that they planned to take advantage of this mechanism. Others noted
that the CoA could begin applying the monitoring procedures laid out in the Annex of this Decision
as soon as submissions were received by the Committee.
2.22. On the Decision on public stockholding, the monitoring activity of the Committee would also
depend on whether Members decided to use the Decision. In addition, under this Decision
Ministers agreed to establish a work programme in the CoA, based on current and future
submissions by Members. Some Members suggested that submissions to the CoA would be logical
in March and that such submissions could include other aspects of the Agreement on Agriculture
relevant for discussions on food security. Other Members considered that this work was also
relevant for the CoA special session and called for submissions to be handled in the appropriate
forum.
2.23. The Bali outcomes on general services and cotton were briefly mentioned. One Member
suggested that it would be useful to examine how general services have been notified historically
under the Green Box. Some Members were considering whether some implementation issues
related to cotton could be usefully included in CoA discussions.
2.24. Members welcomed the report provided by the Chairperson, and provided follow up
comments on the various issues discussed during the informal session.
2.25. The United States stated that, with respect to export restrictions, it planned to issue a
written report regarding the OECD data analysis and its applicability to the CoA. On export
competition, the United States was of the view that some programmes may not have been covered
in the December 2012 report issued by the Secretariat, and wished to engage interested Members
to ensure a full coverage and understanding of the relevant programmes in the new transparency
report. On public stockholding the United States supported Members' view that the best way
forward was to focus on substantive work in the Committee and to minimize procedural
preoccupations. The United States encouraged Members to seek a common understanding on the
factual implementation issues for TRQ administration, public stockholding, general services and a
comprehensive inventory of cotton measures through informal and formal discussions.
2.26. Uganda, on behalf of the Least-developed Countries group, with regards to the Bali outcome
on agriculture, stated that work should avoid overlap of mandate with the Special Session of the
CoA. In particular regarding public stockholding, Uganda noted that Ministers agreed to establish a
work programme, but that clarity was needed as to whether this should be done on the regular
Committee or under the Special Session Committee. Concerning TRQ administration, Uganda
noted that the Ministers mandated the Committee on Agriculture to review and monitor the
implementation of Members' obligations established under this understanding. Regarding
additional issues raised by the delegation of the United States with respect to the Bali Decisions on
cotton, Uganda noted that the mandate given by Ministers on cotton was outlined in paragraphs 5
and 8 of the Decision, to hold a dedicated discussion on a bi-annual basis in the context of the
Committee on Agriculture in Special Session. On Export Restrictions, Uganda was of the
understanding that the delegation of Japan had initiated work in this area, which the Committee
on Agriculture was still exploring.
G/AG/R/73
- 7 -

2.27. Argentina supported Uganda's statement regarding cotton. Argentina noted that the Bali
Decision on cotton was a mandate for the Special Session of the CoA, but that if any Member was
interested in following up on other work regarding cotton under the regular CoA, as proposed by
the United States, Argentina was ready to engage.
2.28. The Philippines emphasized that the implementation regarding public stockholding for food
security purposes would be monitored as far as there was an invocation of such a measure. On the
aspect of food security in general, the Philippines noted the need to clearly delineate the work to
be done by the regular Committee and Committee meeting in special session.
2.29. Pakistan stated that the Decision of the Ministers on stockholding was clear in terms of
identifying a work programme to be undertaken in the CoA to pursue this issue with the aim of
making recommendations for a permanent solution. Pakistan noted that the work programme
should take into account Members' existing and future submissions, noting that the future
submissions provided an opportunity for Members to bring their own perspective on stockholding
and food security. Pakistan noted Uganda's statement, and stated that considering the expressed
need for clarity on which domain should some of the issues be discussed, Pakistan stated that
Members could start by focusing on the availability on data, which could only be done under the
regular Committee on Agriculture, such as domestic support data and the new data on export
competition which would be obtained from the questionnaire to be sent to Members as part of the
Ministerial Decision on this subject.
2.30. China supported Uganda's statement regarding the implementation of the Ministerial
Decision. China noted that the implementation of the Ministerial decision would be done by the
CoA as clearly stated in the Decision itself. China was of the view that work to find a permanent
solution for the public stockholding issue should be done under the Special Session Committee.
However, work on other subjects of the Decision could be carried out by either committee.
2.31. India stated that the Ministerial declaration was very specific on the issue of public
stockholding for food security purposes, and noted that Members were free to submit new papers,
but that those submissions had to be related to the issue under discussion, other issues related to
food security would have to be discussed on a different forum.
2.32. Norway noted that the follow-up to the Bali Decision was a Member-driven process, and that
it was not up to the Secretariat or the Chairperson to define how it should be handled in the
following months. Norway stated that questions on how to interpret the Decision would come up
and underlined that Norway was ready to engage constructively on the discussions.
2.33. Barbados supported Uganda's statements, and noted the need for clarity on the venue
under which the mandated elements should be discussed, either under the regular or special
session committee. On export competition, Barbados looked forward to operationalize the
Decision, including how developing countries could be assisted in ameliorating any added
burdensome additional reporting requirements.
2.34. Korea supported Norway's position that the follow-up to the Bali Ministerial Decision should
be a Member-driven process, and also noted the need to clarify the venue under which the
implementation of the Bali Decision should be discussed.
2.35. New Zealand noted that the Ministerial Decision specified that an annual review on export
competition should take place in the regular Committee on Agriculture which would have to be
done by June in order to effectively inform the next Ministerial Conference. New Zealand stated
that Ministers had also agreed that there would be a work programme on the public stockholding
for food security issue in the regular Committee on Agriculture. New Zealand noted that although
interpretation issues would arise, there were clear tasks set out by the Ministerial Decision, and
that Members should start working on them without delay.
G/AG/R/73
- 8 -

2.4 Other Business
2.4.1 Secretariat Briefing on Upcoming Notification Workshops in 2014
2.36. The Secretariat briefed the Committee on technical assistance activities carried out by the
Secretariat aimed at improving the submission, and the quality, of notifications. The Secretariat
carried out one notification workshop in 2013 in Geneva, held in English. The workshop was
attended by 30 participants, out of which 20 were funded by the WTO while the remaining ten
attended on a self-funded basis, including several Geneva-based delegates. For 2014, two
notification workshops have been scheduled. The workshops would be held in English and Spanish
(tentatively). Further details on the application procedures and logistics of the workshop would be
circulated to Members in the following weeks.
2.4.2 Date of next regular meeting and reminder of upcoming agenda
2.37. The Chairperson proposed that the next (73
rd
) regular meeting of the Committee on
Agriculture would be held on Friday, 14 March 2014.
6

__________

6
Subsequent to the 29 January CoA, the date of the meeting was moved to Friday, 21 March 2014, as
per the fax sent to Delegations on 7 February 2014.