RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/AG/R/15 
26 November 2004 
 (04-5147) 
Committee on Agriculture 
Special Session  
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING  
OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE SPECIAL SESSION  
HELD ON 8 OCTOBER 2004 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
  
1. The Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, which was established by the 
General Council (WT/GC/M/53), is pursuing negotiations under paragr aphs 13, 14 and other relevant 
provisions of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  The twenty-sixth formal meeting was held on 
8 October 2004 under the chairmanship of Ambassador Tim Groser of New Zealand.   
2. The agenda as contained in WTO/AIR/2384 was adopted. 
I
TEM A (i):  STATEMENT BY CHAIR  
3. The statement by the Chairman is attached. 
ITEM A (ii):  STATEMENTS BY PARTICIPANTS  
4. The representative of Croatia, on behalf of six recently acceded countries (Albania, Croatia, 
Georgia, Jordan, Moldova and Oman) and supported by Moldova and China, stated that the agriculture section of the General Council Decision of 1 August 2004 (WT/L/579, the Agreed Framework) represented a considerable step forwards  in the negotiations but that much remained to 
be done.  Members now needed to use the time av ailable efficiently and to move forward in a 
structured and urgent manner.  Soon it would be necessary to address real substantive issues and a 
clear structure was necessary in order to prepare for work.  In accepting the Chairman's suggested way 
forward he stressed that political ownership coul d only be achieved through inclusiveness and by 
taking all views into account, including those of recently acceded Members.  These concerns were clear and had already been set out.  Flexibility w as needed for a balanced and equitable result. 
 
5. In response to a question from Barbados concer ning the notice that would be given of the 
issues to be discussed and the texts that would be used as a guide to discussions the Chairman replied 
that the texts included in TN/AG/10 might, in some cases be useful but that it would be better not to 
have a strict rule.  On the advance notice of issu es to be discussed he stated that he understood this 
concern and would try to prepare the lists for th e November and December meetings as soon as 
possible. 
6. Cuba stated that it supported the statements ma de by China, on behalf of the G-20, and by 
Indonesia, on behalf of the G-33, at the inform al Special Session on 6 October.  Concerning the 
structure of work, Cuba stated that it was very im portant that the methods and procedures were as 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. TN/AG/R/15 
Page 2  
 
 transparent and inclusive as possible.  In conducti ng the work it was essential that the views of 
smaller delegations were taken into account and that  adequate time was given to these delegations to 
enable them to prepare for the meetings.  All i ssues in the Agreed Framework had to be treated 
equally, including issues of interest to developi ng countries such as Special Products, the special 
safeguard mechanism, the elimination of trade restrictions, the treatment of tropical products, net 
food-importing developing countries a nd the erosion of preferences.  These issues should not be left 
to the end.  Similarly the Blue and Green Boxes needed more clarif ication.  Cuba also raised the 
question of the sub-committee on cotton and suggested  that the objective of work should be to 
develop modalities by the Sixth Ministerial Conference.  
7. On behalf of the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of countries the delegation of 
Trinidad and Tobago, supported by Benin, Rwanda, Kenya and Mauritius, stated that the concerns of 
developing countries had to be take n into account in this technical phase of negotiations.  It was vital 
that these countries were able to utilise policy measur es that assisted development.  The close linkage 
between different issues in the negotiations meant that  the negotiations had to be structured so as to 
allow all areas to move forward together, including special and differential treatment.  Members 
needed flexibility to safeguard agricultural pr oduction, employment and food security.  While the 
approach to be taken was acceptable to th e ACP Group the importance of inclusiveness and 
transparency were stressed.  On food aid he stated  that a pragmatic approach was needed, which could 
take into account the needs of least-developed and net food-importing deve loping countries.  The 
special safeguard mechanism to be  developed should be simple, effective and transparent so as to 
enable developing countries to guard against impo rt surges, therefore, both the trigger and the 
calculation of the safeguard duty had to be addres sed.  In concluding he stated that the ACP Group 
would work towards a smooth transition from the Framework to full modalities.  8. El Salvador noted that the week had seen a successful start to negotiations with some key 
issues addressed that would be discussed again in greater  depth.  It pointed out that the list of issues 
discussed during the week had been non-exhaustive.  El Salvador stressed some areas in which it was 
particularly interested including:    - the tiered formula for tariff reductions wh ich would have to take account of special 
and differential treatment;  
 
 - the special safeguard mechanism, which would need to be effective against import 
surges, simple to implement and to be used in a transparent manner;  
  - Special Products, where there should be no tariff reduction or e xpansion of tariff 
quotas and with flexibility for developing countries to name the products;  
  - tropical products, where the long standing commitment of the fullest liberalization of 
trade in this type of agricultural products had to be met;  
  - food aid, including the preservation of legitimate food aid programs with 
humanitarian aims, destined to relieve p overty and malnutrition in rural areas; and 
  - de mínimis, taking into account that this  is a valuable resource used by developing 
members to promote their internal agricultural policies. 
 
