 RESTRICTED  
  
TN/AG/58  
 
8 February 2024  
(24-1043) Page: 1/18 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE IN SPECIAL SESSION  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON, H.E. MR ALPARSLAN ACARSOY  
8 February 2024  
STATE OF PLAY IN THE AGRICULTURE NEGOTIATIONS  
 
This summary document has been prepared by the Chair of the Special Session of the Committee 
on Agriculture under his own responsibility to facilitate discussions among Members. It does not 
purport to represent or capture all the views of Members on the negotiating issues.  
 
 
1   INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  1 
2   DOMESTIC SUPPORT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
3   MARKET ACCESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  4 
4   SPECIAL SAFEGUARD MECHANISM (SSM)  ................................ ................................ ... 5 
5   EXPORT RESTRICTIONS  ................................ ................................ ..............................  5 
6   EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ ................................  7 
7   COTTON  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  7 
8   PUBLIC STOCKHOLDING FOR FOOD SECURITY PURPOSES (PSH)  ................................  8 
9   FOOD SECURITY AND CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ .........................  10 
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  The important role being played by the agriculture and food sector in the economies of almost 
all Members is widely acknowledged. For many, the sector contributes significantly to their food 
security and poverty reduction strategies. It also provides employment and livelihood for a 
substantial number of people around the wor ld, and supports economic growth, wealth creation and 
development programmes. The sector has undergone substantial transformation in the last 30 years 
since the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) entered into force. It is facing a myriad 
of newer  challenges, including climate change and sustainability concerns. There are also many 
opportunities to leverage technological advances to produce efficiently and sustainably to feed a 
growing world population.  
1.2.  The role of trade in contributing to food and  livelihood security is also widely acknowledged. 
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, one out of four calories produced around the 
world is traded across an international border. In that regard, trade acts as a conveyor belt 
transporting fo od from surplus to deficit areas. While the value of agricultural trade has increased 
significantly from around USD  300 billion in 1995 to USD  1.5 trillion in 2022, Members still see the 
need to update global agricultural trade rules to further the much -valued agricultural reform process, TN/AG/58  
 
- 2 - 
 
  which commenced in 1995 with the entry into force of the AoA, following grand collective efforts by 
Members in the Uruguay Round. This update is essential to achieve the advancements and 
refinements in the AoA that WTO Mem bers have been awaiting since negotiations began nearly 
25 years ago, and to enable the sector to address contemporary challenges facing the agricultural 
sector more effectively.  
1.3.  Regrettably, Members have struggled to fulfil in its entirety the mandate se t out in Article 20 
of the AoA, as well as other relevant Ministerial mandates. With the exception of a few outcomes, 
including those on Public Stockholding and the administration of Tariff Rate Quotas at the Ninth 
Ministerial Conference in Bali in 2013, a nd on Export Competition at the Tenth Ministerial Conference 
in Nairobi in 2015, there has not been any substantive outcome in the agriculture negotiations since 
they were launched in 2000. Notwithstanding the food security outcomes at the Twelfth Minister ial 
Conference (MC12), it is also notable that there was no decision on any of the core negotiating 
agricultural issues at the last two Ministerial Conferences.  
1.4.  Since my appointment as the Chair of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture 
(CoA-SS) in January 2023, I have held numerous consultations with Members in various 
configurations, as well as many meetings of the CoA -SS and the Dedicated Sessions on Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes (PSH) and the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SS M) with 
the view to making progress in the negotiations.1 To deepen understanding of the issues and 
facilitate greater appreciation of the positions of different Members on the negotiating issues, I have 
encouraged evidence -based negotiations by organizin g focused seminars and discussions on several 
critical negotiating issues - PSH, domestic support, market access and export restrictions - as well 
as on food security, which is a cross -cutting topic of paramount importance to the Membership. I 
also held so me specific meetings dedicated to cotton2, which constitutes a priority for a large group 
of developing countries, including many least developed countries (LDCs). Meetings were also 
convened at the Senior Officials and Ministerial levels to help break the stalemate in the agriculture 
negotiation s and provide clear directions to guide negotiators on how progress could be made on 
the most intractable issues – PSH and domestic support – and in the overall negotiations.   
1.5.  While these engagements at the political level were useful, they did not succee d in changing 
Members' fundamental positions on the negotiating issues. This was very much the case for the two 
most contentious issues, namely PSH and domestic support. As set out below, whereas PSH 
proponents insist on the adoption of a permanent solutio n, mandated to be agreed and adopted 
already by MC11 in 2017, others – particularly exporting Members – believe that PSH should be 
addressed within the ambit of the overall domestic support negotiations considering the intricate 
proximity of issues involve d in the otherwise separately conducted negotiations on the two topics. 
This view is contested by the PSH proponents who insist that PSH was collectively agreed by the 
Membership at the highest level to be put on a separate track distinct from the agricult ure 
negotiations, and that there is no basis for proposing later to link it to the domestic support 
negotiations. For some PSH proponents, it is the lack of political will which is preventing the 
resolution of this issue, as commendable technical work has been done over the years.  
1.6.  The non -proponents counter that the PSH issue cannot be resolved in isolation from other 
issues in the domestic support negotiations, and that a holistic approach is needed to ensure 
balanced outcomes and politically acceptable t rade-offs for all. For them, all the negotiating issues 
should be addressed concurrently, and priority should not be given to addressing one issue at the 
expense of the others. As set out below, the negotiations on domestic support have also been very 
contentious. Whereas all Members agree on the need to reduce trade -distorting support, there are 
disagreements on some fundamental negotiating elements, including the starting point and the 
scope of support to be reduced/disciplined.  
1.7.  While linkages are usuall y natural in any multi -topic negotiations, for progress to be made in 
the agriculture negotiations, it is imperative that solutions should be found to these two overarching 
issues if the current stalemate is to be broken. In seeking to make progress on the se issues, several 
Members have stated the need for outcomes to address the food security challenges being faced by 
 
1 In total, eight informal CoA -SS meetings, and seven  Dedicated Sessions on PSH and SSM, 
respectively.  
2 Including two Cotton Quad Plus consultations.  TN/AG/58  
 
- 3 - 
 
  several Members, particularly LDCs and net food -importing developing countries (NFIDCs), as well 
as the sustainability challenges currently being faced, notably as a result of climate change.  
1.8.  This report summarizes the state of play in the agriculture negotiations and describes the main 
developments under my Chairmanship since my appointment in January 2023 until 30 January 2024, 
when I intro duced a draft Ministerial text for Members' consideration, based on my assessment of 
the state of play in the negotiations at this juncture. The draft text is intended to serve as a vehicle 
for the negotiations among Members with the ultimate goal of facil itating the achievement of an 
outcome on agriculture at MC13.3 
1.9.  This report is based on the numerous written submissions and oral interventions made by 
Members at meetings of the CoA -SS and the Dedicated Sessions of the CoA -SS on PSH and SSM, as 
well as in  other meetings in various configurations . 
1.10.   It does not purport to be a consensus document or exhaustively reflect all the positions 
advocated by Members on the various issues under negotiation. From my perspective as Chair, this 
stocktaking is intended fir st to acknowledge the substantive work undertaken so far by Members, as 
reflected in the non -exhaustive list of submissions annexed to this report, and to build on that body 
of work, as negotiations continue after MC13. The report also aims to furnish Mini sters with a 
comprehensive background to the existing challenges faced in the negotiations and to support 
Members in their ongoing efforts in soliciting the necessary guidance  from Ministers at MC13, 
scheduled to take place in Abu Dhabi on 26 -29 February 2 024. 
2  DOMESTIC SUPPORT  
2.1.  Domestic Support has been at the heart of agricultural negotiations since they began in 2000 
and continues to be a  top priority for the vast majority of Members, considering that Members' 
entitlements4 amount to nearly USD 1 trillio n. This amount could double in 2030 if nothing is done 
to stem the upward trend as a result of increased production and prices of major staple products. 
In its 2023 publication, the OECD estimates that, between 2020 and 2022, countries provided around 
USD 630 billion per year in support to individual producers.5 Over the years, negotiations in this 
area have been strongly influenced by the evolution of the level of support actually provided by 
Members.   
2.2.  All Members agree on the need to discipline further trade-distorting domestic support. 
However, wide divergences remain among Members on what constitutes "trade -distorting" domestic 
support – is it all Article 6 support or some sub -categories6; and on the degree of distortion caused 
by these different subc ategories. There is also the issue of how trade-distorting domestic support 
should be reduced - should all categories be addressed concurrently, or should certain categories be 
given priority?  
2.3.  Whereas some Members would like to address all support under A rticle 6, including support 
provided under Articles 6.2 and 6.5 of the AoA on the grounds that all subcategories are trade - 
distorting, some Members would like to see support which exceeds de minimis  thresholds addressed 
first (i.e., the issue of sequencin g), deeming it the most trade distorting. Most developing Members 
have argued for the exemption of support provided under Article 6.2 from any new disciplines, 
considering especially that the support to low -income or resource -poor farmers does not have the  
potential to distort international trade.  
  
