 RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/96  
 
22 December 2020  
(20-9290) Page: 1/17 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 22-23 SEPTEMBER  2020 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture (CoA) held its ninety -fifth (95th) regular meeting on  
22-23 September  2020 under the Chair personship  of Ms. Maria Araceli Escandor of the Philippines . 
 
The agenda contained in the convening airgram WTO/AIR/AG/4 5 circulated on 9 Septembe r 2020 
was adopted with the following additions  under Agenda Item 2B on "COVID -19 and Agriculture":  
• COVID -19 ad hoc  reports by Canada (G/AG/GEN/167/Rev.1) , European Union 
(G/AG/GEN/159/Add.2)  and Japan (G/AG/GEN/166)  circulated after the issuance of the 
convening airgram ; and   
• Room document (RD/AG/79)  by Brazil  on "Food Security, Agriculture Trade and Stability of 
Agricultural Markets in  the Long term".   
1  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
1.1  Outstanding responses to questions raised, 2013 -2019 
1.1.  The Chairperson called Members' attention to the Secretariat document  G/AG/W/ 204/Rev. 1 
dated  9 September  2020 detail ing the outstanding responses under the CoA review process . From 
2013 to 2018 , there were 82 questions with pending responses with 36 additional questions added 
to the list in 2019 . The Chairperson acknowledged the gradual reduction in the number of 
outstanding responses and  urged Members to pursue  their efforts to improve the situation of 
outstanding responses.   
1.2.  The Chairperson noted that 71 out of 146 questions for the present meeting had received 
advance responses. The Chairperson welcomed the good practice by Members of submitting 
responses in a dvance of meetings and thus contribute to deeper exchanges during meetings. The 
Chairperson also thanked the Secretariat for its new practice of ascertaining the attendance of 
Members subject to advance questions prior to Committee meetings.2  
1.2  Matters rel evant to the implementation of commitments under the reform 
programme: Article 18.6  
1.3.  The Chairperson noted that questions under Article 18.6 ha d intensified over the years. The 
average number of questions per meeting had increased from 53 in 2019 to 61 in 2020.  There were 
49 specific implementation matters (SIMs) raised at the 9 5th CoA meeting under Article  18.6.3 
Members' responses and follow -up comments are available in th e Agriculture Information 
Management System (AG -IMS)4 and may be consulted there using the relevant question ID numbers 
as provided in Table 1 of Annex  1 to this report.  These can also be accessed directly by clicking on 
the hyperlinks in column 3 of the table for the relevant question ID numbers.  
 
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 and obligations under the WTO.  
2 Paragraph 3.23 of G/AG/R/95 refers.  
3 WTO/AIR/AG/ 45, Attachment Se ction A. The full version of the questions raised can be found under 
section 1 of the compilation document G/AG/W/207.  
4 http://agims.wto.org/ . G/AG/R/96  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.3  Review of Notifications  
1.4.  The Chairperson informed Members that since the previous meeting in July 2020 the 
Committee had received 86 notifications. These had been distributed electronically to all delegations  
and are available for consultation through the AG -IMS. 
1.3.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram  
1.5.  Table  2 of Annex  1 to this report includes the list of questions relating to individual notifications 
raised in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram.5 Members' responses and follow -up 
comments can be accessed through the hyperlinks contained in the table as wel l as through the 
AG-IMS using the relevant question ID numbers.   
1.3.2   Overdue notifications  
1.6.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat document summarizing the current status of 
Members' compliance with notification obligations.6 
1.7.  The Chairperson noted  Members'  efforts to bring their notifications up to date with several  
Members ha ving submitted agriculture notifications covering multiple years. For example , the 
Dominican Republic had recently submitted 19 notifications to clear all its outstanding regular 
notification obligations in the three agriculture pillars. Similarly, the Kyrgyz Republic and Nepal 
fulfilled their outstanding export subsidy notification obligations by reporting relevant information 
for 21 and 10 years, respectively.   
1.8.  The Chairperson also drew Members' attention to the overall situation with respect to 
outstanding domestic support and export subsidy notifications for  the period 1995 to 201 8: 
• 34% (8 62) Table DS:1 domestic support notifications  remained outstanding; and  
• 31% ( 882) export subsidy notifications in the ES:1 series remained outstanding.  
1.9.  Three questions were raised by Members under this agenda item.7 Members' responses and 
follow -up comments can be accessed directly via the hyperlinks in Table 3 of Annex 1 to this report 
or through the AG -IMS. 
1.10.  Emphasizing  the importance of transparency , the Chairperson  called for increased efforts by 
Members to fulfil their notification obligations.  
1.3.3   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
1.11.  The Committee took note of the 125 notifications circulated before  9 September  2020, 
including notifications carried over from the Ju ly 2020 meeting but in respect of which no questions 
had been raised under paragraph 9 of the Committee's working procedures.8 
1.3.4   Notifications circulated or made available after the issuance of the convening 
airgram  
1.12.  One notification was circulate d after the 9 September 2020 issuance of the convening 
airgram:  
• Mauritius  – Table DS:1  (2019) – G/AG/N/MUS/15 . 
 
5 WTO/AIR/AG/ 45, Attachment Section B. The full version of the questions raised can be found under 
section 2 of the compilation document G/AG/W/207.  
6 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev. 40. 
7 The full version of the questions raised can be found under section 3 of the question compilation 
document  G/AG/W/207.  
8 WTO/AIR/AG/ 45, Attachment  Section C. G/AG/R/96  
 