9. On behalf of the African Group the delegation of Nigeria, supported by Tunisia, Benin, 
Rwanda, Kenya, Mauritius and Zimbabwe, stated that the Agreed Framework was a step in the right direction and he assured all participants that th e African Group would participate constructively in 
working towards modalities, which he hoped would be completed by the next Ministerial Conference.  
In highlighting the main concerns for the African Group he stressed the importance given to special  TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 3 
 
 
 and differential treatment by the Doha Development Ag enda which had to be integral to all elements 
of the negotiations.  Therefore, it should be treated in tandem with each key element of the negotiations.  The African Group wanted to see its  key concerns addressed in this phase of 
negotiations including: issues related to net f ood-importing developing countries; exemptions from 
additional commitments for least-developed countri es; Special Products and the Special Safeguard 
Mechanism; preferences; and food aid.  On the process of the negotiations he stressed the importance 
of transparency and incl usiveness.  Concerning the work that  had to be undertaken on cotton the 
African Group wanted this to be a regular item on the agenda of each Special Session with a report 
from the sub-committee.  The sub-co mmittee itself should be formed as  soon as possible, its meetings 
should be open-ended with all main  players participating and that it should address both the trade and 
development aspects related to cotton.  In addressing the trade aspects, he pointed out that these came 
under each of the three pillars of market access, do mestic support and export co mpetition.  Finally, he 
stated that delegations should be informed of th e issues for discussion well in advance of the meetings 
to enable them to prepare.   
10. The delegation of Tunisia noted that the defi nition of issues for discussion would not be easy 
and pointed out that modalities would only be negotia ted by the next Ministerial Conference if all 
participants were pragmatic and realistic.  Agr eement meant full participation was required and 
complete transparency.  Special and differential tr eatment was integral to all three pillars of the 
negotiations and the concerns of  net food-importing developing c ountries had to be taken into 
account, which establishing modalities, particularly  modalities relating to export credits.  The 
delegations also added that the Special Safeguard  Mechanism should be based on the proposals made 
by Members and should provide flexibility in add ition to that currently provided by Article 5. 
11. Moldova stated that the current phase of the ne gotiations would be more complicated than the 
phase that resulted in the Agreed Framework and th at transparency was needed.  As a recently 
acceded Member Moldova had a low level of protecti on and did not give subsidies for production or 
export.  Therefore, even a small level of impor ts, the production or export of which had been 
subsidised, could have a sever impact on its domes tic market.  Moldova hoped that the commitments 
it had made on accession to the WTO would be taken in to account and that the results of the current 
negotiations would not have a negative impact on do mestic agriculture or on economic development. 
12. The delegation of China pointed out that a lot of  work was needed to translate the framework 
into modalities and that time was limited.  Therefore it was essential to allocate time and effort wisely.  
He could agree to entering into text based discussi ons and hoped that particip ants would be informed 
about the issues for discussion soon, so that texts could be prepared and real experts would be able to 
participate in the talks.  He stat ed that the discussions at the inform al Special Session had been useful.  
However, China's preference would be to go from ge neral issues to specific issues, from universal 
rules to possible exceptions.   He noted that, duri ng the informal Special Session, many delegations 
had highlighted the Secretariat's role in collecti ng data, making analyses and providing other forms of 
technical assistance.  China hoped to  see the Secretariat playing a greater role in facilitating the 
negotiating process.  Finally, he stated that, while he understood the problems of balancing 
transparency and efficiency, the success of the negotiations depe nded on getting it right. 
13. Bolivia stated that although their was a lot of  work ahead it was optimistic.  Delegations now 
needed to make greater technical efforts and to devo te time to analysis.  The organization of work by 
the Chairman would be critical and inclusiveness w ould be essential.  The results would have to 
include monitoring of the reductions in domestic s upport and the elimination of all forms of export 
subsidies and the analysis of trade practices.  Bo livia supported the requests to the Secretariat to 
update documents. 
14. Venezuela stated that a clear objective was needed for the Sixth Ministerial Conference which 
would be taking place in the not too distant future.  It its opinion the next si x months should be used TN/AG/R/15 
Page 4  
 
 to make progress on the technical work necessary for th e elaboration of modalities.  This meant that a 
work programme would be needed which would be set  out sufficiently in advance of each meeting to 
allow delegations to prepare.  All issues in the Ag reed Framework would have to be addressed and the 
general rules and approaches should be discussed befo re exceptions or flexibilities.  Venezuela stated 
that special and differential treatment was a general ru le rather than an additional element.  Finally, it 
reiterated the importance of transparency and in clusiveness to this stage of the negotiations. 
15. The delegation of Rwanda stated that the Afri can Group's concerns should be at the heart of 
the negotiations and that special and differential treatment should be an integral part of the 
negotiations.  
16. Mauritius, supported by the Philippines, Zimbab we and Peru, stated that the discussion on 
general rules could not be dissociated from special  and differential treatment which was an intergral 
part of the negotiations.  Indeed, the general work could undermine special and differential treatment.  
Mauritius went on to state that it would circulate its ideas on export competition.  It also hoped that the stand-alone texts that would be prepared w ould include special and differential treatment . 
17. Trinidad and Tobago, China (for the G-20), Ven ezuela, Benin, Ecuador, Colombia, Jamaica, 
Thailand, Kenya, Costa Rica, Peru, Philippines, Mauritius and Switzerland (for the G-10) asked that 
their statements from the informal Special Session on 6 October be placed on the summary report of the formal meeting (see attachments).  
I
TEM B:  OTHER BUSINESS  
Chairman's Report to the Trade Negotiations Committee 
18. The Chairman stated that, on his responsibility as Chairman, he would be reporting to the 
Trade Negotiations Committee on this meeting. 
Date of the next Special Session 
19. The Chairman informed the Committee that the next meeting of the Special Session would 
take place on 19 November 2004. 
 
  TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 5 
 
 
 Statement by Ambassador Tim Groser, 
Chairman Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture 
 
I want to thank you very much for a very constr uctive launch of what, it is clear to me, is a 
new phase in these negotiations - post adoption of the framework.  From the interventions made 
during the informal Special Session it has been clear th at everyone fully understands that there is an 
enormous amount of work that needs to be done. 
It has to be noted that we have already done a w hole lot of technical work.  But, I think in the 
post-framework stage that needs to be subtly reinterpreted.  If I could use as an example the special 
safeguard mechanism (SSM), yes a great deal of te chnical work has been done and much of that will 
be a very valuable reference for us.  However, wh en there was no decision in principle to have an 
SSM it was a little difficult to take this technical wo rk very far.  Now we have a clear decision that 
there is going to be an SSM.  So I think even in  an area like this where a lot of technical work has 
been done, it takes on a rather different flavour in this post-framework stage. 
My next point is the absolute need to move  this discussion onto text -based discussions.  Now, 
some of you at least will have been in the room on Sunday the 1st of August at about midnight, when I 
made a serious point that delegates, in being so  over conservative in protecting their negotiating 
position, whether real or imagined, had delayed th e process of moving to a text-based negotiation for 
far too long and then, of course, did not like the c onsequences.  So I urged people, your ambassadors, 
your ministers and your heads of delegation, to reme mber this for the next phase and not to spend so 
much time worrying about what is or is not a 'basis of the negotiations'. 
I used then and I'll use again today, was my own first draft of the Framework.  There was a 
serious political imbalance in the first draft that I put on the table with respect to the questions of 
treatment and selection of essential products for de veloping countries.  But developing countries, 
while noting that imbalance, had the wisdom not to use that as a basis for th rowing the text into the 
bin and, as events proved, it was perfectly possible once we got down to negotiating a text, to correct 
that imbalance.  That imbalance is not there in the text that you endorsed.  The lesson to me is clear:  
do not exaggerate again the importance of this phr ase 'using as a basis', otherwise you will repeat the 
same mistake and none of use will like the consequences. 
We have actually three essential points of refere nce for this phase of the negotiation.  We 
have the existing body of WTO law and jurisprudence.  We have the Doha Declaration.  And, within 
Agriculture, we have the Framework, endorsed.  Those are the only three real reference points, the 
rest of this we must now move into texts taki ng account of those three essential reference points. 
Having emphasized that my own personal very strongly held view about the absolute need to 
move beyond speech making to getting texts developed, in the discussions  that I have had on this very 
theme with a number of you over the past day or so, it's clear that we need to define our terms here. 
I'm not talking about moving to an integrated te xt.  I'm not talking about trying to develop the 
Framework as a whole at this point.  Clearly we have not done enough technical work to do that.  
Rather, when I say we need to work on texts, wh at I have on mind is developing a series of what I 
would call stand-alone texts on discreet sets of issues of  a deeply technical nature , in the first instance. 
I'd like to recall a remark made by one delega te which, I think, illustrated the point.  The 
remark was made after a long discussion on export cr edits to the effect that  this was a negotiation 
within a negotiation. TN/AG/R/15 
Page 6  
 
 While that is a reality, we still cannot take the negotiation on export credits completely in a 
compartmentalised way.  You can't because there are linkages with the other elements in export 
competition and there will be linkages between e xport competitions and other pillars.  But the 
essential point is that behind this observation, is that  you need to have a text focused entirely on the 
issue of export credits in order to isolate the political options and choices at a later stage of the 
process. 
Now, how we might construct these negotiating text s, issue by issue, I think is something I 
want to reflect on and to hear your further views and I suspect it will vary issue by issue.  We clearly 
need a consultative process to do this.  What is ab solutely clear is that nobody wants this negotiation 
to go underground, that is, to become a negotiation in which even the Chair may not be involved or 
know what is going on, let alone the vast majority of you Members. 
To avoid this happe ning, the Geneva process has to be ma de to work and once again we have 
the difficult question of the balance between transparen cy and effectiveness.  It is all very well for 
people to talk about transparency but if this is done  in such a way as to make it incapable of using the 
Geneva process, you know what the consequences are, so we have to find this right balance.  This is 
not easy. 
Having said that, we have to understand that ther e are techniques that can  be used to achieve 
this objective.  It has to be based on the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and 
we have to have clear guidelin es developed on precisely what issues we are discussing and how to 
share this information with the membership as a whole. 
It's quite clear from your interventions that, give n the work that you've identified, we need to 
have real experts in the room, particularly on some of the more technical matters.  We can't just do 
this using professional negotiators based in Geneva, we  need both.  This raises certain practical issues. 
First of all you've made it very clear to me in your speeches and in private comments that you 
need considerable lead-time to know which issues  we're going to be discussing at a forthcoming 
meeting and for this you need some precision.  Yet, at the same time we agree that we do not need, or 
want, to engage now in a negotiation over some highly prescriptive work programme.  This views 
seems to be shared by your ambassadors at the gl obal level of this negotiatio n to judge at least from 
my conversations I've had with your colleagues. 
So, I'm going to suggest that we adopt what seem to me a very practical suggestion made to 
me privately yesterday by a group of delegations.  I suggest that you invite me to put forward 
essentially the set of issues that we should focus on at the next meeting, and also the set of issues that 
we should focus on, on the following meeting.  So we  have essentially two sets of lists.  Now the list 
for the second meeting, in this case it would be the December meeting, would be much more open and we can shift this around.  This gives a bit of flex ibility to take account of the progress made in the 
November meeting and also to allow some adjustment  for political balance.  If people feel in the light 
of the November meeting, that it was unbalanced wa y in terms of their concerns, this can influence 
the construction of the set of issues for the Decemb er meeting.  I think that is a very sensible 
suggestion given to me and it's something that I commend for your consideration. 
Now I would like you to reflect, I mean not here  in the room today, but when you go back to 
your capitals and within your missions and within your  groups, on the issues that we should try to 
start to develop some texts on. 
If you've got some strong views on this, please let me or the Secretariat know, when you're in 
a position to do that, so I can take them fully in to account in proposing as I am suggesting I will do  TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 7 
 