 
3 See RD/AG/128  and Chair's report in JOB/AG/258 . 
4 Within the Amber Box under AoA Articles 6.3 and 6.4.  
5 OECD (2023), "Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2023: Adapting Agriculture to Climate 
Change". OECD Publishing, Paris . The variances in the methodologie s employed by the OECD and WTO for 
calculating support are also acknowledged.  
6 Different subcategories of Article 6 support are: Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) above de 
minimis  (Art. 6.3), AMS not exceeding  de minimis  (Art. 6.4), Blue Box (Art. 6. 5) support and Art. 6.2 
(Development Programmes). In addition, there is also Green Box (Annex 2, i.e. , non-trade-distorting support). 
Some Members (notably the African Group) has  been arguing also that Green Box direct payments have also a 
trade -distorting impact and have called for imposing a limit on this type of payments.  TN/AG/58  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.4.  This view is countered by other Members who point to the significant amount being provided 
under Article 6.2 and the share of this support in the overall size of trade -distorting domestic support. 
In addition, there are calls for the criteria to be reviewed to ensure that support is actually provided 
to low -income or resource -poor farmers. Some Members would also like the disciplines on the Blue 
Box to be clarified and strengthened or the support capped, as it h as the potential to distort trade.  
2.5.  Some WTO Members also consider that Green Box support (under Annex 2 of the A oA) ought 
to be addressed to ensure it causes no more than minimal trade distortion. Some have also 
suggested that Green Box disciplines might n eed to be reviewed to ensure that contemporary 
challenges, such as food security, rural livelihood security and environmental protection, can be 
more effectively addressed. Several Members consider that the shift to the use of non -trade -
distorting or minim ally trade -distorting support should be encouraged, and that the focus in the 
negotiations should be more on disciplining trade -distorting domestic support.  
2.6.  Recently, two main submissions have been discussed in the CoA -SS: one by the African Group 
(JOB/AG/242  and its revision) and the other by the Cairns Group ( JOB/AG/243/Rev.2 , replacing the 
earlier proposal by Costa Rica ( JOB/AG/243 )). The proposal  by the African Group suggests the 
gradual reduction and elimination of support exceeding de minimi s thresholds, and proposes some 
additional flexibility for developing country Members experiencing severe food crises. It also calls for 
a limit to be imposed on Blue Box and Green Box direct payments.  
2.7.  The proposal by the Cairns Group seeks to address all categories of support under Article 6 by 
establishing an overall limit and additional disciplines on product -specific support. The proponents 
have proffered the idea of proportionality, whereby Members with the greatest potential to distort 
trade due to th e size of their entitlements would assume more reduction obligations than the others. 
The disciplines on product -specific support, however, depend on whether the country is an importer 
or exporter of the product in question (greater flexibility is granted to importers, but stronger 
disciplines would be applied to exporters, especially those accounting for a significant share of world 
exports). The additional flexibilities (e.g., increased policy space for importers) are also considered 
by the proponents of this proposal to form a basis for a permanent solution to the problems some 
developing countries say they face when buying food at administered prices as part of their public 
stockholding programmes. The proposal also includes a safeguard against imported products that 
have been subsidized above a certain limit. This proposal is supported by several Members as a 
basis for further work on domestic support. To enhance greater understanding of JOB/AG/243/R ev.2, 
New Zealand submitted a document explai ning the product specific support provisions of this 
proposal and Canada introduced a Product Specific Support Calculator.7   
2.8.  None of the proposals imposes new obligations on LDCs.  
2.9.  On 16 October 2023, India resubmitted its revised proposal ( JOB/AG/216/Rev.1 ). This proposal 
advocates for the elimination of AMS above de minimis , therefore supporting the proposal by the 
African Group.   
2.10.   On 15 January 2024, the African Group tabled a submission which, although not specific to 
domestic support, contain s provisions that would give flexibility to NFIDCs and LDCs to exceed under 
certain conditions their de minimis  support levels with the aim of improving their agricultural 
production and productivity.8 
3  MARKET ACCESS  
3.1.  With a vast majority of Members prioritizing progress on domestic support, relatively less 
attention has been paid to the negotiations in the Market Access pillar for the last several years. 
There has been virtually no engagement among Members on the core market access negotiating 
issue of tariff reduction modalities since MC10 in Nairobi in 2015.  
  
 
7 RD/AG/126  and RD/AG/127 . 
8 JOB/AG/257  entitled "Promoting Agricultural Production and Trade in NFIDCs and  LDCs". TN/AG/58  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.2.  Over the last few years, Members in the Market Access pillar negotiations targeted an 
agreement on a framework (or Work Programme) to guide Market Access negotiations, including on 
the core issue of tariff liberalization.9 They also focused on some select market access transparency  
issues, the most prominent being the improvement of applied tariff transparency and treatment of 
shipments en route10, althoug h this latter issue has not been addressed in recent discussions .  
3.3.  Since MC12, the only submission on Market Access was made by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay 
and Uruguay in November 2023 ( JOB/AG/255 ), who were among the proponents of the Work 
Programme mentione d above. This latest submission contains specific approaches to address tariff 
simplification, tariff escalation, and high tariffs and tariff peaks; and lays out an approach to improve 
market access conditions under scheduled tariff rate quotas by reducing  in-quota tariff or expanding 
quota volume. The proposal calls for a tariff -reduction formula to be agreed by MC14 and proposes 
phasing out special agricultural safeguards once such a formula is adopted. At the November 2023 
CoA-SS meeting where the propos al was introduced, several Members welcomed it, noting that 
substantive discussions on Market Access were long overdue, while others emphasized the need to 
prioritize Domestic Support. Several Members also noted their difficulty in accepting overly ambitio us 
reform on this topic and the need to ensure domestic food security. Many highlighted that they would 
need more time to study the proposal in greater detail.  
3.4.  Despite the relatively lower level of engagement in the Market Access negotiations, some 
Member s currently consider that making progress on market access reforms is critical for ensuring 
an overall balance in the agriculture negotiations. Accordingly, several Members, including those 
whose main priority lies in the Domestic Support negotiations, len d their support also for revitalizing 
market access reforms.  
4  SPECIAL SAFEGUARD MECHANISM (SSM)  
4.1.  The SSM negotiations have been held in Dedicated Sessions pursuant to the 2015 Nairobi 
Decision. However, Members maintain different reading of the Nairobi mand ate, especially on the 
issue of linkage between SSM and market access. This has remained the most challenging issue in 
the SSM negotiations, virtually preventing any serious technical engagement and progress on this 
file since 2015.  
4.2.  The proponents (from a mong the G33, LDC Group, ACP Group and the African Group) continue 
to accord priority to achieving an outcome on SSM, which would give all developing countries the 
right to impose additional safeguard duties to protect their farmers against import surges a nd price 
declines, including in the context of the current food security challenges. In contrast, major exporters 
from both developing and developed Members maintain their position that an outcome on SSM could 
be conceived only as part of a broader market access outcome.  
4.3.  Among recent submissions, a detailed proposal was submitted by the African Group in 
JOB/AG/205/Rev.1 .11 Some developing Members, including the LDC Group, have routinely justified 
the importance and need for an SSM to remedy negat ive spillover effects of subsidized imports on 
their small holder farmers. The recent Cairns Group proposal in JOB/AG/243/Rev.2  has included the 
idea of a "special countervailing measure" , later changed to "domestic support trigger mechanism " 
to remedy subsidized imports. The SSM proponents have so far not yet responded with significant 
interest to this idea .  
5  EXPORT  RESTRICTIONS  
5.1.  Export restrictions on food have become a more prominent topic in the agriculture negotiations 
in recent years, following food price spikes which disproportionately affected the most vulnerable 
countries, particularly LDCs and NFIDCs , compromising their food security. Following the adoption 
at the 12th Ministerial Conference of a decision exempting from export restrictions food purchased 
 