- 3 - 
 
  This notification would be reverted to for review during the next regular meeting, in accordance with 
the Committee's working procedures.  
1.3.5   Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: information regarding outcome where the issue involved is one of 
general interest  
1.13.  There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
1.3.6   Counter -notifications under Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture  
1.14.  No counter -notifications under Article 18.7 were made for this meeting.  
2  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE  
2.1  Developments in the field of Export Competition  
2.1.  The Chairperson reminded Members that the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export competition 
of 19 December 2015, stated in its paragraph 4, that the "Committee on Agriculture shall monitor 
the implementation of the Decision by Members in accordance with e xisting notification requirements 
under the Agreement on Agriculture  (AoA) , as complemented by the provisions set out in the Annex 
to this Decision".  The Chairperson also recalled that the current dedicated exercise was being 
undertaken at the September me eting, instead of in June as previously, on account of the 
12th Ministerial Conference initially scheduled on 8 -11 June 2020.9 
2.2.  The Secretariat had circulated on 20 July 2020 a revised background document 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.12  and its addenda. This was based o n replies to the export competition 
questionnaire circulated on 17 January 2020 and relevant notifications received by the Co A and the 
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises up to  14 July 2020, as well as information already 
contained in document G/AG/W/125/Rev.11 and its addenda . The document incorporate d the 
30 replies received by the Secretariat (with the European Union10 count ed as one) and recorded one 
additional reply compare d to 2019. The Chairperson urged Members who had not yet replied to the 
questionnaire to do so and  noted that any additional replies received by 16 October would be 
included in a revision11 of the background paper to conclude the 2020 exercise.  
2.3.  New Zealan d, on behalf of the Cairns Group, expressed concern over the response rate to the 
questionnaire and suggested addressing the challenges Members might be facing to provide timely 
responses. New Zealand noted that measures in the domain of export credit, STE s, export credit 
guarantee schemes and food aid required additional scrutiny, in order for those not to dilute 
Members' obligation to abolish export subsidies. It also recognized the efforts by Members to amend 
their schedules of commitments pursuant to th e Nairobi Decision and to phase out the use of 
agricultural export subsidies.   
2.4.  Canada introduced its room document12 dated  22 September  on agricultural exporting state 
trading enterprise s (STEs) updat ing the information on agricultural STEs contained in t he earlier 
joint submission in JOB/AG/170 . The new submission focused on the market power of select 
agricultural STE s by looking at their share of exports in global trade of the product in question. It 
specifically referred to the case of one STE whose glo bal market share in 2019 increased by 60% 
from the previous year. Canada invited Members to include recent data on STEs in their replies to 
the export competition questionnaire along with data on global trade of the relevant product(s).    
2.5.  The European Uni on (EU)  recalled its role prior to and at MC10 leading to the adoption of the 
2015 Ministerial Decision on Export Competition. The EU also referred to its gradual reduction of the 
use of export subsidies for more than 15 years prior to MC10 as a part of it s overall agricultural 
 
9 Paragraph 2.32 of G/AG/R/93 refers.  
10 The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union as of 1 February 2020. The European Union 
and the United Kingdom have communicated that, during the transition period, which ends on 
31 December  2020, European Union law, with a few limited exceptions, continues to be applicable to and in 
the United  Kingdom.  
11 G/AG/W/125/Rev.1 3 and its addenda refer.  
12 RD/AG/80 . G/AG/R/96  
 
- 4 - 
 
  reforms and to not granting any such subsidies since 2013 . The EU also expressed concerns over 
unsatisfactory implementation of the MC10 Decision, recording its disappointment that three 
Members ha d yet to submit revised draft schedule s incorporating the Decision.  The EU specifically 
referred to some developed Members who had increased export subsidies over the average levels in 
the agreed base period or had reverted to such export subsidies despite t he fact that some of those 
Members were proponents of export subsidy reforms and had submitted revised "nil" export subsidy 
schedules which were subsequently certified. The EU underlined that the modification of export 
subsidy schedules pursuant to the Nai robi Decision should mean that such subsidies were eliminated 
"not only de jure , but also de facto ". The EU also noted  that developing countries were obliged to 
eliminate export  subsidies by 2023  and discouraged them against the introduction of such subsid ies, 
and specifically invited India to revisit its policies on skim milk powder and sugar . The EU accorded 
importance to the Committee's annual dedicated process on export competition in facilitating 
transparency and also feeding into the negotiations in t he Special Session of the Committee in 
particularly on the unfinished agenda comprising export credits, STEs and Food Aid.  Referring to the 
poor response rate to the questionnaire, especially in the domains of export finance and STEs, the 
EU urged larger m arket players to furnish updated information. While acknowledging that some 
developing country Members had been providing the required information on a voluntary basis, the 
EU regretted the lack of transparency in respect of Article 9.4 export subsidies an d renewed its 
demand to include information on such subsidies in next year's questionnaire, if there were no 
objections from Members.   
2.6.  New Zealand echoed the EU's suggestion to include Article 9.4 subsidies in the questionnaire. 
In reaction to Canada's su bmission in RD/AG/80, New Zealand agreed that STEs could have 
distortionary effects on the market and welcomed discussions on the consistency of STEs with WTO 
obligations. New Zealand, however, questioned the quality of data on  kiwi fruit exports  and the 
assumption that market share of an STE was necessarily a reflection of trade distortion. New Zealand 
believed that the exclusion of intra-EU trade in deriving the global trade value had inflated its share 
in global trade. New Zealand  volunteered to work wit h Canada to address those inconsistencies 
Canada reiterated the need for more information on STEs in order to assess their impact on the 
global market and noted that special financing and monopoly powers were two important aspects to 
examine. As regards th e quality of data, Canada, echoed by the EU, noted that it was a general 
practice to exclude intra -EU trade in WTO documents.  
2.7.  Switzerland noted its commitment to engage on the export competition pillar in order to make 
progress on the unfinished agenda. Sw itzerland called for increased transparency and more stringent 
requirements towards the effective implementation of the Nairobi Decision. Switzerland noted the 
importance of the Export Competition Questionnaire and recalled that all Members would need to 
engage in the 2021 exercise.   
2.8.  The United States and Ukraine echoed other Members' comments on the importance of 
transparency in the export competition pillar and supported the call for enhanced transparency on 
the use of Article 9.4. Ukraine also supported  Canada's suggestion to include global trade data in 
replies to the annual export competition questionnaire.  
2.9.  There were  16 questions raised by Members for th e annual dedicated discussion on export 
competition . The full version of the questions raised can be accessed in Section 4  of document 
G/AG/W/207 . Members' responses and follow -up comments can be accessed through the hyperlinks 
included in Table 4 of Annex  1 to this report  or through the AG -IMS using the relevant question ID 
numbers .   
2.10.  Regarding the modification of schedules pursuant to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision , the 
Chairperson observed that there were no developments since the last meeting. The Chairperson 
noted that out of the 16 Members with export subsidy reduction commitments  at the time of adoption 
of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, 11 Members had their revised schedule certified, two Members, 
namely Canada and the European Union had circulated their draft schedule in 2017 but these were 
not yet certified, and three  Members , Brazil, Indonesia13 and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
were yet to circulate their draft schedules.  
 