 
 these two lists.  One for the next meeting in November and one, a more open idea, for the December 
meeting. 
Now the question of the dates for meetings.  Fo r the next meeting, we have rooms booked for 
16, 17 and 19 November and you will recall that 18 November was intended to be for the regular 
Agricultural Committee.  From the consultations I have  had this week it was s uggested to me that we 
should try and use the entire week for a series of  consultations and meetings, both formal and 
informal.  I haven't got any precise idea in my head  about how best to structure such meetings, but 
what I would recommend to you is that you have your  capital-based experts ready here to start work 
on Monday 15th November and carry on right throughout the week to look at, in a very intensive way, 
a set of topics that I will propose in due course. 
Now, I will also leave gaps in the programme b ecause I recognise that for groups like the     
G-33, G-20, Cairns and others and of course the Eu ropean Union, you need time to coordinate your 
positions and to consult. 
So that gives you a flavour.  To sum up what I'm trying to do here, is I am trying to get the 
negotiation process, the official process in Geneva  to do the job, but people have to take their 
responsibilities.  People have to look at the lessons  of these negotiations to date and understand that 
the right way forward now is to start to develop a series of stand-alone texts. 
That's the proposal that I have, how we structur e it in terms of the meetings is obviously I'm 
looking at a variable geometry equation of the type perhaps that I used in June and July but the precise shape of that I haven't even begun to think through. TN/AG/R/15 
Page 8  
 
 Statements by Members at the Informal and Formal  
Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture  
held on 6 and 8 October 2004 
 
Statement by Trinidad and Tobago
 
 
  From the outset let me indicate that the securing an Agreed Agriculture Framework during the early hours of 1 August, effectively ended months of speculation and uncertainty with regard to the 
ability of the Committee on Agriculture to deliver something tangible befo re the Summer Break of 
2004.  Indeed, the clear signals sent by and inherent symmetry of the Agreed Framework has not only 
served to instil renewed confidence in the multilate ral trading system but is a testament to the 
commitment of all delegations to ensuring that ru les based agricultural trad e becomes the driver of 
economic growth and development e nvisaged by our Ministers at Doha. 
 
 While Annex A itself is essentially a Framework, which covers fundamental principles and 
concepts, it is well balanced and does provide an adeq uate platform for the conduct of negotiations on 
detailed modalities.  However, a seamless transitio n into the modalities phase may require a brief 
period of intensive, technical discussions on va rious elements of the Annex, cutting across the 
concerns of all Members, in order to iden tify possible ways forward and elicit a common 
understanding amongst Members.  Fo r my delegation, it is also critical that the initial technical 
examination of the Agreed Framework be cast  against the precepts, objectives and spirit of 
paragraph 13 of the Doha Ministeria l Declaration and it must remain true to the task of delivering the 
mandate.   Moreover, the clear political guidance provided by and broad spectrum of elements embodied 
in Annex A easily lends itself to accommodating such an  exercise.  To this end, the approach outlined 
by you is a step in the right direction.  However,  for our next meeting we may need to supplement the 
current compendium of issues identified for technical examination.   My delegation also welcomes the flexibilities bu ilt into Annex A.  A guiding tenet of Trinidad 
and Tobago's negotiating philosophy in the area of Agriculture has always been that food security;  
livelihood security;  and rural development are inextr icably linked to the sustainable development of 
the economies of developing countries.  In this r espect, the Framework's implicit recognition the need 
for additional policy space for developing countries to safeguard these national policy objectives is 
noteworthy.  
 However, as a member of the G-33 we continue to support the call for Special Products (SPs) 
to neither be subject to tariff reduction nor Tari ff Rate Quota (TRQ) expansion, and advocate that 
adequate latitude be provided in th e selection of SPs.  It is equally critical that the Special Safeguard 
Mechanism (SSM) be developed, to provide mean ingful protection to the markets of developing 
countries from the negative effects of import surges and fluctuating international prices.  Accordingly, 
it is essential that the SSM be 'user-friendly' and po sses a 'friction-free' trigger.  Similarly, in 
exploring a Tiered Formula for tariff reduction, it is important that avenues for incorporating 
flexibilities for developing countries be considered.   The Agreed Framework has also moved us cl oser to reshaping the disciplines on Domestic 
Support, which are geared towards correcting price distortions where they exist, thereby allowing the 
volume and orientation production and trade to be determined by market forces.  This 
notwithstanding, my delegation woul d have preferred to have undertak en, sooner rather than later, 
technical work on the new Blue Box criteria, particular ly with regard to the issue of the new criteria to 
ensure that Blue Box payments are less trade-distorting than AMS measures.  TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 9 
 
 
  
 It is also important that the discussions on 'de minimis' seek to ensure that developing 
countries which posses agrarian systems which are dom inated by fragmented farm holdings and have 
little room to manoeuvre with respect to de minimis reduction, be afforded the requisite flexibility. 
 
 The Agreed Framework also demonstrates a clear commitment on the part of Members to 
achieve a parallel elimination of all forms of expo rt subsidies by a credible end date.  This, if 
achieved, would go a long way in creating a grea ter sense of balance in global trade between 
developed and developing countries.  
 In conclusion, I would like to indicate that my delegation remains committed to the task at 
hand and looks forward to rolling up our sleeves and delving into to the much-needed technical work 
over the coming months.  In hind sight, when you introduced the rubric of 'smart casual' as our guiding theme to describe the preferred prevailing wo rk ethic, 'smart' seemed to operative word;  for 
confronting the major technical issues and ploughi ng through potential sticking points is arguably the 
most prudent path towards building on the Fram ework and delivering tangible results by next 
December. TN/AG/R/15 
Page 10  
 
  
Statement by China (on behalf of the G-20)
 
  
On behalf of G-20, I would like to take this  opportunity to convey to you and all Members a 
few important points.  I will concentrate my in itial remarks in presenting a broad view of our 
understanding on how this process should evolve.  I will also add a few comments on each of the 
negotiating pillars.  
The July framework establishes the foundati ons for Members to develop negotiating 
modalities for commitments in agri culture.  The achievement of the framework was only possible due 
to the negotiating efforts of Members and their engagement in the success of discussions.  The G-20 is proud to have played an important role.  The Group constructively contributed to the process, not only 
with technically sound, Mandate-oriented proposal s, but also with a transparent and inclusive 
negotiating attitude.  It is the Group's intention to participate in this nego tiating phase with the same 
constructive spirit as it did before. 
 
