 RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/R/107  
7 November  2023 
(23-7523) Page: 1/39 
Committee on Agriculture  Original:  English  
 
  
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27-28 SEPTEMBER  2023 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Agriculture (CoA) held its one hundredth and sixth (10 6th) regular meeting 
on 27 -28 September  2023 under the Chairpersonship of Mr. Kjetil T ysdal of Norway . 
1.2.  The agenda contained in the convening airgram WTO/AIR/AG/70  circulated on 
15 September  2023 was adopted with the following changes:  
• Under agenda item 1 - Review Process : 
• The question in AG-IMS ID 106164  raised by the Russian Federation to the 
United  Kingdom on banking and financial restrictions  should be moved from agenda 
item 1.A "matters raised under Article 18.6 of the Agreement on Agriculture " to agenda 
item 1.C  on "deferred replies ";  
• Annex 1 to this report includes the list of questions co -sponsored after the issuance of 
the Convening Airgram, along with the names of the associated  new co -sponsoring 
Members . 
• Paraguay cosponsored the joint letter in G/AG/GEN/223  included under agenda item  2D.2 
  
• The Chairperson proposed that agenda 2A(i) on "Work Programme pursuant to 
paragraph  8 of the MC12 Declaration on food insecurity" and 2A(ii) on "Ministerial 
Declaration on the WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic and preparedness for future 
pandemics" be taken up together in view of the overlap across those items. Additionally, 
the Chairperson acknowledged the written submission by the  International Grains Council 
(IGC) in G/AG/GEN/227 , and by the Food a nd Agriculture Organization  (FAO) in 
G/AG/GEN/228 , which w ere circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram for 
consideration under this joint agenda item.  
 
1.3.  The Committee took note of the annotated draft agenda for this meeting in  RD/AG/116  
circulated  by the Secretariat for the first time after the CoA's  approval3 for the use of an annotated 
agenda  at its June 2023 meeting in the context of the ongoing deliberations on the 'functioning of 
the Committee '.  
2  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
2.1.  The Chairpers on urged Members  to provide timely and complete responses to questions raised 
under the Committee's review process and to submit them through the Agriculture Information 
Management System (AG -IMS)4 for interested Members to consult. The Chairperson also r eferred to 
the built -in co-sponsoring function of the Agriculture Information Management System  (AG-IMS) 
 
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 The joint letter with additional cosponsors was later circulated in G/AG/GEN/223/Rev.2 . 
3 Paragraph 4.38 of G/AG/R/106 .  
4 http://agims.wto.org/ . G/AG/R/107  
- 2 - 
  Q&A facility and noted that over one-fifth of all questions raised for the meeting had been 
co-sponsored by at least one Member.  
2.2.  The Chairperson noted that for the meeting, as of 9 am, 2 7 September  2023, 28 out of the 
181 questions raised had responses available on the AG -IMS. The Chairperson welcomed Members' 
practice of submitting responses  in advance of CoA meetings  allowing for  deepened exchanges 
during meetings.  
2.3.  The Secretariat continued its practice of ascertaining the attendance of Members subject to 
advance questions prior to Committee meetings. The delegation  of Iceland had informed the 
Secretariat in advance of their absence at  the September meeting.  The Chairperson urged Member s 
receiving advance written questions but wh o were not able to attend the meeting  to make an effort 
to submit a response to those questions prior to the meeting  through the AG -IMS.  
2.1  Matters relevant to th e implementation of commitments under the reform programme 
- Article 18.6  
2.4.  A total of  96 questions on  49 specific implementation matters (SIMs) were raised at the 
106th CoA meeting under Article 18.6.5 Out of the 49 SIMs, 26 were raised for the first time. 
Members' responses and follow -up comments can be accessed by clicking on the relevant hyperlinks 
in column 3 of Table  1 in Annex 2 to this report. This information can also be consulted directly in 
the AG -IMS using the rele vant question ID numbers as provided in that table.  
2.2  Review of Notifications  
2.5.  The Chairperson reported that since the previous Committee meeting held on 2 7-28 June 2023, 
69 notifications had been received. Out of those notifications, 12 related to market acc ess, 
21 concerned domestic support, 31 related to export competition, 2 concerned export prohibitions 
or restrictions, and 3 were net food -importing developing country  (Table NF) notification. Those 
notifications had been distributed electronically to all delegations and were available for consultation 
through the  AG-IMS. 
2.2.1   Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the 
issuance of the convening airgram  
2.6.  Table 2 of Annex 2 to this report lists questions relating to individual notifications raised in 
advance of the issuance of the convening airgram .6 Members' responses and follow -up comments 
can be accessed directly by clicking on the hyperlinks contained in the table or throu gh the AG -IMS 
using the relevant question ID numbers.  
2.2.2   Overdue notifications  
2.7.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat document summarizing the status of Members' 
compliance with notification obligations .7 
2.8.  The Chairperson acknowledged Members' efforts to bring their notifications up to date, noting 
that several Members had submit ted notifications covering multiple years since the March  2023 
CoA meeting, including:  
• Kazakhstan – Table DS:1 covering six years (2016 -2021) ; and 
Madagascar – Table ES:1 covering 12 years (2011 -2022) . 
 
5 WTO/AIR/AG/ 70, Section A of Attachment.  The full version of the questions raised can be found under 
Section 1 of the compilation document in G/AG/W/2 41. 
6 WTO/AIR/AG/ 70, Section B of Attachment. The full version of the questions raised can be found under 
Section 2 of the compilation document in G/AG/W/ 241. 
7 G/AG/GEN/86/Rev .50 circulated on 1 5 September  2023. G/AG/R/107  
- 3 - 
  2.9.  In addition, the Chairperson noted that Table ES:1 ' nil' Statements by Brunei Darussalam, 
Paraguay, and Tanzania  were released covering multiple years based on their oral announcements 
to that effect at the June 2023 CoA  meeting.   
2.10.   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 2021:  
• 982 Table  DS:1 domestic support notifications remained outstanding; and  
• 790 export subsidy notifications in the Table ES:1 series remained outstanding.  
 
2.11.   Six question s were raised under this agenda item.8 The concerned Member s' response s and 
follow -up comments can be accessed through the hyperlinks contained in Table 3 of Annex 2 to this 
report  or through the AG -IMS using the relevant question ID number.  
2.2.2.1   Outstanding ES:1 notifications - Announcement by delegations of no recourse to 
export subsidies  
2.12.   The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had reached an agreement at its 
November  2022 meeting to establish an additional avenue for Members to report the no n-use of 
export subsidies by way of an oral statement to th at effect at Committee meetings in order to fulfil 
their outstanding Table ES:1 notification obligations.9 The Chairperso n noted that t he utility of this 
agreement in facilitating ES transparency had been  demonstrated at the two previous Committee 
meeting s respectively on 27 -28 March and 27 -28 June 2023 when nine Members had announced 
their non -recourse to export subsidies to fulfil outstanding ES:1 notifications for more than 170 
reporting years.  
2.13.   The Chairperson added that the normal channels of submission of notifications via the Central 
Registry of Notifications (CRN) or on -line through the AG -IMS would remain available. The 
Chairperson also mentioned the Secretariat's outreach  to Members, especi ally least-developed 
countr y (LDC) Members , to sensitize them about th is simpler avenue to clear pending Table ES:1 
'nil' notifications  through oral announcements at CoA meetings . 
2.14.   There was no request for the floor at this meeting to announce the non-use of export subsidies 
(i.e. the ' nil' statements). The Chairperson  encouraged Members to utilize the simplified procedure 
to report their no n-recourse to  export subsidies for enhancing the ES:1 transparency . 
2.2.3   Notifications subject to review in respect  of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
2.15.   The Committee took note of the 47 notifications circulated before the issuance of the 
convening airgram on 1 5 September  2023, including notifications carried over f rom the June 2023 
meeting, but in respect of which no questions had been raised by that date, under paragraph  9 of 
the Committee's working procedures.10 
2.2.4   Notifications circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram  
2.16.   The Committee took note of the following notification s that were circulated after the issuance 
of the convening airgram on 16 June 2023:  
• Australia —Table NF:1 for the year 2019 and 2021;  
• Canada —Table DS:2;  
• China —Table ES:1, Table ES:2 and Table MA:2 for the year  2022;  
• Nigeria —Table DS:2;  
• Norway —Table NF:1 for 2021 and 2022;  
• Switzerland —Table MA:2 for year 2022;  
• Chinese Taipei —Table MA:3; and  
 
8 The details of the question  raised can be found under Section 3 of the compilation document  in 
G/AG/W/2 41.  
9 G/AG/R/104 , paragraph 2.17.  
10 WTO/AIR /AG/70 , Section C of Attachment . G/AG/R/107  
- 4 - 
  • United States —Table MA:1 for year 2023 ; and 
• Uruguay — Table DS:1 for 2017 -2020.  
2.17.   These notification s would be reverted to for substantive review during the next regular 
meeting , in accordance with paragraph 9 of the working procedures.  
2.2.5   Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings which have been 
pursued bilaterally: information regarding outcome where the issue involved is one of 
general interest  
2.18.   There were no requests  for the floor under this agenda item.  
2.2.6   Counter  notifications under Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agricu lture  
2.19.   There were no requests  for the floor under this agenda item.  
2.3  Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process  
2.20.   The latest version of the  Secretariat  document G/AG/W/204/Rev. 10 considered at the 
previous Committee meeting lists questions raised under the CoA  review process from 2013 to 202 2 
where responses remain ed outstanding.  As of 1 4 June 2023, a total of 1 66 questions still had 
outstanding responses  from 4 3 Members  for the pe riod of 2013-2021. For the questions posed in 
2022, 39 responses from 22 delegations were still pending.11  
2.21.   The Chairperson urged Members to make dedicated efforts to shorten, and eventually close, 
the list of pending responses. To assist Members in this e ndeavour, the Secretariat ha s introduced 
a feature in the AG -IMS to generate automatic reminders to Members with outstanding responses.  
2.22.   Nineteen  question s were raised under this agenda item.12 The concerned Member s' response s 
and follow -up comments can be accessed through the hyperlink contained in Table 4 of Annex 2 to 
this report  or through the AG -IMS using the relevant question ID number s. 
3  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE  
3.1  Implementation of Ministerial Outco mes, including Chair reports on the Informal 
Meeting  
3.1.1   Ministerial Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity: Work 
Programme Pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the Declaration Including Report by the Working 
Group Coordinator.  
3.1.  As was announced during the adoption of the agenda, the items under 2A(i) on Work 
Programme pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Declaration including report by the Working Group 
coordinator;  and 2A(ii) on Ministerial Declaration on the WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic 
and prepare dness for future pandemics were taken up together in view of the overlap across them. 
The summary of discussions on these two items is contained in paragraphs 3.2 to 3.16 below.  
3.1.2   Ministerial Declaration on the WTO Response to COVID -19 Pandemic and 
Preparedn ess for Future Pandemics: Continuing Engagement on "COVID -19 and 
Agriculture" to Feed into the Stocktaking Exercise by the General Council Pursuant to 
Paragraph 24 of the Declaration.   
3.2.  The Chairperson recalled that i n accordance with the agreed work progra mme13 of the CoA 
pursuant to paragraph 8 of the MC12 declaration on food insecurity , technical deliberations under 
 
11 As only one response (by Morocco to a question from Australia (AG -IMS ID 98094)) had been 
received since the issuance of G/AG/W/204/Rev.10  of 15 June 2023 , the Secretariat did not circulate  a new 
revision  for this meeting . 
12 WTO/AIR/AG/ 70, Section D of Attachment.  The details of the question  raised can be found under 
Section 4 of the compilation document  in G/AG/W/2 41. 
13 G/AG/35 . G/AG/R/107  
- 5 - 
  the various thematic areas ha d taken place under the CoA Working Group (WG) . The Chairperson 
expressed gratitude to the Committee for entrusting him with the role of the new WG coordinator 
following the departure of the previous coordinator, Mr. Marcel Vernooij from the Netherlands, upon 
the completion of his tenure in Geneva. In h is capacity as the Working Group coordinator, the 
Chairperson delivered a report on the Working Group's deliberations including  the potential way 
forward.  The coordinator's report can be found in Annex 3 to this report.    
3.3.  Egypt thanked the coordinator for  his report and urged the Committee to consider a set of 
proposals that aligned with the requests and aspirations of the demandeurs. Egypt emphasized the 
importance of addressing the policy constraints faced by LDCs and NFIDCs, who often lacked the 
product ion capacity to meet domestic consumption needs and were dependent on imports. Egypt 
suggested granting them certain flexibilities to address food security challenges.    
3.4.  India presented its submission14 on the trade related measures taken by the Governmen t of 
India to address the COVID -19 pandemic . In light of paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Ministerial 
Declaration15 on the WTO response to the COVID -19 Pandemic and Preparedness for Future 
Pandemics, India presented an overview of its COVID -19 measures, includi ng the development, 
manufacture, and exports of COVID -19 health products, use of digital technology in healthcare, and 
food security  measures . India alluded to its sustained efforts in promoting a vibrant biomedical 
research and development ecosystem to en able an  integrated response against the COVID -19 
pandemic . India noted that it had developed its first indigenous COVID -19 vaccine, called Covaxin, 
in 2021 through the public -private collaboration. As of the end of June 2023, India successfully 
administered over 2.21 billion vaccine doses and shared COVID -19 health products, including 
vaccines, through its Vaccine Maitri Initiative with resource -constrained low - and middle -income 
countries. India lev eraged its manufacturing capabilities to provide support  as a pharmacy of the 
world . India emphasized that it ramped up local vaccine manufacturing, ensuring access for its large 
population without affecting global vaccine supplies for other developing cou ntries.  India also 
undertook  several measures to address the food security concerns resulting from the COVID -19 
pandemic : i) under the 'Aatmanirbhar Bharat Scheme ', free monthly distribution of five kilograms 
of food grains to migrant workers continued for  18 months starting in 2020 ; ii) India provided free 
food grains to nearly 800 million beneficiaries through the 'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana' 
(PMGKAY), made possible by India's public stockholding of food grains ; iii) The 'One Nation One 
Ration Card' (ONORC) scheme allowed migrant beneficiaries to claim their food grain entitlements 
anywhere in the country through existing ration cards ; and iv) India ensured supplementary nutrition 
for rural childcare centres  and Anganwadi workers through the I CT-enabled digital platform Poshan 
Tracker.  India's measures aimed to address the food security needs of its population, which 
comprises nearly 1.4 billion people, and of other developing countries upon request .   
3.5.  The IGC presented16 grains and oilseeds ma rket developments . The IGC projected a decrease 
in wheat supply for the first time in the last five years due to increased consumption, particularly for 
feed wheat. For maize and soybeans, the supply was expected to be ample, although logistics, 
including freight costs, could potentially pose challenges in some regions. The IGC did not anticipate 
constraints in terms of overall rice supply. The IGC emphasized that India remained the main 
exporter of rice, wielding significant influence in global rice market  developments. India's export 
restrictions had led to a considerable increase in rice prices in various market segments, impacting 
Sub-Saharan Africa where consumption had been robust. This situation appeared less problematic 
for Asia, as major importers i n the region had sufficient stocks due to high levels of rice purchases 
in the previous marketing year. Additionally, the IGC did not anticipate an increase in global grain 
trade for 2023 -24, partly due to trade -related measures rather than supply shortage s.  
3.6.  The FAO presented17 the state of food security and nutrition in the world based on the July 
2023 State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World  (SOFI) report . According to the updated 
figures in the report, by 2030, almost 600 million people would face chronic undernourishment. This 
number was approximately 119 million higher than in a scenario where neither the COVID -19 
pandemic nor the war in Ukraine had occur red. According to the FAO, t hese figures highlight ed the 
immense challenge of achieving the  Sustainable Development Goals  (SDGs) target to eradicate 
hunger. At regional level, while progress had been m ade in most subregions in Asia and Latin 
 