13 Indonesia's draft schedule incorporating the Nairobi Export Competition Decision was subsequently 
circulated to all Members (G/MA/TAR/RS/619 dated 12 October 2020 refers).  G/AG/R/96  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.11.  Considering the possible timelines for the scheduling of the 12th Ministerial Conference during 
2021, the Chairperson proposed to hold the 2021  dedicated  discussion on export competition during 
the September 2021  meeting of the committee. Accordingly, the questionnaire initiating the 2021 
exercise will be circulated in January 2021. The Chairperson also reminded delegations that the 
second triennial review of the disciplines of the Export Competition Decision pursuant to paragraph  5 
of the Decision was scheduled to  take place in 2021  and encouraged Members to reflect on it.14  
2.2  COVID -19 and Agriculture  
2.12.  The issue of COVID -19 and agriculture was taken up  under a standing agenda item following 
Members' request at the June special meeting of the Committee. Members discussed ad hoc  reports15 
on their agricultural measures in response to COVID -19 and other submissions16 on this issue. The 
observer internation al intergovernmental organizations (IGO s) also participated in the discussions 
and made written contributions.17  
2.13.  The European Union noted that its latest addendum18 on COVID -19 measures provided an 
update  on the quantities of agro -products contracted under private storage and on measures under 
the Temporary Framework post 15 July based on the various national schemes of EU member States.  
2.14.  Israel's report19 covered measures as of 18 June 2020 on emergency regulations and various 
restrictions on commercial activities  to reduce the spread of the virus . Israel emphasized that 
agricultural production and related industry and services were considered as essential and hence 
excluded from those regulations. Services in farms, por ts of entry etc. continued to operate. Based 
on regular assessments of the availability of fresh agricultural produce, duty -free TRQs had been 
temporarily increased to import onions, cucumbers and eggs. Israel also reported on measures to 
facilitate import s by accepting scanned copies and e -certificates for certain products.  
2.15.  The United States noted that its report20 contained an illustrative list of  support measures to 
farmers, producers and processors during these unprecedented times.  
2.16.  Paraguay stated tha t its report21 was a follow -up to the two joint communications entitled 
respectively "Responding to the COVID -19 pandemic with Open and Predictable Trade in Agricultural 
and Food Products"22 and "COVID -19 Initiative: Protecting Global Food Security through  Open 
Trade".23 Paraguay informed Members that it had communicated the reported information to the 
Secretariat's trade monitoring exercise on COVID -19 goods measures and that the relevant 
measures would also be reported in its 2020 domestic support notific ation in accordance with the 
notification obligations under the AoA.   
2.17.   The report24 by El Salvador contained a non -exhaustive list of major actions taken in response 
to the pandemic as of 27 August 2020. El Salvador highlighted the value of such ad hoc  reports for 
a robust analysis of the current situation as well as for accessing global agricultural markets. 
Recalling the serious efforts it had invested in preparing the ad hoc  report, it e ncouraged other 
Members to follow suit . 
2.18.  Switzerland noted that its COVID -19 measures  aimed at stabilizing markets and securing 
supplies of agricultural products had been notified very early to the WTO online COVID -19 goods 
tracker . The ad hoc  report25 included additional measures on domestic support for certain sectors 
 
14 The first triennial review was conducted in 2018  (G/AG/28  refers).  
15 G/AG/GEN/159 ; G/AG/GEN/159/A dd.1; G/AG/GEN/159/A dd.2; G/AG/GEN/160 ; G/AG/GEN/161 ; 
G/AG/GEN/162 ; G/AG/GEN/16 3; G/AG/GEN/16 4; G/AG/GEN/16 5; G/AG/GEN/16 6; G/AG/GEN/167; and 
G/AG/GEN/167/R ev.1. 
16 WT/GC/208/Rev.2 - G/AG/30/Rev.2; WT/GC/218/Rev.1 - TN/AG/44/Rev.1 - G/AG/31/Rev.1; 
RD/AG/77  and RD/AG/79 . 
17 G/AG/GEN/168 , G/AG/GEN/16 9, G/AG/GEN/170 and G/AG/GEN/171.  
18 G/AG/GEN/159/A dd.2. 
19 G/AG/GEN/160 . 
20 G/AG/GEN/161 . 
21 G/AG/GEN/162 . 
22 G/AG/ 30/Rev.1.  
23 G/AG/31/Rev.1.  
24 G/AG/GEN/163 . 
25 G/AG/GEN/164 . G/AG/R/96  
 
