REPORT OF THE 2^ND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE OPERATION
OF THE BALI TRQ DECISION

ADOPTED[1] BY THE COMMITTEE AT ITS MEETING ON 24-25 NOVEMBER 2025

1  INTRODUCTION AND MANDATE

1.1.  At the Ninth Session of the Ministerial Conference, Ministers adopted the Decision on "Understanding on Tariff Rate Quota Administration Provisions of Agricultural Products, as defined in Article 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture" (_WT/MIN(13)/39 – WT/L/914), hereafter referred to as the "Bali TRQ Decision". Paragraph 13 of the Decision mandated a review of its operation no later than four years following its adoption. After two years of detailed deliberations, the Committee on Agriculture (Committee) adopted the report[2] of the Review and the associated recommendations at its 31 October 2019 meeting, for transmission to the General Council. The General Council considered the report at its December 2019 meeting and approved the recommendations contained in Annex 2 thereto.[3] The agreed recommendations contain several measures and processes aimed at enhancing transparency and improving TRQ notification practices. Paragraph 3 of the agreed recommendations provides:

"The Committee agrees to undertake regular reviews of the operation of the Bali TRQ Decision every three years after the conclusion of this review. These regular reviews will include, inter alia, an examination of the utilization of the Underfill Mechanism based on submissions by Members."

1.2.  The first triennial review of the operation of the Bali TRQ Decision was undertaken during 2022‑23. The Committee adopted the report of the review along with the associated conclusions at its meeting on 28 June 2023.[4] Following the conclusions of the first triennial review, the Committee adopted in March 2025 a decision on the requirements and format for Table MA:1 notifications.[5]

2  CONTENT OF DISCUSSIONS

2.1.  The discussions on the second triennial review of the operation of the Bali TRQ Decision commenced at the informal meeting of the Committee on 13 February 2025, when Members shared some preliminary thoughts on their priorities and possible outcomes of the review.[6] The discussions on this matter continued at the March and June 2025 meetings of the Committee.[7] Following the discussions at the June Committee meeting, the Chairperson circulated, in a room document[8], a list of issues identified by Members as priorities for the second triennial review to facilitate further engagement among them. The room document included the following issues, listed in no particular order and without being exhaustive:

i._          Effective follow-up on the implementation of the agreed conclusions of the first triennial review – in particular, to enhance the transparency of MA:2 notifications for TRQs with country-specific allocations in the schedule;

ii._         Reporting of in-quota and out-of-quota tariff levels in Table MA:2 notifications;

iii._        Timeliness and completeness of the MA:1 and MA:2 notifications;

iv._       Complete responses to questions raised concerning the implementation of TRQ commitments within the CoA review process;

v._         Targeted discussion of cases where access to import licenses under a TRQ, or the importation of TRQ-eligible products more broadly, was subject to other conditions or restrictions such as licensing or certification requirements not related to TRQ administration itself, in order to better appreciate the factors potentially affecting the practical utilization of TRQs;

vi._       Greater transparency and harmonization of Members' MA:1 notification practices – for example, by including more online references to complement the notified information – and a better appreciation of whether the information contained in Table MA:1 notifications is fit for purpose[9];

vii._      Preparing an inventory of practical difficulties encountered on the ground in utilizing market access opportunities under Members' scheduled TRQ commitments, based on stakeholder inputs; and

viii._     Better understanding of the operation of the underfill mechanism and consideration of options to reallocate chronically unused quotas to other suppliers.

2.2.  At the informal meetings on 16 July and 16 September 2025, Members considered the issues listed in _RD/AG/141 and deliberated on possible outcomes of the second triennial review. Discussions on this matter continued at the September 2025 Committee meeting and subsequently at the informal CoA meetings on 31 October 2025, 20 November 2025 and November 2025 Committee meeting.

2.3.  In the context of the issue related to the transparency of in-quota and out-of-quota tariff levels for products subject to TRQ commitments, Members explored whether the data notified annually to the Integrated Data Base (IDB) could be leveraged to complement the CoA information base, which is currently built on the existing MA:1 and MA:2 notifications. To facilitate Members' further consideration of the matter, the IDB Secretariat made a presentation at the meeting on 16 September on the current status of Members' reporting practices regarding in-quota and out‑of‑quota tariffs and imports in respect of TRQ products.

2.4.  The issue of enhanced transparency of import statistics for TRQs with country-specific quota (CSQ) allocations received specific attention, with some Members expressing a preference for the Committee to establish a requirement that Members with such TRQs report imports disaggregated by quota-holder countries in their MA:2 notifications. The agreed conclusions[10] of the first triennial review encouraged Members to present country-specific imports for TRQs with CSQ allocations. During discussions on the second triennial review, some Members expressed a preference to transform this voluntary effort into a notification obligation, possibly by using "shall" language, as they considered that a best-endeavour, encouragement-based notification requirement should not form the basis for implementing a binding commitment in the schedule. Others raised practical challenges in presenting the information in MA:2 notifications, preferred relying on the Committee's Q&A process to access the data, or alluded to the availability of such information in domestic data sources. A systemic concern was also expressed regarding the direction of the discussions, wherein Members that were already transparent in furnishing data and information on the implementation of TRQs, including based on best practices employed autonomously, were being asked to do more, while some others, despite having binding commitments, were able to resist commensurate transparency demands.