14 JOB/AG/248  and other symbols.  
15 WT/MIN(22)/31 . 
16 G/AG/GEN/227 . 
17 G/AG/GEN/228 . G/AG/R/107  
- 6 - 
  America, hunge r was still on the rise in Western Asia, the Caribbean and all  the subregions of Africa. 
The FAO also noted that according to the 2023 Global Report on Food Cris es, around 258  million 
people in 58 countries and territories faced acute food insecurity at cr isis or worse levels in 2022. 
This was the highest number in the seven -year history of the report.  The FAO stated that  the 
intensification of the major drivers of food insecurity, namely conflicts, climate extremes, economic 
slowdowns and downturns, and gr owing inequality, had hamper ed global efforts aimed at improving 
food security. Furthermore, the prevailing El Niño event pose d significant risks to agriculture 
production in several regions for the 2023 -2024 season.  The F AO's latest forecast on global cer eal 
supply and demand for the 2023 -2024 season estimated increases in world production, utilization, 
and stocks by 0.9%, 0.8%, and 2.2%, respectively, and a 1.7% decrease in world trade. In August 
2023, the FAO food price index averaged 121.4 points, down 2.1% from July and 24% below its 
peak reached in March 2022. In contrast to the overall downward trends in food prices, the FAO All-
Rice Price Index registered a 9.8% month -on-month increase in August, reaching a 15 -year nominal 
high. The global food import bill was forecasted to reach USD1.98 trillion USD in 2023, marking a 
new absolute high. Contrary to the overall trend, the least -developed cou ntries and the net food -
importing developing countries were expected to see their food import bills contract by 1.5% and 
4.9%, respectively, suggesting a decline in their purchasing capacity. The FAO also alluded to its 
efforts in shaping the trade respons e to the global food crisis by providing neutral and timely market 
information, conducting analysis and evidence building, and presenting targeted policy proposals. 
The FAO reiterated its commitment to collaborate with the Committee, including in the conte xt of 
the implementation of the Work Programme established pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Ministerial 
Declaration on Emergency Response to Food Insecurity.  
3.7.  Several Members welcome d the submissions by  the IGC and the FAO.  They highlighted the 
usefulness of timely and reliable data  and expert analysis  which facilitated an informed discussion  
in the Committee on global food security developments . 
3.8.  The United Kingdom  (UK) stated that despite some improvements  in the general outlook , the 
global food security situ ation had remain ed precarious. The  UK considered that Russia's unprovoked 
and illegal war in Ukraine, as well as  its cessation of the Black Sea Grain Initiative  (BSGI)  in the 
summer, ha d had a significant negative impact  on global food security . The UK add ed that the 
Committee had a responsibility to ensure that Members' trade polic ies did not inadvertently 
exacerbate the already precarious  food security situation.  The UK echoed the FAO's intervention that 
national policy measures, such as export restrictio ns, could fuel food price inflation and rising import 
costs, which as manifest in the Food Security Work Program discussions , had been a significant 
challenge for LDCs and NFIDCs. Thanking the FAO and  the IGC's  efforts in that domain, t he UK 
highlighted the importance of timely  access to market transparency on major crops to avoid panic 
and better inform producers' decision making . The UK attached importan ce to the Committee's close 
collaborat ion with internatio nal organisations such as the FAO and the IGC, including through 
potential recommendations under the ongoing food security work program me. 
3.9.  Australia thanked the FAO and the I GC for their analysis of market conditions and global trade 
in key food commoditie s. Australia pointed out that some of the figures presented to the Committee 
were stark, including 783 million people facing hunger in 2022, unprecedented food import bills, and 
the particular vulnerability of the African region.  
3.10.   Japan highlighted its enga gement in activities aimed at ensuring global food security through 
various channels. Japan mentioned a high -level event held on 20 September 2023, during the United 
Nations General Assembly Week. During this event, Japan, in collaboration with the  IGC, jointly 
released an outcome document  entitled "The Key Principles of Action on Food Security Crisis for 
Exporters and Importers". The document identified four actions to be taken in the event of a food 
crisis, namely , maintaining open and flowing markets, en hancing predictability and mitigating 
volatility, improving market transparency, and ensuring the resilience and sustainability of the global 
agriculture and food system.  Additionally, Japan had recently decided to provide emergency 
assistance, including f ood aid, to Morocco, which had been struck by a major earthquake, and  to 
Libya, which had been hit by flood s. Japan noted its readiness to actively engage in the discussion 
on the role of the WTO to address global food insecurity, including under the ongoing CoA work 
programme for LDCs and NFIDCs.  
3.11.   The United States (US) echoed the FAO report which highlighted that the major drivers of 
food in security and malnutrition  such as conflict s, climate extremes, economic slowdowns and 
downturns, and growing inequality had hamper ed the global efforts aimed at improving food G/AG/R/107  
- 7 - 
  security. The US added that while some of these drivers, such as climate extreme s, were out of 
Members ' control , there was space for Members to promote agricultural trade policies that build 
resilience and boost productivity . The US urged Members to take actions that can facilitate trade 
and buil d stronger agri -food systems.  
3.12.   The Russi an Federation, while appreciating the submissions from the IGC and the FAO, 
considered their analysis to be incomplete and lacking in necessary facts. Russia believed that 
unilateral trade and economic restrictions applied against it by certain Members in recent years had 
created a distorted picture and provided false incentives for trade policy decisions. Russia reminded 
Members of the importance of being objective in assessing the true causes and harmful 
consequences affecting the multilateral trading sys tem, and deemed it undesirable to present a one -
sided view of the factors influencing the global agricultural market.    
3.13.   China noted that the reports from the FAO and the IGC ha d contributed to the ongoing WTO 
discussions on food security, both for developi ng short -term outcomes and for contemplating a 
strategic framework for long -term food security within rule -based international trade. China 
suggested that future FAO and IGC analyses could also explore aspects related to green measures 
and repurposing dome stic support.  
3.14.   Korea requested that the FAO should provide details of its current activities and projects 
related to food security, as this information would be beneficial to the work of the CoA Working 
Group on food security.  
3.15.   The FAO expressed its commitme nt to providing up -to-date, neutral, and timely market 
information through regular publications. It also highlighted its production of various analyses and 
evidence, including the fertilizer trade tracker and the joint FAO -WTO publication on fertilizer18. The 
FAO also referred to the April 2023 joint FAO -WTO-World Bank report19 on rising global food 
insecurity and possible policy responses. Furthermore, the FAO had been a ctively involved in 
formulating policy proposals and technical initiatives related to  food security.  
3.16.   The Chair encouraged Members to be transparent about their COVID -19 agricultural measures 
and to present information on those measures to the Committee for a collective assessment. 
Members were also encouraged to take advantage of the COVID -19 agriculture webpage and to 
provide updated information on their COVID -19 measures as appropriate within the framework of 
the WTO's trade monitoring exercise as this would be a valuable source of information for a 
comprehensive and detailed assessm ent to evaluate the WTO response to the COVID -19 pandemic 
and preparedness for future pandemics.  
3.1.3   Nairobi Decision on Export Competition  
3.17.   The Chairperson recalled that the Committee held its  2023 annual dedicated discussion on 
Export Competition at its June  meeting. As part of the monitoring of the Nairobi decision on Export 
Competition, Members ha d the possibility to raise questions under this agenda  item. Section E of 
attachment to the convening airgram20 listed the six questions raised by Members for this  
discussion.21 Members' responses and follow -up comments can be accessed by clicking on the 
relevant hyperlinks in Table  5 of Annex 2  to this report. This information can also be consulted 
directly in the AG -IMS using the relevant question ID numbers as pr ovided in that table.  
3.18.   On the  modification of Schedules pursuant to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition, the Chairperson noted that out of the 16 Members with export subsidy reduction 
commitments at the time of the adoption of the Nairobi decision, 13 Members ha d their revised 
schedules certified. Two Members, namely Canada and the European Union, circulated their draft 
schedule in 2017, which  were not yet certified and one remaining Member, the Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela,  had not  yet circulate d its draft schedule.  
 
18 Global Fertilizer Markets and Policies: A Joint FAO/WTO Mapping Exercise  
19 Rising Global Food Insecurity: Assessing Policy Responses (fao.org)  
20 WTO/AIR/AG/70 . 
21 The details of these questions can be found in section 5 of the Question Compilation Document, 
G/AG/W/241 . G/AG/R/107  
- 8 - 
  3.1.4   Implementation of other Ministerial Outcomes  
3.19.   There was no request for the floor under this agenda  item. 
3.2  Role of Transfer of Technol ogy in Resilience Building  
3.20.   The African Group had requested the inclusion of their  submission22 on "Role of Transfer of 
Technology  in the Resilience Building: Agriculture"  on the agenda of the meeting . Nigeria, on behalf 
of the African Group , presented the  submission. The Group acknowledged the significant role that 
technology transfer could play in the collective pursuit of food security. The submission aimed at 
generating a structured discussion on how to make technology transfer more relevant to building 
agricultural resilience in the face of recurring food security challenges which disproportionately 
affected import dependent developing and least developed countries, most  of which were in the 
African continent. The African Group considered that the Co A should examine how technology 
transfer could take place within the setting of the current provisions of the Green Box under the 
Agreement on Agriculture ( AoA).  The submissi on also  emphasized the importance of facilitating the 
transfer and diffusion of agricultural technologies and products to developing and least -developed 
countries through proper and cost -effective modalities and schemes, particularly designed to cater 
to the needs and challenges of the African countries , as this was vital for ensuring equitable access 
to technologies that could boost agricultural productivity and food security in the region.  
3.21.   The African Group underlined that technology transfer was relevan t to address medium to 
long term food security strategies in connection with the SDG Goal 2 to create a world free of hunger 
by 2030. It recognized that advanced agricultural technologies had the potential to significantly 
enhance agricultural productivity . For instance, in Ghana, the adoption of improved maize varieties 
had resulted in a 30% increase in crop yields over the past five years. Technology could also assist 
in reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture, which was crucial for sustainabl e food 
production in the region. In Kenya, the use of precision irrigation systems had reduced water 
consumption by 40% while increasing crop yields. Enhanced technology could mitigate post -harvest 
losses and improve food storage and distribution. Nigeria had successfully implemented solar -
powered cold storage facilities, reducing food wastage by 25% in the past year. However, the lack 
of infrastructure and investment in developing such technologies and their wider availability and 
affordability remain ed a challenge for many African farmers.  The African Group underscored the 
critical importance of international cooperation in the realm of technology transfer to achieve food 
security.  
3.22.   The African Group  also noted that facilitating access to information throug h technology was a 
game changer for African farmers, enabling them to make informed decisions on crop management, 
market trends, and resilient building measures. Mobile app lications p roviding weather forecasts and 
market prices ha d empowered smallholder fa rmers in Uganda to make timely and profitable choices. 
Nevertheless, access to reliable electricity and internet services remained challenges for rural 
communities . 
3.23.   The African Group  also alluded to the challenge of navigating the complexity of intellectua l 
property rights and stress ed the need for a balanced approach that ensure d equitable access to 
essential agricultural innovations, particularly for developing nations.  The Group considered that the 
coordination with the TRIPS Council was necessary  on thi s matter . The African Group also made 
some specific suggestions to  facilitate and guarantee proper and timely transfer and diffusion of 
technology through the following related activities : i) R esearch and development - African nations 
were committed to enhancing local research and development capacities and adopting techn ologies 
tailored to their unique conditions and needs. However, their research centres often face d resource 
constraints and require international support ; ii) Capacity building - The African Group  welcome d 
collaboration with international partners, includin g the private sector and research centres, that 
provide d essential training and technical assistance to strengthen the capabilities of their farmers 
and institutions. Yet, sustainable funding for such collaborations remain ed a challenge ; and, iii) 
Knowledg e sharing - The African Union platform for sharing agro -ecological best practices ha d 
facilitated cross -border learning and collaboration. However, scaling up such initiatives and ensuring 
their accessibility to all African nations was a continuous challeng e. African nations were keen to 
 
