Topic 603 - Agriculture

This topic includes FAQs relating to the following IFRS standards, IFRIC Interpretations and SIC Interpretations:

IAS 41 Agriculture

Other resources

  • IFRS At a Glance by standard is available here

 

Sub-topic within this main topic are set out below, with links to IFRS Interpretation Committee agenda decisions and BDO IFRS FAQs relating to that sub-topic below each sub-topic:

Sub-topic Number Sub-topic and Related FAQ
603.1 Scope and definitions
603.2 Recognition
  • 603.2.1.1
603.3 Measurement
  • 603.3.1.1
  • 603.3.1.2
603.4 Government grants
603.5 Disclosure
603.6 Other issues

 

FAQ#

Title

Text of FAQ

603.2.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Subsequent Expenditure on Biological Assets

September 2019 - The Committee received a request about the accounting for costs related to the biological transformation (subsequent expenditure) of biological assets measured at fair value less costs to sell applying IAS 41. The request asked whether an entity capitalises subsequent expenditure (ie adds it to the carrying amount of the asset) or, instead, recognises subsequent expenditure as an expense when incurred.

IAS 41 does not specify the accounting for subsequent expenditure for biological assets measured at fair value less costs to sell. Paragraph B62 of the Basis for Conclusions on IAS 41 explains that ‘…the [IASC] Board decided not to explicitly prescribe the accounting for subsequent expenditure related to biological assets in the Standard, because it believes to do so is unnecessary with a fair value measurement approach’.

Accordingly, the Committee concluded that, applying IAS 41, an entity either capitalises subsequent expenditure or recognises it as an expense when incurred. The Committee observed that capitalising subsequent expenditure or recognising it as an expense has no effect on the fair value measurement of biological assets nor does it have any effect on profit or loss; however, it affects the presentation of amounts in the statement of profit or loss. In assessing how to present such subsequent expenditure in the statement of profit or loss, an entity would apply the requirements in paragraphs 81⁠–⁠105 of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements. In particular, the Committee observed that the entity would:

a.

applying paragraph 85, ‘present additional line items (including by disaggregating the line items listed in paragraph 82), headings and subtotals in the statement(s) presenting profit or loss and other comprehensive income when such presentation is relevant to an understanding of the entity’s financial performance’; and

b.

applying paragraph 99, present in the statement(s) presenting profit or loss and other comprehensive income or in the notes an analysis of expenses recognised in profit or loss using a classification based on either their nature or their function within the entity, whichever provides information that is reliable and more relevant.

Applying paragraph 13 of IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, an entity would apply its accounting policy for subsequent expenditure consistently to each group of biological assets. An entity would also disclose the selected accounting policy applying paragraphs 117⁠–⁠124 of IAS 1 if that disclosure would assist users of financial statements in understanding how those transactions are reflected in reported financial performance.

In the light of its analysis, the Committee considered whether to add a project to its standard-setting agenda on the accounting for subsequent expenditure on biological assets. The Committee has not obtained evidence to suggest that standard-setting on this matter at this time would result in an improvement to financial reporting that would be sufficient to outweigh the costs. The Committee therefore decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

603.3.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Valuation of biological assets using a residual method

March 2013 - The Interpretations Committee received a request seeking clarification on paragraph 25 of IAS 41. This paragraph refers to the use of a residual method as an example of a possible valuation technique to measure the fair value of biological assets that are physically attached to land, if the biological assets have no separate market but an active market exists for the combined assets.

The submitter’s concern is that using the fair value of the land (ie based on its highest and best use as required by IFRS 13) in applying the residual method might result in a minimal or nil fair value for the biological assets when the highest and best use of the land is different from its current use.

The Interpretations Committee observed that, in the development of IFRS 13, the IASB considered the situation where the highest and best use of an asset in a group of assets is different from its current use. The Interpretations Committee noted, however, that IFRS 13 does not explicitly address the accounting implications if those circumstances arise and the fair value measurement of the asset based on its highest and best use assumes that other assets in the group need to be converted or destroyed.

The Interpretations Committee also noted that this issue might not only affect the accounting for assets within the scope of IAS 41 but it could also affect the accounting for assets in the scope of other Standards.

In the light of the analysis above, the Interpretations Committee observed that this issue is too broad for it to address and, accordingly, the Interpretations Committee decided not to take this issue onto its agenda. The Interpretations Committee directed the staff to ask the IASB to provide clarification of the accounting requirements for the issues considered by the Interpretations Committee.

Back to sub-topic index

603.3.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Biological assets growing on bearer plants

June 2017 - The Committee received a request about the fair value measurement of produce growing on bearer plants. More specifically, the request asked whether the Committee considers fruit growing on oil palms to be an example of a biological asset for which an entity might rebut the fair value presumption applying paragraph 30 of IAS 41.

