 RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/93  
 
29 November 2019 
(19-8211) Page: 1/16 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF TH E MEETING HELD ON 30 -31 OCTOBER 2019  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Committee on Agriculture held its ninety -second  (92nd) regular meeting on  30-31 October  2019 
under the Chairmanship of Ms. Christiane Daleiden Distefano of Luxemburg . 
 
The agenda contained in the convening airgram WTO/AIR/AG/40 circulated on 18 October 2019  was 
adopted with the following modifications  under Part 1.B: The Review Process, matters  relevant to 
the implementation of Commitments under the reform programme raised under Article  18.6 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture : 
• Australia co -sponsored questions raised by New Zealand and the U nited States of Americ a 
regarding Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  (AG-IMS ID 92077);  
• Australia co -sponsored questions raised by New Zealand and the U nited States of America  
regarding Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class (AG -IMS ID 92078);  
• Australia co -sponsored questions raised by New Zealand and the U nited States of America  
regarding EU's intervention policy (AG-IMS ID 92080 and 92006) ; and  
• The European Union requested to make a statement regarding  the EU -28 draft 
Schedule  CLXXV . 
1  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
1.1  Outst anding responses to questions raised, 2013 -2018  
1.1.  The Chairperson stressed the importance of timely responses to questions raised in the 
Committee's review process. The Chairperson noted the Secretariat's document G/AG/W/195/Rev.2 
distributed on 17 October that contain ed details of outstanding responses under the CoA review 
process from 2012 to 2018. Responses to a  total of 55 questions raised between 2012 -2017 and 
39 questions raised in  2018 remain ed outstanding . While there ha d been reduction in the number 
of outstanding responses, the Chairperson urged Members to continue their efforts to reduce  
outstanding responses.  
1.2  Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the reform 
programme: Article 18.6  
1.2.  There were  42 specific implementation  matters  (SIMs) raised  at the 92nd CoA meeting under 
Article 18.6, including a statement from the European Union regarding the EU -28 draft 
Schedule  CLXXV .2 Members' responses and follow -up comments are available in the Agriculture 
Information Management System (AG -IMS)3 and may be consulted there using the relevant question 
ID numbers  as provided in Table 1 of the Annex to this report.  
                                                
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 WTO/AIR/AG/ 40, Attachment Section A. The full version of the questions rais ed can be found under 
section 1 of the compilation document G/AG/W/202.  
3 http://agims.wto.org/ . G/AG/R/93  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.3  Review of Notifications  
1.3.  The Chairperson informed Members that since the June  2019 meeting the Committe e had 
received 150 notifications . These had been distributed electronically to all delegations.  
1.3.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram  
1.4.  Table  2 of the Annex to this report  includes the list of  questions relating to individual 
notifications raised in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram .4 Members' responses and 
follow -up comments  can be accessed through the AG -IMS.  
1.3.2   Overdue notifications  
1.5.  The Committee took note of the document summarizing the current status of Members' 
compliance with notification obligations.5 
1.6.  The Chairperson recognized Members ' efforts  to bring their notifications up to date  noting that 
a number of Members ha d submitted agriculture notific ations covering multiple years . For example;  
Afghanistan had notified Table ES:1 notifications covering 2016 -2018, Argentina provided  
Table  DS:1 notifications covering 2014 -2016, the Republic of Korea and the Philippines provided  
Table  ES:1 and Table ES:2 respectively for 2014 -2017. Further , Lesotho notified Table  ES:1 
notifications covering the period 2013 -2018, Myanmar notified Table  ES:1 covering the 
period  2005-2014 and Oman provided  Table DS:1 f or the years  2014-2018. The Plurinational  State 
of Bolivia had submitted  Table  DS:1 notification s covering the years 2006 -2018.  
1.7.  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 2017:  
• 34% (811) Table DS:1 domestic support notifications remained outstanding; and  
• 31% (859 ) export subsidy notifi cations in the ES:1 series remained outstanding.  
1.8.  Members had posed questions to six Members under this item .6 Members' responses and 
follow-up comments can be accessed through the AG -IMS (See  Table  3 of the Annex to this report) . 
1.9.  The Chairperson  highlighted  the importance of transparency and call ed for increased efforts by 
Members to catch up  with their notification obligations. The Chairperson  also highlighted the various  
databases maintained by the Secretariat that could  help Members  manage informati on and facilitate 
the work of the Committee . 
1.3.3   Notifications subject to review in respect of which no quest ions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
1.10.   The Committee took note of the 92 notifications circulated before 18 October 2019, including 
notifications carried over from the June 2019 meeting but  in respect of which no question s had been 
raised by that date under the Committee's working procedures.7 
                                                