22 G/AG/W/238  and other symbols.  G/AG/R/107  
- 9 - 
  engage through the Committee in knowledge sharing initiatives that promoted best practices and 
innovations among their countries, fostering regional and international cooperation.  
3.24.   Several Members thanked  the African Group 's submission  and welcome d the suggestion  to 
engage on discussions on technology transfer based on practical examples.     
3.25.   Brazil  noted that since the 2000s, Brazilian agriculture had had the best results in the world 
in terms of productivity, supported by ess ential technical and scientific support through  research 
institutions, especially the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Embrapa. This public -private 
combined effort allowed Brazil to move from being a net importer of food to the largest net expo rter 
in less than 50 years. Brazil had a strong history of cooperating with partner countries in the field of 
agricultural technology, both in terms of receiving cooperation primarily in the past and providing 
cooperation more recently . Brazil emphasized t he importance of conversation among Members on 
the main existing agricultural technologies  and their  effective use in the field, regulatory 
environment, including authorization for the use of biotech, reliance on domestic support measures 
that contributed to the technological development of a country, and barriers to the diffusion of these 
technologies . Brazil also considered this conversation to be significant for understanding the future 
of the agri -food system and the Agreement on Agriculture . 
3.26.   New Zealand expressed its readiness to collaborate with Members in exploring effective ways 
to enhance agricultural resilience through technology transfer. New Zealand supported the three 
areas mentioned by the African Group of further collaboration in ter ms of research and development, 
capacity building, and knowledge sharing. New Zealand noted that it had a significant number of 
development programmes to enhance agricultural productivity and resilience in its region, including 
as part of the Global Resear ch Alliance, which provided specific research on mitigating agricultural 
greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand also had several  technological development and 
cooperation projects with  developing countries.  New Zealand support ed dialogue on utilizing 
resear ch, development,  and technology in the agricultural sector.  
3.27.   The United States  (US) recognized the important role of science, research, and innovation to 
sustainably increase production to feed the growing world population, while securing the livelihood 
of farmers and addressing emerging challenges in international agricultural trade. The US added 
that the most effective and impactful technology transfer had occurred via voluntary licensing 
agreements and that encouraging technology transfer on a voluntary a nd mutually agreed term 
supported predictable and long -lasting business partnerships that would go beyond an initial 
technology transfer event. The US attributed great importance to the obligations under Article 66.2 
of the TRIPS Agreement to provide incen tives for technology transfer. The US ' annual Article 66.2 
submissions to the TRIPS Council detailed such programmes on intellectual property and trade 
capacity building to the agricultural, labour, and environmental sectors. The US believed that for 
Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement to function effectively, there must be a robust dialogue between 
developed countries and LDC Members. Strong communication between partners was critical to 
ensure that targeted incentives remained responsive to the self -identified technology transfer 
interests and needs of LDC Members. The US stated that it strived to make this a priority in all their 
engagements with their host government partners around the world and that it would continue to 
explore ways to improve this pro cess. 
3.28.   Thailand agreed and supported the principle that technology played a key  role for agricultural 
resilien ce and food security. Thailand referred to its efforts to adopt technological innovation s, 
especially to tackle climate change  challenges , which ha d positively impacted on efficient farming 
system and agricultural productivity in the rice sector. Thailand looked forward to further discussion s 
in the WTO on promot ing technology transfer to build agricultural resilience.  
3.29.   The Russian Federation acknowle dged the relevance of the topic and noted that there was a 
need to identify specific objectives of technology transfer. Russia considered that to be essential 
because different goals or objectives might imply the need for different technologies. For instance, 
to achieve increas ed agricultural production, the reliance on organic farming technologies might not 
be appropriate which could reduce production efficiency and increase dependence on imports.   
3.30.   The European Union (EU) stated that technological innovation and new products or services 
generated thereby were indispensable to tackle climate change, fight future pandemics, or address 
other global challenges such as food insecurity. The EU state d its commitment to foster inno vation G/AG/R/107  
- 10 - 
  as well as to promote and facilitate technology dissemination. The EU and its member States were 
already actively promoting technology transfer programmes, in particular to LDCs, which included 
licensing out technologies, training and education, exc hanges of qualified staff, and joint research 
projects. For the EU, the main financial source for such cooperation had been the Horizon Euro 
Framework programme, with a total budget of EUR 96 billion spread ing over seven financial years. 
The EU stated that technological innovation and its dissemination would be impossible without 
enabling  conditions, including in the form of e ffective national and international intellectual property 
(IP) rights frameworks, which enabled international transfer of technologie s. The EU added that the 
main channels for these technology transfers were exports of manufactured products and foreign 
direct investments, both of which were greatly facilitated by effective IP systems. IP frameworks 
provided certainty and predictability needed for technology transfer and served also as platforms 
enabling scientific cooperation, joint ventures and voluntary licensing agreements, which were the 
most effective way s of technology transfer. The EU stated that a successful technology transfer did 
not only concern IP and getting access to technology, but also necessitated enabling conditions on 
the ground for the recipient. T he recipient should be able to apply the technology in practice, which 
in turn would r equire quality education and training , absorption capacities to produce locally, 
openness to international trade and investment, access to financing, adequate infrastructure, as well 
as predictability of regulatory and legal frameworks.  The EU was open to discussions based on 
practical examp les and best practices on how to build or enhance absorption capacities and make 
use of the existing WTO framework to facilitate transfer of technology to eligible Members.  
3.31.   Türkiye  stated that the unique experiences of agricultural production of various co untries in 
the field of technology was valuable and that it should be utilized for the benefit of those in need.  
3.32.   Australia reaffirmed its commitment to sharing their knowledge and technology with 
developing countries to boost  agricultural productivity. Australia emphasized the work of the 
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), including its operations and 
projects in various countries, such as Burundi, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, South 
Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Z ambia, and Zimbabwe. The ACIAR  also routinely released informative 
and educational publications to assist with agricultural development initiatives.  
3.33.   The United Kingdom  (UK) stated that trade was a key driver for economic growth and 
development, and that th e WTO had a central role in providing a more stable global trading system 
that benefited all Members . The UK also  recognised that developing Members faced capacity 
constraints  and referred to the UK's support to these Members through technical assistance and 
capacity building programmes, including the Aid for Trade programmes, and the recently announced 
developing country trade scheme. The UK recognised that technology transfer was an issue of 
growing importance in the WTO and that it stood ready to engage on the matter to  foster a common 
understanding on the challenges and  possible solutions.  The UK also considered that these were 
complex issues  requiring detailed deliberation s towards their fuller appreciation , as well as to 
determine  next steps.  
3.34.   Switzerland noted that the African Group's submission covered a wide range of issues and 
expressed the need for additional time for a th orough consideration. Switzerland emphasized that 
several key elements were essential for successful techno logy transfer, including the presence of 
right infrastructure, a conducive business environment, sufficient absorption capacity, and a reliable, 
safe, and enforceable regulatory framework, which included the protection of intellectual property 
rights. Swit zerland further pointed out that the private sector, typically the holder of technology, 
makes decisions on sharing technology based on these and other factors. Switzerland acknowledged 
that there was still much to learn about how effective technology tran sfer could occur and what 
kinds of partnerships could promote it. Switzerland also highlighted the importance of taking into 
account the ongoing efforts related to this matter in other international fora.  
3.35.   Korea believed that transferring sustainable agricultural technology to LDCs and NFIDCs was 
a potent means to improve global food security. It specifically emphasized the significance of high -
yield seed breeding technology and the utilization of digital te chnologies for agricultural 
development. Drawing from its own green revolution experience, Korea pointed out that adopting 
new high -yield rice varieties could potentially lead to a two to three -fold increase in rice yields in 
African countries. Korea had r ecently initiated Africa K -Rice Belt projects in eight countries in Africa, 
including Senegal, Gambia, Kenya, Guinea Bissau, Ghana, Cameroon, Uganda, and Guinea. To 
further discussions on the revitalization of the Green Revolution and high -yield seed devel opment, 
Korea mentioned an upcoming workshop scheduled for early November 2023 on this theme. G/AG/R/107  
- 11 - 
  Additionally, Korea highlighted the importance of applying ICT technologies for agricultural 
development and expressed its willingness to host ICT -related worksho ps in early 2024. Korea also 
encouraged other WTO Members to host similar workshops to address technology transfer issues 
across various fields, aiming to assist Members and contribute to enhancing food security for LDCs 
and NFIDCs.  
3.36.   Egypt emphasized the im portance of technology transfer, food security, and building 
resilience. Egypt also pointed out that there were several examples in Africa and around the world 
highlighting the crucial role of technology transfer in addressing food security. Egypt welcomed  the 
willingness of Members to share their experiences on technology transfer in the Committee. Egypt, 
with the support of South Africa, Korea, Pakistan, and Nigeria, requested that the Committee 
consider making this topic a permanent item on its agenda, i n order to facilitate focused and 
structured discussions on this theme.  
3.37.    South Africa noted that in the context of current food security vulnerabilities, especially of 
African economies , and the need to ensure that all Members played their part in confront ing climate 
change and contributing to sustainable agriculture, the role of transfer of technology could not be 
overstated. Improving productive capacities or yields, more so in a sustainable manner, required 
that innovative policy tools be considered to e nsure effective technology transfer and sharing of 
knowledge. South Africa look ed forward to engaging openly on this matter and welcomed Members' 
sharing their experiences . 
3.38.   The Chairperson noted that Members were free to request the inclusion of any releva nt item 
on the agenda of a Committee meeting. Additionally, the Chairperson informed Members that the 
topic of technology transfer would be included on the agenda of the next informal meeting of the 
Committee in November  for further discussions and engagem ent. 
3.2.1   Agriculture and Environment  
3.39.   Two submissions were considered under this agenda item  based on specific request s by 
respective authors , namely, the submission23 by African group on principles guiding the development 
and implementation  of trade -related environmental measures ; and the submission24 by the  Cairns 
Group on the contribution of the multilateral trading system to sustainable and resilient agriculture 
and foo d systems.  
3.40.   Nigeria  presented the submission  on behalf of t he African Group  and expressed concerns 
about  the growing trend of unilateral trade measures by Members on the ground of achieving 
environmental and climatic goals, some of which also had an extra -territorial reach. The African 
Group added that these unilateral trade measures did not only undermine the basic principles of 
common but differentiated responsibility, and equity and respective capabilities, but also had 
restricted market access, particul arly of developing countries and LDCs, in international trade. These 
unilateral measures covered a wide range of globally traded goods, not least agricultural products, 
and had far-reaching negative impacts on exports from developing and least developed co untries,  
compromising Africa's competitiveness. The African group was concerned that these unilaterally 
designed measures paid little regard to their impact on developing countries, including LDCs. The 
Group emphasized that confronting climate change would  require global cooperation as opposed to 
punitive  or unilateral trade measures.  
3.41.   A study commissioned by the African Climate Foundation , which measured the potential 
impact of some of these unilateral measures on the African economy, revealed that Africa  would be 
the worst -affected among any of the other major economies analysed . The African Group considered 
it to be ironic that the continent which had contributed the least to greenhouse gas emissions, w ould 
be expected to pay heavily in the global lower carbon transition .  The African Group therefore 
favoured multilaterally agreed global rules , rather than a proliferation of unilateral and punitive 
environmental measures.  The African group call ed for a positive trade and environment agenda that 
would ensure that any environment and climate -related trade measures d id not constitute arbitrary 
or disguised restrictions or unjustifiable discrimination to international trade. Similarly, Members 
 