- 6 - 
 
  and favourable import  access for selected products to ensure domestic supplies. The report also 
included information on support amounts. Switzerland e ncouraged other Members to contribute to 
transparency  and to make the best use of the WTO  Secretariat's COVI D-19 tracker which could 
additionally include domestic support measures.   
2.19.   Brazil noted that its written report26 compiled measures, which it had reported during the 
June special meeting, with brief descriptions of the measures along with the budgetary amo unts as 
appropriate. Brazil regretted the lack of details, including on monetary amounts, in some ad hoc  
reports. Brazil also emphasized that the provision of information to the Se cretariat COVID -19 tracker 
did not replace the need to fulfil agriculture notification obligations .  
2.20.  Canada's report27 included measures both at federal and provincial levels . Canada e ncouraged 
other Members to submit similar ad hoc  reports on COVID -19 policy responses in the agriculture 
sector.   
2.21.  Japan introduced it s ad hoc  report28 as a demonstration of its commitments to maintaining 
transparency during the COVID -19 pandemic.  
2.22.  Under other COVID -19 submissions, Canada referred to the Joint Statement on "Responding 
to the COVID -19 Pandemic with Open and Predictable Tr ade in Agricultural and Food Products"29, 
considered previously at the June special meeting, to remind Members about the importance of open 
and predictable  agriculture trade during the pandemic. Canada specifically highlighted the 
commitment of co -signator ies to not impose export restrictions and to ensure that measures in 
response to the pandemic were targeted, proportionate, transparent and temporary.  
2.23.  Australia referred to its earlier joint Communication30 "COVID -19 Initiative: Protecting Global 
Food Sec urity Through Open Trade " and considered it important for the C ommittee to follow -up on 
the impact of COVID -19 in the agriculture sector in order to have a clear picture of Members' 
COVID -19 support measures. Australia encouraged Members to be forthcoming with their ad hoc  
reports on COVID -19 measures while underlining that such reports did not replace Members' regular 
notification obligations. Australia pointed to the deficiencies in the existing WTO notification system 
and considered that some adjustments  were required in the existing transparency structures to 
ensure the required transparency during emergencies such as COVID -19. Australia added that the 
room document31 on "Transparency of COVID -19 related Agricultural Support Measures" was 
intended to ini tiate a conversation on those matters.  
2.24.  Australia proposed that the Secretariat maintain a separate COVID -19 agriculture tracker or 
enable  the existing goods tracker to clearly identify  agricultural measures . Australia also proposed 
that the measures listed in Members' ad hoc  reports be reflected in the tracker.  
2.25.  Canada suggested that the Secretariat compil e measures in Members' ad hoc  reports  and 
organize them by different areas or pillars. Further, COVID -19 agricultural measures from sources 
other than the official WTO submissions may be subject to verification by the concerned Members.  
2.26.  Paraguay requested the Secretariat to make a presentation on COVID -19 agricultural 
measures to the CoA similar to the presentation delivered by the Secretariat in the Committee on 
Market Access.  
2.27.  New Zealand reiterated its commitment to transparency and re ferred to the various 
multilateral and plurilateral statements which it had co -sponsored. New Zealand acknowledged that 
formal notifications took time and resources , hence ad hoc  reports were particularly useful though 
they did not substitute to formal not ification obligations. New Zealand also supported Canada and 
Australia's requests for the Secretariat to maintain a COVID -19 agriculture tracker.  
 
26 G/AG/GEN/165 . 
27 G/AG/GEN/167/Rev.1 . 
28 G/AG/GEN/166 . 
29 WT/GC/208/Rev.2 - G/AG/30/Rev.2 . 
30 WT/GC/218/Rev.1 - G/AG/31/Rev.1 - TN/AG/44/Rev.1 . 
31 RD/AG/77 . G/AG/R/96  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.28.  Brazil noted that a lot of ad hoc  measures were not reflected in the Secretariat goods tracker 
and that the t racker appeared to specifically target some measures such as export restrictions. It 
suggested that the tracker cover all measures and include filters to sort results by AoA areas or 
pillars.  
2.29.  Uruguay echoed previous statements regarding the Secretariat tr acker and seconded 
Paraguay's request for a presentation by the Secretariat.  
2.30.  The United States noted that the Secretariat tracker should not include measures or analysis 
beyond Members' reports. The United States emphasized the critical need for timely an d accurate 
notifications and encouraged Members to improve on their compliance with notification commitments 
under the AoA.  
2.31.  India highlighted its record on compliance with notification obligations and pointed that some 
Members pressing for enhanced transp arency in the current discussions had not done better. India 
welcomed technical support from the Secretariat but agreed with the United States that transparency 
processes had to remain Member -driven. India noted that tracking COVID -19 measures was 
importan t, but that it alone could not address food security problems during and after the pandemic. 
India was of the view that in the long term, operational rules needed to be put in place to ensure 
the food security of the most vulnerable. That could be done by addressing the historic asymmetries 
in the AoA and delivering on the longstanding Ministerial mandate to ensure an accessible and 
adequate permanent solution to developing Members' on public stockholding programmes for food 
security purposes.  
2.32.  Brazil introd uced its concept paper32 on "Food Security, Agriculture Trade and Stability of 
Agricultural Markets in the Long term". Brazil noted that the paper had been prepared for reflection 
within the Ottawa Group on the back of the " June 2020 Statement of the Ottaw a Group: Focusing 
Action on COVID -19".33 The paper contained some questions on the impact of the pandemic on food 
security and agriculture markets. Brazil also noted that the concept paper had already been 
circulated for discussion within the Ottawa Group in July 2020 and was being shared with the regular 
and special sessions of the Committee in the interest of transparency. The paper did not, however, 
represent the Group's common negotiating position in agriculture.  
2.33.  Mexico noted that it had maintained dur ing the pandemic support programmes on rural 
development and those related to the conservation and restoration of water infrastructure. The 
existing programmes dealing with the distribution of plants and inputs for agroforests projects would 
be broadened t o benefit more farmers. Mexico also recalled its efforts in the food production chain 
to ensure that provision and distribution of food was not disrupted. Special attention was given to 
key areas such as grains, horticulture, livestock and fishing. Mexico had also broadened its 
digitalization services to increase imports and exports of food and inputs for processing. Mexico 
noted that up to 60% of the administrative procedures for imports and exports, had been handled 
remotely. Mexico also highlighted its r einforced sanitary measures in the food production industry 
and its regional cooperation activities with neighbouring countries during the pandemic. Mexico 
urged all Members to share details of their COVID -19 related agricultural policies.  
2.34.  Chile supported  the joint submission in RD/AG/7 7 and also echoed comments on transparency  
of COVID -19 measures, the need for Members to abide by their notification obligations, and the key 
role of the WTO Secretariat in identifying and compiling Members' C OVID -19 measure s.  
2.35.  The European Union expressed concerns that only eight Members had submitted ad hoc  
reports on their COVID -19 agricultural measures with only three of them containing figures on 
budgeted amounts of support. The Member who had announced the biggest amoun t of support for 
its farmers in tens of billions of dollars had not included figures in its ad hoc  report. Regarding 
requests to the Secretariat on facilitating the transparency of COVID -19 measures, the EU 
considered the proposed tasks to be unrealistic i n the absence of Members' inputs. The EU also 
specifically referred to Members' lack of notifications in the area of export restrictions citing the 
discrepancy in the number of WTO notifications and the number of such measures in media reports 
or in the li st maintained by other international organizations. The EU strongly urged Members to 
enhance transparency of their COVID -19 measures, especially in terms of monetary spending, 
 