We acknowledge that there is a considerable am ount of work to be done and many decisions 
to be taken.  In our view, although the July decision does not state it in as many words, the objective of the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference should preferab ly be the approval of modalities.  It is not a 
question of setting stringent artificial deadlines, but  working with a foreseeable negotiating horizon.  
There is no time to lose if we are to conclude th e Round by 2006.  Besides, from the perspective of 
developing countries, the sooner the negotiating objectives of the Doha Work Programme are 
attained, the better.  
We cannot lose the momentum achieved in July.  Time is a precious asset that must be used 
wisely.  And we have to be prepared to make the b est use of it.  The G-20 has already started to do its 
preparatory work both in the capitals and in Geneva with a view to presenting its contributions to the 
negotiating process.  
The agreement on the framework was important.  But it is only part of the job.  And any 
comparison with other areas must bear in mind the complexity of this three-pronged negotiation, as 
well as the fact that this is the first Round to eff ectively address the liberalization of agricultural trade.  
The agriculture text may be longer, but it only contai ns references to elements - such as Blue Box or 
market access formula - which will demand intensive negotiations. 
 
All the issues included in the framework must be dealt with.  It is, therefore, not a matter of 
addressing some of the issues initially to the detrimen t of others.  There can be no hands-off technical 
list, since any such list would in fact reflect certa in preferences and impose a biased approach towards 
the negotiations.  Everything must be tackled in para llel;  even the toughest issues must be the object 
of an exchange of ideas, presentation of proposals, data and the elaboration of studies.  We should 
avoid any bias in the selection of issues for discussion.  There can be no leftovers;  otherwise, we risk 
the repetition of a "déja vu" scenario – one in which time constraints in the end impede the 
achievement of desired results due to little or no tim e left to tackle the core  issues of the agriculture 
negotiations, such as the Blue Box and sensitivities.  
If any order is required for the practical orga nization of our work, it should proceed from the 
general to the specific, from the rule  to possible exceptions, and not the other way around.  This is the 
logic of the multilateral trading system – and, for that matter, of any rules-based system.  The 
fundamental point is that a list of tasks cannot be drafted without reference to the central issues in the negotiations.   TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 11 
 
 
 We should focus our work on issues that relate to  the most trade distorting policies in all three 
pillars of the negotiations.  Following this logic, and bearing in mind the tentative list of issues put 
forward by the Chair to make a start on matters of substance, let me touch briefly on a few points, 
regarding each of the pillars.  [Domestic Support] 
 
In domestic support, the development of an opera tional concept to take up this pillar in the 
Framework centred around three points:  cuts, disciplines and monitoring.  
Regarding cuts, the concepts of overall cut, as  defined in the mandate, the banded approach 
for overall and AMS cuts, as well as the notion of pr oduct-specific cuts were developed.  To give 
concrete meaning to the overall cut, the G-20 ha s emphasised that both the starting and the ending 
point should be technically and politically credible.  
95 per cent of the total domestic support provided to agriculture globally go to farmers in 
OECD countries and that the structure of the domest ic support pillar in the AoA is essentially based 
on the programmes of support available to farmers in  these countries, distributed in 3 instruments of 
support: 
a) the Amber Box, comprising de-minimis support and AMS, b) the Blue Box and 
c) the direct payment under the Green Box. 
 
The amount of resources provided by developing  countries – mainly through de minimis to 
their farmers - is infinitely smaller than that gr anted by developed countries.  Why then should we 
start our discussions by the issue of de minimis regarding developing countries? 
 
[Export Competition] 
 
With regard to Export Competition, and in line with the mandate to "phase out all forms of 
export subsidies", discussion in this pillar revol ved around the issues of the credible end date, 
parallelism and monitoring. 
 
Negotiation on the schedule for the elimination of  export subsidies and how this could impact 
other forms of export subsidies remains open for the modalities phase.  It is important, however, that a 
standstill be observed in this pillar, so as to safe guard the reform process from any backtracking.  
Pending the complete elimination of export subsid ies, the introduction of any new programmes or the 
grant of export subsidies for products that no longer benefit from them would be contrary to the spirit 
of the reforms.  
[Market Access] 
 
Developing a banded formula and its fundamental  elements for a single approach for both 
developed and developing countries was fundament al to uphold the Doha Mandate.  The tariff 
reduction formula is the core element for the atta inment of the mandated ob jective of substantial 
improvement in market access.  At the same time, the Framework contains key elements to that effect such as the need to take into account different tari ff structures, the need to ensure food security and 
livelihood concerns of developing countries rural populations and the concept of proportionality. 
 