9 See e.g., JOB/AG/198  by Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay, Ukraine and Uruguay on "Framework 
for Negotiations on Market Access ". 
10 See e.g., JOB/AG/212/Rev.1  by Australia, Brazil, Canada, European Union and Ukraine on 
"Transparency in Applied Tariff Rate Changes ". 
11 An earlier version of t he proposal, JOB/AG/205 , was submitted on 12 July 2021. In July 2023, 
Pakistan joined as a cosponsor of the proposal JOB/AG/205/Rev.2 . TN/AG/58  
 
- 6 - 
 
  by the World Food Programme (WFP) for humanitarian food aid12, the discussions have mainly 
focused  on how disciplines on export restrictions can be made more effective to enhance the 
transparency and predictability of these measures. Another topic that progressively emerged was 
the possibility of exempting from export restrictions food imports by the m ost vulnerable countries 
to ensure their food security.  
5.2.  Proposals on the issue of transparency and predictability that have been submitted in the 
CoA Special Session since MC12, include communications JOB/AG/250  from the United Kingdom and 
its revision13, and JOB/AG/252  from Japan.14 Key elements noted by the proponents in these 
proposals include the timing and content of notification, the possibility of submitting an interim 
notification, and review of measures of long duration. The proposals also suggest specific changes 
to the ER:1  format set out in Notification Requirements and Formats under the Committee on 
Agriculture (CoA)15 relating to these elements. Other aspects of the proposals include  technical 
assistance and support provided by the Secretariat, clarification of the releva nt terms of the AoA 
Article 12 and the GATT 1994 Article XI:2(a) such as " foodstuffs", "net -food exporter", as well as 
other elements such as improving the transparency of consultations, creating a Dedicated Session 
to discuss export restrictions at the Co A, and considering exempting certain shipments under 
existing contracts from export restrictions.  
5.3.   The main proponents consider that a deliverable on export restrictions could constitute a 
significant component of a food security -oriented outcome at MC13 and beyond. A second group of 
Members acknowledges the potential impact of export restrictions on global food security but does 
not consider it a priority and believe that this topic can only be addressed as part of a comprehensive 
and balanced outcome at MC13 and beyond.  
5.4.  In contrast, several developing country Members consider that the existing disciplines are 
sufficient and are reluctant to accept any new disciplines or clarification, either procedural (i.e., on 
notifications and Committee work) or substa ntive (i.e., on conditions for imposing such measures) 
in light of their capacity constraints. Several Members have also restated their desire to maintain 
their policy space and be able to have recourse to these measures to ensure their domestic food 
secur ity. The view has also been expressed that export restrictions should be considered in the 
broader context of measures impacting trade flows. The view has also been expressed that there is 
no mandate for negotiations on export restrictions.  
5.5.  Given the speci fic food security challenges faced by LDCs and NFIDCs, the issue of exempting 
food exports to them from the imposition of export restrictions has also become more prominent 
over the past year and has been identified by some Members as a possible deliverabl e for MC13. In 
its recent submission JOB/AG/251 , the LDC Group has formally proposed that "Net food -exporting 
Members  shall refrain from imposing export prohibitions or restrictions on foodstuff imported by 
LDCs and NFIDCs  for their domestic use" . The United  Kingdom, in its revised communication 
JOB/AG/250/Rev.1 , adopted a modified form of this proposal by suggesting that Members "shall 
refrain from imposing export restrictions or prohibitions on consignments of foodstuffs that will be 
imported by L DCs for their domestic use". While several Members have expressed their support for 
such an exemption, albeit, with different views on its possible scope and related conditions to avoid 
trade diversion, some Members have expressed strong reservations, as t hey consider such an 
exemption might threaten the domestic food security of those Members who need to have recourse 
to export restrictions.  
5.6.  Another proposal relating to food security challenges faced by LDCs and NFIDCs is contained 
in African Group commun ication JOB/AG/25 7.16 This proposes that Members imposing export 
prohibitions and restrictions on foodstuffs "may voluntarily explore practical, WTO -consistent means 
to lessen the effect of such measures on importing countries, particularly LDCs and NFIDCs, in 
 
12 The WTO Ministerial Decision on the World Food Programme (WFP) Food Purchases Exemption from 
Export Prohibitions or Restrictions  (WT/MIN(22)/29 ). 
13 JOB/AG/250  and JOB/AG/250/Rev.1 . 
14 JOB/AG/252 . In this submission,  Japan also resubmitted a July 2021 proposal by the G10 on export 
restrictions  (JOB/AG/207 ). 
15 G/AG/2 . 
16 Initially circulated in the General Council as WT/GC/W/918 . It contains a proposal for a decision at 
MC13 on promoting agricultural  production and trade in NFIDCS and LDCs . TN/AG/58  
 
- 7 - 
 
  response to spec ific requests from Members having a substantial interest as an importer". This 
proposal has not been discussed extensively at CoA -SS. 
6  EXPORT COMPETITION  
6.1.  Export Competition has been in a unique position compared to other topics under negotiation 
since the a doption of the December 2015 Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition. The 
Decision mandated the elimination of export subsidies for agricultural products according to different 
timelines.17 The Decision also contains disciplines for three catego ries of "export measures with 
equivalent effect" namely, export credits, export credit guarantees and insurance programmes; 
agricultural exporting state trading  enterprises and international food aid to minimize the risk of 
commercial displacement and ensu re that food aid does not negatively affect domestic producers 
and local or regional markets. Finally, the Decision incorporates various flexibilities to accommodate 
the specific concerns of LDCs and NFIDCs.  
6.2.  The regular CoA is monitoring the implementation of the Nairobi Decision, mainly through an 
annual "dedicated discussion" process based on Members' notifications and responses to an annual 
Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ).  
6.3.  The Nairobi Ministerial Decision also instituted a triennial review by the CoA of the disciplines 
contained in the Decision to ensure the absence of circumvention of its commitments.18  
6.4.  While most Members consider that export competition was largely settled by the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision and should therefore no t be a priority, a small group of Members has expressed 
the view that further work might be required to achieve better outcomes in some areas covered 
under the Export Competition pillar, building on the evidence amassed during the review undertaken 
in the CoA.  
6.5.  The discussions have mainly focused in recent years on the implementation and monitoring of 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and possible ways to enhance transparency to this end and have 
mainly shifted in this regard towards the CoA following MC12. Many developing countries have 
expressed reservations against possible additional transparency obligations in light of their capacity 
constraints.  
6.6.  Proponents have not submitted any new proposal on this topic in the CoA Special Session 
context following MC 12. 
7  COTTON  
7.1.  How to address trade -distorting Domestic Support for Cotton has been and remains the central 
element in the negotiations since the launch of the cotton initiative in 2003.19 Little progress has 
been achieved on this issue, despite the commitment  made by Ministers 20 years ago that Cotton 
should be addressed ambitiously, expeditiously and specifically, as part of the agriculture 
negotiations. The C -420 and many other Members consider cotton as a priority in view of its critical 
role for the socio -economic development and livelihoods of many people, particularly in LDC 
Members.  
7.2.  A recent proposal by the C -4 in TN/AG/GEN/53  - TN/AG/SCC/GEN/25  for a Ministerial outcome 
on Cotton was circulated on 10  November 2023. The proposal, which builds upon some  past 
proposals by the Group, seeks to impose a limit on the sum of AMS and Blue Box Cotton specific 
 