2.5.  A suggestion was also made to report in-quota import statistics in MA:2 notifications by the tariff lines comprising a TRQ, rather than reporting only total imports against the TRQ; another Member simultaneously noted potential difficulties in implementing this suggestion, especially given how import statistics on TRQs are collected in alignment with commitments.

2.6.  Members also emphasized the need to understand and identify the causes of persistent TRQ underfill, in order to explore possible remedial steps where TRQ administration systems might be responsible. Various suggestions in this regard included undertaking a collective exercise to compile an inventory of practical challenges faced by exporting Members in utilizing TRQs, requiring notifying Members to provide reasons for underfill for chronically underfilled TRQs in their MA:2 notifications, determining the scope of information available from discussions of the Committee on Import Licensing Procedures, and requesting the Secretariat to analyze the causes of underfill based on Members' TRQ notifications and Committee deliberations under the review process. In order to assist Members in consulting domestic stakeholders to gain a better understanding of the practical difficulties encountered in utilizing market access opportunities under TRQs, a suggestion was made for the Committee to collectively develop a common template or questionnaire.

2.7.  Recalling the Secretariat document on notification compliance in the _G/AG/GEN/86/ series, which in its latest version[11] showed that only 28 of 41 Members were up to date with their MA:2 notifications, Members underlined the importance of timely and complete TRQ notifications. They expressed interest in understanding the reasons behind Members' non-compliance in order to consider possible steps to improve the compliance rate.

2.8.  The need to balance enhanced transparency with implementation burden, particularly on developing countries, was also underlined. A preference was expressed to explore synergies with data already reported elsewhere, rather than introducing additional reporting requirements in the Committee.

2.9.  Members welcomed the adoption of the decision in _G/AG/2/Add.3 on the MA:1 notification requirement and format by the Committee in March 2025. It was also suggested that, as part of the second triennial review, the Committee might undertake a stocktaking of Members' compliance with the decision, in view of the overlapping timelines for completing the review and for submitting the one-off notification pursuant to the decision.

2.10.  Based on the Chairperson's request, the Secretariat shared a draft report of the review in _RD/AG/144 dated 19 September 2025 for Members' consideration. The draft was subject to Members' examination first at the September 2025 Committee meeting and later at the informal Committee meeting on 31 October 2025. A revised version, incorporating Members' comments on the draft report, was later circulated in _RD/AG/144/Rev.1 dated 7 November 2025. Further revisions were circulated in RD/AG/144/Rev.2 dated 21 November 2025, RD/AG/144/Rev.3 dated 24 November 2025, and RD/AG/144/Rev.4 dated 25 November 2025 in light of additional discussions among Members during the informal CoA meeting on 20 November and the November CoA meeting on 24 and 25 November. This report, along with the following conclusions, was adopted by the Committee on Agriculture at its meeting on 24-25 November 2025 through a written procedure.

3  CONCLUSIONS

3.1.   The Committee recalls the agreement reached among Members at its March 2025 meeting on adopting the decision contained in G/AG/2/Add.3, which requires Members to use the modified Table MA:1 format as set out in the annex to the decision, and emphasizes the importance of submitting the one-off MA:1 notification in a timely manner as required in its paragraph 2(a).

3.2.  The Committee agreed on the following conclusions as the outcomes of the second triennial review of the operation of the Bali TRQ Decision:

a._         The Committee emphasizes that data on applied MFN tariffs for in-quota and out‑of‑quota imports under scheduled agricultural TRQs provide a valuable complement to the information required under Table MA:2.[12]

i._          Where they have not already provided this data in their IDB tariff notifications, Members should include in their Table MA:2 notifications, for the implementation year concerned, information on applied MFN in-quota and out-of-quota tariffs for products subject to scheduled TRQs that are opened; or

ii._         Where Members already provide such information in their IDB notifications pursuant to paragraph 1 of _G/MA/367 and Annex 1 thereto, they should include in their annual Table MA:2 notification a confirmatory statement indicating that, for the implementation year[13] concerned, they had provided in their IDB notification data on MFN applied in-quota and out-of-quota tariffs for products notified in that Table MA:2 as being subject to open TRQs.

b._         The Committee requests the Secretariat to compile and regularly update, in its _G/AG/W/183/ background notes[14], data on applied in-quota and out-of-quota MFN tariffs for scheduled TRQs that are opened, based on Members' MA:2/IDB notifications. The Secretariat should explore, and report to the Committee before the launch of the third triennial review in 2028, whether the AGIMS online notification system could be enhanced to enable Members submitting an MA:2 notification through the system to incorporate, as appropriate, applied tariff data notified under the IDB into that notification.

c._         All Members with TRQs that have country-specific allocations in their scheduled TRQs should, to the extent practicable[15] present import data in their annual MA:2 notifications, disaggregated by quota-holder supplying countries, along with total in-quota imports, for all such TRQs opened in a given year.

d._         Members agree to continue discussions on practical difficulties encountered in utilizing market access opportunities in third countries under scheduled TRQ commitments, drawing on inputs from domestic stakeholders, as appropriate.

__________