32 RD/AG/79 . 
33 WT/GC/217.  G/AG/R/96  
 
- 8 - 
 
  towards fruitful discussions in the Committee. On the overall impact of the pand emic in the 
agriculture sector, the EU considered the declining demand and recessionary trends in world output 
to be more consequential for farmers and people's access to food than the global food supply.  
2.36.  The Secretariat informed the Committee that in resp onse to Members' requests to facilitate 
identification of COVID -19 measures targeting agricultural products, a separate column on 
Harmonized System (HS) commodity codes had been added to the Secretariat's tabular listing of 
COVID -19 goods measures.34 The S ecretariat also expressed its willingness to prepare a 
compilation35 of Members' COVID -19 ad hoc  reports in consultation with the concerned Members.  
2.37.  Australia thanked the Secretariat for adding the HS codes in its COVID -19 goods tracker. As 
many measures were broad and covered multiple categories of products, Australia voiced its 
preference for a separate tracker for agriculture -related measures. Australia also encouraged some 
level of coherence in the presentation or format of Members' ad hoc  reports to facilitate comparability 
across Members.   
2.38.  The observer International Organizations (IGOs) also contributed to discussions under this 
agenda item. The OECD  in its presentation referred to its two publications namely the Agricultural 
Policy Moni toring and Evaluation 2020 and the OECD -FAO Agricultural Outlook 2020 and the 
COVID -19 specific analysis contained therein. The OECD also called the Committee's attention to its 
analytical work, various policy briefs, monitoring work within the framework o f Agricultural Market 
Information System (AMIS)  and the cost benefit analysis of global value chains within the overall 
context and background of the COVID -19 pandemic.36     
2.39.  The FAO presented its assessment of the state of the food and agriculture systems  during 
COVID -19 along with the global demand -supply situation in respect of select food sectors. The FAO 
also informed Members about its efforts to provide evidence -based policy recommendations and 
suggested best practices to national governments to help them deal with the pandemic.37  
2.40.  The WFP sensitized Members about the serious impact of the COVID -19 pandemic on global 
food security and nutrition especially in low - and middle -income countries. The WFP also informed 
Members about its efforts on the ground  in assisting national governments across three main pillars, 
namely, social protection systems, basic service delivery, and food systems. The WFP also called 
upon all partners including the private sector, to join forces to ensure nutrition and affordable  food 
for all.38  
2.41.  The Inter -American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture  (IICA) informed Members about 
its activities to support its member countries with analysis and monitoring  of the impact of the 
COVID -19 pandemic on food security, agriculture and  food systems. IICA also highlighted its various 
actions taken at regional, hemispheric and international levels, including m echanisms to foster 
dialogue and inter -agency and cross -sector coordination .39   
2.42.  Singapore highlighted the increasing number of hun gry people across the world especially in 
Latin America and Africa and urged Members to ensure that the funding and logistical operations of 
the WFP were not disrupted; this included avoiding trade -restrictive measures on WFP's 
humanitarian purchases.  
2.43.  Brazil sought more clarity on the impact of Members' export restrictions on the activities of 
the WFP.  
2.44.  China noted that as the largest food importer, it supported open and stable trade. 
Emphasizing the need for  food security, China encouraged Members to addr ess the issue of public 
stockholding.  
 
34 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/trade_related_goods_measure_public_e.xlsx . 
35 The compilation was subsequently circulated in G/AG/W/209.  
36 Please refer to OECD's written submission in G/AG/GEN/168 .  
37 Please refer to FAO's written submission in G/AG/GEN/16 9. 
38 Please refer to WFP's written submission in G/AG/GEN/1 70. 
39 Please refer to IICA's written submission in G/AG/GEN/1 71. G/AG/R/96  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.45.  Japan touched upon the importance of the WFP efforts in ensuring access to food and echoed 
the IGO statement. Japan attached special importance to functioning trade flows and underlined that 
export restrictions would cause artificial food shortages. Japan also supported the call for the private 
sector cooperation to support WFP's endeavours.   
2.3  WTO List of NFIDCs  
2.46.  Pursuant to p aragraph 1 .b of the Decision of the Committee relating to the establishment of 
the list of WTO net food -importing developing countries (NFIDC s) in G/AG/3 , the Committee carried 
out its annual review of the list at this meeting.40 The Committee received a request from Samoa 
for inclusion in the list of NFIDCs .  
2.47.  Samoa noted its dependence on imports for access to food staples, including rice, wheat flour, 
milk and sugar, in the absence of local capacity for production. Twenty -seven per cent (27%) of 
Samoa's total merchandise imports comprised food items. Samoa also outlined other vulnerabilities, 
related to external shocks, remoteness, price volatility and natural disasters, which would be further 
exacerbated by the COVID -19 pandemic.  
2.48.  Samoa attach ed importance to functioning international agricultural supply chains and urged 
against the application of export restrictions. Samoa urged the Committee to accept its request in 
order to enable it to benefit from the various action mechanisms that the Marrakesh Decision 
establishes including in the domain of international food aid . It also informed the Committee that 
the relevant statistical data substantiating its request had been made available to the Secretariat 
for Members' consultation.  
2.49.  The Pacific G roup and the ACP Group voiced their support for Samoa to be added to the list 
of NFIDCs.  
2.50.  The Committee agreed to the request for the inclusion of Samoa in the WTO list of NFIDCs.41  
2.4  Implementation of Ministerial outcomes: Review of the Bali Ministerial Decision on 
TRQ administration, including Chair report of the informal meeting  
2.4.1   Review of the Bali Ministerial Decision on TRQ administration, including Chair report 
of the informal meeting  
2.51.  The issue was considered at the informal meeting of 21 September 2020 . The Secretariat had 
circulated  a background note42 on tariff quota administration and fill rates and a draft Secretariat 
Tracking Register to record matters raised under the underfill mechanism.  Under this agenda item 
at the formal meeting, the Chairpers on provided an oral report on the discussions during the informal 
meeting, which is contained in Annex 2 to this report.  
2.4.2   Implementation of other Ministerial Outcomes  
2.52.  No Member intervened under this agenda item.   
2.5  Chair Report on remaining issues from the informal meeting  
2.53.  During the informal meeting o f 21 September , the Committee continued its deliberations on 
possible elements to enhance transparency and the Committee's review process . Under this agenda 
item at the formal meeting , the Chairperson  provided an oral report on the discussions during the 
informal meeting, which is contained in Annex 3 to this report.  
 