Whilst we must recognize that the design of the tariff reduction formula involves important 
political elements, in the months ahead it should be possible to develop technical elements that will 
make it easier to arrive at that formula.  Once we  reach that point, then we can devote ourselves to TN/AG/R/15 
Page 12  
 
 work on the elements that qualify the reduction formul a, bearing in mind the need, as stressed in the 
framework text, not to undermine it.  
[Final comments] 
  
Let me conclude by recalling the importance of agricultural reform to the system as a whole 
and especially to developing countries.  The G-20 remains, as ever, engaged in this process, always 
guided by the letter and spirit of the Doha Mandate.  TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 13 
 
 
  
Statement by Benin  
  
The delegation of Benin wishes to thank you for the unstinting efforts you made during the 
General Council proceedings of late July 2004 within the framework of the mandate that was 
entrusted to you.  You showed comp lete dedication, both physically a nd intellectually, to the task, and 
we owe the results we have achieved to your determination and skill in building consensus. 
My delegation endorses the statements made by  Nigeria on behalf of the African Group and 
by Indonesia on behalf of the G-33. 
The framework agreement we concluded last July provides some guidelines as to how to 
proceed with the negotiations. 
What remains to be done is to  translate that agreement into  modalities and to achieve that 
objective at the latest by the end of the current round of negotiations. 
We can and must achieve that goal. 
Agriculture is of vital importance for a number of WTO Members, especially the developing 
and the least developed countries, and cotton play s a strategic role in the economies of many 
developing and least developed countries. 
We decided at the outcome of th e July proceedings that the co tton issue would be dealt with 
ambitiously, expeditiously, and specifically, within the negotiations on agriculture. 
The Members also undertook to address the two aspect s of the cotton issue, i.e. its trade and 
development aspects. 
Another guideline that we set for ourselves is  to work on the cotton issue under the three 
pillars of domestic support, expor t competition and market access. 
Moreover, it was decided to establish a s ubcommittee on cotton, which will report 
periodically to the Special Session of the Committ ee on Agriculture in order to review progress. 
My delegation, together with all the other co -sponsors of the Sectoral Initiative on Cotton and 
the Groups to which they belong, hopes that the deci sions which we adopted on cotton last July will 
be implemented as soon as possible, so as to provi de appropriate responses to the cotton issue and 
meet the expectations of the popul ations and countries concerned. 
My delegation therefore strongly recommends th at the subcommittee on cotton be established 
without delay. 
The subcommittee's work schedule will have to be  determined with due regard to the need to 
prevent any overlapping of its meetings with other activities conducted as part of the negotiating 
round. 
Lastly, as indicated by the Coordinator of the African Group, a paper will be submitted to the 
WTO Members, which will serve as a guide for our proceedings on the cotton issue. TN/AG/R/15 
Page 14  
 
  
Statement by Ecuador
 
  
My Delegation wishes to join those congratula ting you on your efforts to secure approval of 
the July package and undertakes to work with  you during this new phase of negotiations. 
 
My Delegation concurs with the thrust of th e statement made on behalf of the G-20 by 
Ambassador Sun of China and is of the opinion that  the elements highlighted by this group should be 
taken into consideration when ne gotiating modalities.  We agree that some call for time-frames to be 
defined and that, in order to give substantive content to the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, it 
would be wise to arrive with the modalities ready for approval.  
Ecuador, like other Delegations, considers it a dvisable for the Secretariat to prepare the 
necessary support material which could serve as guida nce for the planned technical work.  The work 
of the Secretariat will be of the utmost importance for those Missions with limited staff capacity for 
preparing analyses and studies.  Furthermore, and sharing the position expressed by the representative 
of Egypt, my Delegation feels that the possibilit y of studies also being carried out by non-WTO 
sources, with a view to achieving a broader basis fo r discussions within this Organization, would be 
appropriate.  
Other Delegations have referred to  a number of countries' interest in the implementation of 
paragraph 5 of the Preamble to the Agreement on Agriculture with regard to tropical products.  
Ecuador has reiterated its position in this respect at previous meetings and even served as spokesman 
on this issue for Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and Ven ezuela when it held the Presidency of the Andean 
Community.  My Delegation would therefore be gratef ul if it could be convoked to all meetings at 
which this issue is addressed. 
 
Finally, my Delegation wishes to endorse the comments by the Swiss Delegation on behalf of 
the G-10 regarding the requisite inclusiveness for negotiating modalities.  We are aware that the 
"green room" mechanism, which is based on exclusio n, has been used by the WTO and GATT and, in 
pre-July negotiations, had the advantage of includ ing the spokespersons of the negotiating groups.  
However, and in spite of strenuous efforts by both  you and the Chairs of other Committees to ensure 
an inclusive process, the use of "green rooms" r esulted in countries such as Ecuador, which are not 
members of any of the negotiating groups, suffering fro m a lack of information.  For this reason, on 
behalf of my Delegation, I hereby request that Ecuador be taken into consideration at all consultations 
held on the issue of preference erosion during this new phase and, in particular, that it be convoked to 
meetings at which a decision is to be taken, so that, as the Ambassador of Colombia rightly pointed 
out, last minute surprises can be avoided.  
I should be grateful if this statement could be recorded in the minutes of this formal 
Committee meeting.   TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 15 
 
 
  