4 WTO/AIR/AG/ 40, Attachment Section B. The full version of the questions raised can be found under 
section 2 of the compilation document G/AG/W/202.  
5 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.3 6. 
6 The full version of the questions raised can be found under section 3 of the compilation 
document  G/AG/W/202.  
7 WTO/AIR/AG/ 40, Attachment Section C. G/AG/R/93  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.3.4   Notifications circulated or made available after the issuance of the convening 
airgram  
1.11.   Twenty -four notifications had been circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram 
on 18 October  2019:  
• Plurinational State of Bolivia  - Table DS:1 – G/AG/N/BOL/14 to G/AG/N/BOL/26  
(2006 -2018)  and Table ES:1 - G/AG/N/BOL/12 (2017) and G/AG/N/BOL/13 (2018) ; 
• Cameroon  - Table DS:1 – G/AG/N/CMR/11 (2018)  and Table ES:1 – 
G/AG/N/CMR/12  (2018) ; 
• Chile - Table DS:1 - G/AG/N/CHL/55/C orr.1 (2016)  and G/AG/N/CHL/56/C orr.1 (2017) ; 
• Colombia - Table DS:1  - G/AG/N/COL/69 (2016) ; 
• Costa Rica - Table DS:1 G/AG/N/CRI/73 (2018) ; 
• Cuba - Table DS:1 – G/AG/N/CUB/62/Corr.1 (2018) ; and 
• Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela - Table MA:2 – G/AG/N/VEN/29 (2016) and  
G/AG/N/VEN/30 (2017) . 
1.12.   These notifications would be reverted to for substantive 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 fo r the floor under this agenda item.  
1.3.6   Counter -notification s under Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture  
1.14.   No counter -notifications under Article 18.7 were made for this Committee meeting.  
2  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN  THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE  
2.1  Annual monitor ing exercise on the follow -up to the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision under 
Article 16.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture  
2.1.  Article 16.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture mandate s the Committee on Agriculture to 
monitor, as appropriate, the follow -up to the Marrakesh M inisterial Decision on Measures Concerning 
the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least -developed and net food -importing 
developing countries (the NFIDC Decision) . The Chairperson recalled that pursuant to paragraph  18 
of its working proc edures (G/AG/1), the Committee undertakes the annual monitoring exercise  
based on two main sources of information , namely actions by donor Members  within the framework 
of the NFIDC Decision as reported in their  Table  NF:1 notifications , and the contributio ns made by 
inter-governmental organizations having  observer status in the Committee.  
2.2.  The Committee took note of the following Table NF:1 notifications circulated since the 
November  2018 monitoring exercise : 
• Australia - G/AG/N/AUS/119, G/AG/N/AUS/124 ; 
• Canada - G/AG/N/CAN/115/C orr.1, G/AG/N/CAN/130 ; 
• European Union - G/AG/N/EU/49, G/AG/N/EU/54 ; 
• Indonesia - G/AG/N/IDN/62 ; 
• Japan - G/AG/N/JPN/229 ;  
• Norway - G/AG/N/NOR/107 ; and 
• Switzerland - G/AG/N/CHE/86/R ev.1. G/AG/R/93  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.3.  The Committee also took note of  a revised background note circulated by the Secretariat on 
the implementation of the NFIDC Decision to facilitate Members' consideration of this agenda item.8 
The note sets out the substantive provisions of the NFIDC Decision and provides information 
regarding their implementation.  
2.4.  The Secretariat briefly introduced the revised  document and highlighted the new elements 
included there in based on request by Members in previous Committee meetings. The note 
accordingly included a summary of donor Members'  latest Table NF:1 notifications and also 
presented agriculture and food9 import data  with respect to  LDCs and NFIDCs  for the period  2008 
to 2017. The Secretariat also noted the challenge s with regard to the availability of the global food 
aid shipments data since the discontinuation of World Food Programme ( WFP)'s INTERFA IS in 2014  
and highlighted the efforts made by th e Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
Nations  (FAO) to fill the resulting data gap. The Secretariat also informed Members of its continued 
collaboration with the relevant international organizations  in the domain of international food aid .  
2.5.  The European  Union thanked the Secretariat for the updated document , and particularly for 
the inclusion of a summary of Members' Table NF:1  notifications . The European  Union noted that 
several Members did not provide information concerning the total quantity of food aid and whether  
or not  the food aid was provide d in fully -grant form. The European Union encouraged Members to 
provide such information in the future .  
2.6.  Egypt, on behalf of the NFIDC Group , thanked the Secretariat for the valuable analys is provided 
in the  background  document . Egypt noted that while food imports of the LDCs and NFIDCs had 
increased in the period between 2008 and 2017 , further measures were required to enable LDC s 
and NFIDCs to address the rising food security challenges. Egypt request ed the Secretariat to provide 
detailed analysis on the evolution of agricultural production in LDCs and NFIDCs examining the 
progress made in  agriculture productivity and infrastruct ure. Referring to the participation of the 
NFIDCs in the agriculture negotiations, Egypt noted that food security remained at the very core of 
their reform objectives. Egypt stressed that any discussion in the framework of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Special Session should be conducted bearing in mind the challenges faced by LDCs 
and NFIDCs, as acknowledge d by Ministers in the Marrakesh Decision.  In the agriculture 
negotiations, NFIDCs should be accorded with appropriate measures of flexibilities to achieve food 
security, livelihood security and overall development  objectives .  
2.7.  Norway referred to its latest Table NF:1 notification and noted that all the food assistance 
provided to LDCs and NFIDCs was cash-based and in fully grant form.  In 2018, the Norwegian 
emergency food assistance and long-term support to agriculture development totalled approximately  
USD 220 million; of which USD  95 million was cha nnelled through the WFP. Norway commended the 
efforts made by the WFP in the domain of humanitarian food assistance and encouraged Members 
to facilitate WFP's work. Furthermore, Norway noted that its action plan titled 'Food, People and the 
Environment'10 had been developed based on the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 
Goals ( SDGs ). The overall objective of the Action Plan was to ensure greater food security through 
the development of sustainable food systems; covering  the thematic areas of food production, value 
creation and market, nutrition, diet, policy and governance. Norway noted that the action plan w ould 
guide Norway's contribution s to food systems including food assistance provided  in the future . 
Norway also hi ghlighted its target ed efforts towards small scale farmers and fishermen, with a 
particular focus on LDCs in the Sub -Saharan Africa.  
2.8.  Canada expressed  concerns on the lack of availability of food aid data and appreciated the 
efforts  made by the FAO in this  regard. Canada encouraged  continu ed collaboration among the 
relevant international organization s towards enhanced transparency of food aid  to foster  the 
implementation of the NFIDC Decision. The E uropean Union also noted that it was aware of the 
existing challenges related to food aid data arising from the discontinuation of WFP’s INTERFAIS  and 
hoped that the FAO would be able to do more in the future.  
                                                