40 For logistical reasons, the review of the NFIDC list, normally undertaken during the March meetings of 
the Committee, was undertaken at the September 2020 meeting.  
41 The revised NFIDC list, inclusive of Samoa, was circulated in G/AG/5/Rev.11 dated 
24 September  2020.  
42 G/AG/W/183/Rev.1  and addenda.  G/AG/R/96  
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.6  IMPLEMENTATION RELATED ISSUES (G/AG/16, G/AG/16/A dd.1, G/AG/22)  
2.54.  No intervention  was made under this agenda item.   
2.7  Date of next regular meetings  
2.55.  The Chairperson proposed that the ninety -sixth (96th) regular meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture be held on 30 November -1 December  2020. On th at basis, the airgram convening the 
meeting would be issued on 1 9 November  2020. The meeting would be followed by a virtual 
agriculture symposium entitled "Agricultural Trade and Food System Transformation " to be held on 
2-3 December 2020.  
 
_______________  
 G/AG/R/96  
 
- 11 - 
 
  ANNEX  1 
This Annex includes the full list of questions raised under the various agenda items of the 
September  2020 Committee meeting. Members' responses and follow -up exchanges  (if applicable) 
can be accessed through the  AG-IMS ( http://agims.wto.org/ ) by selecting the func tion "Search Q&A 
Submitted Since 1995 " and inputting the ID  number of the question concerned. Question IDs where 
replies were yet to be submitted to the AG -IMS as of 18 December  2020 have been identified with 
the symbol " *". Members are invited to submit o utstanding replies through the AG -IMS at the earliest 
opportunity.  
Table 1: Specific Implementation Matters ( Article 18. 6)  
Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID Number  
Australia's  International Freight Assistance Mechanism  Canada   95041  
Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism   Canada   95042  
Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism   India  95008  
Brazil's wheat quota  India  95010  
Brazil's subsidized loans  India  95009  
Canada's new milk ingredient class  United States   95146  
Canada's new milk ingredient class  United States   95005  
Canada's new milk ingredient class  United States   95006  
Canada's TRQ consultation process  New Zealand   95043  
Canada - Farm Credit Canada  India  95011  
China - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  Australia   95044  
China - measures adopted at the border  to avoid the transmission 
of COVID -19 Australia  95045 * 
China's agricultural exports by state -owned enterprises  United States   95023 * 
China's agricultural exports by state -owned enterprises  United States   95024  
China's agricultural exports by state -owned enterprises  United States   95025  
EU's intervention policy  United States   95026  
EU's intervention policy  United States   95027  
EU's intervention policy  United States   95028  
EU's intervention policy  United States   95029  
EU's environmental policies  Colombia   95116  
EU's environmental policies  Paraguay   95097  
EU's environmental policies  Paraguay   95098 * 
EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 Australia   95046  
EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 Australia   95047  
European Union - EU-US tariff reduction agreement  China   95048  
EU - national state aid programmes in response to COVID -19  New Zealand   95049  
EU- France and Italy's  support for the wine sector  New Zealand   95050  
EU's variable import levies for cereals  Brazil   95001  
India's pulses policies  Australia   95052  
India's sugar policies  Australia   95053  
India's pulses policies  Canada   95056  G/AG/R/96  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID Number  
India's pulses policies  Russian Federation   95057  
India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  Australia   95051  
India- Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development Fund  Australia   95054  
India - Agriculture Infrastructure Fund   Australia  95055 * 
India - Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported 
Products   United States   95033  
India's DS:1 notification  United States   95030  
India's DS:1 notification  United States   95031  
India's DS:1 notification   United States  95032 * 
Indonesia - import permission for rice  Japan  95058 * 
Japan's support package  Australia   95059  
Mongolia's quota regime for importation   Russian Federation   95060  
Nepal's import ban  United States   95034  
New Zealand's International Air  Freight Capacity Scheme  Canada   95061  
Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  Australia  95064 * 
Nigeria - Foreign currency exchange restrictions for dairy and corn 
imports  United Stat es   95035  
Nigeria's DS notifications  Australia   95062  
Norway's proposed changes to its goods schedule XIV  New Zealand   95065  
Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports 
(Resolution  #1104)  United States  95068 * 
Russia's export subsidies  United States  95036 * 
Russia's export subsidies  United States  95037 * 
Russian Federation's export quota  India 95012 * 
Russia's import restrictions in response to COVID -19 Australia  95066 * 
Russia – Permanent export quota for cereals  European Union  95067 * 
Russian Federation's grain subsidy programme  United States  95040 * 
Thailand's sugar support   Australia   95069  
Turkey - Turkish Grain Board (TMO)  United States   95038  
Turkey's applied tariffs  Japan   95070  
Turkey - Inward Processing Regime Verification  United States   95039  
UK's border control during the Brexit transition period  Brazil   95002  
United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  Australia   95071  
US Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  India  95014  
US Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  New Zealand   95074  
United States - EU-US tariff reduction agreement  China   95073  
US DS:1 notifications   New Zealand   95075  
US direct payments to farmers  Canada   95072  
US domestic support polices  India  95015  
 