Statement by Colombia  
  
Colombia, like other delegations, would like to express its appreciation of the work you 
carried out in order to fi nalize the July package. 
First of all, we would like to point out that as regards the development of a working 
framework, we fully support the statement made by th e Ambassador of Australia, who, in his capacity 
as Cairns Group coordinator, has proposed a way fo rward that will undoubtedly help us to fulfil the 
task of establishing modalities in time for the mini sterial conference at the end of next year. 
We would like to emphasize our interest in a number of issues that must be addressed during 
this phase of the negotiations on modalities, such as: 
- Full liberalization of trade in tropical pr oducts and products repl acing illicit crops, as 
referred to in paragraph 43 of the working framework adopted on 31 July; 
- distortions in the cotton trade, as covered in paragraph 4; 
- other sectoral initiatives, as refe rred to in paragraph 49;  and 
- the issue of preference erosion, as referred to in paragraph 44. As regards tropical products and products replacing illicit crops, may I remind you that the 
Cairns Group negotiating proposals on market  access (G/AG/NG/W/54) and domestic support 
(G/AG/NG/W/35), submitted in November 2000 a nd September 2000 respectively, renewed the 
proposal for the fullest liberalization of trade in tropical agricultural products and for products of 
particular importance to the diversification of production from the growing of illicit narcotic crops, 
and put forward the idea of preserving exceptions fo r investment and input subsidies, and domestic 
support to encourage diversificati on from growing illicit narcotic crops. 
In January 2002, Colombia submitted a doc ument entitled "Special and Differential 
Treatment and the Substitution of Illicit Crops",  which described Colombia's domestic problems 
arising from the production of illicit crops, the eradi cation programmes in effect in the country, the 
action taken against the production and trafficking of  drugs at domestic and in ternational level on the 
basis of the principle of shared responsibility,  and the substitution and alternative development 
programmes in effect in the country, for which th e fullest liberalization of products replacing illicit 
crops and the accompanying exemptions from dom estic support measures are proposed in these 
negotiations. 
In this connection, in the previous stage of the negotiations for the establishment of 
modalities, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru submitted document JOB(02) /113, dated September 
2002, in which we proposed, as part of special and differential treatment for developing countries, a 
number of specific modalities on market access for tr opical products and products for diversification 
of production so as to abandon and combat the growing of illicit narcotic crops. 
We would be grateful if the aforementioned doc uments formed part of the background to the 
current negotiations on modalities.  We would also like to express our interest in working on this 
matter with other interested countries. 
Furthermore, we wish to jo in the four cotton-producing and exporting African countries 
which requested that the issue be included in the Doha Agenda and which we  supported at the time.  TN/AG/R/15 
Page 16  
 
 Colombia was a net exporter of cotton until 1992, an d since then has been an importer of cotton as a 
result of the production and export subsidies applied by major cotton producers.  We therefore stand ready to participate in the subcommittee on cotton pr ovided for in paragraph 4 of the adopted working 
framework. 
We would recall that in the previous stag es of these negotiations, Colombia proposed a 
sectoral initiative on flowers, in which we are still in terested.  Colombia will continue promoting the 
issue among flower-exporting and -importing countri es in the current phase of the negotiations, and 
we hope that it will be included in the specific negotiating modalities. 
As regards the preference erosion issue referred to in paragraph 44, we would like to express 
our interest in taking part in an y consultation or negotiating session on this issue, so as to avoid any 
last-minute surprises involving attempts to accord tariff treatment that works not only against our 
interests, but against the trade liberalizati on sought after in these multilateral negotiations. 
Methodology for calculating ad valorem equivalents 
In your fax inviting us to this meeting, you suggested a ddressing this issue with a view to 
placing tariff lines within the corresponding bands of th e tiered formula agreed as part of the working 
framework adopted in July, and postponing the discussion on whether this methodology would be 
used to bind tariffs in ad valorem terms.  Colombia  cannot overlook the fact that our main interest is 
to bind tariffs in ad valorem terms and this will be  at the forefront of our minds when discussing the 
methodology for the first objective. 
In Colombia's opinion, a common methodology mu st be agreed upon, which can be applied 
by the Members in a uniform and transparent manne r.  Any methodology which is ultimately adopted 
and applied by Members must be able to be verified by other Members. 
At the technical level, various proposals ha ve been discussed during the previous phases and 
we agree to continuing the study of  the possibilities, advantages and di sadvantages that will enable us 
to take a decision regarding the methodology to be  agreed upon.  Paragraph 9 of Mr. Harbinson's 
March 2003 paper on modalities contai ns one proposal.  The Secretariat submitted a document on the 
issue during the negotiations on non-agricultural products, document TN/MA/S/10.  The United 
States have initiated another proposal.  Australia  speaks of a methodology based on international 
prices.  All these alternatives should be considered as part of our technical work. 
Colombia suggests that the Secretariat provide some data that would enable us to assess the 
proposed methodologies, such as information on the ava ilability of the data required to develop these 
methodologies:  the years and the last year for whic h each Member provided the Integrated Data Base 
with the required information on, for example, th e value and amount of imports, the fiscal revenue 
received through tariff duties, import prices and international prices.  The Secretariat could also devise exercises to simulate the application of the proposed methodology in the cases where tariffs 
have been bound by the Members in non-ad valorem terms. 
The new Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) for developing countries 
Colombia wishes to express its interest in this matter. 
Some countries have made references to th e text circulated by Mr. Harbinson for the 
consultations which took place in the previous ph ase of the negotiations on modalities, which did not 
ultimately form part of the text.  Colombia propo ses that the issues addressed in that document be 
used in this new negotiating phase.  TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 17 
 
 
 You have invited us to look at this issue once again, in the light of the adopted framework.  
Colombia considers this m echanism to be directly related to th e tiered formula.  The new agricultural 
safeguard mechanism must cover, to a greater ex tent, products for which greater tariff reduction 
commitments are made in a tiered formula, a nd in all cases the new mechanism must apply to 
products for which substantial tariff reduction co mmitments are made.  We will make technical 
contributions when the mechanism is discussed in detail. TN/AG/R/15 
Page 18  
 
  
Statement by Jamaica
 
  
Jamaica pays tribute to you and your team for your hard and dedicated work, which 
culminated in the adoption of a framework on Agri culture.  Most importantly, the framework, in our 
view, provides a basis, not an ideal basis by any m eans, to continue to work towards addressing the 
imbalances between the interests of major developed countries and those of developing countries. 
 