8 G/AG/W/42/Rev. 20. 
9 The food basket considered in the document comprised cereals, meats, dairy, fruits a nd vegetables, oil 
seeds and vegetable oils.  
10 https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/sustainablefood_actionplan/id2661208/  G/AG/R/93  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.9.  The representatives of the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture ( IICA) and 
the FAO made contributions to the monitoring exercise. The IGC submitted a written contribution 
prior to the meeting. The Committee took note of these statements .11  
2.1.1   Review of the International Food Aid provision of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on Export Competition  
2.10.   In paragraph 32 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition , Members agreed to review 
the provisions on international food aid forming part of the Decision within the regular 
CoA monitoring of the implementation of the NFIDC Decision.  
2.11.   The Chairperson recalled that the Nairobi Decision ha d three complementary provisions for 
the review and follow -up to be undertaken by the Committee , namely  the annual dedicated 
discussions on export competition , the triennial Review of the Decision , and the specific review of 
the provisions on international food aid within the NF monitoring exercise.   
2.12.   With respect to international food aid, the Chairperson highlighted the need to address issues 
related to the transparency of Members' food aid programmes a s well as the existing data gaps. The 
Chairperson also recall ed the information session on food  aid organized by the Secretariat on 
24 June 2019 which benefitted from an active participation of the FAO, the WFP, the 
OECD -Development Assistance Committee and the Chairman of the Committee administering the 
Food Assistance Convention. The information session provided an overview of the current landsc ape 
of disciplines on international food aid and the monitoring and data collection practices  of the 
relevant international organizations  in relation to food aid .  
2.13.   Norway  echoed  the importance of increased transparency in the domain of international food 
aid and that the data and information gap would need to be addressed through cooperation amo ng 
the relevant international organizations.  
2.2  Annual consultation under Article 18.5 – Members' participation in the normal growth 
of world trade  
2.14.   The Chairperson re called that Article 18 .5 provided for Members to consult annually with 
respect of their participation in the normal growth of world trade in agricultural products within the 
framework of commitments on export subsidies. The Chairperson added that Members' compliance 
with their notification obligations in the export subsidy area was crucial to enable the Committee to 
undertake the consultations. The revised compliance document reflected the state -of-play of 
Members' compliance with their notification obligat ions including in the export subsidy area.12 The 
document show ed that for the implementation period 1995 -2017, 859 Table ES:1 notifications and 
42 Table ES:2 notifications had remain ed outstanding.  
2.15.   The Committee took note of the background document  prepared  by the Secretariat for  this 
exercise.13 The document provided data on export volumes14 and shares in world exports , for 
selected agricultural products/product groups  covering a  ten-year period from 2008 to 2018. The 
pie charts for 2008 and 2018 showed the evolution of world market shares of the leading exporters 
for the products/product groups concerned . The Secretariat also highlighted that due to lack of data 
for some exporters in  the source database (i.e. UN COMMTR ADE) for the year 2018, the document 
had underreport ed total exports for some products (such as rice ) for that year .   
2.16.   Brazil informed the Committee that it had been able to maintain its position as the top 
exporter of some agriculture products (oilseeds, sugar, poultry meet and tobacco ) and was becoming 
the top exporter of bovine  meat, whilst keeping  low levels of domestic support and without the 
provision of export subsidies. Brazil noted that various factors had contributed to export growth 
including its c omparative advantage , productivity gains resulting from investments in science and 
technology and actions on  production  diversification and food  safety , while protecting biodiversity.  
Brazil emphasised that i n order to use trade as a tool to  achieve food security, it was essential to 
                                                
11 The statements by the IICA, the I GC and the FAO were circulated to the membership respectively in 
G/AG/GEN/154 , G/AG/GEN/155  and G/AG/GEN/156.  
12 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.3 6. 
13 G/AG/W/32/Rev.1 8. 
14 Except for fruits and vegetables and live animals where the data was in value terms.  G/AG/R/93  
 
- 6 - 
 
  maintain  predictability in international agricultural markets. For instance, uncertainties caused by 
unpredict able SPS measures put in place without scientific evidence had the potential to  serve as  
barriers to t rade.  
2.3  Implementation -related  issues15  
2.17.   There was no request for the floor under this agenda item.  
2.4  Implementation of Ministerial outcomes  
2.4.1   Review of the Bali Ministerial Decision on TRQ administration  
2.18.   The Committee held an informal meeting on 29 October to discuss the report of the review of 
the Bali Ministerial Decision on TRQ administration  and the associated  recommendations for the 
consideration of the General Council . In order to reach an agreement on a consensual language to 
propose an extension of the deadline for the future operation of paragraph 4 of the underfill 
mechanism, a small group consultation was held s oon a fter the informal meeting  leading to positive  
results. The report with the agreed  recommendations was distributed in  document G/AG/W/ 203 for 
consideration by Members at the formal meeting of the Committee on 31 October .  
2.19.   The Committee adopted the report and the associated recommendations  with the 
understanding that the report and recommendations, upon adoption, w ould be transmitted to the 
General Council for a decision pursuant to the Bali Decision . Subsequent to the adoption by the 
Committee, the report was distributed as G/AG/29 . 
2.20.   The Chairperson thanked Members  for their constructive  engagement in the review 
discuss ions. The final outcome included important  agreements in relation to transparency, where 
Members also had agreed to conduct a triennial review of the operation of the Bali TRQ Decision. 
The Chairperson noted that time was not ripe to reach  an understanding o n the future operation of 
paragraph  4 of the underfill mechanism, and hence Members had agreed to extend the deadline by 
two years  to reach  a decision . The Chairperson further noted that while it was challenging to find a 
common language  to propose the extension, Members had demonstrated sufficient flexibility and 
mutual understanding to agree on a two -year extension.  The Chairperson also attributed special 
appreciation to her  predecessor from Guatemala , Ms. Débora Cumes,  and the support provided by 
the Secretariat through out the process.  
2.21.   The E uropean Union  welcomed the efforts by Members and noted that the outcome was very 
minimalistic and much below its expectations. The European Union expressed its readiness to 
continue discussion s on the Bali TRQ review  to reach a more substantive outcome  in two years' time .   
2.22.   Australia thanked the Chairperson and her predecessor; and the Secretariat for their 
contribution. Australia noted that the review process ha d been challenging but  it had resulted  in 
many suggestions leading to a positive  engagement among Members. Australia thanked the Cairns 
Group for their submissions during the  review, particularly to Costa Rica for their coordinated efforts , 
and registered their willingness to contribute in future discussions .  
2.23.   Guatemala congratulated the Chair person  on the adoption of the report and thanked the 
Secretariat and Members for their support and patience. Guatemala iterated that with coordinated 
efforts , the Membership could make substantial accomplishments.  
2.4.2   Follow -up on the Nairobi Decision on export competition including prepara tion for 
the June 2020 Export Competition Dedicated Discussion.  
2.24.   The Chairperson noted that  in June 2019, the Committee  concluded its fourth dedicated 
discussion on export competition since the Nairobi Decision. The Chairperson informed the 
Committee that the Secretariat 's background document was revised after the June meeting and 
                                                