23 G/AG/W/239 . 
24 G/AG/GEN/222/Rev.1 . G/AG/R/107  
- 12 - 
  should not attempt to transfer the responsibility of meeting their nationally -determined contributions 
to other Members.  
3.42.   The African Group noted that developing countries lacked funds to cope with climatic 
adaptation needs, yet they were paying the heaviest and disproportionate price. Developing 
countries also neede d predictable and accessible climate financing to support commensurate climate 
mitigation ambitions. The African Group stressed that climate agenda should therefore also recognize 
the principle of special and differential  treatment (S&DT) and the common bu t differentiated 
responsibility (CBDR) as agreed in various WTO agreements and the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change  (UNFCCC ) conferences. The African group believe d that considering 
the proliferation of UNFCCC -related environmental mea sures and their negative impacts on 
international trade, including agricultural trade, the matter was worth examining in the CoA. The 
African Group  also called for enhancing the role of the Committee for Trade and Environment ( CTE) 
to promote a better understanding of the relationship between trade and environmental policies.  
3.43.   Australia  presented the submission on the 'Contribution of the Multilateral Trading System to 
Sustainable and Resilient Agricultural and Food Systems ' on behal f of the Cairns Group . The Cairns 
Group noted that the submission represent ed the concerns of a broad range of agricultural 
producers, exporters and importers, including m any from developing countries  due to  the Group's 
membership profile . The statement  had one key message: Agricultural import measures put in place 
in the name of environmental sustainability should not be unnecessarily trade restrictive. The Cairns 
Group underlined that t here was no one -size-fits-all for such measures and unilateral approac hes 
risked undermining of the rules -based multilateral trading system on which Members critically 
depended. The Group highlighted its commitment to achieving a fair, equitable, and market -oriented 
agricultural trading system, along with the importance of p rogressive agricultural trade reform for 
various global goals, including global food security, development, livelihoods,  and the environment.  
3.44.   The Cairns Group expressed deep concern s about t he emergence of increasingly onerous, 
unilaterally imposed import requirements , ostensibly on environmental sustainability grounds, that 
affected trade in agri -food products. Many of these measures had the potential to negatively impact 
global producers and exporters of agri -food products, undermining efforts by o thers to achieve global 
food security while at the same time failing to improve the environmental outcomes which the 
measures purported to  advance. The  Cairns Group noted that resilient and sustainable agricultural 
and food systems were essential to meetin g the goals of global food security, economic development,  
and environmental sustainability. Agricultural production conditions and practices were unique to 
each country, and this needed to be considered  when designing agricultural sustainability policies 
and regulations. Approaches to achieve sustainability depended on production contexts, including 
local variations in climate, geology, soil, biota, pest and disease exposure and a myriad of other 
factors. This was the reason why sustainability -related trad e measures need ed to be science and 
evidence -based and focused on achieving environmental outcomes.   
3.45.   Unilateralism in policy -making and standard -setting led to a proliferation of different 
approaches to environmental regulation and open ed up the possibilit y of tit -for-tat retaliations that 
could risk moves towards protectionism.  For this reason, the Cairns Group Members ha d come 
together to submit a statement on the contribution of the multilateral trading system to sustainable 
and resilient agriculture and  food systems, emphasising the importance of multilateral rule -making 
in effectively addressing the global challenges of agricultural sustainability and food security, the 
need for sustainability -related import conditions to be science and evidence -based w ith a focus on 
environmental outcomes, the need for inclusivity and broad consultation, including from women, 
indigenous peoples and rural communities, and cautioning against a one-size-fits-all approach  for 
achieving environmentally sustainable food secur ity. The Cairns Group  extend ed an invitation to all 
interested WTO Members to work together on a statement for presentation to the General Council . 
3.46.   Uruguay expressed its gratitude to the African Group for their submission and recognized a 
significant commo nality between the guiding principles proposed by the Group for the development 
and implementation of trade -related environmental measures and the stance taken by Cairns Group 
Members, including Uruguay, on this issue. Uruguay echoed the concerns expressed  by Australia on 
behalf of the Cairns Group on trade -restrictive measures increasingly adopted by Members under 
the pretext of environmental sustainability. Uruguay stressed the importance of taking a holistic 
approach to sustainability, considering all th ree dimensions and respecting country -specific 
circumstances. The pursuit of sustainable agricultural systems was necessary, but not sufficient to 
address global environmental challenges, and should be balanced with the global need for increased G/AG/R/107  
- 13 - 
  agricultur al production to meet consumption demands. In particular, Uruguay reminded that around 
70% of total greenhouse gas emissions originated in non -agricultural sectors, which had to be 
addressed seriously and with a sense of priority, particularly by those res ponsible for the bulk of 
such emissions and their accumulation throughout the years. Uruguay emphasized the importance 
of Members aligning their pursuit of environmental protection with their WTO commitments. It did 
not support the application of measures that could be arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminatory, or a 
disguised restriction on international trade, including through provisions of an extraterritorial nature, 
some of which are currently under discussion in various WTO bodies.  It underlined the importance 
of transparency in trade -related environmental measures and their alignment with international law, 
including the need to base measures on scientific evidence, as per the relevant WTO agreements. 
Uruguay also underscored the signi ficance of the reform process under the Agreement on 
Agriculture, aiming to reduce agricultural support and border protection measures, given the 
distortions these caused on agricultural production and trade and their adverse effects on the 
environment. La stly, Uruguay suggested that WTO Members should consider approaches that 
acknowledge and reward positive action by governments and producers to produce sustainably, 
including via trade incentives, over punitive approaches.  
3.47.   Canada emphasized the WTO's poten tial role in addressing the intersection of trade, 
environmental sustainability, and food security issues. Canada believe d that a fair, rules -based, 
transparent, non -distorted, and market -oriented agricultural trade environment was essential for 
building r esilient and sustainable agri -food systems and achieving global food security objectives. 
This involve d avoiding unwarranted trade restrictions and ensuring that environmental measures 
affecting trade in agri -food products align ed with international standa rds, were based on risk science 
and evidence, and compl ied with relevant WTO agreements.  
3.48.   Chile attached great importance to the challenges related to food security, environmental 
sustainability and climate change, and considered it vital to promote a balan ce between public 
policies, investment in infrastructure , and the adoption and transfer of technologies to ensure the 
competitiveness and sustainability of the agricultural sector. Chile underscored the importance of 
the agricultural reform process as per Article 20 of the AoA which would lead to reduction of trade -
distorting domestic subsidies, which were noted to have adverse environmental effects, and the 
establishment of fair and inclusive sustainable food systems.  Chile encouraged Members to recognize 
that agricultural characteristics and productive contexts varied from one country to another , and 
thus, adopting a one -size-fits-all approach to sustainability in agriculture should be avoided . In 
addition, Chile asked Members to ensure that any environmen tal measure would  not constitute an 
arbitrary, unjustified, discriminatory or disguised restriction to trade. Chile also highlighted the 
importance of the active participation and leadership of women, indigenous peoples, and rural 
communities in strengthen ing sustainable agriculture and food production .  
3.49.   Colombia recognized the points of convergence between the African Group and the Cairns 
Group submissions. Colombia noted that it was a developing Member, a tropical country, with a rich 
and varied agricultu ral culture where each region had unique characteristics. Colombia stated that 
its farmers had very serious challenges related to climate, geology, soil, and diversity, among others , 
and noted that the implementation of import measures in the name of envir onmental sustainability 
could adversely affect its farmers' interests and unjustifiably restrict trade.  Colombia stresse d the 
need for sustainable agricultural practices tailored to regional variations and different modes of 
production. It express ed concerns about unilateral measures that d id not align with globally agreed 
standards and d id not consider the specific agricult ural context in individual countries . 
3.50.   Brazil thanked the African Group for it s submission and stated its interest in engaging with 
the Group on the many topics mentioned in their submission, and particularly to examine how the 
WTO framework could be harnes sed to support climate financing in developing countries. Brazil 
extended an invitation to the African Group to collaborate and invited them to join Brazil and other 
Members in several ongoing initiatives aimed at addressing the concerns raised in their su bmission. 
These initiatives included, among others, the questions that Brazil ha d been posing to the EU since 
the Committee's 100th meeting, the submission by the Cairns Group regarding the contribution of 
the Multilateral Trading System to Sustainable and  Resilient Agriculture and Food Systems, and the 
joint letter of 7 September 2023 concerning the EU's Regulation on Deforestation Free Products  
signed by 17 developing Members, including Brazil. Brazil noted that green protectionism had 
emerged as a threat  to the integrity of both trade and environmental regimes . Brazil agreed that 
there was a need for different WTO bodies, including the Co A and the  CTE, to play a more active 
role in promoting sustainable development and ensuring that environmental measures  observed the G/AG/R/107  
- 14 - 
  principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and did not 
constitute disguised vehicles for restricting market access.  
3.51.   In relation to the Cairns group submission, Brazil added  that the value of global a gri-food 
trade had more than doubled in the past three decades in real terms. Overall, global agri -food trade 
grew at an annual average of 3.8%, reaching 1.37 trillion  USD in 2019 from 531 billion  USD in real 
terms in 1990. However, growth had slowed down since the 2008 financial crisis and agri -food trade 
grew at a slower pace than the total global merchandise trade. As a result, its share in total global 
merchandise exports had declined. Brazil noted that the participation of developing countries in 
globa l agri -food markets was on the rise, underscoring their increasing significance in global 
agricultural and food trade. Their share in the global agri -food exports increased from 32% in 1990 
to 46% in 2019, while their share in global agri -food imports incr eased from 33% to 51%.  
3.52.    Brazil recalled that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development defined international trade 
as an engine for inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction that contribute d to the promotion 
of sustainable development. Internationa l trade was an enabler for sustainable development  as it 
could  create jobs, stimulate innovation, increase wealth and well -being, and efficient resource 
allocation.  Brazil added that n ot only were bound and applied tariffs on agricultural goods on average 
almost double d than the ones on industrial goods, but also non -tariff measures  (NTMs) such as SPS 
and TBT measures, were particularly important for agricultural trade. The ad valor em equivalent  
(AVEs) of NTMs were much higher for agriculture than for other economic sectors . For food products 
in particular, AV Es of NT Ms were on average almost three times higher than normal tariffs.  Brazil 
stated that t he unilateral adoption of trade -restrictive measures with extraterritorial application 
under the umbrella of environmental policies w ould increase even further the burden  and costs of 
transaction and compliance to agricultural producers, especially in developing countries. Th is in turn 
would  hinder their progress in securing a share in the growth in international trade commensurate 
with the needs of their economic developm ent, as prescribed in the Marrakesh Agreement 
establishing the World Trade Organization.   
3.53.   Brazil noted that t he proliferation of standards and rules affecting trade ha d led to regulatory 
fragmentation . Such fragmentation create d space for arbitration and c reated obstacles to trade and 
innovation, either due to lack of adequate information on rules applicable in each case, due to the 
need for duplication of processes, for example, as in the case of conformity assessment, or due to 
the need to adapt productio n processes to meet the regulatory specifications of each market.  
Furthermore, entire entities that develop ed private standards d id not have clear and harmonized 
rules on transparency, conflict of interest , and participation of interested parties in the 
standardization process.  In terms of market access, private standards, even if formally voluntary, 
could become in fact mandatory when the only option for producers who d id not adhere to these 
standards was to leave the market.  The unilateral adoption of tra de restrictive measures with 
extraterritorial application, such as due diligence, anti -deforestation laws, maximum residue level s 
(MRLs) that were not science -based and mirror clauses, not only led to regulatory fragmentation, 
but also prevent ed the furthering of international regulatory cooperation  as it create d a conflictive 
dynamic between exporters and importers with negative consequences on sustainable development 
in its three dimensions . Brazil believed that international regulatory coopera tion offered the potential 
to overcome these challenges, enhancing regulatory effectiveness by tackling cross -border issues, 
increasing economic efficiency by reducing trade barriers, and improving administrative efficiency 
through shared knowledge and exp eriences from other nations . 
3.54.    Brazil added that a ccess restrictions by importing markets in a context where there was no 
cooperation, rewards or incentives could be described as a free rider behaviour  by Members imposing 
the measures, as they would be bene fiting from environmental services in third countries without 
contributing to them or demanding equivalent restriction s domestically.  In a similar vein, the 
unilateral adoption of trade -restrictive measures with extraterritorial application by firms in 
importing markets could also be characterized as 'free rider' behaviour . These firms could reap 
higher profits by selling certified products at higher prices to consumers. Meanwhile, producers from 
developing countries, often situated at the beginning of glob al value chains, might earn less, 
sometimes barely enough to cover production and certification costs. In the worst -case scenario, 
agricultural producers from developing countries could be entirely excluded from value chains. Even 
in a less negative scenar io, the certification process tended to introduce intermediaries into 
international value chains, capturing a portion of the margin from the producers. This process often 
led to increased poverty, particularly for small and medium -sized producers . G/AG/R/107  
- 15 - 
  3.55.   Brazil e mphasized that, as demonstrated by SDG  1, the fight against poverty , yields  positive 
environmental and sustainability outcomes, while conversely, an increase in poverty hampers the 
achievement of sustainability -related development goals. Often, the unilate ral adoption of trade -
restrictive measures with extraterritorial application related to the alleged existence of varying 
process and production method requirements among different Members, which did not necessarily 
change the physical nature or characteris tics of products.  These measures often fail ed to account for 
the diversity of conditions in different Members . On one hand, they overlook ed the possibility that 
producers in the importing country m ight be receiving significant subsidies to meet regulatory 
requirements. In some cases, these subsidies could surpass mere compensation for compliance costs 
and income foregone due to regulatory adherence.  On the other hand, these measures did not 
consider that developing countries exporting food and ag ricultural goods often exhibited a higher 
degree of environmental protection. This included a greater percentage of territory covered by native 
vegetation and forests compared to developed countries implementing the measures. This was due 
to the intense ex ploitation of natural resources such as timber and soil in the developmental 
processes of the latter countries. Furthermore, these measures disregarded additional relevant 
factors, such as the strictness of environmental protection legislation, the prevale nce of clean energy 
sources in the energy mix, and the greater environmental burden posed by other sectors and 
activities.  
3.56.   Malaysia stated that in the face of global environmental and food security challenges, fair and 
transparent international agricultura l trade was crucial for strengthening agri -food systems, ensuring 
global food security and improving environmental outcomes. Malaysia added that sustainable 
agriculture played a vital role in enhancing food security, economic development, and environmental  
sustainability. According to Malaysia, it was imperative that policies promoting sustainable 
agriculture were not driven by protectionist objectives but rather prioritized long -term sustainability 
and resilience. Malaysia reaffirmed its unwavering support  for the multilateral trading system and 
upheld the WTO principles and agreements such as the AoA, TBT and SPS Agreement s which ensured 
transparency, adherence to international standards and evidence -based trade policies. Malaysia 
underscored the importanc e of avoiding unjustified trade restrictions and burdensome compliance 
requirements.  Malaysia added that p rogress in implementing multilateral agricultural trade reforms 
was essential for achieving sustainable agricultural trad e and that a ddressing the dis tortionary and 
harmful effects of global agricultural support was crucial towards  a more sustainable future.  Malaysia 
also highlighted the necessity of recognizing the diverse agricultural conditions, circumstances, and 
practices of different Member countr ies. They emphasized that a one -size-fits-all approach would 
not suffice and that customized approaches were required to enhance sustainability in agriculture. 
Most importantly, Members were urged to implement practices and policies that facilitated the 
adaptation of the global agri -food system to a changing climate, eradication of hunger, and the 
safeguarding of food security, all while respecting the unique needs and circumstances of each 
Member.  Malaysia called on M embers to collaborate and promote susta inable and resilient agriculture 
and food systems by emphasizing fair international trade, sustainable practices , and inclusive 
participation  to create a prosperous and sustainable future for all.  
3.57.   Ukraine, as a significant player in the global food market, acknowledged the importance of 
ensuring sustainable and resilient production and supply of agricultural products. Ukraine 
emphasized that it had refrained from introducing food supply restrictions even during the most 
challenging periods of the COV ID-19 pandemic, and despite facing constant attacks from the Russia 
Federation. Ukraine stressed the importance of environmental protection measures adhering to 
existing WTO rules and aligning with the obligations under the Paris Agreement. Ukraine reaffir med 
its commitment to prioritize the development of an efficient agriculture system and to bolster global 
confidence in the application of food safety standards. Ukraine emphasized the importance of 
ensuring that the shift towards climate neutrality in pro duction did not exacerbate economic 
inequality among countries. Ukraine's objective had been to transition towards sustainable 
production and sales models while also developing the required financial mechanisms to support this 
goal. 
3.58.   Viet Nam underlined the  essential nature of progressive agricultural trade reform in ensuring 
global food security, promoting development, supporting livelihoods, and safeguarding the 
environment. At the United Nations Food System Summit in 2021, Viet Nam had declared its 
commit ment to becoming a nation known for transparent, responsible, and sustainable food 
production, capable of meeting the needs of approximately 100 million people and contributing to 
global food security. Viet Nam affirmed its commitment to transitioning its food systems towards a 
green economy and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. In alignment with this vision, G/AG/R/107  
- 16 - 
  Viet Nam co -sponsored the Cairns Group submission, emphasizing the multilateral trading system's 
role in promoting sustainability and resil ience in agriculture and food systems.  
3.59.   Paraguay emphasized that the most significant contribution the WTO could make to 
sustainability was to make progress in the agricultural reform  process . It underscored the rising 
trend of unilateral measures that appe ared to deviate from WTO rules and seemed inconsistent with 
the commitments Members had made in other international organizations with environmental 
treaties.  Paraguay emphasized the principles of common and differentiated responsibilities and 
argued that advancing environmental objectives required cooperation and communication, rather 
than imposing unilateral standards based on political considerations instead of scientific criteria. 
Paraguay expressed its commitment to supporting the work of the WTO, ackn owledging that 
sustainability must encompass all three of its pillars. Paraguay also stressed that there is no one -
size-fits-all model for environmental sustainability worldwide.  
3.60.   South Africa acknowledged the importance of and remained committed to climate  change 
mitigation and adaptation. However, like many other Members, particularly those from developing 
countries, South Africa was increasingly concerned about the significant surge in the adoption of 
various forms of unilateral trade -related environmenta l measures. South Africa emphasized that the 
joint submission from the African Group and the Cairns Group reflected the unanimous apprehension 
within the WTO Membership regarding the trade implications of these measures.  South Africa shared 
the concerns ex pressed in the Cairns Group's paper, particularly regarding the potential misuse of 
trade measures in the pursuit of environmental goals and the application of one -size-fits-all 
approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Likewise, South Africa  aligned with the 
sentiments expressed in the September 2023 joint letter.  
3.61.   South Africa believed that the core principles outlined in the African Group submission should 
serve as guiding principles for the interaction between trade and environmental sustai nability efforts. 
In this context, South Africa emphasized that all trade measures, even those implemented in the 
name of sustainability, should, where applicable, adhere to international standards, be grounded in 
scientific evidence, and avoid being disgu ised protectionist measures or unnecessary trade 
restrictions. When Members adopted such measures, South Africa considered it crucial to uphold the 
basic principles enshrined in various WTO agreements, taking into consideration the challenges and 
unique ci rcumstances faced by developing countries, including LDCs. South Africa further 
emphasized the importance of respecting and upholding special and differential treatment provisions 
as outlined in relevant WTO agreements, as well as adhering to the basic pri nciples of common but 
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, as agreed upon in various multilateral 
environmental agreements, including UNFCCC conferences.  
3.62.   South Africa underlined that Members should refrain from adopting one -size-fits-all 
approaches to addressing climate change. It emphasized that trade -related environmental measures 
should not attempt to shift the responsibility of meeting nationally determined contributions to other 
Members. Any environmental and climate -related tra de measures must be carefully designed to 
avoid constituting arbitrary or disguised restrictions that result ed in unjustifiable discrimination 
within international trade. These measures should also avoid disproportionately eroding the 
competitive advantage s of exports from developing countries and LDCs.  Such measures could have 
a disproportionate impact on small -scale farmers and producers across various value chains who 
might lack the resources to comply with these requirements, which could simultaneously threaten 
their livelihoods. South Africa further underscored the need to strike a balance between pursuing 
environmental sustainability goals and meeting social and development objectives as envisioned in 
the UN SDGs. Reiterating the points raised by Niger ia on behalf of the African Group, South Africa 
considered it essential to enhance capacity building, provide technical assistance, facilitate access 
to climate finance, and ensure that appropriate mechanisms for technology transfer were robust and 
tailore d to the specific needs. No one should be excluded from the noble endeavour  of transitioning 
towards lower carbon emissions .  
3.63.    South Africa emphasized that the challenges posed by climate change could not be effectively 
addressed through unilateral measure s. A global and inclusive commitment to cooperative and 
multilateral approaches rather than punitive and unilateral actions  should be the norm. Recognizing 
the genuine concerns of Members and the severe impact of trade -related environmental measures 
on agricultural trade, particularly on African economies, South Africa believed that the CoA and other 
relevant WTO bodies, including the General Coun cil and trade Ministers, should prioritize this issue. 
This was necessary to reaffirm Members' shared goals and principles as outlined in WTO agreements G/AG/R/107  
- 17 - 
  and relevant multilateral environmental agreements. South Africa underscored the importance of 
establis hing a common understanding of the relationship between trade, environment, and 
development . 
3.64.   New Zealand hoped that the Cairns Group statement would serve as the basis for a fair, 
equitable, and coordinated approach among all WTO Members in addressing curr ent and future 
global environmental and food security challenges. New Zealand recognized not only the significance 
of the WTO forum and the multilateral rules -based trading system in addressing sustainability 
concerns but also the efforts made through foru ms like Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation  (APEC) 
and the UNFCCC to enhance the sustainability of agri -food systems. New Zealand pointed out that 
by adopting a coordinated approach across various multilateral forums, it aimed to work towards a 
more sustaina ble agricultural production and trade system. This approach aligned with shared goals 
of achieving higher levels of food security, production resilience, and reduced negative impacts on 
the environment.   
3.65.   Japan acknowledged that the environmental impact of agricultural policies could vary 
significantly depending on the natural environment and specific policy measures. There was no one -
size-fits-all solution to address these challenges. Furthermore, as emphasized in previous meetings, 
Japan firmly believed th at the imposition of unjustified export restrictions should be avoided.  
However, Japan disagree d with paragraph 1.4 .4 of the Cairns Group statement25, which suggested 
that agricultural subsidies, in general, ha d a negative impact on the environment. As previously 
explained  during the subsidies working group of the Trade and Environmental Sustainability 
Structured Discussions (TESSD) on 19 September, Japan  had been implementing measures to 
ensure that agricultural subsidies result ed in positive environmental  impacts rather than negative 
ones.  
3.66.   The Philippines emphasized that the Cairns Group statement highlighted the importance of 
sustainable agricultural practices and underscored  the need for international cooperation in 
addressing global food security  challenges . This paper would serve as  valuable resource capable of 
informing and shaping policies and actions aimed at fostering a more sustainable and resilient 
agricultural sector . The paper  underscored the significance of adopting sustainable practices that 
could enhance food production , mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, and ensure the long -
term viability of the agricultural sector.  Furthermore, it reinforced the vit al role of international 
cooperation in addressing global challenges and finding practical solutions that would benefit all 
nations. The Philippines also acknowledged that the insights provided in this document would 
undoubtedly contribute to the country's  efforts to advance sustainable agriculture and enhance food 
security.  
3.67.   Thailand reiterated its belief that WTO Members had a responsibility to take actions that led 
to sustainability in agriculture and mitigate d climate change. It was the duty of Members t o ensure 
that environmental trade policies did not adopt a one -size-fits-all approach or resulted in arbitrary 
trade restrictions. Most importantly, these policies must comply with WTO obligations.  
3.68.   The Russian Federation shared the view expressed by the Af rican Group and the Cairns group 
that trade -related environmental measures should not result in  unjustified unilateral trade 
restrictions. Russia emphasized the importance of basing such measures on a science and evidence -
based approach, particularly in po licies promoting sustainable agriculture production.  Russia called 
for a comprehensive approach to the concept of sustainable agriculture, encompassing not only 
environmental but also social and economic components . Furthermore, the pursuit of sustainabil ity 
goals should not lead to food crises or an increase in global hunger. Russia believed that the 
introduction of sustainable elements in agricultural policy and production practices should undergo 
impact assessments with a focus on food security, includi ng considerations of production, 
productivity, and prices.  
3.69.   The United States (US) acknowledged the African Group's paper and anticipated that more 
substantive discussions in this regard might  take place in the CTE. The US emphasized that the core 
principle s of the AoA and the promotion of a robust, rules -based trading system underpinned by 
science -based regulatory frameworks were critical for facilitating the movement of food and 
enhancing the productivity and resilience of farmers. The U S shared the Cairns  Group's deep concern 
about the global challenges related to food security and the environment. It emphasized the 
 