17 As of today, out of the 16 Members with export subsidies commitments at the time of adoption of the 
Decision, 13 have modified their schedules to eliminate their entitlements, two (EU and Canada) have 
submitted revised draft schedules in 2017 but these sched ules have not yet been certified, and one ( the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ) has not yet submitted its revised draft schedule. Developing countries are 
allowed to use the flexibility under Article 9.4 of the Agreement until the end of 2023, ex cept LDCs and NFIDCs  
who have an exten ded recourse to the flexibility  until the end of 2030.  
18 The first triennial review ended in September 2018 (report in G/AG/28 ), the second one in 
March  2022 (report in G/AG/33 ) and the third one is expected to start in 2024.  
19 TN/AG/GEN/4 . 
20 Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali who launched the " Cotton Initiative" in 2003 to have cotton 
specifically addressed in the agriculture negotiations. Côte d'Ivoire is now an active Observer in the Group. TN/AG/58  
 
- 8 - 
 
  support to ensure that it is below the de minimis  threshold. It further seeks to impose a numerical 
cap on the level of Cotton specific AMS through a tiere d reduction formula and to eliminate Green 
Box Direct payments for Cotton producers. The C -4 was supported in its approach by several 
developing countries.  
7.3.  The treatment of cotton specific trade -distorting domestic support is also addressed as an 
element o f the broader perspectives on domestic support. In that regard, several Members have 
emphasised the need to first address AMS granted to Cotton beyond the de minimis  level and oppose 
any new disciplines on de minimis  support for developing country Members without Final Bound Total 
AMS (see e.g., proposal by the African Group and Pakistan in JOB/AG/242/Rev.1  or proposal by 
India in JOB/AG/216/Rev.1 ). 
7.4.  The proponents of the proposal JOB/AG/243/Rev.2  have underscored the fact that this 
submission also addresses cotton trade -distorting product specific support and invited the C -4 to 
engage in a joint work to identify convergences between the two approaches. Cotton was also one 
of the products co vered in the contribution by the Cairns Group on the Amber and Blue Boxes product 
specific concentration in JOB/AG/245 . 
7.5.  Members who believe that an outcome on cotton domestic support should be part of a holistic 
and comprehensive outcome in agriculture, are o f the considered view that in light of the remaining 
strong divergences within the Membership on this topic, Members should engage in a step -by-step 
process and explore how transparency may be enhanced as a first step.  
7.6.  The view has also been expressed that  it is necessary to differentiate between the various 
categories of support granted to cotton producers, namely AMS, Blue Box and Green Box support in 
light of their respective characteristics. Some Members have also noted that market access should 
also be  taken into consideration in these negotiations.  
7.7.  Finally, WTO Members have also recognized since the launch of the cotton initiative – the 
coherence between the trade and development aspects of the cotton issue, as part of a "two -track" 
approach. While th e trade -related aspects of cotton are addressed within the agriculture 
negotiations, the development -related aspects fall within the Director General's Consultative 
Framework Mechanism on Cotton (DGCFMC) under which the WTO Director -General coordinates wit h 
the development community to mobilize resources for the support of the cotton sector in the most 
vulnerable countries.  
8  PUBLIC STOCKHOLDING FOR FOOD SECURITY PURPOSES (PSH)  
8.1.  The PSH issue at the WTO is about finding a solution for PSH programmes under whi ch the 
procurement of food stocks is made at administered prices and therefore involve the granting of 
Market Price Support (MPS) to producers. The granting of such support is subject to reduction 
commitments under the AoA disciplines on AMS. Members procu ring stocks at market prices have 
to notify their PSH programmes under the Green Box and are not directly affected by this issue in 
the negotiations.  
8.2.  At the Bali Ministerial Conference in 2013, an interim solution (i.e., a peace clause) was agreed 
to shie ld support provided under PSH programmes from legal challenges at the WTO, provided 
certain conditions were met.21 However, this solution is only available to countries with "existing" 
programmes back then (i.e., programmes that existed in December 2013) a nd therefore only covers 
a limited number of countries, including Bangladesh22, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines 
and Chinese Taipei. The Bali Decision also envisaged the adoption of a permanent solution by MC11 
in 2017, but Members failed to do so.   
8.3.  The main rationale for the proposal put forward by members of the G33 and others has been 
the reduced policy space due to inflation resulting in higher administered prices. As a result, the 
AMS limits have become much more constraining than at the  time when the Uruguay Round was 
 
21 The Bali Decision should be read with the 2014 Dec ision of the General Council in WT/L/939 .  
22 Bangladesh notified its Public Stockholding programme and the use of market price support for 
2008-2021 on 26 January 2024 .  TN/AG/58  
 
- 9 - 
 
  concluded when global food prices were low. It is therefore the view of the proponents that the 
current rules prevent them from adequately taking care of the food security of their populations.  
8.4.  The main limitation is consi dered to stem from the AMS calculation methodology (Annex 3 of 
the AoA) which does not take into account current market prices in calculating the support actually 
being provided (as the methodology uses a "fixed external reference price (FERP)" based on 19 86-88 
prices to calculate support). The situation concerning PSH support actually provided in relation to 
domestic support commitments is not uniform among all developing Member proponents, as only 
some of them have PSH support approaching their de minimis  limits and could potentially breach 
them.  
8.5.  Currently, the proponents (i.e., the G33, the African Group, the ACP) are seeking the fulfilment 
of the existing mandate and the adoption of a permanent solution at MC13 after the deadline was 
missed at MC11 in B uenos Aires. In seeking an outcome on PSH, they do not want any linkage to 
be made to other issues.  
8.6.  The non -proponents are of the view that the PSH issue cannot be resolved in isolation and that 
it should be addressed in the context of broader negotiations , particularly those on domestic support, 
highlighting the relevance of several key domestic support provisions, including those on MPS 
calculation methodology. Several Members have also urged the adoption of a holistic approach to 
addressing food insecuri ty and consider that PSH is only one tool among many others to achieve 
food security.  
8.7.  There are two proposals dedicated to PSH that have been considered by the Membership in the 
last year that were submitted just before MC12: one by the African Group, the ACP, and G3323 
resubmitted by the proponents in March 2023 and the other by Brazil.  
8.8.  The first proposal by the proponents ( JOB/AG/229 ) seeks to change the method of calculating 
MPS (notably by updating the FERP), assumes compliance with the AoA limits (Artic les 3.2, 6.3, and 
7.2(b)) of all support provided pursuant to PSH programmes, even when they actually exceed the 
established WTO limits, and extends the coverage to all foodstuffs and to all PSH programmes of 
developing countries. The proposal would also a llow stocks to be exported for the purposes of 
international food aid, for non -commercial humanitarian purposes or when requested by NFIDCs and 
LDCs, or any Member facing food shortages and higher food inflation. Transparency provisions have 
been simplifie d, and the safeguard provisions require that stocks should not "substantially" distort 
trade.  
8.9.  The non -proponents consider that this proposal would allow for unlimited support (notably 
MPS) with weaker safeguards and transparency provisions than in the Bali Interim Solution, and as 
such could potentially distort trade and compromise the food security of other countries. They also 
advocate an export ban on public stocks covered by a permanent solution.  
8.10.   The alternative proposal by Brazil ( JOB/AG/230 ) suggest s the exemption, in principle, of 
support provided by LDCs, NFIDCs and countries listed by the FAO as those "requiring external 
assistance for food" in the calculation of MPS. This exemption would, however, apply only if that 
country's global export share of that product and the value of stocks procured remain below certain 
thresholds.  
8.11.   The Cairns Group proposal ( JOB/AG/243/Rev.2 ), while not specific to PSH, seeks to provide 
a solution to the PSH issue under the domestic support pillar through flex ibilities for product -specific 
support, depending on whether the developing country Member is an importer or exporter of a 
relevant product, taking also into account its share of world trade in that product.   
 