  G/AG/R/96  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Table  2: Questions raised in connection with individual notifications   
Document 
symbol  Question 
by Answer 
by Notification Format  Keywords  Question 
ID 
G/AG/N/AUS/135  China  Australia  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Transparency issues   95076  
G/AG/N/DOM/36  Australia  Dominican 
Republic  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  95077 * 
G/AG/N/JPN/253  China  Japan  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill   95078  
G/AG/N/EU/62  Brazil  European 
Union  MA:5 - Annual 
summary of SSG 
action  Link with TRQ 
commitments   95003  
G/AG/N/AUS/129  India Australia  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95016  
G/AG/N/AUS/129  India Australia  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  General services: 
research   95019  
G/AG/N/DOM/43  Australia  Dominican 
Republic  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  95079 * 
G/AG/N/EU/61  Colombia  European 
Union  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Classification of 
measures   95117  
G/AG/N/EU/61  Paraguay  European 
Union  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Classification of 
measures   95099  
G/AG/N/GEO/23  Australia  Georgia  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct payments: 
structural adjustment 
assistance provided 
through investment 
aids 95080 * 
G/AG/N/GEO/23  Canada  Georgia  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct payments: 
structural adjustment 
assistance provided 
through inve stment 
aids 95081 * 
G/AG/N/IND/18  Canada  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95082  
G/AG/N/IND/18  European 
Union  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95085  
G/AG/N/IND/18  United 
States  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95086  
G/AG/N/IND/18  United 
States  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95087  
G/AG/N /IND/18  United 
States  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95088  
G/AG/N/IND/18  United 
States  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95089  
G/AG/N/IND/18  United 
States  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95090  
G/AG/N/IND/18  United 
States  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Public stockholding 
for food security 
purposes   95091  
G/AG/N/IND/18  Canada  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct payments: 
decoupled income 
support   95084  
G/AG/N/IND/18  Paraguay  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Input subsidies 
available to low -
income or resource -
poor producers   95100  G/AG/R/96  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Document 
symbol  Question 
by Answer 
by Notification Format  Keywords  Question 
ID 
G/AG/N/IND/18  Paraguay  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Market price support   95101  
G/AG/N/IND/18  United 
States  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Market price support   95092  
G/AG/N/IND/18  Canada  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Classification of 
measures   95083  
G/AG/N/JPN/254  Brazil  Japan  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95004  
G/AG/N/JPN/254  China  Japan  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95093  
G/AG/N/JPN/254  Paraguay  Japan  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95102  
G/AG/N/PAN/54  Australia  Panama  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Scheduled 
commitment level  95094 * 
G/AG/N/RUS/29  Australia  Russian 
Federation  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  95095 * 
G/AG/N/RUS/29  European 
Union  Russian 
Federation  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  95103 * 
G/AG/N/RUS/29  United 
States  Russian 
Federation  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Market price support  95105 * 
G/AG/N/RUS/29  United 
States  Russian 
Federation  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  95106 * 
G/AG/N/RUS/29  Australia  Russian 
Federation  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Non-product -specific 
AMS 95096 * 
G/AG/N/TUR/36  Paraguay  Turkey  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95104  
G/AG/N/USA/123  Paraguay  United 
States  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95107  
G/AG/N/USA/135  India United 
States  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95013  
G/AG/N/USA/135  Canada  United 
States  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  General services: 
other   95108  
G/AG/N/USA/135  Canada  United 
States  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS   95109  
G/AG/N/USA/135  Canada  United 
States  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS   95110  
G/AG/N/USA/135  New 
Zealand  United 
States  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS   95111  
G/AG/N/AUS/130  India Australia  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95018  
G/AG/N/AUS/130  India Australia  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95020  
G/AG/N/NZL/118  India New 
Zealand  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)   95022  G/AG/R/96  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Document 
symbol  Question 
by Answer 
by Notification Format  Keywords  Question 
ID 
G/AG/N/AUS/127  India Australia  ES:2 - Total exports  Quantity of total 
exports   95021  
G/AG/N/KGZ/8  United 
States  Kyrgyz 
Republic  ER:1 - Export 
restrictions  Transparency issues   95112  
G/AG/N/VNM/13  Japan  Viet Nam  ER:1 - Export 
restrictions  Timely notification  95113* 
Table  3: Questions raised under agenda item "Overdue notifications"  
Question by  Answer by  ID Number  
 India  Australia  95017  
 Canada   Turkey  95114  
 Canada   Turkey  95115  
Table  4: Questions raised in connection with the monitoring of the Export Competition 
Decision  
Question by  Answer by  ID Number  
 United States  Argentina  95118  
 European Union  Australia  95119  
 United States  Australia  95120  
 European Union  Brazil  95121  
 European Union  China  95122  
 United States  China  95123  
 United States  China  95124  
 United States  China  95125  
 European Union  Colombia   95126 * 
 United States  European Union  95127  
 United States  European Union  95128  
 United States  European Union  95129  
 United States  European Union  95130  
 United States  European Union  95131  
 European Union  India 95132  
 European Union  Indonesia   95133 * 
 United States  Israel  95007  
 European Union  New Zealand  95134  
 United States  Norway  95135  
 United States  Pakistan  95136  
 European Union  Russian Federation   95137 * 
 United States  Russian Federation   95138 * 
 United States  Thailand  95139  
 United States  Thailand  95140  
 China  United States  95141  
 European Union  United States  95142  
 European Union  Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  95063  G/AG/R/96  
 