The Committee observed that:

a.

paragraph 5C of IAS 41 says that produce growing on bearer plants is a biological asset. Accordingly, an entity accounts for fruit growing on oil palms applying IAS 41.

b.

the recognition requirements in paragraph 10 of IAS 41 specify when an entity recognises the fruit growing on oil palms separately from the oil palms themselves. The entity accounts for the oil palms applying IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment. An entity recognises a biological asset when the entity controls the asset as a result of past events, it is probable that future economic benefits associated with the asset will flow to the entity and the fair value or cost of the asset can be measured reliably.

c.

applying paragraph 12 of IAS 41, an entity measures a biological asset on initial recognition and at the end of each reporting period at its fair value less costs to sell, except as described in paragraph 30 of IAS 41.

d.

paragraph 30 of IAS 41 contains a presumption that fair value can be measured reliably for a biological asset. However, that presumption can be rebutted only on initial recognition for a biological asset for which quoted market prices are not available and for which alternative fair value measurements are determined to be clearly unreliable. Paragraph 30 of IAS 41 says that once the fair value of such a biological asset becomes reliably measurable, an entity measures it at its fair value less costs to sell.

The Committee concluded that the reference to ‘clearly unreliable’ in paragraph 30 of IAS 41 indicates that, to rebut the presumption, an entity must demonstrate that any fair value measurement is clearly unreliable. Paragraph BC4C of IAS 41 suggests that, when developing the amendments to IAS 41 on bearer plants, the Board’s expectation was that fair value measurements of produce growing on bearer plants might be clearly unreliable when an entity encounters significant practical difficulties. However, the Committee observed that the converse is not necessarily true—ie if an entity encounters significant practical difficulties, this does not necessarily mean that any fair value measurement of produce is clearly unreliable. In paragraph BC4C, the Board observed that in this situation, an entity should consider whether the measurement is clearly unreliable.

The Committee also observed that the submission appears to ask whether possible differences in supportable assumptions (which might result in significantly different valuations) constitute ‘significant practical difficulties’ as referred to in paragraph BC4C of IAS 41. The Committee concluded that this is not evidence of significant practical difficulties, and that it would not, in and of itself, result in fair value measurements that are clearly unreliable.

The Committee noted that paragraph 125 of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements requires an entity to disclose information about assumptions and estimates that have a significant risk of a material adjustment to the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities within the next financial year. In addition, paragraph 91 of IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement requires an entity to disclose information that helps users of its financial statements understand the valuation techniques and inputs used to develop fair value measurements, and the effect of measurements that use Level 3 inputs.

The Committee observed that the submission asks the Committee to conclude whether fair value measurements for a particular type of produce growing on bearer plants are clearly unreliable. The Committee determined that its role is not to conclude upon very specific application questions, particularly when they relate to the application of the judgements required in applying IFRS Standards. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index


This publication has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The publication cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Neither BDO IFR Advisory Limited, and/or any other entity of BDO network, nor their respective partners, employees and/or agents accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information in this publication or for any decision based on it.

The BDO network (referred to as the ‘BDO network’ or the ‘Network’) is an international network of independent public accounting, tax and advisory firms which are members of BDO International Limited and perform professional services under the name and style of BDO (hereafter ‘BDO member firms’). BDO International Limited is a UK company limited by guarantee.  It is the governing entity of the BDO network. 
This publication has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The publication cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Neither BDO IFR Advisory Limited, and/or any other entity of BDO network, nor their respective partners, employees and/or agents accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information in this publication or for any decision based on it.

Service provision within the BDO network in connection with IFRS (comprising International Financial Reporting Standards, International Accounting Standards, and Interpretations developed by the IFRS Interpretations Committee and the former Standing Interpretations Committee), and other documents, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, is provided by BDO IFR Advisory Limited, a UK registered company limited by guarantee. Service provision within the BDO network is coordinated by Brussels Worldwide Services BV, a limited liability company incorporated in Belgium.

Each of BDO International Limited, Brussels Worldwide Services BV, BDO IFR Advisory Limited and the BDO member firms is a separate legal entity and has no liability for another entity’s acts or omissions. Nothing in the arrangements or rules of the BDO network shall constitute or imply an agency relationship or a partnership between BDO International Limited, Brussels Worldwide Services BV, BDO IFR Advisory Limited and/or the BDO member firms. Neither BDO International Limited nor any other central entities of the BDO network provide services to clients.

BDO is the brand name for the BDO network and for each of the BDO member firms.