23 Co-sponsoring Members: Antigua and Barbuda; Barbados; Belize; Benin; Bolivia; Botswana; China; 
Congo; Côte d 'Ivoire; Cuba; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Grenada; Guyana; Haiti; Honduras; India; 
Indonesia; Jamaica; Kenya; Madagascar; Mauritius; Mongolia; M ozambique; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Pakistan; 
Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Senegal; Sri Lanka; Suriname; Tanzania; 
Trinidad and Tobago; Türkiye ; Uganda; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of; Zambia and Zimbabwe.  TN/AG/58  
 
- 10 - 
 
  9  FOOD SECURITY AND CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
9.1.  Some cr oss-cutting issues have also been raised in the negotiations, both in discussions during 
meetings and through written contributions by Members addressing food security, including the 
importance of facilitating trade in this regard.  
9.2.  Members' written submiss ions highlight that the WTO framework of rules can play a crucial role 
in contributing to sustainable advancements in agricultural productivity and food security through 
its facilitation of open and predictable markets, science -based regulatory regimes, an d technological 
innovation. The importance of agricultural reforms within the framework of the AoA has been deemed 
essential to support food security objectives. The need for multilateral efforts for the facilitation of 
trade in agricultural products, addr essing both internal and border measures, and considering new 
realities and contemporary trends in agriculture, such as digital transformation and the growing role 
of services in agricultural production, have also been emphasized.24 
9.3.   A submission by the Af rican Group proposes specific actions in favour of LDCs and NFIDCs, 
including measures to enhance their agricultural production and productivity, improve accessibility 
to food markets, and facilitate access to trade and production finance.25  
 
____________ ___ 
 
 
  
 
24 JOB/AG/241 , JOB/AG/247 , JOB/AG/254 , JOB/AG/256 , TN/AG/GEN/54 . 
25 JOB/AG/257 . TN/AG/58  
 
- 11 - 
 
   
ANNEX  
LIST OF SUBMISSIONS CIRCULATED SINCE MC12  
Document symbol  Date  Co spon sor(s) / Title  
JOB/AG/257  
(originally circulated as 
WT/G C/W/918 ) 15.1.24  African Group : Promoting Agricultural Production and Trade in 
NFIDCS and LDCs  - Draft Ministerial Decision of the 13th 
Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO), 
Geneva, Switzerland  
RD/AG/127  (R) 15.1.24  Canada : Analysis of the Implications of JOB/AG/243/Rev.2  - A 
Product Specific Support Calculator  
RD/AG/126  (R) 15.1.24  New Zealand : Product Specific Support Under 
JOB/AG/243/Rev.2  – An Explanation and Next Steps  
JOB/AG/243/Rev.2  12.1.24  Cairns Group and Ukraine : Towards a Strengthened 
Negotiation Framework in the Domestic Support Pillar – Building 
a Comprehensive Approach to Negotiations on Domestic Support  
JOB/AG/250/Rev.1  (R) 12.1.24  United Kingdom : Export Restrictions and Prohibitions on Agri -
Food Products  - Draft Ministerial Decision  
JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  21.12.23  Cairns Group : Analysis of Trends in Green Box Support  
JOB/GC/375 -JOB/AG/256 -
JOB/TE/85  11.12.23  Russian Federation : Shaping MC13 Outcomes  
JOB/AG/255  16.11.23  Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay : Reform of 
Agricultural Trade in Terms of Market Access  
TN/AG/GEN/53 -
TN/AG/SCC/ GEN/25 
TN/AG/GEN/53/Corr.1 -
TN/AG/SCC/ GEN/25/Corr.1  10.11.23  
 
23.11.23  C-4 and Côte d'Ivoire : Negotiations on Cotton in the WTO – 
Draft Ministerial Decision on Cotton  
G/SPS/GEN/2168 -
G/AG/GEN/229 -
TN/AG/GEN/54 -G/C/W/838  9.11.23  United States : Enhancing Food Security: The WTO's Role in 
Supporting Innovation and Sustainable Growth in Agricultural 
Productivity  
JOB/AG/243/Rev.1  2.11.23  Cairns Group : Towards a Strengthened Negotiation Framework 
in the Domestic Support Pillar – Building a Comprehensive 
Approach to Negotiations on Domestic Support  
JOB/AG/254 -JOB/MA/171 -
JOB/SPS/31 -JOB/TBT/517 -
JOB/COMTD/5 -JOB/TF/2 40 19.10.23  Brazil : Enhancing Food Security Through the Reform in 
Agriculture and the Use of Current Flexibilities  
JOB/AG/253   18.10.23  Cairns Group : Analysis of Trends in Green Box Support  
JOB/AG/252  (R) 17.10.23  Japan : Elements to be Examined for Improving the 
Transparency of Export Prohibitions and Restrictions to Ensure 
Medium - to Long -Term Food Security  
JOB/AG/216/Rev.1  (R) 16.10.23  India : Elimination of AMS Beyond de minimis : Reducing 
Distortions in Global Agricultural Trade  
JOB/AG/251  13.10.23  LDC Group : Draft Ministerial Decision on LDCs and NFIDCs 
Exemption from Export Prohibitions or Restrictions  
JOB/AG/250  (R) 12.10.23  United Kingdom : Export Restrictions and Prohibitions on Agri -
Food Products  - Draft Ministerial Decision  
G/TFA/W/95/Rev.1 -G/C/W/836 -
G/AG/W/2 42-TN/AG/W/11 -
G/TBT/W/776 -G/SPS/W/345  21.9.23  United States : Enhancing the Role of the WTO Trade 
Facilitation Agreement in Promoting Food Security  
JOB/AG/247 -JOB/COMTD/3  10.8.23  United States : Voices from the Field: Digital Solutions and 
Innovations to Empower Farmers and Food Security Event  
JOB/AG/242/Rev.1  
(derestricted 2.11.23)  27.7.23  African Group and Pakistan : Domestic Support  
JOB/AG/205/Rev.2  (R) 27.7.23  African Group and Pakistan : Special Safeguard Mechanism for 
Developing Country Members  
JOB/AG/246  (R) 14.7.23  Co-sponsors of JOB/A G/229 : Summary of the Information 
Session on External Reference Price for Public Stockholding for 
Food Security Purposes Programmes  
JOB/AG/245  16.6.23  Cairns Group : Agreement on Agriculture (AoA): The Amber and 
Blue Box, Product -Specific Concentrations of Support  
JOB/AG/244  14.6.23  United Kingdom : Why MC13 Needs to Address Export 
Restrictions on Agricultural Products  
JOB/AG/243  9.6.23  Costa Rica : Towards a Strengthened Negotiation Framework in 
the Domestic Support Pillar - Building  a Comprehensive 
Approach to Negotiations on Domestic Support  TN/AG/58  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Document symbol  Date  Co spon sor(s) / Title  
JOB/AG/242  (R) 9.6.23  African Group : Domestic Support  
JOB/AG/205/Rev.1  (R) 9.6.23  African Group : Special Safeguard Mechanism for Developing 
Country Members  
RD/AG/108  (R) 25.5.23  Paraguay : Specific Questions Regarding the Proposal by the 
African Group, the ACP and some members of the G33 – 
Document JOB/AG/229  
JOB/CTG/25 -JOB/AG/241 -
JOB/MA/160 -JOB/SPS/28 -
JOB/TBT/501 -JOB/COMTD/ 1-
JOB/TF/233  27.3.23  United States : The World Trade Organization's Role in 
Enhancing Food Security  
JOB/AG/240  (R) 23.3.23  Canada : The State of Play: Analysis of Domestic Support Trends 
in the 10 Largest Agricultural Traders  
LIST OF SUBMISSIONS CIRCULATED BETWEEN MC11 -MC12  
Document symbol  Date  Co-spon sor(s) / Title  
WT/MIN(22)/17 -JOB/AG/236  14.6.22  Argentina, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, 
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, 
Paraguay, Peru  and Uruguay : Statement on t he Reform of 
the Multilateral Rules on Agricultural Trade  
JOB/AG/235/Rev.1 -
WT/MIN(22)/W/8/Rev.1  (R) 14.6.22  Argentina , Australia , Brazil, Canada, Mexico, 
New Zealand, Paraguay, United  States , and Uruguay : 
Government -to-Government Exports of Food Stocks to 
Developing Country Members  
WT/MIN(22)/11 -
TN/AG/GEN/52 - 
TN/AG/SCC/GEN/24  (R) 12.6.22  C-4 and Côte d'Ivoire : Ministerial Declaration on Cotton  
WT/MIN(22)/W/14 - 
WT/GC/W/848/Rev.1 - 
G/AG/W/220/Rev.1 -
TN/AG/53/Rev.1 -
WT/COMTD/W/267/Rev.1  (R) 10.6.22  Sri Lanka : Ministerial Declaration on the WTO Response to the 
Food Security Crisis  
WT/MIN(22)/W/8 -JOB/AG/235  
(R) 9.6.22  Brazil : Government -to-Government Exports of Food Stocks to 
Developing Country Members  
WT/GC/W/848 -G/AG/W/220 -
TN/AG/53 -WT/COM TD/W/267  
(R) 3.6.22  Sri Lanka : Ministerial Declaration on the WTO Response to the 
Food Security Crisis  
WT/GC/W/847 -G/AG/W/219 -
TN/AG/52 -WT/COMTD/W/266  
(WT/MIN( 22)/W/11 ) 1.6.22  
 