- 16 - 
 
  ANNEX  2 
CHAIR REPORT ON THE INFORMAL COA MEETING  OF 21 SEPTEMBER 2020  
BALI DECISION ON TRQ ADMINISTRATION ( AGENDA ITEM 2D(i)) 
The Committee considered the issue of the follow -up to the Bali TRQ Decision at its informal meeting 
on 21 September. This was the first informa l meeting of the Committee to discuss the issue after 
the adoption of the report of the Review and the associated recommendations as contained in 
G/AG/29.  
Several Members noted the importance of the recommendations agreed upon during the review 
discussion s and their role in facilitating enhanced transparency and the need for a robust follow -up. 
One Member regretted the lack of agreement on the issue of the future operation of paragraph 4 of 
the underfill mechanism and the resulting deferment of the deadlin e for a decision, while some other 
Members recalled that the S&D provisions are an integral part of the Bali decision. Another Member 
urged for pragmatic positions to safeguard the slim progress that Members managed to achieve in 
the market access negotiat ions in 2013 at Bali and to avoid a fragmented system of rights and 
obligations which any disagreement could potentially engender.  
While Members noted their appreciation for the enhanced efforts and attention on transparency of 
fill rates, concern was exp ressed regarding declining fill rates. Some specific suggestions were made 
to delve deeper into TRQ administration arrangements and to assess the implementation of specific 
provisions of the Bali TRQ Decision. One Member referred to the regulatory changes it had introduced 
to its domestic tariff quota arrangements in response to the Bali TRQ Decision and called for a review 
of similar initiatives from other Members.  
The Secretariat presented its recent background paper on TRQ administration in document 
G/AG/W/183/Rev.1. The Secretariat noted that the revised paper included some additional elements 
reflecting the agreed recommendations of the Review. These included a separate attachment on 
tariff quotas where the fill rate remained below 65% as well as a det ailed review of Members' 
notification practices in cases where a scheduled tariff quota was not opened. The Secretariat also 
explained how the new On -line Notification System had assisted the identification of unopened tariff 
quotas in Members' Tables MA:1  and MA:2 notifications, while also acknowledging the differing 
notification practices in respect of such tariff quotas especially in Table MA:2 notifications. The 
Secretariat also shared with Members a draft of the Tracking Register to record matters rais ed under 
the Underfill Mechanism.  
Several Members welcomed the Secretariat background paper, particularly the inclusion of additional 
elements reflecting the agreed recommendations. In respect of tariff quotas where fill rate was below 
65%, a suggestion w as made for an automatic tracking of such quotas and also for the relevant 
Members to explain the reasons for underfill in their notifications. It was also suggested to include 
information on bound, applied and in -quota tariffs in Table MA:2 notifications.  While one Member 
suggested abolishing scheduled tariff quotas which no longer offered a tariff advantage noting they 
unnecessarily required a bureaucratic monitoring effort, another Member disagreed citing linkages 
of such tariff quotas with the SSG and m arket access negotiations.  
Several Members welcomed the draft tracking register prepared by the Secretariat, noting their 
readiness to have the Secretariat finalize it based on the draft circulated in advance of the meeting. 
It was also noted that the tra cking register would be operational once the underfill mechanism was 
invoked. A specific suggestion was made to (1) split the column on "TRQ of concern" in the current 
draft into two separate sub -columns on "TQ ID#" and "product description and tariff item  numbers", 
and (2) add a column to include information on in -quota and out -of-quota tariffs for the concerned 
TRQ. Some Members emphasized the importance of the S&D provision in the underfill mechanism 
and sought additional time to examine the Secretariat draft. One Member suggested to examine 
why the underfill mechanism had not yet been invoked and whether the mechanism maintained an 
appropriate balance between the interests of exporters and importers. I urged Members to examine 
the draft tracking register  and invited the submission of definitive comments by the November CoA 
meeting.  
In concluding the discussions, I noted that the issue will be considered further at the next informal 
meeting in November.G/AG/R/96  
 
- 17 - 
 
  ANNEX 3  
CHAIR REPORT ON THE INFORMAL  COA MEETING  OF 21 SEPTEMBER 2020  
"ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY AND THE COA REVIEW PROCESS " (AGENDA ITEM 2E)  
At the informal meeting on 21 September, the Committee continued its deliberations on possible 
elements to enhance transparency and the Committee's revie w process, a topic already taken up in 
a number of informal meetings. I recalled some of the key issues that had been highlighted during 
those discussions which included concerns expressed by some Members regarding outstanding 
notifications in some areas a nd the lack of timely responses to questions raised in the context of the 
Committee's review Process. I also referred to the work undertaken by the Secretariat to address 
some of those concerns, including launch of the new online notification submission sy stem and the 
activation of the Q&A process for an upcoming meeting immediately following the end of the 
preceding Committee meeting.   
I also noted that in response to requests from Members to explore further improvements to the 
conduct of the Review Proce ss, the Secretariat introduced in July this year, new features to the 
Question and Answer function of the AG IMS aimed at facilitating the submission and tracking of 
Questions and Answers. The Secretariat provided an overview of the new features which, inter alia , 
include the following:  
• Users now have the possibility to link follow -up questions to matters raised previously under 
Article 18.6;  
• Users are now able to identify repeated questions. By indicating the relevant question ID 
number, the system will automatically reproduce the content of the question;  
• Responding Members can update previously submitted responses. In such cases, the 
questioning Member will be notified;   
• The system now provides for the easy identification of outstanding responses;  
• The system includes additional elements under rich text and the possibility to attach graphics 
and pictures in questions and responses;  
• The new system also contains enhanced new features for the Secretariat to assist in the 
preparation of the compilation of questions ; 
• A compilation of questions and answers may now be generated directly through the System 
covering up to date responses as on the date of download ; 
• Finally, the system will automatically generate reminders to Members with outstanding 
responses.  
Members expressed appreciation for the work of the Secretariat to facilitate the work of the 
Committee.    
During the discussions, some Members suggested an additional feature in the Q&A function to allow 
Members to signal interest in specific q uestions raised under the review process. In relation to the 
AG IMS, one Member noted that some technical aspects could be improved in the analytical part of 
the system to include, for instance, the possibility to compare policies between different Members .   
One Member welcomed the submission of early responses by Members and suggested that those 
responses be furnished early enough to enable submission of follow -up questions. One Member 
suggested that the Secretariat send reminders to those Members who had  committed during 
meetings, to send responses at a later time.  
In the area of notifications, one Member noted the low number of notifications in some areas and 
suggested that the Committee explore ways to improve Members' notification practices, including  
focusing on specific notification requirements, such as export subsidy notifications.  
I concluded the meeting by nothing that the Committee will continue its engagement on these 
matters in subsequent informal meetings.  
This concludes my report.   
_______ ___ 