15 See WT/MIN(01)/17 dated 14 November 2001 . G/AG/R/93  
 
- 7 - 
 
  circulated in document G/AG/W/125/Rev.11 a nd its four addenda on 18 September 2019. Later, a  
corrigendum was circulated on 3 October 2019.16 
2.25.   As part of the monitoring of the implementation of this Decision, two Members raised 
questions  under this agenda item.17 Members' responses and follow -up comme nts are available in 
AG-IMS18 and may be consulted there using the relevant question ID numbers as provided in Table  4 
of the Annex to this report.  
2.26.   With regard to  the modification of export subsid y schedules pursuant to the Nairobi Decision , 
the Chairperson  noted that  out of the sixteen  Members with export subsidy reduction commitments 
at the time of adoption of the Nairobi Decision, eleven  Members had certified revised schedules;  two 
Members , Canada and the European Union , had circulated their draft schedule s in 2017 but these 
were not yet certified ; and three  Members , Brazil, Indonesia and the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela,  had yet to circulate their draft schedules.  
2.27.   Brazil informed the Committee  that the Nairobi Decision  along with the draft revised schedule 
had been  sent to the  Congress in September 2019, in accordance with the ir constitutional 
obligations. Brazil iterated that the required steps were under way to provide all the necessary 
information that could facilitat e the analysis by the Congress.  Brazil highlighted that this issue was 
granted a high  priority by the Congress based on the request  by the Brazilian government. Brazil 
noted that it remain ed committed to the disciplines of the Nairobi Decision and hoped to  receive the 
Congress' approval in the near future.  
2.28.   Indonesia informed the Committee that it w ould consult with the ir capital and revert  on the 
process.  
2.29.   The Bolivarian Republic of V enezuela informed Members that there ha d been a change of 
authorities in the ir capital and that the Permanent Mission  would be examining  outstanding matters 
with respect to  international organizations . The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela conveyed its i ntent 
to keep the Committee abreast of the national processes  and assured that the required steps were 
under way.  
2.30.   The European Union reiterate d that all  Members with export subsidy reduction commitments 
should submit  their revised schedules as soon as possible. The European Union recalled that in 2017, 
it had submi tted a draft EU -28 Schedule that include d the elimination of export subsidies , as provided 
for in the Nairobi Decision. In practice, the E uropean Union  had not provided any export subsidies 
since July 2013 , nor ha d it used any of the flexibilities provided  under footnote 4 of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision.  
2.31.   Canada thanked the European Union  for their reaffirmation of the commitment to the Nairobi 
Decision. Canada further informed of the  positive bilateral engagement with the E uropean Union on 
this issue  and signal led that it would lift the reservation on the draft EU -28 export subsidy  schedule.  
2.32.   With regard to the scheduling  of the 2020 dedicated discussion on export competition, the  
Chairperson proposed for the exercise to take place at the September 2020 CoA meeting, instead of 
it to be held in June as previously , on account of the 12th Ministerial Conference scheduled in Nur -
Sultan on 8 -11 June  2020. The Chairperson noted that an em ail communication initiating this 
exercise would be sent to Members in January 2020.  
2.4.3   Implementation of other Ministerial outcomes  
2.33.   There were no requests for the floor under this agenda item.  
                                                