25 G/AG/GEN/222/Rev.1 . G/AG/R/107  
- 18 - 
  alignment of overarching concepts between the Cairns Group statement and the US's earlier 
submission, both highlighting the WTO's role in enha ncing global food security. Among these 
concepts, the U S identified three as particularly crucial: i) the positive contribution of the WTO and 
its rules to global food security, urging Members to preserve and further develop these rules ; ii) the 
significance of science and evidence -based measures in promoting sustainable agricultural practices, 
emphasizing the need for consistency with international standards and avoiding one -size-fits-all 
trade policy measures or unjustified trade barriers; and iii) the imperative to provide farmers 
worldwide with access to and the utilization of technology and innovations, which were essential for 
building more sustainable and resilient food systems . 
3.2.2   Joint Letter of 7 September 2023 on European Union's Regulatio n on Deforestation -
Free-Products  
3.70.   This item was added on the agenda based on requests by the co -sponsors of the document 
G/AG/GEN/223 —"joint letter on European  Union's regulation on deforestation -free products",  
namely Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia, la ter also joined by Paraguay and Thailand.26 
3.71.   Brazil introduced the joint submission . A joint letter was sent to the main authorities of the 
European Union  (EU) on 7 September 2023 from 17 developing countr y Members27 from Latin 
America and the Caribbean, Af rica and Asia including concerns related to the European Union's 
deforestation regulation, which entered into force on 29 June 2023.  Brazil stated that t he objective 
of this initiative was to reiterate the shared concerns about the punitive and discriminatory nature 
of the EU regulation . It also emphasized the importance of maintaining an effective dialogue between 
the European Union and the producing countries. The aim was to prevent disruptions in trade and 
avoid imposing excessive burdens on t he producers of agricultural goods and derivatives covered by 
the measure. Brazil believed that since this regulation affected access to the EU market, it was of 
interest to the entire WTO Membership. Brazil remained committed to combating deforestation an d 
had strengthened inspection and preservation activities in Brazilian forests, particularly in the 
Amazon. However, Brazil held the view that the European law, in addition to conflicting with 
international trade principles and multilateral agreements rela ted to climate and biodiversity, created 
imbalances in the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of the issue it intended to 
address, thus jeopardizing sustainable development.  Brazil also presented the content of the joint 
letter during the Commi ttee meeting, which is available for reference in document 
G/AG/GEN/223/Rev.2 . 
3.72.   Indonesia echoed concern s regarding the entry into force of the European Union's regulation 
on deforestation -free products  (EUDR ) on 29 June 2023.  Indonesia emphas ized that the commitment 
to achieve the SDGs was not the aspiration of a select few WTO Members but a shared goal of the 
entire WTO Membership. In this context, Indonesia highlighted the importance of ensuring that trade 
and environmental policies should c omplement each other and align with WTO rules and multilateral 
environmental agreements. Indonesia considered it crucial to acknowledge the essential role of 
multilateral cooperation in effectively address ing common environmental and sustainable 
developmen t challenges. These principles were not only significant for the WTO but had also been 
underscored in other relevant forums discussing trade and sustainability, including the latest G20 
Leaders' outcome of August 2023. Indonesia expressed concerns about th e potential impact of the 
regulation on the vulnerability of smallholders. It stressed the need to provide these smallholders 
with adequate support and resources to mitigate the effects of stricter sustainability criteria resulting 
from the implementation of the EUDR on their livelihoods. Indonesia reiterated its call for the EU to 
consider these valid concerns and encouraged it to enhance cooperation and engage in dialogue with 
relevant stakeholders. Furthermore, Indonesia requested the EU to offer concret e and meaningful 
solutions to mitigate the impacts of the EU legislation and its implementing instruments.  
3.73.   Paraguay emphasized the significant importance of the subject, as evidenced by the questions 
Paraguay co -sponsored in the CoA . It pointed out that th e speedy implementation of the regulation 
and the lack of clarity regarding implementation and delegated acts were matters of great concern 
for Paraguay. Paraguay informed the Committee about a specific letter it had submitted concerning 
this regulation in  the CTE. The letter emphasized the need for compliance with the principles of 
 