9.6.22  Arab, African and LDC Groups : Draft Ministerial Decision  - 
WTO Response to Food Insecurity in NFIDCs and LDCs  
JOB/AG/230  (R) 
(WT/MIN(22)/W/5 -
WT/GC/W/851 ) 31.5.22  
6.6.22  Brazil : Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes  - Draft 
Ministerial Decision  
JOB/AG/229  (R) 
(WT/MIN(22)/W/4 -
WT/GC/W/850 ) 31.5.22  
6.6.22  African Group , the ACP, and G33 members : Public 
Stockholding f or Food Security Purposes  
JOB/AG/210/Rev.2  11.5.22  Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, New Zealand, 
Paraguay, Thailand, the United States and Uruguay : 
Observations on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes  
JOB/AG/227  14.4.22  LDC Group : Comments by the LDC Group on the Draft Text on 
Agriculture ( TN/AG/50 )  
JOB/AG/210/Rev.1  17.3.22  Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, New Zealand, 
Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay : Observations on 
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes  
RD/AG/90  (R) 15.11.21  Singapore : Proposal on Agriculture Export Prohibitions or 
Restrictions Relating to the World Food Programme: Response 
to India  
JOB/AG/177/Rev.3  22.10.21  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, 
Lao PDR, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, 
Peru, the Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine, Uruguay and 
Viet Nam: Framework for Negotiations on Domestic Support  
JOB/AG/220  (R) 13.10.21  Lao PDR : Food Security and the Agricultural Negotiation 
Agenda to be Adopted at MC12  TN/AG/58  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Document symbol  Date  Co-spon sor(s) / Title  
JOB/AG/212/Rev.1  (R) 11.10.21  Australia, Brazil, Canada , European Union  and Ukraine : 
Transparency in Applied Tariff Rate Changes - Proposal for 12th 
WTO Ministerial Conference  
JOB/AG/219  23.9.21 Canada : Update to Canada's Analytical Tool on Domestic 
Support  
JOB/AG/218  22.9.21 ACP Group: COVID -19 Impact on Agricultural Markets and 
Some Implications for the Negotiations on Agriculture  
JOB/AG/214/Rev.1  (R) 16.9.21  G33 members: Antigua and Barbuda; Barbados; Belize; 
Benin; Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Bo tswana; China; 
Congo; Côte d'Ivoire; Cuba; Dominica; Grenada; Guyana; 
Haiti; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Jamaica; Kenya; 
Madagascar; Mauritius; Mongolia; Mozambique; 
Nicaragua; Nigeria; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Senegal; Sri Lanka; 
Suriname; Tanzania; Trinidad and Tobago; Turkey; 
Uganda; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of; Zambia  and 
Zimbabwe : Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes  
JOB/AG/216  (R) 14.9.21  India : Elimination of AMS Beyond de minimis : Reducing 
Distortions in Global Agricultural Trade  
TN/AG/GEN/51 -
TN/AG/SCC/GEN/ 23 (R) 8.9.21  C-4: Agriculture Negotiations at the WTO – Draft Ministerial 
Decision on Cotton  
JOB/AG/214  (R) 28.7.21  G33 members : Antigua and Barbuda; Barbados; Belize; 
Benin; Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Botswana ; China ; 
Congo ; Côte d'Ivoire ; Cuba ; Dominica ; Grenada ; Guyana ; 
Haiti ; Honduras ; Indonesia ; Jamaica ; Kenya ; Madagascar ; 
Mauritius ; Mongolia ; Mozambique ; Nicaragua ; Nigeria ; 
Saint Kitts and Nevis ; Saint Lucia ; Saint Vincent  and the 
Grenadines; Senegal ; Sri Lanka ; Suriname ; Tanzania ; 
Trinidad  and Tobago ; Turkey; Uganda ; Venezuela , 
Bolivarian  Republic of; Zambia  and Zimbabwe : Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes  
RD/AG/85  (R) 27.7.21  Ecuador  and Paraguay : Building Convergence for a Ministerial 
Agricultural Package at MC12  
JOB/AG/213  (R) 26.7.21  Canada, European Union, Japan  and the United States : 
Proposal for a Ministerial Decision on Transparency 
Improvement s in Agriculture  
JOB/AG/212  (R) 16.7.21  Australia, Brazil, Canada  and Ukraine : Transparency in 
Applied Tariff Rate Changes - Proposal for 12th WTO Ministerial 
Conference  
JOB/AG/177/Rev.2  15.7.21  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, 
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Lao PDR, 
Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, the 
Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine, Uruguay and Viet Nam : 
Framew ork for Negotiations on Domestic Support  
JOB/AG/211  (R) 15.7.21  Canada, Chile, Norway and Switzerland : Proposal for 
Decision at the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference on Enhancing 
Transparency and to Continue the Negotiations on Export 
Competition  
JOB/AG/210  15.7.21  Canada, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, the United States and 
Uruguay : Observations on Public Stockholding for Food 
Security Purposes  
JOB/AG/209  (R)  15.7.21  Brazil : Comments on the Report by the Chair of the General 
Council ( JOB/GC/259 ) 
JOB/AG/208  (R) 
JOB/AG/208/Cor r.1 (R) 14.7.21  
19.7.21  Lao PDR : Agriculture and Food Security: Measures to be 
Adopted at MC12  
JOB/AG/207  (R) 
JOB/AG/207/Cor r.1 (R) 14.7.21  
19.7.21  Japan, Israel, Republic of Korea, Liechtenstein, 
Switzerland and the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu : Proposal on Export 
Prohibitions or Restrictions  
JOB/AG/206  (R)  12.7.21  African Group : COVID -19 and the Food Security Crisis Calls for 
Urgent Action at the WTO - Elements of a Food Security and 
Livelihoods Agenda  
JOB/AG/205  (R) 
JOB/AG/205/Corr.1  (R) 12.7.21  
15.7.21  African Group : Special Safeguard Mechanism for Developing 
Country Members  
JOB/AG/204  (R) 12.7.21  African Group : Public Food Stockholding for Developing 
Country Members  TN/AG/58  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Document symbol  Date  Co-spon sor(s) / Title  
JOB/AG/203   
(derestricted 2. 11.23)  12.7.21  African Group : Domestic Support: Disciplines on Final Bound 
AMS Entitlem ents 
JOB/AG/199  21.5.21  Costa Rica : Towards a Strengthened Negotiation Framework in 
the Domestic Support Pillar - A Methodology for Subsidy 
Entitlement Reductions  
JOB/AG/198  20.5.21  Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay, Ukraine  and 
Uruguay : Framework for Negotiations on Market Access  
JOB/AG/197  18.5.21  Canada : Transparency Issues in Domestic Support Notifications  
JOB/AG/196  12.5.21  Brazil : Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) in 
Perspective  
JOB/AG/195  12.5.21  Brazil : Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) in 
Perspective  
JOB/AG/193  7.4.21  Japan; Israel; Republic of Korea; Liechtenstein; 
Switzerland and the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu : Scope for Possible 
Discussions on Export Prohibitions and Restrictions  
JOB/AG/192  6.4.21  United States : Tariff Implementation Issues – Issues with 
Special Agricultural Safeguards  
JOB/AG/177/Rev.1  1.2.21  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia,  
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, 
New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, 
Thailand, Ukraine, Uruguay and Viet Nam : Framework for 
Negotiations on Domestic Support  
JOB/AG/185/ Rev.2  21.12.20  Australia, Brazil,  Canada and Ukraine : Transparency in Tariff 
Rate Changes, and the Treatment of Shipments en route  - 
Members Practices and Perspectives  
WT/GC/W/810/Rev.3 -