16 G/AG/W/125/Rev.11/Add.2/Corr.1.  
17 Section  4 of document G/AG/W/202 refers.  
18 http://ag ims.wto.org/ . G/AG/R/93  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.5  Chair report on remaining issue from informal meeting - Enhancing transparency and 
the CoA Review Process  
2.34.   The Chairperson reported on the discussions of the informal meeting held on 29 October on 
the theme of "Enhancing transparency and the CoA Review process ". Three specific topics were 
discussed during the informal mee ting: i) the joint submission by the African Group, Cuba, India and 
Oman on "An inclusive Approach to Transparency and Notification Requirements in the WTO ";19 
ii) monitoring of responses to outstanding responses ;20 and iii)  the report by the Chair on the 
consultations with Members to discuss various issues relating to the Committee and enhancing 
Members' participation in the CoA.   
2.35.   On the joint submission by the African Group , the proponents recognized the importance of 
transparency, and underlined the need  for a holistic consideration of transparency for the work of 
the WTO rather than limiting the discussions solely to notifications. The authors  of the paper  noted 
that transparency would also mean that WTO meetings and decision -making process es were 
transp arent and would enable  participation of all Members , especially developing country Members. 
The proponents also highlighted that transparency had been considered in their submission as a 
horizontal or a cross-cutting matter hence the reason for its  submiss ion in a number of councils and 
committees.  
2.36.   In respect of compliance with notifications, the proponents highlighted the various capacity 
constraints and challenges faced by developing countr y Members  in meeting notification 
requirements and emphasized that delays in notifications should not be tantamount to wilful 
non-compliance. The proponents argued for a cooperative rather than punitive approach to enhance 
notification compliance. They resisted acc epting new notification obligations and suggested that the 
notification obligations should be adapted to developing country needs and capabilities. Referring to 
the Secretariat 's notification compliance document s issued in the  G/AG/GEN/86/ series, the 
developing country proponents also highlighted that the compliance was lacking not only for 
developing countr y Members  but also for a number of developed countr y Members ; they urged that 
Members with final bound total AMS should seek to abide by the required 1 20 days deadline in 
submitting the annual DS :1 notifications.  
2.37.   Other Members acknowledged the challenges faced by developing countr y Members  in 
meeting their transparency requirements and offered their assistance as necessary. They noted the 
importance of transparency as a "common good" to the Membership and to the work and functioning 
of the WTO.  As regards the concerns expressed by the developing countr y Members  on assuming 
additional or new notification obligations, it was pointed out that the broader ef forts on enhancing 
transparency were not for adding new notifications , but rather for meeting the existing notification 
requirements in a timely and comprehensive manner. Additionally, the transparency proposal also 
provided for opportunities for capacity building, practical timeframes and simplification of 
notifications. The discussions also touched  on the issue of notification requirements in G/AG/2 and 
the prescribed deadlines therein. A number of Members questioned the practicability of the 3 -month 
deadline for the annual DS :1 notification without compromising the quality and the content of the 
notification. Simultaneously some reluctance was noted in extending the existing G/A G/2 deadlines. 
Many Members referred to the efforts by the Secretariat in assisting Members to address notification -
related challenges including in the form of on -line enhancements.    
2.38.   Under the second item on outstanding responses , the Chair referred to the latest Secretariat 
document in G/AG/W/195/Rev.2 containin g a list of questions raised in the review process during 
2012-2018 where the responses had remained outstanding. The Chair  noted that since the 
commencement of this discussions in 2018, the Secretariat had regularly circulated a document 
before each Commi ttee meeting tracking the status of outstanding responses to questions raised 
since 2012. Members showed progress in terms of outstanding responses to questions raised 
during  2012-2017 where outstanding responses had been  reduced from 71 to 55. For questio ns 
raised during 2018, the number of outstanding responses had gone down from 48 to 39, as could 
be seen in the latest document circulated by the Secretariat in G/AG/W/195/Rev.2.  Since June 2019, 
there had been only two responses submitted by Members, both  in respect of questions raised 
                                                
19 JOB/AG/158/Rev.2.  
20 G/AG/W/195/Rev.2 . G/AG/R/93  
 
- 9 - 
 
  during  2018. The Chair urged Members to make serious efforts to improve the current situation of 
pending responses so as to enhance the efficacy of the CoA review process.  
2.39.   Thirdly, the Chair also reported on the  consultatio ns with Members to discuss various issues 
relating to the Committee and enhancing Members' participation in the CoA . The Chair indicated that 
one of the main motivations for these consultations, organized in the first week of October, had been 
to explore w ays of enhancing participation of Members, especially developing Members, in the 
CoA review process. The Chair  noted that there was only a limited set of Members who had been 
actively engaging in terms of posing questions to others.   
2.40.   During these consultat ions, one common comment  heard from all groups was that the CoA 
had been one of the better functioning Committees in the house and that the Secretariat had been 
providing valuable assistance in this regard.  
2.41.   A number of interesting suggestions were also made to enhance the CoA review process as 
well as possible improvements in the existing processes and data systems. The Secretariat took on 
board some of these suggestions , includ ing identifying "nil" notifications in the reminder airgram, an 
early launch of  Committee's Q&A process through the AG -IMS and the organization of an information 
sessions for the Geneva -based delegates on the functioning of the CoA.  
2.42.   The Chair also indicated that she would  convene another round of consultations at a later 
stage.  
2.43.   Comm enting  on the report, Norway acknowledge d a positive development in the Committee's 
review process by referring to the room document21 listing the number of responses received before 
the Committee meeting . Norway iterated  that early responses to the questions raised during the 
review process would facilitate an informed discussion among Members , especially  in enabling follow 
up comments .   
2.6  Annual report to the Council for Trade in Goods  
2.44.   The Chairperson noted that as per the regular p ractice, a brief and factual report for the 
Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) would be produced  reflect ing the activities of the Committee on 
Agriculture , including the three Committee meetings held in 2019 . A draft version of the report had 
been circulated  before the meeting to facilitate Members' consideration . The final report was 
distributed as G/L/1332.  
2.7  Observer Organizations  
2.7.1   Renewal of IICA ad hoc observer status  
2.45.   The Chairperson recalled that at its March 2012 meeting, the Committee had agreed to 
invite  IICA to its regular meetings as an ad hoc  observer on an annual basis in order to expedite 
procedures unless the issue was to be specifically placed on the agenda b y a Member in the 
intervening meetings. IICA had accordingly been invited to participate in the Committee's regular 
meetings since 2012.  
2.46.   The Committee agreed to invite IICA as an  ad hoc  observer to  participate in the formal  
meetings of the Committee in 20 20.  
2.8  Other business  
2.8.1   Launch of the on -line agriculture notification system   
2.47.   The Chairperson reminded the Committee of the Secretariat's efforts in enhancing the various 
on-line systems including the development of a web -based notification system.  The Chairp erson 
noted that  the October meeting mark ed the launch of the online agriculture notification  system .  
                                                