26 Circulated as G/AG/GEN/223/Rev.2 . 
27 Brazil ; Argentina ; Bolivia , Plurinational State of ; Colombia ; Côte d'Ivoire ; Ecuador ; Ghana ; 
Guatemala ; Honduras ; Indonesia ; Malaysia ; Mexico ; Nigeria ; Paraguay ; Peru; Dominican Republic and 
Thailand . G/AG/R/107  
- 19 - 
  common but differentiated responsibilities, avoiding punitive measures against countries for their 
conservation efforts, and addressing various concerns related to specific arti cles, such as Articles 9, 
10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 29, 33, and 34 included in the legislative review. Paraguay 
also pointed out that the selection of products and the specific types of forests referenced in the 
legislation indicated discrimi natory treatment and raised concerns about its consistency with WTO 
rules. Paraguay urged the EU to respond to the communications sent to them in various forums. It 
stressed the importance of providing clarity and advance d notice so that Paraguay could eff ectively 
and promptly address the challenges posed by this regulation .  
3.74.   Malaysia , one of the cosignatories of the 7 September joint letter , expressed its concerns 
about the EUDR, emphasizing that it did not take into account the unique circumstances, capab ilities, 
and national legislations of developing countries. Malaysia pointed out that the EUDR's unilateral 
benchmarking system not only failed to recognize the efforts made by these developing countries to 
combat deforestation but also raised concerns abo ut potential violations of WTO obligations.   
Malaysia criticized the EU's unilateral approach through the model of due diligence and traceability 
that overlooked the diverse local conditions in developing countries. It noted that the EUDR imposed 
significant costs on both exporting and importing coun tries, as well as on producers and consumers, 
without a guarantee of a positive impact in containing deforestation rates. Malaysia expressed 
concerns that this measure might lead to unintended consequences, such as divestment, resource 
diversion, and hindr ance of progress toward achieving the SDGs.  Malaysia highlighted that the EUDR 
had a significant impact on particularly vulnerable groups, notably smallholders. These smallholders 
faced challenges related to limited access to financing schemes, new technol ogies, and technical 
training and assistance. Excluding them from international value chains based on their inability to 
comply with the stringent EUDR requirements not only deprived them of a vital source of income 
and livelihood but also hindered their a bility to adopt sustainable practices. To address this, Malaysia 
emphasized the need for the EU Commission to formulate clear and detailed implementing acts and 
guidelines that considered differentiated compliance and due diligence regimes for commodities and 
products originating from smallholders in developing countries. Malaysia reaffirmed its commitment 
to the SDGs and multilateral environmental agreements, aiming to effectively address the impact of 
the EU legislation and its implementing instruments wh ile facilitating trade. Malaysia stressed the 
importance of meaningful dialogue and cooperation between the EU and its partners in the areas of 
trade and sustainable development. It urged the EU to carefully consider the concerns raised in the 
joint letter  and work collaboratively to find a balanced solution that promoted sustainable practices 
while taking into account the unique circumstances and challenges faced by developing producer 
countries.   
3.75.   Thailand acknowledged the European Union's deforestation re gulation as a well -intentioned 
effort but noted that it had raised concerns among many countries, including Thailand. While fully 
supporting the goal of combatting deforestation and protecting the planet, Thailand emphasized that 
a one -size-fits-all approa ch might not be the most effective solution. Thailand expressed its concerns 
regarding the potential impact of the EUDR on various Thai agricultural exports, particularly high -
value products like rubber and its derivatives destined for the EU market. Thail and reaffirmed its 
commitment to sustainable agriculture and responsible environmental practices, emphasizing that 
these principles should not be utilized as trade restrictions.  Thailand also reiterated its commitment 
to multilateral agreements concerning trade and the environment and urged the EU to adopt a more 
open and collaborative approach, taking into account the concerns of its trading partners. Thailand 
also emphasized the importance of ensuring the compliance of EU regulations with relevant 
interna tional rules and principles.  
3.76.   The Dominican Republic noted that it had been closely monitoring the actions related to the 
European Union's Green Deal over the past several years. While the Dominican Republic recognized 
and supported the importance of promo ting more sustainable production practices, consumption, 
and distribution, it underscored the need for these initiatives to align with WTO standards. The 
Dominican Republic acknowledged that some of these policies employed either a monist or a dualist 
approach under certain circumstances. However, it believed that such approaches could undermine 
the principles of predictability and security in trade, as well as other standards of the organization, 
ultimately impacting the right to development of many of its  Members and restricting their ability to 
participate in global trade . The Dominican Republic expressed its concerns regarding the EU 
Regulation 2023/1115, which had a direct and adverse impact on many WTO Members, particularly 
affecting small, vulnerable economies, developing countries, and least developed countries. The 
approach of one -size-fits-all, as adopted in this regulation, was not in line with WTO rules and 
national standards. It imposed obligations that were exceptionally challenging to adhere to , G/AG/R/107  
- 20 - 
  especially for smaller economies that lack the bargaining power required to negotiate favourable  
purchasing terms and had limited capacity to procure essential raw material . Furthermore, countries 
capable of establishing traceability systems for their in puts would face a substantial increase in 
operational and investment costs, as they strived to maintain a presence in a market that was 
progressively less conducive to fair conditions.  
3.77.   The Dominican Republic strongly urge d the EU to reconsider the measure , offering alternative 
rules and extended implementation periods that t ook into account the diverse circumstances of each 
Member, particularly those not responsible for the issues the EU regulation aim ed to address. The 
Dominican Republic reaffirm ed its co mmitment to the SDGs, the preservation of ecosystems, and 
sound practices for environmental sustainability. It extend ed an appeal to the E U to initiate a 
mutually beneficial dialogue centred on sustainable trade and development, with the aim of 
facilitatin g trade that enhance d prosperity for all, ultimately contributing to a more equitable, fair, 
inclusive, resilient, and participatory international trade system . 
3.78.   Colombia raised concerns about the measures, which it considered to have an inherent 
discriminatory nature. It questioned the application of the national treatment principle, particularly 
when the regulation  involved imposing detailed and onerous requireme nts on developing nations, 
which had a disproportionate impact on small and medium -sized enterprises whereas major  
industrial polluters within the EU appeared to operate with significantly less scrutiny. Colombia 
stressed that, like many other developing Members, it lacked the necessary resources to swiftly 
adapt to the stringent regulations. This led to the crucial question of whether the intent behind the 
measures was to suffocate smallholders with highly stringent demands. Colombia pointed out that 
environmental responsibility was a shared obligation, and it was unacceptable to use it as a Trojan 
horse, especially when targeting smallholders, thus betraying the fundamental principles of the WTO. 
In Colombia's view, instead of fostering fair and equitable free trade, these measures seemed to 
have the opposite effect. It reiterated the appeal made by developing countries to the EU, urging 
them to reconsider policies that, rather than facilitating trade, were serving as obstacles . 
3.79.   Nigeria recognized the threat posed by climate change and stated its commitment  to climate 
action as part of the UN SDGs  and to combating deforestation . As a tangible demonstration of this 
commitment, Nigeria had signed the Climate Change Act into law, setting forth a net -zero emissions 
target spanning from 2050 to 2070.  Nigeria noted that WTO rules did not preclude countries from 
adopting environmental policies; however, WTO Members were obligated to ensure that these 
policies did not unduly impede international trade.  Niger ia remained unconvinced that the current 
EU regulation on deforestation -free products was necessary to address climate change as research 
had shown that the gains in terms of the reduction of carbon emissions would be minimal, if any.  
Nigeria considered th is policy to be trade -restrictive and detrimental to its competitiveness in the 
EU markets. Moreover, these policies had extraterritorial ramifications, undermining Nigeria's own 
strides toward sustainable development and inclusive growth.  The UNFCCC requi red developed 
countries to take the lead in addressing climate change and to provide climate finance and 
technology to support green transition in developing countries in line with the principles of common 
but differentiated responsibility. Nigeria lamente d that these commitments were yet to be fulfilled ; 
instead, it observed a worrisome trend of developed countries resorting to unilateral, trade -
restrictive measures under the guise of environmental sustainability. Nigeria urged the EU to 
consider the WTO's  commitments aimed at mitigating the adverse impacts of policies on products 
and commodities originating from developing countries.  Nigeria firmly believed that trade and 
environmental rules should be the product of multilateral negotiations, rather than a n escalation of 
unilateral and punitive measures.  
3.80.   The United States  (US) shared the EU's objective of combating deforestation . However, the 
US raised concerns regarding the EU's approach to addressing global deforestation linked to 
agricultural commodity p roduction, which it perceived as overly prescriptive. The U S emphasized 
the importance of recognizing diverse approaches to sustainable forest management when crafting 
policies aimed at tackling international deforestation. This encompassed the adoption of  a definition 
of forest degradation that accurately reflected forest management practices designed to preserve 
the health and productivity of local ecosystems and incorporating adaptive practices in respon se to 
climate change.  
3.81.   Guatemala welcomed the opport unity for this discussion, bearing in mind that the EU's 
legislation was scheduled to come into effect in less than 18 months. Guatemala stressed the 
importance for the EU to maintain an open and constructive dialogue with its trading partners, G/AG/R/107  
- 21 - 
  particularl y emphasizing the need for active engagement with developing countries particularly 
centred on the potential impacts arising from the implementation of the EU measures . Guatemala 
highlighted the significance of recognizing the differing circumstances and conditions between the 
EU and third countries, such as Guatemala. It pointed out that agricultural exports for developing 
countries like Guatemala played a vital role in fostering rural and sustainable development. These 
exports, particul arly affecting rural areas, were at risk of severe disruption due to the proposed 
measures. Guatemala further underlined that sustainable production was not a new concept for its 
producers, who diligently adhered to good agricultural practices and complied  with all the 
international certificates mandated by the EU, as well as meeting private standards. Guatemala 
expressed deep concern over the immediate and adverse impact these measures would have on its 
smallholder farmers.  Guatemala reiterated its commitm ent to the SDGs, various environmental 
multilateral agreements, and their associated objectives .  
3.82.   Côte d'Ivoire reiterate d its deep concern regarding the potential impact of the EU 
deforestation regulation on its agro -industrial sector, export competitiven ess, and the livelihoods of 
its agricultural smallholders . Côte d'Ivoire highlighted the significant role the EU played as a major 
trading partner for its agricultural exports, encompassing key products subject to this regulation, 
such as cocoa, coffee, pa lm oil, rubber, and wood.  In addition to the questions regarding  conformity 
of this regulation with WTO rules, Côte d'Ivoire questioned the effectiveness of the measure in 
achieving its intended goals, which included the reduction of deforestation, greenho use gas 
emissions, and the promotion of global biodiversity . Côte d'Ivoire's primary concerns centred on the 
regulation's undifferentiated approach, which failed to account for the unique circumstances and 
distinct characteristics of each country and seeme d to disregard the long -term national efforts that 
Côte d'Ivoire had undertaken to combat deforestation.   For instance, Côte d'Ivoire had made notable 
progress in formulating its sustainability strategy for agriculture, highlighted by the adoption of a 
national strategy for sustainable cocoa production and active engagement in deforestation mitigation 
efforts. However, the EU regulation ha d adopted a unilateral approach in addressing global 
environmental challenges, leading to several concerns. The regulati on's potential exclusion of small 
producers into the EU market, not due to their involvement in deforestation but primarily because 
of their limited financial and technological resources, was a significant concern. The stringent 
requirements and formalitie s outlined in the regulation, including traceability, geo -localization, 
certification, and additional procedures incurring extra costs, could be seen as non -tariff barriers 
that might seriously impede Côte d'Ivoire's export capacity, particularly for its m icro, small, and 
medium -sized enterprises (MSMEs), despite the planned moratorium. Côte d'Ivoire also emphasized 
the strategic implications of this regulation, which might limit the flexibility of third countries and 
steer them in a single direction, poten tially overlooking more effective alternative instruments for 
addressing the concerns at hand.  The regulation imposed a dual burden on C ôte d'Ivoire; not only 
did it require the mobilization of funds for environmental adaptation, but it also entailed cover ing 
the expenses of industrial adjustments necessitated by this regulation.  
3.83.    Côte d'Ivoire expressed its willingness to engage in candid discussions with the EU within the 
multilateral context and through bilateral negotiations to prevent any erosion in th e country's access 
to the European market while concurrently striving to achieve sustainable development goals. O ne 
of particular concern was the aim of reducing poverty among the populations dependent on 
subsistence crops for their livelihoods.  Côte d'Iv oire proposed that the EU could envisage an 
alternative approach by increasing technical assistance in support of national efforts and to 
implement technology transfer s as a solution to guarantee resilient and sustainable agriculture to 
respond effectively  to environmental challenges . 
3.84.   Peru expressed concerns over the negative effects of the EU DR particularly on smallholders 
and cooperatives. Peru reiterate d its willingness to continue dialogue  with the EU at the multilateral 
and bilateral level.  
3.85.   Argentina echoed the concerns expressed in the joint letter, reiterating its unwavering 
commitment to the 2030 SDGs and various multilateral environmental commitments. Argentina 
advocated for a global, collaborative approach in addressing overarching issue s like biodiversity loss 
and climate change. It underlined the significance of acknowledging the unique characteristics and 
circumstances of each country. As a significant trading partner, Argentina supported a cooperative 
and consultative approach in the implementation of the EUDR. Argentina urged the EU to conduct a 
comprehensive risk analysis, to be completed before December 2024. Developing guidelines for such 
an analysis presented an opportunity for the EU to thoroughly assess the challenges associated  with 
the EUDR, particularly its potential impacts on developing countries and smallholders. Argentina G/AG/R/107  
- 22 - 
  believed that these vital considerations had not been adequately addressed during the formulation 
of the regulation. Argentina called for a constructive dialogue between the EU and other countries. 
In this dialogue, Argentina aimed to highlight the high levels of sustainability achieved within its 
agricultural systems, as evidenced by national certifications, and sought due recognition for these 
efforts.  
3.86.   Japan pointed out that the definition of deforestation used in the regulation was not in 
alignment with the definition recognized internationally by the FAO. Additionally, Japan expressed 
concerns about the potential impact of the regulation on the supply chain due to the uncertainty 
surrounding its operational details. Japan emphasized that apart from legal regulations, there existed 
a range of alternative measures to prevent deforestation and forest degradation. These included the 
adoption of private cert ification systems, the promotion of voluntary guidelines, and the 
enhancement of capacity -building efforts in producing countries. Japan was apprehensive that 
unilateral measures might lead to unintended consequences and, in light of this, urged the EU to 
maintain a high level of transparency in the implementation of the regulation.  
3.87.   The Russian Federation firmly believed that the EU's deforestation regulation, encompassing 
trade in various commodities such as live cattle, meat, meat products, cocoa, coffee , oil, palm, 
rubber, soya, and wood, constituted an example of the EU's penchant for protectionist policies under 
the guise of climate change concerns. Russia highlighted that this regulation went beyond addressing 
domestic environmental issues; it extende d to regulating the cross -border application of the EU's 
own standards and even delved into assessing whether an imported product adhered to the 
legislation of its country of origin or not. Russia considered that the EU's regulatory approach 
amounted to imposing quantit ative r estriction s against the WTO rules.   
3.88.   India registered its concerned regarding the EU regulation.  
3.89.   The European Union expressed its gratitude to the participating delegations and underscored 
the significance of the matter at hand. The EU emphasized the pressing global environmental 
challenges, such as recent incidents of wildfires, heatwaves, and floods. In response to these 
challenges, the EU called upon all member States to strengthen their international and national 
efforts, translating  their commitments into concrete actions. The EU firmly asserted that inaction 
was not a viable option, and  that the WTO must not remain passive on these critical issues. The EU 
lent its full support to the idea of promoting transparency and open dialogue regarding trade -related 
environmental policies implemented by Member s, including the EU, to fulfil their international 
obligations. Furthermore, the EU acknowledged the potential impact of its environmental policies on 
its trading partners and assured that  all measures under the European Green Deal had been 
thoughtfully designed to align with multilateral environmental agreements, including the UNFCCC, 
as well as WTO regulations. In addition, the EU revealed that it had formulated an external strategy 
guide d by principles of transparency, engagement, and a deep respect for international 
commitments, at both the design and implementation stages.   
3.90.   With the E U's Green Deal policies moving steadily toward implementation, the EU ha d been 
actively exploring avenue s for collaboration with its trading partners. The EU was taking a 
multifaceted approach, deploying various tools and mechanisms to facilitate implementation. These 
include d offering comprehensive guidelines to operators, recognizing the commendable effort s of 
third countries and companies, and actively involving stakeholders from these nations in the 
formulation of implementation strategies. Notable examples of this inclusive approach were found 
in initiatives like the Deforestation Platform and the Carbon  Border Adjustment Mechanism  (CBAM ) 
Methodologies Expert Group. The EU firmly believed that true fulfilment of its international 
obligations related to climate and environmental goals could only be achieved through collaborative 
efforts, including by promo ting sustainable development in the least developed countries (LDCs) and 
economies facing heightened vulnerability. The EU underscored its role as the world's largest 
collective donor of international aid, channelling over EUR 50 billion annually to alleviate poverty 
and advance global development. Furthermore, the EU remained unwavering in its support for 
partner countries in their green transition, in alignment with its international commitments. As an 
illustration of its commitm ent to environmental goals, the EU had allocated approximately EUR 27.8 
billion through its global instruments, specifically the Neighbourhood, Development, and 
International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI), to support climate objectives in partner countrie s 
during the period spanning from 2021 to 2027. Moreover, the EU had pledged to double its 
international funding for biodiversity to reach EUR 7 billion, with a particular focus on the most 
vulnerable nations over the same timeframe.  G/AG/R/107  
- 23 - 
  3.91.   As regards the joint l etter, the EU had been deeply engaged in discussions surrounding the 
European Green Deal, including the deforestation regulation, while carefully considering the concerns 
expressed therein. The EU affirmed its commitment to continue this engagement within the 
framework of the WTO and in bilateral dialogues. The response to the letter was in the final stages 
of preparation, and the EU would share it once it was made public . Recognizing the importance of 
streamlining the efforts of various committees on this matter, the EU emphasized the central role of 
the CTE in discussing trade -related climate and environmental measures. This was crucial because 
trade and environmental considerations were intertwined with the work of numerous committees. 
The EU stressed the  relevance of discussion s concerning the impact of trade and trade policies on 
the environment, as well as the reverse, encompassing the contributions of the subgroup of Members 
in the TESSD, the Informal Dialogue on Plastics Pollution and Sustainable Plas tics Trade (IDP), and 
Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform (FFSR), which were reported back to the CTE . The EU acknowledged that 
trade and environmental issues presented both challenges and opportunities for all Members, 
including developing Members. The EU invited Members to engage constructively and concentrate 
on actionable steps rather than seeking to polarize the debate. The EU looked forward to 
collaborating with all Members to ensure that the WTO played a supportive role in addressing the 
climate challenge and  environmental degradation.  
3.2.3   Chair report on the informal meeting of 27 September 2023  
3.92.   The Chairperson noted that at the informal meeting on 27 September , Members had 
exchanged views principally on the following  two themes: i) Agricultural notifications , and ii) 
transparency and functioning of the Committee of Agriculture. Members took note of the report of 
the informal meeting which the Chairperson had shared with Members in advance of the 
consideration of this agenda item .28 The report of the informal meet ing can be found in Annex 4 to 
this report .  
3.93.   The Chairperson also informed Members that the CTG subsidiary bodies, including the C oA, 
were expected to submit a written report to the CTG in November 2023 on the progress made in the 
discussions on the functi oning of the respective committees. The Chairperson stated that t he CTG 
would consider those reports at its November meeting . Considering that the November C oA meeting 
was scheduled towards the very end of the month  on 27 -29 November , the Committee concurred 
with the Chairperson 's suggestion to finalise the factual report on the functioning of the Committee 
through a written procedure  in order for the report to  be transmitted on time to the CTG for 
consideration .29  
3.3  Other business  
3.3.1   Advanced  Agriculture Notification Workshop  
3.94.    The Secretariat announced that Phase I of its annual Advanced Agriculture Notification 
Workshop was scheduled for 3-5 October. Given the importance that Members place on compliance 
with transparency and notification obl igations under the Committee, the Secretariat had expand ed 
the participant count for the workshop this year. In the upcoming 2023/24 edition of the Notification 
Workshop, a total of 30 government officials from developing and least developed country Member s 
had been selected to participate, an increase from the previous number of 25. During Phase I, which 
would be conducted in a virtual format, participants would receive a comprehensive overview of 
notification requirements in the field of agriculture, with  a focused examination of domestic support 
notifications. The workshop would also address the transparency requirements stemming from the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, in addition to guiding participants on the utilization of WTO 
online tools to meet these transparency obligations. Participation in Phase II of the workshop, 
scheduled to be held in the margins of the September 2024 CoA meeting, will be reserved for 
participants who successfully complete Phase I and actively contribute to resolving at least one 
pending notification for their delegation or provide the necessary data and information for such a 
notification.   
 
28 In the interest of time this report was not read at the meeting.  
29 The report to the CTG was accordingly finalized in G/L/1509 -G/AG/37  dated 2 November 2023.  G/AG/R/107  
- 24 - 
  3.3.2   Date of next regular meetings  
3.95.   The next (10 7th) regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture w ould be held on 
27-29 November  2023. In the context of ongoing discussions among Members on the existing 
deadlines for raising and responding  to questions under the Committee's working procedures,  the 
Secretariat informed the Committee that it would circulate the reminder airgram30for the November 
2023 Committee meeting one week earlier than the usual circulation timeline of 4-weeks prior to 
Committee meetings. The convening airgram w ould be distributed to Members on Friday, 
17 Novembe r 2023.  
 