TN/AG/46/Rev.3  18.12.20  Afghanistan; Albania; Angola; Australia; Kingdom of 
Bahrain; Bangladesh; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; 
Colombia; Ecuador; El Salvador; European Union; Fiji; 
Grenada; Guyana; Iceland; Indonesia; Israel; Jamaica; 
Japan; Republi c of Korea; the State of Kuwait; Lao 
People's Democratic Republic; Liechtenstein; Malawi; 
Malaysia; Mali; Mexico; Republic of Moldova; Mongolia; 
Montenegro; Myanmar; New Zealand; North Macedonia; 
Norway; Paraguay; Peru; the Philippines; Qatar; 
Saint  Lucia;  Samoa; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Singapore; 
Solomon Islands; Switzerland; the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; 
Thailand; Tonga; Ukraine; United Arab Emirates; 
United  Kingdom; United States; Uruguay; Vanuatu; and 
Viet Nam : Proposal on Agriculture Export Prohibitions or 
Restrictions Relating to the World Food Programme  - Draft 
General Council Decision  
WT/GC/W/810/Rev.2 -
TN/AG/46 /Rev.2  8.12.20  Albania; Angola; Australia; Kingdom of Bahrain; 
Bangladesh; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; 
Colombia; Ecuador; European Union; Grenada; Guyana; 
Iceland; Indonesia; Israel; Japan; Republic of Korea; 
Liecht enstein; Malawi; Malaysia; Mali; Mexico; Moldova; 
Mongolia; Montenegro; Myanmar; New Zealand; Norway; 
Paraguay; Peru; the Philippines; Qatar; Samoa; Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Solomon Islands; 
Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,  
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Ukraine; United Arab 
Emirates; United Kingdom; United States; Vanuatu; and 
Viet Nam : Proposal on Agriculture Export Prohibitions or 
Restrictions Relating to the World Food Programme  - Draft 
General Council Decision  
JOB/A G/190  7.12.20  Canada : Update to Canada's Analytical Tool on Domestic 
Support  
WT/GC/W/811 -TN/AG/47  4.12.20  Singapore : Proposal on Agriculture Export Prohibitions or 
Restrictions Relating to the World Food Programme  TN/AG/58  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Document symbol  Date  Co-spon sor(s) / Title  
WT/GC/W/810/Rev.1 -
TN/AG/46 /Rev.1  4.12.20  Albania; Angola; Australia; Kingdom of Bahrain; Canada; 
Chile; Colombia; Ecuador; European Union; Grenada; 
Guyana; Iceland; Indonesia; Israel; Japan; Republic of 
Korea; Liechtenstein; Malawi; Malaysia; Mali; Mexico; 
Moldova; Mongolia; Montenegro; Myanmar; New Zealand; 
Norway; Paraguay; Peru; the Philippines; Qatar; Samoa; 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Solomon Islands; 
Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Ukraine; United Kingdom; 
United States; Vanuatu; and Viet Nam : Proposal on 
Agriculture Export Prohibitions or Restrictions Relating to the 
World Food Programme  - Draft General Council Decision  
WT/GC/W/810 -TN/AG/46  4.12.20  Albania; Angola; Australia; Kingdom of Bahrain; Canada; 
Chile; Colombia; Ecuador; Grenad a; Guyana; Iceland; 
Indonesia; Israel; Japan; Republic of Korea; 
Liechtenstein; Malawi; Malaysia; Mali; Mexico; Moldova; 
Mongolia; Montenegro; Myanmar; New Zealand; Norway; 
Paraguay; Peru; Qatar; Samoa; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 
Singapore; Solomon Islands; Switzerland; the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; 
Ukraine; United Kingdom; United States; Vanuatu; and 
Viet Nam : Proposal on Agriculture Export Prohibitions or 
Restrictions Relating to the World Food Programme  - Draft 
General Council Decision  
JOB/AG/185/Rev.1  24.9.20  Australia, Brazil and Canada : Transparency in Tariff Rate 
Changes, and the Treatment of Shipments en route  - Members 
Practices and Perspectives  
RD/AG/81/Rev.1  (R) 23.9.20  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, 
New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, 
Ukraine, Uruguay and Viet Nam: The Framework for 
Negotiations on Domestic Support - Examining a Possible Way 
Forward on Trade -Distorting Domestic Support Entitlements in 
Agriculture  
RD/AG/81  (R) 22.9.20  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, 
New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, 
Ukraine and Uruguay : The Framework for Negotiations on 
Domestic Support - Examining a Possible Way Forward on 
Trade -Distorting Domestic Support Entitlements in Agriculture  
JOB/AG/188  22.9.20  Japan ; Israel ; Korea,  Republic of;  Switzerland and the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu : Findings from Export Restrictive Measures in 
Relation to the COVID -19 Pandemic  
RD/AG/79  (R) 21.9.20  Brazil: Food Security, Agriculture Trade and Stability of 
Agricultural Markets in the Long Term  - Brazil's Questions for a 
Reflection Within the Ottawa Group  
WT/GC/218/Rev.1 -
G/AG/31/Rev.1 -
TN/AG/44/Rev.1  26.6.20  Cairns Group members:  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, 
Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Malaysia, 
New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay : COVID -19 
Initiative: Protecting Global Food Security Through Open Trade  
WT/GC/218 -G/AG/31 -
TN/AG/44  17.6.20  Cairns Group members:  Argentina,  Australia, Canada, Chile, 
Costa Rica, Indonesia, Malaysia, New  Zealand, Paraguay, 
Peru and Uruguay : COVID -19 Initiative: Protecting Global 
Food Security Through Open Trade  
JOB/MA/145 -JOB/AG/186  5.6.20  Russian Federation : Round Table -Type Discussion on 
Enhancing Transparency in Applied Tariffs  
JOB/AG/185  14.4.20  Australia and Canada : Transparency in Tariff Rate Changes, 
and the Treatment of Shipments en route  – Members Practices 
and Perspectives  
JOB/AG/184  (R) 30.3.20  Canada, Norway and Switzerland : Proposal for Decision at 
the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference on Enhancing Transparency 
in Export Competition  
JOB/AG/182  (R) 19.2.20  Russian Federation:  Formula for Reduction of Trade -Distorting 
Support  
JOB/AG/181  19.2.20  United States : Notification of Select Domestic Support 
Variables in the WTO  
TN/AG/GEN/50 -
TN/AG/SCC/GEN/22  (R) 17.2.20  C-4: WTO Negotiations on Agriculture – Koudougou Ministerial 
Declaration on Cotton  TN/AG/58  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Document symbol  Date  Co-spon sor(s) / Title  
JOB/AG/179  (R) 30.1.20  G33 members: Antigua and Barbuda;  Barbados; Belize; 
Benin; Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Botswana; China; 
Côte d'Ivoire; Congo; Cuba; Dominica; Dominican 
Republic; Ecuador; El  Salvador; Grenada; Guyana; Haiti; 
Honduras; India; Indonesia; Jamaica; Kenya; 
Madagascar; Mauritius; Mongolia; Mozambique; 
Nicaragua; Nigeria; Pakistan; Saint Kitts and Nevis; 
Saint  Lucia; Saint  Vincent and the Grenadines; Senegal; 
Sri Lanka; Suriname; the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinm en and Matsu; Tanzania; Trinidad 
and Tobago; Turkey; Uganda; Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of; Zambia; Zimbabwe : Reaffirming Multilateralism 
and Development for MC12 : Permanent Solution on Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes (PSH)  
JOB/AG/178  (R) 30.1.20  G33 members: Antigua and Barbuda; Barbados; Belize; 
Benin; Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Botswana; China; 
Côte d'Ivoire; Congo; Cuba; Dominica; Dominican 
Republic; Ecuador; El Salvador; Grenada; Guyana; Haiti; 
Honduras; India; Indonesi a; Jamaica; Kenya; 