21 RD/AG/73.  G/AG/R/93  
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.48.   The Secretariat  provide d further details and insights on the operation and functioning of the 
online notification system. In doing so, the Secretariat re called the background of the project  that 
had begun  in March 2009 in response to a letter by the then G eneral Council  Chair circulated to 
Chairs of all WTO Committees and Councils to consult with Members on ways to enhance 
transparency  and improved notifications . A Work Programme  was accordingly established by the CoA 
which targeted an improvement of timeliness and completeness of notifications .22 In addition, a 
survey was conducted where all Members were given the opportunity to express  challenge s and 
concerns  faced  in the notification process . A number of  actions were taken by the Committee that 
included  streamlining of documents and discussions on best practices.23 The Secretariat also noted 
certain actions that it had taken  pursuant to  the 2009 work programme , includ ing the preparation 
of a Handbook on  Notification Requirements  under the Agreement on Agriculture ;24 regular 
organization of Geneva based Annual Notification Workshops ; and revamping of the WTO Agriculture 
webpage.  In 2013, the Agriculture Information Management System (AG -IMS) was launched 
dedicated  to the questions and answers (Q&A) raised in the Review Process and in 2014 , the work 
was initiated on an online notification system . The online agriculture notification sy stem involved 
questions  of high technical complexit y and the  project took some five years  for completion . In 
April 2019, a pilot group was formed to test the functioning of the on-line notification system. The 
Secretariat  thanked the participants of the pi lot group for their comments and useful suggestions  
towards the improvement of the online system .  
2.49.   The Secretariat also highlighted  the features of the new online notification system which 
included automatic access to Members' Scheduled Commitments sourced from the CTS ; automatic 
calculations (for market price support, Total AMS , SSG triggers , etc); replication of formats in 
G/AG/2 along with the possibility  to accommodate voluntary transparency practices  and additional 
information provi ded by Members  in their notifications . In addition, the new system w ould facilitate 
consistency and comparability of Members' notifications  by way of an enhanced  harmonization of 
their notification practices. With respect to the operational and procedural aspects, the Secretariat 
informed Members that the notification c ould be prepared either through the web -based screens  or 
using the  offline Excel/Word templates available in the three WTO official languages. An email 
acknowledgement confirming  the submissi on of notification w ould be sent to the notifying Member s. 
Furthermore, the data from the notifications w ould be searchable online after the distribution of 
notifications . The Secretariat highlighted that the system include d explanatory notes, manuals and 
demo videos for reference and guidance. Furthermore, t he programme of the Secretariat's 
notification workshops w ould include  hands -on training on the use of the notificati on system. In 
addition, upon specific request s, training sessions could  be organized for  the capital -based 
notification experts . For any technical assistance, the Secretariat could be contacted 
on agims@wto.org . Lastly,  the Secretariat reminded Members of a n information  session scheduled 
on 2 December 2019 that w ould provide more information on the system .  
2.8.2   AG-IMS Q&A database improvements  
2.50.   The Secretariat informed the Committee that it had started work on improvements to the 
Q&A function of the AG IMS. Among the new features currently being developed  were:  
a. The system w ould allow Members the possibility to link Art icle 18.6 follow -up questions to 
the specific implementation matters raised previously under this provision ;  
b. Users w ould be able to identify repeated questions;  
c. Responding Members w ould be able to revise previously submitted responses. In such 
cases, the questioning Member w ould be notified ;  
d. The system w ould also provide for easy identification o f outstanding responses ;  
e. Another set of new features w ould include user friendly rich text, and the possibility to 
include graphs and pictures in questions and responses ;  
                                                
22 G/AG/R/54 , paras 72 -73 refer.  
23 G/AG/W/73; G/AG/W/73/Rev.1; G/AG/W/73/Rev.1/Corr.1; G/AG/W/73/Rev.1/Add.1; 
G/AG/W/73/Rev.2; G/AG/W/73/Rev.2/Add.1.  
24 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/ag_notif_e.pdf   G/AG/R/93  
 
- 11 - 
 
  f. Based on comments received from Members, the Secretariat was also looking at the 
feasibility of a feature where a Member could express interest in a particular question raised 
by another Member which would then allow that Member to receive notifications when a 
response is submitted or updated in respect of that question ; and   
g. Part of the  new features for the Secretariat also include d the generation of automatic 
reminders to Members with outstanding responses.  
2.51.   The Secretariat expected that most of these improvements would be  released to Members by 
the end of 2019.  
2.52.   The European Union thanke d the Secretariat for its efforts to enhance  the functionalities of 
the online transparency tools  and requested the Secretariat to have a system in place to ensure that 
Members who had register ed their intention to provide a response in the AG IMS , eventually d id so. 
The Secretariat noted  that the system w ould alert Members with outstanding responses .  
2.53.   Ukraine also welcomed  the proposed AG-IMS improvements  and thanked the Secretariat for 
the follo w-up on Ukraine's earlier proposal on the tracking of historical questions .  
2.8.3   Notification workshops in 2020  
2.54.   The Secretariat informed Members  that the next Geneva -based notification workshop would 
take place on 6-10 July  2020. A total of approximately thirty  government officials from developing 
countries would be selected for funded participat ion, with the possibility of five self-funded 
participants  (including Geneva -based delegates)  to attend the workshop. The workshop w ould 
address the requirement s and  formats  of agriculture notifications, the importance of transparency 
and the review process of the Committee on Agriculture . Participants w ould also  be able to prepare 
notifications through the new online notification system. An invitation  letter with details on the 
selection process w ould be sent to Members in the first months of 2020. The Secretariat reminded 
Members that national workshops on agriculture notifications c ould be requested via the Institute 
for Training and Technical Cooper ation (ITTC)  of the WTO  
(https://wto.formstack.com/forms/national_ta_requests ).  
2.8.4   Date of next regular meetings  
2.55.   The Chairperson proposed that the nine ty-third (93rd) regular meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture be held on 24 -25 March 20 20. On this basis, the airgram convening the meeting would 
be issued on 13 March 2020.  G/AG/R/93  
 
- 12 - 
 
  ANNEX  
The Annex includes the full list of questions raised under various agenda items of the Committee. 
Members' responses and follow -up exchanges  (if applicable) can be accessed through the  AG-IMS 
(http://agims.wto.org/ ) by selecting the function "Search Q&A Submitted Since 1995 " and inputting 
the ID  number of the question concerned. Question IDs where replies were yet to be submitted into 
the AG -IMS as of 28 November  2019 have been identified with the symbol " *". Members ar e invited 
to provide outstanding replies through the AG -IMS at the earliest opportunity.  
 