 
 
 
30 Circulated in WTO/AIR/AG/71  dated 20 October 2023.    
  G/AG/R/107  
- 25 - 
 
ANNEX 1  
LIST OF QUESTIONS CO-SPONSORED AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONVENING AIRGRAM  
AG-IMS ID  New Co -sponsor(s)  Question summary/Notification concerned  Question by  SIM # 
106005  New Zealand  India's export restrictions on onions  Japan, Switzerland, Canada, United States of America, 
Australia  652 
106006  Switzerland, New Zealand  Argentina's export restrictio ns United Kingdom, Canada, European Union, Japan  710 
106008  Switzerland  India's export restriction measures on rice  United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, 
European Union, Ukraine, Japan  767 
106009  Paraguay  Canada's country -specific allocation for be ef and veal 
TRQ Brazil  848 
106010  Paraguay  EU's Deforest ation And Forest Degradation Strategy  Brazil  558 
106011  Switzerland  India's export restriction measures on rice  United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, 
Brazil, European Union, Japan  767 
106015  Switzerland  Tanzania's export re striction on maize  United Kingdom, United States of America, European 
Union  861 
106018  Paraguay  G/AG/N/EU/88  Brazil  - 
106020  New Zealand  Brazil's tariff increase on dairy products   United States of America  844 
106021  New Zealand  Brazil's new programme to  restore pastureland   United States of America  843 
106022  Switzerland  India's export restriction measures on rice  United States of America, Canada, Japan, Australia  767 
106024  New Zealand  India's rice sale under the Open Market Sale Scheme  United States of America, Australia  850 
106026  Switzerland  India's export restriction measures on rice  United States of America, United Kingdom, Brazil, 
Canada, Japan, Australia  767 
106037  Switzerland  India's export restriction measures on rice  United States of America, United Kingdom, Ukraine, 
Canada, Japan, Australia  767 
106056  Switzerland  Türkiye's  export restrictions on agricultural products  United States of America, Canada, Japan, Australia, 
United Kingdom  729 
106061  Switzerland  United Arab Emirates - Rice export ban   United States of America, United Kingdom  863 
106073  Paraguay  China's grain subsidies  Canada  773 
106074  Paraguay  China's support to beef cattle sector  Canada  818 
106075  Paraguay  China's environmental programmes  Canada  821 
106077  Paraguay  France's support to wine producer   Brazil 849 
106095  New Zealand  G/AG/N/CAN/158 , G/AG/N/CAN/ 159 Paraguay   
106100  Paraguay  G/AG/N/USA /166/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/USA/169 , 
G/AG/N/U SA/157/Corr.1  Canada  - 
106105  Paraguay  G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , G/AG /N/USA/169 , 
G/AG/N/USA/157/Corr.1  European Union  - 
106161  Paraguay  UK's SSG entitlements  India 761 
106180  Paraguay  G/AG/N/EU/88  Argentina   
 
 G/AG/R/107  
- 26 - 
  ANNEX 2  
 
Annex 2 includes the full list of questions raised under the 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. This information can also be accessed directly by clicking 
on the relevant hyperlinks in the last column ("ID number") of tables 1 -4 below. Question IDs where  
replies were yet to be submitted into the AG -IMS as of 6 November  2023 have been identified with 
the symbol "*". Members are invited to submit outstanding replies through the AG -IMS at the earliest 
opportunity.  
Table 1  - Specific Implementation Matters (Article 18.6)  
Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID 
Argentina's export restrictions  United Kingdom, Canada, European Union, 
Japan, Switzerland, New Zealand  106006  
Australia's sustainability loans  India 106129  
Australia's changes to the Farm Household 
Allowance  Scheme  India 106130  
Australia's Package Assisting Small  Exporters 
(PASE)  India 106131  
Brazil's Plano Safra prog ramme  European Union  106069  
Brazil's Plano Safra progra mme European Union  106070  
Brazil's new programme to restore pastureland  United States of America, New Zealand  106021  
Brazil's tariff  increase on dairy products  United States of America, New Zealand  106020  
Brazil's Plano Safra programme  European Union  106068  
Burkina Faso's domestic support  United States of America  106039 * 
Cameroon's import substitution policy  United States of America  106040 * 
Canada's Advanced Payments Pro gram India 106136  
Canada - country -specific allocation for beef and 
veal TRQ  Brazil  106009  
Canada's Special Milk Class Scheme  New Zealand  106071  
Canada’s Review of the TRQ System  United Kingdom, United States of America, 
European Union, Paraguay, China  106007  
Canada's Dairy Policies  India 106134 
Canada's Dairy Policies  India 106135  
China's grain subsidies  Canada  106073  
China's support to beef cattle sector  Canada  106074  
China's environmental programmes  Canada  106075  
France's support to wine producer  Brazil  106077  
EU's Deforestation And Forest Degradation 
Strategy  Brazil  106010  
EU's Deforestation And Forest Degradation  
Strategy  India 106140  
India's value of production data  United States of America, Brazil, Canada, 
Paraguay, Australia  106031  
India's state government support  United States of America, Canada, 
Paraguay, Australia, Thailand  106033  
India's annex to DS notification pursuant to the 
Bali PSH Decision  United States of America, Brazil, Canada, 
Paraguay, Japan, Australia, Thailand  106029  
India's annex to DS notification pursuant to the 
Bali PSH Decision  United States of America, Canada, 
Paraguay, Australia  106030  
India's export restrictions on wheat and rice  United Kingdom, Canada, United States of 
America, European Union, Ukraine, Japan, 
Switzerland  106008  
India's export restrictions on wheat and rice  United States of America, United Kingdom, 
Ukraine, Canada, Japan, Australia, 
Switzerland  106037  
India's rice sale under the Open Market Sale 
Scheme  United States of America, Australia, New 
Zealand  106024  
India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  United States of America, Australia  106028  
India's Export prohibitions on onions  New Zealand  106080  
India's export restrictions on onions  Japan, Switzerland, Canada, United States 
of America, Australia, New Zealand  106005  
India's export restriction measures on rice  Canada  106081  G/AG/R/107  
- 27 - 
  Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID 
India's export restriction measures on rice  Canada  106082  
India's export restriction measures on rice  Europea n Union  106078  
India's export restriction measures on ri ce Japan, Switzerland, Canada, United 
Kingdom, Australia  106001  
India's export restriction measures on rice  Japan, Switzerland, Canada, United States 
of America, United Kingdom, Australia  106003  
India's export restriction measures on rice  New Zea land 106079  
India's export restriction measures on rice  United Kingdom, Canada, United States of 
America, Brazil, European Union, Japan, 
Switzerland  106011  
India's export restriction measures on rice  United States of America, Canada, Japan, 
Australia, Switzerland  106022  
India's export restriction measure s on rice  United States of America, United Kingdom, 
Brazil, Canada, Japan, Australia, 
Switzerland  106026  
India's export restriction measures on rice  Japan, Switzerland, Canada, United States 
of America, Australia  106004  
Japan -US Trade Agreement  Brazil  106012  
Malaysi a's export restriction measure on chickens  United Kingdom  106013  
Mexico's domestic support programmes  United States of America, Australia  106044  
New Zealand's On Farm Support Scheme  India 106151  
Nigeria - Foreign currency exchange restrictions  United States of America  106045  
Pakistan's freight subsidy for wheat  United States of America, Brazil, Canada  106046  
Philippines' inspection and testing of agricultural 
products  United States of America  106052  
Philippines' SSG trigger price for chicken  United States of America  106048  
Philippines' implementa tion of tariff quotas  United States of America, Australia  106050  
Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import 
Clearance (SPSIC) Permits  United States of America  106049  
Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import 
Clearance (SPSIC) permits  United States of America, Australia  106051  
Russian Federation's export ban of rice  Switzerland  106014 * 
Tanzania’s export restriction on maize  United Kingdom, United States of America, 
European Union, Switzerland  106015 * 
Thailand's corn farmer income guarantee scheme  European Union  106083 * 
Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme  India 106158 * 
Thailand's palm oil price guarantee sche me India 106159 * 
Türkiye’s export restrictions on agricultural 
products  United States of America, Canada, Japan, 
Australia, United Kingdom, Switzerland  106056 * 
Türkiye's freight support  United States of America, Canada, 
Australia  106054 * 
Türkiye's increased import tariffs  United States o f America, Brazil, Canada  106055 * 
United Arab Emirates - rice export ban  United States of America, United Kingdom, 
Switzerland  106061 * 
United Arab Emirate - rice export ban  Thailand  106066 * 
UK's MA:1 notifications  United States of America  106058  
UK's SSG entitlements  India 106161  
United States - Japan -US Trade Agreement  Brazil  106017  
U.S. Agricultural Marketing Service programme  India 106165  
 
 G/AG/R/107  
- 28 - 
  Table 2  - Questions raised in connection with individual notifications  
Document symbol  Question  by Answer  by Notification  Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/CAN/149  India Canada  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  106168  
G/AG/N/CRI/84  India Costa Rica  MA:2 - Imports un der 
TQs Tariff quota fill  106169  
G/AG/N/NOR/125  European 
Union  Norway  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Transparency 
issues  106085  
G/AG/N/NOR/125  European 
Union  Norway  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  106084  
G/AG/N/NOR/125  Paraguay  Norway  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  106086  
G/AG/N/GBR/21  Canada  United Kingdom  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  106088  
G/AG/N/USA/168  Brazil  United States of 
America  MA:2 - Imports under 
TQs Tariff quota fill  106089  
G/AG/N/EU/86  India European Union  MA:5 - Annual 
summary of SSG 
action  Transparency 
issues  106171  
G/AG/N/EU/86  Brazil  European Union  MA:5 - Annual 
summary of SSG 
action  Link with TRQ 
commitments  106016  
G/AG/N/BGD/11  United States 
of America, 
Australia  Bangladesh  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Market price 
support: Eligible 
production  106023 * 
G/AG/N/BGD/5  Canada  Bangladesh  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Non-product -
specific AMS  106019 * 
G/AG/N/BFA/20  Canada  Burkina Faso  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106090 * 
G/AG/N/BFA/20  Paraguay  Burkina Faso  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106092 * 
G/AG/N/CAN/158  Paraguay, New 
Zealand  Canada  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106095  
G/AG/N/CAN/158  European 
Union  Canada  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Domestic food 
aid 106093  
G/AG/N/CAN/158  European 
Union  Canada  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Other product -
specific 
AMS/EMS  106094  
G/AG/N/CAN/159  European 
Union  Canada  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106096  
G/AG/N/CHL/75  Thailand  Chile DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106097  
G/AG/N/CRI/88  India Costa Rica  DS:1 - Exempt and  
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct 
payments: 
payments under 
environmental 
programmes  106170  
G/AG/N/JPN/282  India Japan  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Non-product -
specific AMS  106174  
G/AG/N/KAZ/21  European 
Union  Kazakhstan  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Non-product -
specific AMS  106098 * 
G/AG/N/NZL/138  India New Zealand  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  General 
services: 
research  106175  G/AG/R/107  
- 29 - 
  Document symbol  Question  by Answer  by Notification  Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/PRY/36  India Paraguay  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Domestic food 
aid 106160  
G/AG/N/THA/85  India Thailand  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Other product -
specific 
AMS/EMS  106176 * 
G/AG/N/GBR/11/Rev.1  United States 
of America  United Kingdom  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Classification of 
measures  106053  
G/AG/N/GBR/11/Rev.1  United States 
of America  United Kingdom  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Classification of 
measures  106063  
G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1  Canada  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106103  
G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1  Canada  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106099  
G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1  Canada  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106100  
G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1  Canada  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Other product -
specific 
AMS/EMS  106102  
G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1  Canada  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Classification of 
measures  106101  
G/AG/N/USA/169  European 
Union  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106104  
G/AG/N/USA/169  European 
Union  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106106  
G/AG/N/USA/169  India United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2) 106177  
G/AG/N/USA/169  New Zealand  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106109  
G/AG/N/USA/169  New Zealand  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106110  
G/AG/N/USA/169  European 
Union  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  General 
services: 
infrastructural 
services  106108  
G/AG/N/USA/169  European 
Union  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Domestic food 
aid 106105  
G/AG/N/USA/169  India United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Direct 
payments: 
payments under 
environmental 
programmes  106178  
G/AG/N/USA/169  European 
Union  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Non-product -
specific AMS  106107  G/AG/R/107  
- 30 - 
  Document symbol  Question  by Answer  by Notification  Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/USA/169  New Zealand  United States of 
America  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support - 
Current total AMS  Classification of 
measures  106112  
G/AG/N/CAN/160  Paraguay  Canada  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106113  
G/AG/N/EU/87  Canada  European Union  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Domestic food 
aid 106114  
G/AG/N/EU/88  Argentina  European Union  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106180  
G/AG/N/EU/88  Australia  European Union  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106116  
G/AG/N/EU/88  Australia  European Union  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106117  
G/AG/N/EU/88  India European Union  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106128  
G/AG/N/EU/88  India European Union  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106173  
G/AG/N/EU/88  Japan  European Union  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106119  
G/AG/N/EU/88  Paraguay  European Union  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106120  
G/AG/N/EU/88  Brazil  European Union  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Direct 
payments: 
payments under 
environmental 
programmes  106018  
G/AG/N/EU/88  Canada  European Union  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Payments based 
on 85 per cent 
or less of the 
base level of 
production  106118  
G/AG/N/EU/88  Australia  European Union  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Classification of 
measures  106115  
G/AG/N/USA/170  Japan  United States of 
America  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106124  
G/AG/N/USA/170  New Zealand  United States of 
America  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Transparency 
issues 
(including Table 
DS:2)  106125  
G/AG/N/USA/170  European 
Union  United States of 
America  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Domestic food 
aid 106122  
G/AG/N/USA/170  Canada  United States of 
Americ a DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Direct 
payments: 
payments under 
environmental 
programmes  106121  G/AG/R/107  
- 31 - 
  Document symbol  Question  by Answer  by Notification  Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/USA/170  Japan  United States of 
America  DS:2 - New or 
modified DS  Direct 
payments: 
payments under 
environmental 
programmes  106123  
G/AG/N/THA/94  United States 
of America  Thailand  ES:1 - Export 
subsidies   106060 * 
G/AG/N/MYS/56  European 
Union  Malaysia  ER:1 - Export 
restrictions  Transparency 
issues  106126  
G/AG/N/MYS/56  Japan  Malaysia  ER:1 - Export 
restrictions  Transparency 
issues  106127  
Table 3 - Questions raised under agenda item "Overd ue notifications"  
Question by  Answer by  ID 
India European Union  106172  
United States of America, Paraguay, 
Australia  India 106038  
United States of America  Kazakhstan  106059 * 
India Thailand  106179 * 
United States of America  Türkiye  106057 * 
India Uruguay  106181  
 