Madagascar; Mauritius; Mongolia; Mozambique; 
Nicaragua; Nigeria; Pakistan; Saint Kitts and Nevis; 
Saint  Lucia; Saint  Vincent and the Grenadines; Senegal; 
Sri Lanka; Suriname; the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Tanzania; Trinidad 
and Tobago; Turkey; Uganda; Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of; Zambia; Zimbabwe : Reaffirming Multilateralism 
and Development for MC12 : Special Safeguard Mechanism 
(SSM)  
RD/AG/76  (R) 29.1.20  Costa Rica : Call Towards a Strengthened Negotiation 
Framework in the Domestic Support Pillar of the Agreement on 
Agriculture  
JOB/AG/177  23.1.20  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia,  
Costa Rica, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, 
New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, 
Thailand, Ukraine, Uruguay and Viet Nam : Framework for 
Negotiations on Domestic Suppor t 
JOB/AG/176  (R) 23.1.20  Russian Federation : Enhancing Tariff Rate Quota Transparency  
JOB/AG/175  16.12.19  Japan ; Israel ; Korea, Republic of; Switzerland and the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu : Overview of Export Restrictive Measures – Analysis 
of Actual Cases  in Recent Years  
JOB/AG/173  25.11.19  African Group : African Group Elements on Agriculture – For 
Meaningful Development Outcomes at the 12th Ministerial 
Conference  
JOB/AG/172  (R) 25.11.19  Russian Federation : Formula for Reduction of Trade -
Distorting Support  
RD/AG/75  (R) 25.11.19  Costa Rica : Towards a More Sustainable Negotiation 
Framework in the Domestic Support Pillar  
RD/AG/74  (R) 25.11.19  Canada : An Estimate of Domestic Support Entitlements in 
Articles 6.3 and 6.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture for all WTO 
Members  
JOB/AG/171  22.11.19  Australia and New Zealand : Higher and Higher – Growth in 
Domestic Support Entitlements Since 2001  
JOB/AG/170   22.11.19  Canada, Norway and Switzerland : Observations on Export 
Financing and Agricultural Exporting State Trading Enterprises: 
An Analysis of Transparency and Disciplines from the Nairobi 
Decision  
JOB/AG/169  22.11.19  United States : Tariff Implementation Issues – Issues with 
Tariff Rate Quotas  
JOB/AG/168   22.11.19  Australia and Canada : Transparency in Tariff Rate Changes, 
and the Treatment of Shipments en route  
JOB/AG/167  24.10.19  United States : Tariff Implementation Issues – Tariff Peaks  TN/AG/58  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Document symbol  Date  Co-spon sor(s) / Title  
JOB/AG/165 -
TN/AG/SCC/GEN/21  (R) 10.10.19  C-4: Statement on the WTO Cotton Negotiations Adopted on 
7 October 2019 on the Occasion of the WTO World Cotton Day 
Launch Event  
TN/AG/GEN/49/Rev.1 -
TN/AG /SCC/GEN/20/Rev.1  (R) 18.9.19  C-4: Agriculture Negotiations at the WTO - Draft Ministerial 
Decision on Cotton  
JOB/AG/164  31.7.19  United States : Tariff Implementation Issues – Complex Tariffs  
JOB/GC/218/Rev.2 -
JOB/CTG/15/Rev.2 -
JOB/SERV/292/Rev.2 -
JOB/IP/33/Rev.2 -
JOB/DEV/58/Rev.2 -
JOB/AG/158/Rev.2  26.7.19  African Group, Cuba, India and Oman : An Inclusive 
Approach to Transparency and Notification Requirements in the 
WTO 
TN/AG/GEN/49 -
TN/AG/SCC/GEN/20  (R) 15.7.19  C-4: Agriculture Negotiations at the WTO - Draft Ministerial 
Decision on Cotton  
JOB/AG/161  (R) 15.7.19  Russian Federation : Tariff -Rate Quotas Reallocation 
Mechanism – Analysis of Country -Specific Allocations  
RD/AG/72  (R) 12.7.19  Russian Federation : Enhancing Transparency in Applied Tariffs  
JOB/GC/218/Rev.1 -
JOB/CTG/15/ Rev.1 -
JOB/SERV/292/Rev.1 -
JOB/IP/33/Rev.1 -
JOB/DEV/58/Rev.1 -
JOB/AG/158/Rev.1  11.7.19  African Group, Cuba and India : An Inclusive Approach to 
Transparency and Notification Requirements in the WTO  
JOB/AG/160  11.7.19  Cairns Group members : Argentina, Australia, Brazil, 
Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, New  Zealand, Peru, Thailand 
and Uruguay : Domestic Support Options  
JOB/AG/159  9.7.19  LDC Group : Negotiations on Agriculture  
JOB/GC/218 -JOB/CTG/15 -
JOB/SERV/292 -JOB/IP/33 -
JOB/DEV/58 -JOB/AG/158  27.6.19  Cuba, India, Nigeria, South Africa, Tunisia, Uganda  and 
Zimbabwe : An Inclusive Approach to Transparency and 
Notification Requirements in the WTO  
JOB/AG/157  
JOB/AG/157/Corr.1  
JOB/AG/157/Corr.2  19.6.19  
16.7.19  
30.7.19  Paraguay : Interaction Between Pillars of the A greement on 
Agriculture : The Relationship Between Domestic Support and 
Market Access   
JOB/AG/156   
JOB/AG/156/Corr.1  6.6.19  
19.6.19  Japan : Israel ; Korea,  Republic of;  Switzerland and the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu : Overview of Export Restrictive Measures – Analysis 
of Actual Cases  
RD/AG/70  (R) 27.5.19  Russian Federation : Enhancing Transparency in Applied Tariffs: 
Data and Factual Findings  
JOB/MA/138 -JOB/AG/154  20.3.19  Russian Federation : Enhancing Transparency in Applied Tariffs  
JOB/AG/151  3.12.18  Cairns Group members : Australia, Argentina, Brazil, 
Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, 
New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Viet Nam: 
Next Steps Toward Reform  
JOB/AG/150  3.12.18  Canada, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, 
New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru  and Uruguay : Analysis and 
Observations on Product Specific Support  
RD/AG/66  (R) 14.11.18  Russian Federation : Special Agricultural Safeguards  
JOB/AG/149  14.11.18  Japan ; Israel ; Korea, Republic of; Singapore, Switzerland 
and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu : Overview of Export Restrictions   
JOB/AG/148  14.11.18  Singapore : Impact of Export Prohibitions or Restrictions on 
Foodstuffs Purchased for Non -Commercial Humanitarian 
Purposes by the World Food Programme (WFP)  
JOB/AG/147  9.11.18  United States : Tariff Implementation Issues – Bound versus 
Applied Tariffs  
JOB/AG/145  19.10.18  Russian Federation : Usage of Special Agricultural Safeguards  
JOB/AG/143  27.9.18  Australia, Argentina, Canada, Chile, Colombia, 
New Zealand, Peru and Viet Nam: Trends in Global Trade -
Distorting Support  TN/AG/58  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Document symbol  Date  Co-spon sor(s) / Title  
JOB/AG/144  25.9.18  United States : The Situation in Cotton  
JOB/AG/141  25.7.18  United States : Tariff Implementation Issues – June 2018 
Update  
JOB/AG/139  13.7.18  Paraguay and Uruguay : Market Access Alternatives  
JOB/AG/138  11.7.18  Canada, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Guatemala, 
New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay : Domestic 
Support in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture  (AoA)  
TN/AG/GEN/47  (R) 9.7.18  G33: Reaffirming Multilateralism and Development for MC12  
JOB/AG/137  22.6.18  China and India : Elimination of AMS Beyond de minimis to 
Reduce Distortions in Global Agricultural Trade – Some 
Incremental Steps  
JOB/AG/135  (R) 
JOB/AG/135/Corr.1  (R) 24.5.18  
31.5.18  United States : WTO Agriculture Negotiations Reset  
JOB/AG/134   
JOB/AG/134/Corr.1  17.5.18  
23.5.18  Cairns Group members : Australia, Argentina, Brazil, 
Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, 
Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, 
Thailand, Uruguay and Viet Nam: The Way Forward  
 
__________  
 
 
 