Table 1- Specific Implementation Matters ( Article 18. 6) 
Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID Number  
Angola's fuel subsidies  Ukraine  92087 * 
Angola's potential import restrictions  Canada  92045 * 
Brazil's wheat quota  Canada  92046  
Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  Australia  92127  
New Zealand  92075  
New Zealand  92077  
United States of America  92001  
Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  Australia  92126  
New Zealand  92076  
New Zealand  92078  
United States of America  92002  
Canada's review of the TRQ system  Australia  92088  
Canada's wine sale policy  United States of America  92003  
China's rice policies  United States of America  92005 * 
China's state reserves programmes  Canada  92047 * 
China's state trading enterprises  United States of America  92004 * 
EU's European Court of Auditors report  Brazil  92093  
EU's Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  Australia  92091  
EU's compensation for farmers to adjust to new trade deals  Australia  92089  
EU's Eco schemes payments  Brazil  92092  
EU's intervention policy   Australia  92128 * 
New Zealand  92080  
United States of America  92006  
EU's planned policy measures against U.S. tariffs  Australia  92090  
EU's support package to Irish beef farmers  New Zealand  92079  
EU's statement regarding the EU-28 draft Schedule  European Union  92129 
India's dairy Loans  United States of America  92011  
India's National Dairy Plan Phase I  United States of America  92012  
India's pulses policies   Russian Federation  92096  
United States of America  92008  
Australia  92094  
Canada  92049  
India's short -term crop loans United States of America  92010  G/AG/R/93  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID Number  
India's sugar policies  European Union  92007  
Canada  92048  
India's support to rice exports  United States of America  92013  
India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  Australia  92095  
India's wheat public stockpiling  United States of America  92009  
Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS478  New Zealand  92081  
Japan's corn policies  Australia  92097  
Mongolia's quota regime for importation  Russian Federation  92098  
Philippines' rice waiver   Japan  92099  
Thailand  92100  
Russia 's state programme for rural territories development  European Union  92017  
Russia's excise duties on wine and champagne  European Union  92121  
Switzerland's "Loi Chocolatier"  European Union  92018  
Switzerland's Financing of security stocks in agricultural sectors  European Union  92019  
Thailand's support to rice and palm oil  United States of America  92014  
United States of America  92015  
The EU's coupled payments  India 92071  
U.S. biofuel policies  Ukraine  92103  
U.S. farm support   Canada  92050  
European Union  92020  
U.S. practices of DS notifications  China  92086  
U.S. Proposed domestic support measures   Australia  92102  
New Zealand  92082  
India 92072  
U.S. support to cotton sector  India 92073  
United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule 
of commitments  Australia  92101 * 
 
 
Table  2- Questions raised in connection with individual notifications   
Notification  
Number  Question by  Answer by  Notification 
Format  Keywords  ID 
Number  
G/AG/N/ECU/50  Brazil  Ecuador  MA:1 Transparency issues  92104  
G/AG/N/ECU/50  Russian  
Federation  Ecuador  MA:1 Allocation of licences to 
importing entities  92105  
G/AG/N/ECU/50  United States  of 
America  Ecuador  MA:1 Allocation of licences to 
importing entities  92016  
G/AG/N/THA/101, 
G/AG/ N/THA/102, 
G/AG/N/THA/103  United States  of 
America  Thailand  MA:1 Transparency issues  92021  
G/AG/N/THA/103  Russian  
Federation  Thailand  MA:1 Allocation of licences to 
importing entities  92106  
G/AG/N/AUS/125  India Australia  MA:2 Transparency issues  92074  
G/AG/N/IND/16, 
G/AG/N/IND/17  Australia  India MA:2 Transparency iss ues 92107  
G/AG/N/IND/16, 
G/AG/N/IND/17  Brazil  India MA:2 Transparency issues  92108  G/AG/R/93  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Notification  
Number  Question by  Answer by  Notification 
Format  Keywords  ID 
Number  
G/AG/N/IND/16, 
G/AG/N/IND/17  Ukraine  India MA:2 Transparency issues  92109  
G/AG/N/IND/16, 
G/AG/N /IND/17  United States  of 
America  India MA:2 Transparency issues  92022  
G/AG/N/THA/104, 
G/AG/N/THA/105, 
G/AG/N/THA/106  Russian  
Federation  Thailand  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  92110  
G/AG/N/THA/104, 
G/AG/N/THA/105, 
G/AG/N/THA/106  Ukraine  Thailand  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  92111  
G/AG/N/THA/106  Australia  Thailand  MA:2 Transparency issues  92113  
G/AG/N/THA/106  Australia  Thailand  MA:2 Tariff quota fill  92112  
G/AG/N/TPKM/180, 
G/AG/N/TPKM/182  Thailand  Chinese  Taipei  MA:3 Trigger calculations  92114 * 
G/AG/N/EU/56  Brazil  European  Union  MA:5 Transparency issues  92115  
G/AG/N/ARG/43  Canada  Argentina  DS:1 General services: extension 
and advisory services  92051  
G/AG/N/ARG/44, 
G/AG/N /ARG/45  Canada  Argentina  DS:1 General services: training 
services  92052  
G/AG/N/ARG/44, 
G/AG/N/ARG/45  Canada  Argentina  DS:1 Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  92054  
G/AG/N/ARG/44, 
G/AG/N /ARG/45  Canada  Argentina  DS:1 Non-product -specific AMS  92053  
G/AG/N/BHR/11  European Union  Bahrain, 
Kingdom of  DS:1 Article 6.2 (Special and 
Differential 
Treatment/De velopment 
Programmes)  92033* 
G/AG/N/CHL/55, 
G/AG/N/CHL/56  Canada  Chile DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  92055 * 
G/AG/N/CHN/42, 
G/AG/N/CHN/43, 
G/AG/N/CHN/44  Canada  China  DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  92056 * 
G/AG/N/TPKM/181  European Union  Chinese Taipei  DS:1 Direct payments: payments 
for relief from natural 
disasters  92034 * 
G/AG/N/TPKM/181  European Union  Chinese Taipei  DS:1 Market price support  92035 * 
G/AG/N/TPKM/181  Brazil  Chinese Taipei  DS:1 Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  92116 * 
G/AG/N/TPKM/181  Canada  Chinese Taipei  DS:1 Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  92057 * 
G/AG/N/CUB/62  Canada  Cuba DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  92058  
G/AG/N/EU/46  Canada  European Union  DS:1 Direct payments: payments 
under environmental 
programmes  92059  
G/AG/N/IND/13  United States  of 
America  India DS:1 Classification of measures  92023  
G/AG/N/IND/15  United States  of 
America  India DS:1 Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance 
provided through 
investment aids  92025  
G/AG/N/IND/15  United States  of 
America  India DS:1 De minimis  92024  
G/AG/N/KGZ/6  United States  of 
America  Kyrgyz Republic  DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  92026  
G/AG/N/KGZ/6, 
G/AG/N/KGZ/7  Canada  Kyrgyz Republic  DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  920601 
G/AG/N/KGZ/7  United States  of 
America  Kyrgyz  
Republic  DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  92027  
                                                