  G/AG/R/107  
- 32 - 
  Table 4 - Questions raised under agenda item "Deferred replies"  
Specific Implementation Matters (Article 18.6)  
Specific Implementation Matter  Question by  ID 
Angola's import policies  European Union  106067 * 
Australia – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  106132 * 
Australia - Import duties in excess of the bound 
rates applied on agricultural goods  Russian Federation  106133 * 
Canada – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  106137  
Canada - Import duties in excess of the bound 
rates applied on agricultural goods  Russian Federation  106138  
Canada – Prohibitions and restrictions on 
agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  106139  
European Union – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  106141  
European Union – Prohibitions and restrictions on 
agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  106142  
European Union – Prohibitions on road freight 
transport  Russian Federation  106143  
European Union – Prohibitions on access to ports  Russian Federation  106144  
Iceland – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agricultu re-related services  Russian Federation  106145  
Iceland – prohibitions and restrictions on 
agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  106146  
Iceland – Prohibitions on road freight transport  Russian Federation  106147  
Iceland – Prohibitions on access to ports  Russian F ederation  106148  
Japan – Restrictions on agricultural and agricultur e-
related services  Russian Federation  106149  
Japan – Prohibitions and restrictions on agricultural 
machinery supplies  Russian Federation  106150  
New Zealand – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  106152  
New Zealand - Import duties in excess of the bound 
rates applied on agricultural goods  Russian Federation  106153  
New Zealand – prohibitions and restrictions on 
agricultural machinery supplies  Russian Federation  106154  
Norway – Prohibitions and restrictions on 
agricultu ral machinery supplies  Russian Federation  106155  
Norway – Prohibitions on road freight transport  Russian Federation  106156  
Norway – Prohibitions on access to ports  Russian Federation  106157  
United Kingdom – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  106162  
United Kingdom - Import duties in excess of the 
bound rates applied on agricultural goods  Russian Federation  106163  
United Kingdom's banking and financial restrictions  Russian Federation  106164  
United States – Restrictions on agricultural and 
agriculture -related services  Russian Federation  106166  
United States - Import duties in excess of the 
bound rates applied on agricultural goods  Russian Federation  106167  
China's food aid  European Union  106072  
Côte d'Ivoire - Tax on imported spirits  European Union  106076 * G/AG/R/107  
- 33 - 
  Questions raised in connection w ith individual notifications  
Document 
symbol  Question by  Answer 
by Notification 
Format  Keywords  ID 
G/AG/N/PAN/67  European Union  Panama  MA:2 - Imports 
under TQs  Tariff quota fill  106087  
G/AG/N/GEO/25  United States of 
America, Australia  Georgia  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support 
- Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues (including 
Table DS:2)  106042 * 
G/AG/N/GEO/28  United States of 
America, Austra lia Georgia  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support 
- Current total AMS  Transparency 
issues (including 
Table DS:2)  106041 * 
G/AG/N/GEO/28  United States of 
America, Australia  Georgia  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support 
- Current total AMS  General services: 
infrastructural 
services  106043 * 
G/AG/N/IND/29   United States of 
America, Canada, 
Australia  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support 
- Current total AMS  Non-product -
specific AMS  106032  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, Canada, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, Thailand  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support 
- Current total AMS  Public stockholding 
for food security 
purposes  106027  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, Canada, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, Thailand  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support 
- Current total AMS  Public stockholding 
for food security 
purposes  106034  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, Canada, 
Paraguay, 
Australia, Thailand  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support 
- Current total AMS  Public stockholding 
for food security 
purposes  106035  
G/AG/N/IND/29  United States of 
America, Paraguay , 
Australia, Thailand  India DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support 
- Current total AMS  Public stockholding 
for food security 
purposes  106036  
G/AG/N/PAN/66  Thailand  Panama  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support 
- Current total AMS  Scheduled 
commitment level  106025  
G/AG/N/PAN/66  United States of 
America, Australia  Panama  DS:1 - Exempt and 
non-exempt support 
- Current total AMS  Scheduled 
commitment level  106047  
 
  G/AG/R/107  
- 34 - 
  Table 5 - Questions related to "Export Competition"  
Question by  Answer by  ID 
United States of America  Australia  106062  
United States of America  Brazil  106064  
United States of America  European Union  106065  
Chile, Canada  New Zealand  106002  
European Union  Norway  106091  
European Union  United States of America  106111  
 
  G/AG/R/107  
- 35 - 
  ANNEX 3 
REPORT BY THE WORKING GROUP COORDINATOR  
Agenda 2A(i)  
 
1. Since the 27 -28 June 2023 Committee meeting, the Working Group (WG) held two meetings 
respectively on 19 July and the one last week on 21 September 2023.  
2. The focus of both these WG meetings was to exam ine the report that my predecessor presented 
on 3 July containing his reflections on possible areas of convergence and recommendations 
emanating from the work programme, and the two written submissions respectively from Egypt 
and Pakistan (in RD/AG/114 ), and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group (in 
RD/AG/115 ), containing several specific suggestions for discussions and possible 
recommendations.  
3. The coordinator's report, originally circulated on 3 July as a room document in RD/AG/113  for 
your consideration, was later released in a regular CoA document series as G/AG/W/240  with its 
content unchanged. Based on the feedback received from Members on the report first at the 19 
July WG meeting which I attended as a delegate and later at the si xth WG meeting which I 
facilitated as the new Coordinator of the Working Group, it is fair to say that my predecessor's 
report makes a fair and balanced assessment of what Members could eventually achieve under 
the work programme as agreed recommendations.   
4. At the 21 September WG  meeting, I also heard and taken good note of your specific comments 
on individual paragraphs of the report as well the discussions on the two written submissions. 
As I had indicated, I will make a sincere effort to revise the report by taking into account  your 
comments and reflections at the two previous WG meetings. In so doing, I will also add a section 
in the report containing a factual summary of issued raised under the work programme.  
5. I am targeting the week of 16 October  as the possible timeline for the release of my revision 
to the report. Several of you already provided specific comments to the report at the previous 
WG meetings, including during the discussions on the two written submissions in RD/AG/114  
and 115. I would still like to provide you with another opportunity to share your comm ents, if 
any, in writing with me and the Secretariat latest by the cob on Friday 6 October 2023 . The 
next meeting of the Working Group is scheduled for 13 November 2023  when we could target 
the finalization of our report for the consideration of the 27 -28 November CoA meeting.  
6. At the 21 September WG meeting, I also invited you all to reflect on how the food security work 
programme and the associated recommendations, once agreed, could feed into higher -level WTO 
processes and possible food security discussi ons at the upcoming 13th Ministerial Conference in 
February 2024.  I had specifically referred to paragraph 18 of the Committee's working 
procedures in G/AG/1 .   
7. As you all know the Committee is mandated under Art 16.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture to 
monitor, as a ppropriate, the follow -up to the Marrakesh Decision. Accordingly, paragraph 18 of 
the Committee's Working Procedures provides an opportunity to Members to raise any matter 
relating to the Decision and also provides that (and I quote):  
"A report on the fol low-up to this Decision shall be prepared by the Committee for the 
purposes of the review to be undertaken by the Ministerial Conference."  
8. We have indeed submitted such reports in the past. Since the core of the current work 
programme under Paragraph 8 of the MC12 Declaration on food insecurity is on the Marrakesh 
Decision asking the Committee " to examine how this Decision could be made more 
effective and operational pursuant to Article 16 of the Agreement on Agriculture and 
to consider concerns raised by M embers in their current and future submissions .", it G/AG/R/107  
- 36 - 
  may be considered prudent by Members and the Committee to share our report and 
recommendations, once agreed, with the General Council/Ministerial Conference.  
9. Finally, I would like to thank you all for your confidence and trust in appointing me the 
Coordin ator of the Work Programme for which I am very grateful. I would also like to warmly 
commend the contribution of various international organizations, several of which are observers 
to this Committee, for enriching the Work Programme debates, including thro ugh written 
contributions.  
10. With that, I conclude my report.  
 
 
  G/AG/R/107  
- 37 - 
  ANNEX 4 
CHAIR REPORT ON THE INFORMAL COA MEETING OF 27 SEPTEMBER  2023  
Agenda 2E(i)  
Members considered two items at the Informal CoA meeting on 27 September 2023.  
1. Under the agenda item on "Agricultural Notifications and Improving Transparency ", 
Members considered two distinct, but not unrelated, sub -items dealing respectively with i) the 
streamlining of notification and transparency requirements in the pillar of exp ort competition, 
and ii) the review of the MA:1 notification format in G/AG/2  so as to monitor the implementation 
of paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Bali TRQ Decision .  
2. On the first issue, the Chair recalled the discussions at the CoA meeting in June 2023 and the 
two prepa ratory Informal CoA meetings respectively on 6 June and 27 June focussing on 
the ES:1 notification requirement based on suggestions by his predecessor in ICN/AG/2 , 
RD/AG/109  and RD/AG/109/Rev.1 . Based on those discussions, the Chair believed that a 
consensus o n this matter would be facilitated if Member focussed on the transparency 
requirements in the export competition pillar in totality rather than singling out the ES:1 
notification obligation.  
3. The Chair proposed five core elements which could anchor an outc ome on a streamlined export 
competition transparency package for Members' consideration. These elements principally 
entailed reliance on the export competition questionnaire (ECQ) as the main vehicle for 
transparency and monitoring in the export competitio n pillar with the ES:1 notification format 
to be used only for reporting actual recourse to export subsidies for 2024 and onwards. The 
Chair also suggested that Members should agree to preserve some of the current practices relied 
by Members in the impleme ntation of the ECQ; in this regard the Chair specifically referred to i) 
the end -March deadline for the submission of responses, ii) data and information be presented 
for the latest preceding 'year' for which data is available, and iii) the absence of repo rtable 
data/information in any area of the ECQ to be so stated in ECQ responses.  
4. As regards the current reporting requirements on total exports via ES:2, the Chair noted that in 
view of the export subsidy quantity commitment levels having been brought dow n to zero under 
the terms of the Nairobi Decision, the primary rationale for the ES:2 notification requirement 
originating in Article 10.3 of the Agreement on Agriculture had become less compelling. 
The Chair proposed that to consult collectively on total agricultural exports, it might be more 
prudent for Members to rely on the Secretariat's annual background not in the G/AG/W/32  series 
which could be further adapted to Members' needs. Finally, streamlined notification and 
transparency requirements, once agreed,  could be reviewed and adjusted, as necessary, by the 
Committee based on the experience of the implementation of those requirements. To facilitate 
access, the Secretariat later circulated those five core elements in a room document RD/AG/117 . 
5. Members broadly reacted positively to the Chair's proposal. Members also highlighted some 
specific elements which they considered would be important during the elaboration of the 
proposed ES transparency requirements based on the Chair's proposal:  
a. The focus of this exercise should be on the streamlining of current export competition 
notification and transparency requirements without curtailing the existing level of 
transparency.  
b. Existing ES:1 notification requirement under G/AG/2  would remain unchanged up to the 
reporting  year 2023 and should be implemented accordingly. The newly added oral 
announcement route to fulfil ES:1 notifications when no export subsidies were provided 
might assist in clearing outstanding ES:1 notification for years until 2023.  G/AG/R/107  
- 38 - 
  c. The information provi ded until the reporting year "2023" based on the existing 
notification requirements should act as the base line to support Members' transition to 
new and streamlined export competition transparency requirements without 
compromising transparency.  
d. In limiti ng the ES:1 notification requirement post -2024 only for reporting actual recourse 
to export subsidies rather than for "nil" statements, the situation of the three Members 
whose modified export subsidy schedules were yet to be circulated or certified should  
be specifically considered.  
e. Efforts to improve the ECQ response rate should be strengthened and the current 
practice of Secretariat background notes incorporating Members' ECQ responses, 
including "nil" responses, should continue.  
6. One Member preferred to  retain the ES:1 notification requirement possibly with lesser frequency 
to account for potential administrative burden.  The Chair took note of Members' comments and 
proposed to submit a draft decision for their consideration in the coming days.  
7. Under the  second sub -item on  the review of the MA:1 notification format in G/AG/2 , Members 
considered the written submission by Costa Rica  in G/AG/W/230 . The Chair reminded Members 
that the issue, which had been considered previously, had now got a new context and mandate 
flowin g from the recently concluded first triennial review of the operation of the Bali TRQ Decision 
with the report of the review contained in G/AG/36 . Costa Rica explained that its submission 
sought to enable the implementation of obligations arising from paragraphs 2  to 5 of the Bali 
TRQ Decision  via the Table MA:1 format.  The proposal included specific drafting suggestions to 
the existing MA:1 format, inter alia  on the number of TRQ administering entities, licensed 
quantities, and processing of applications, to enab le Members to include the required information 
in respect of them in their MA:1 notifications taking into account the obligation stemming from 
the Bali TRQ Decision .   
8. Members  welcomed the proposal by Costa Rica with several of them also lending their support 
to the specific drafting suggestions therein to the modify the existing MA:1 format. One Member 
raised the issue of improving Members' compliance with their MA:1 and MA:2 notification 
requirements. That Member, supported by another, also raised the importance of ensuring 
synergy and avoiding duplication between notification requirements on TRQs in the Committee 
on Agriculture and th ose in the  Committee on Import Licensing. Costa Rica considered that its 
proposal would not come in the way of streamlining efforts; the proposed improvement in the 
MA:1 format and desired streamlining of notification requirements across different bodies to 
avoid duplication could rather be consid ered by Members in parallel.  
9. The Chair indicated that the discussions among Members on this mandated matter would need 
to continue in future CoA meetings. He also reminded Members that the Committee was required 
to review and monitor the implementation of Members' obligations under the Bali TRQ Decision 
as is clearly set out in para 11 of the Decision . 
10. Under  the second agenda item, Members continued their engagement on the "Functioning of 
the Committee on Agriculture " based on a tabular compilation summary of their suggestions 
prepared by the Secretariat in RD/AG/111 . The Committee ha d been working on these issues 
with progress already made in respect of some of them. For example, i) the Secretariat ha d 
agreed  to regularly organize introductory session for deleg ates in the margin of November CoA 
meetings; ii) a delegate manual was being worked upon by the Secretariat ; iii) an annotated 
agenda for formal CoA meetings ha d been issued since the previous CoA meeting in June 2023 
based on Members' approval of the str ucture of such an annotated agenda at that meeting; iv) 
the CoA Secretariat had commenced using the ICN/AG/  series for releasing the convening notices 
of informal meetings; and v) the Secretariat finalized the first tranche of domestic support 
database in July with the rest of it expected to be finalized by the end of this year .   
11. In the same spirit, Chair reports  on Informal CoA meetings had started to be shared with 
Members in advance whenever feasible. When Informal CoA meetings were held almost in 
continuum with the formal meeting, as was the case yesterday for the September Informal CoA G/AG/R/107  
- 39 - 
  meeting, an attempt had  already been made, as practicable, to ensure that Members had a copy 
of the report at the moment it was presented by the Chair at the formal meeting.   
12. The issue of existing deadlines for raising and responding to questions came up prominently in 
the disc ussions. Several Members considered that the existing 10 -days deadline to respond to 
written questions was often not adequate to provide a fulsome response. The specific suggestion, 
as included in RD/AG/111 , to close the agenda of the CoA and the circulation of  convening 
airgram 15 and 14 days prior to the meeting  was again put on the table by giving the recent 
example of the CTG which had agreed to a 15 -day deadline for the inclusion of an item on the 
agenda. Another Member suggested to advance all timelines in  connection with a CoA meeting 
by a few days to a week so as not to limit the available time for questioning Members. One 
Member preferred to receive such proposals for altering Committee timelines in writing towards 
informed consideration of such proposal s.  
13. Some broader systemic aspects related to the division of labour between CoA meetings and the 
on-line Q&A process via the AG -IMS also came up in the discussions. In the same vein, some 
Members urged the need for exercising restraint and responsibility i n raising matters at 
CoA meetings in order not to overburden the Committee and its already heavy agenda.  
Similarly, some other Members did not support any suggestion in the name of CoA reform which 
could effectively truncate the Committee's mandated role in considering matters related to the 
agricultural reform process.  
14. At the Informal meeting yesterday, the Secretariat provided presentation s on the state of play 
of the ECQ AG -IMS and the recently launched revamped Committee on Agriculture webpage.  
Sever al Members supported the efforts by the Secretariat to facilitate the work of the Committee, 
including via the AG -IMS and its recent enhancement in the from ECQ AG -IMS. Some Members 
reported on their good experience in using for the first time the ECQ AG -IMS on -line responses 
submission module. One Member also pointed to frequent difficulties it had encountered with 
the online notification system and the associated templates. On the proposed future steps by 
the Secretariat on the ECQ AG -IMS, another Member advised the Secretariat to align those steps 
with the ongoing discussions among Members on export competition transparency notably when 
considering the possibility to introduce document symbols at this stage to Members' ECQ 
responses.  
 
__________  