1 The question raised under the AG -IMS ID 92060 was erroneously omitted from the compilation of 
questions contained in the document G/AG/W/202.  G/AG/R/93  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Notification  
Number  Question by  Answer by  Notification 
Format  Keywords  ID 
Number  
G/AG/N/NGA/17  Australia  Nigeria  DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  92117 * 
G/AG/N/OMN/21, 
G/AG/ N/OMN/22, 
G/AG/N/OMN/23  United States  of 
America  Oman  DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  92028  
G/AG/N/OMN/22  Canada  Oman  DS:1 Investment subsidies 
generally available to 
agriculture  92061  
G/AG/N/OMN/25  Australia  Oman  DS:1 General services: 
infrastructural services  92118  
G/AG/N/OMN/25  European  
Union  Oman  DS:1 Article 6.2 (Special and 
Differential 
Treatment/Development 
Programmes)  92036  
G/AG/N/OMN/25  European  
Union  Oman  DS:1 Investment subsidies 
generally available to 
agriculture  92037  
G/AG/N/PAN/50  Canada  Panama  DS:1 Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  92062  
G/AG/N/PER/19, 
G/AG/N/PER/20, 
G/AG/N/PER/21  Canada  Peru DS:1 General services: research  92063  
G/AG/N/RUS/24  Canada  Russian 
Federation  DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  92064 * 
G/AG/N/RUS/24  European  
Union  Russian 
Federation  DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  92038 * 
G/AG/N/RUS/24  Australia  Russian 
Federation  DS:1 Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  92119  
G/AG/N/SYC/4  Canada  Seychelles  DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  92065 * 
G/AG/N/SYC/4  Canada  Seychelles  DS:1 Investment subsidies 
generally available to 
agriculture  92066 * 
G/AG/N/SGP/32  Australia  Singapore  DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  92120 * 
G/AG/N/TJK/1, 
G/AG/N/TJK/6  Canada  Tajikistan  DS:1 Transparency issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  92067 * 
G/AG/N/CHN/49  Canada  China  DS:2 Payments based on fixed 
areas  or yields  92070 * 
G/AG/N/NOR/103  New Zealand  Norway  DS:2 Payments based on 85 % or 
less of the base level of 
production  92083  
G/AG/N/KOR/65, 
G/AG/N /KOR/66, 
G/AG/N/KOR/67  European Union  Korea, Republic 
of ES:1 Special and differential 
treatment (Article  9.4) 92039  
G/AG/N/KOR/65, 
G/AG/N/KOR/66, 
G/AG/N/KOR/67  Ukraine  Korea, Republic 
of ES:1 Special and differential 
treatment (Article  9.4) 92122  
G/AG/N/MEX/39/ Rev.1, 
G/AG/N/MEX/44/ Rev.1 Brazil  Mexico  ES:1 Transparency issues  92123  
G/AG/N/MYN/20  Australia  Myanmar  ES:1  
92124 * 
G/AG/N/USA/126, 
G/AG/N/USA/118  New Zealand  United States  of 
America  ES: 1; ES:2  Quantity of total exports  92084  
G/AG/N/USA/127  Australia  United States of 
America  ES:3 International food aid  92125  
G/AG/N/USA/127  China  United States of 
America  ES:3 International food aid  92085  
 
 G/AG/R/93  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Table  3- Questions raised under agenda item "Overdue notifications"  
Question by  Answer by  ID Number  
United States of America  China  92029 * 
United States of America  India 92030  
European Union  Kazakhstan  92040  
European Union  Morocco  92041 * 
Canada  Turkey  92068  
Canada  Turkey  92069  
European Union  Turkey  92042  
European Union  Viet Nam  92043  
 
 
Table  4- Questions raised in connection to the monitoring of the Export Competition 
Decision  
Question by  Answer by  ID Number  
United States of America  China  92031  
European Union  Russian Federation  92044  
United States of America  Russian Federation  92032  
 
 
__________  