There can be no doubt therefore that we are at a very critical stage.  We are committed to 
utilizing the process to ensure that as intended by the Doha Declaration, the development of small 
vulnerable economies such as that of Jamaica are addressed.  We are therefore expecting that our 
concerns and interests will be taken fully into  account in the forthcoming deliberations and 
elaboration of modalities.  
Our key interests are well known.  We remain unconvinced that the framework on Agriculture 
will provide a basis to allow some developing countries to benefit from the current round of negotiations mandated at Doha unless those developi ng countries who are beneficiaries of preferences 
have their interests taken into account in the negotiations and its outcome. 
 
The gap which exists both in the ability to u se and the treatment of support measures between 
developed and developing countries, has meant that for small countries such as ours tariff measures 
have been our only protection.  We welcome the progress on the issues of Special Products (SPs) and 
Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM).  Further, alt hough we remain concerned about the treatment of 
the de minimis, we anticipate that  in the negotiations on modalities th e small farmers in countries such 
as Jamaica will benefit from the ex emption applicable to "subsiste nce and resource poor farmers". 
 
In addition, we expect that the special and di fferential treatment to be elaborated in the 
framework and which must an integral part of th e instruments to be finalized, will be usable and 
sufficiently flexible so as to benefit our agricultural sect or.  This must be particularly so in regard to 
tariff modalities and the treatment of export credits and insurance guarantees.  
Finally, we remain deeply concerned by the pot ential scope for the con tinuation of high levels 
of support by developed countries through instruments such as the Green Box and the Blue box.  We 
anticipate that the modalities to be elaborated w ill significantly reduce and even eliminate existing 
imbalances, not deepen them.  TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 19 
 
 
  
Statement by Thailand  
  
We would like to thank you for starting substa ntive discussion by suggesting technical issues 
for our deliberation during the course of this week.  It is important that we do not waste our time since 
we are a year behind our schedule.  
Thailand agrees with other member countries that our aim now should be the achievement of 
a modality by the MC 6 in Hong Kong at the latest.  It is going to be a very difficult task.  But with 
your able leadership and strong determination of a ll members, we believe such goal is still possible. 
 
Towards that end, we would like to offer some suggestions. 
 
First, we believe that our work must start o ff from the principles.  We need to have clear 
understanding about major principles before we  can proceed to discuss the exceptions to the 
principles.  Only when we know the coverage of  the principles, then we can figure out how to 
accommodate the conditions where principles will not apply.  We cannot simply avoid any issues 
because they are difficult.  At the end we would have to tackle all of them anyhow.  Accordingly, we 
must focus first on the core issues rega rdless of how hard the work will be. 
 
It is true that the core issues carry with them political concerns.  It is also comprehensible that 
the period from now to the end of the year is a difficult time for us to try to arrive at a political solution.  But we have to be prepared.  During th is period we should concentrate on technical matter.  
The focus should be on the technicalities of the core  issues.  We should spend this period of time 
wisely on laying technical groundwork for those core  issues.  So when th e time comes for political 
decisions, they wouldn't be delayed by the l ack of or insufficient technical information. 
 
On Export Competition, the Framework Agreem ent clearly mentioned what would be or 
might be considered to be export subsidies.  We  could examine their technicalities one by one.  On 
food aid, export credit, STE and etc.  
On Domestic Support, our main task here is to  deal with the cut on distorting subsidies, we 
have to define the cut on Amber, Blue Box and d ecoupling support.  Then, the discipline before going 
to the exception.  
On Market Access, we have to deal with tariff reduction formula as well as quota expansion 
and a discipline on quota administration again befo re dealing with exceptions.  The issue of 
conversion from specific duty to ad valorem  duty would be one of the useful technical support for the 
exercises.  Still the focus must be on the number of bands and the rates of reduction followed by the 
rates of quota expansion.  
The WTO Secretariat could contribute greatly to the process by preparing technical data and 
analyses.  They could start off by organizing all existing documents pertaining to each issue in the 
way that we can have access to this information with  ease.  We might also request secretariat to gather 
more data and conduct more analyses as necessary.  
The task before us is of paramount importance.   A good work plan would help our work to 
gather momentum.  We put our trust in you to move it forward.  We are prep ared to work with you 
with a view to reaching an early conclusion of the negotiations that fully reflects the ambitious 
mandate agreed upon at Doha.  TN/AG/R/15 
Page 20  
 
  
Statement by Kenya
 
  
At the outset Kenya would like to associate itsel f with the statement issued by Nigeria on 
behalf of the African Group, Indonesia on behalf of the G-33 and Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of 
the ACP Group.  
We would also like to join other delegations a nd register our appreciation of your hard work 
which has enabled us to agree on and adopt Annex A in the July Framework.  In our view, the July 
Framework sets the direction for future negotiations  on agriculture.  This notwithstanding Kenya 
expects this phase of the negotiations to deliver an ou tcome that is consistent with the ambition set out 
in the Doha Ministerial Declaration and this in cludes any future work on Special and Differential 
Treatment.  Furthermore, we expect the framework to  give practical effect to the expectations and 
aspirations of the Doha Development Agenda. 
 
In this regard, the focus of our work in the modalities should be on making Special and 
Differential Treatment an integral part of the negotiations and ensuring that these provisions are 
operationally effective.  Indeed we expect Special  and Differential Treatment to be addressed in 
tandem with all the other issues in th e three pillars of the negotiations. 
 
Given the amount of technical work that is ahead  of us in this phase of the negotiations, we 
expect the Secretariat to play a crucial role in terms of collecting and analyzing data as well as 
carrying out simulation exercises.  For instance, we see a major challenge in elaborating the Tier 
Formula given the different tariff structures of deve loping and developed countries.  The Secretariat 
should commence preparations of a simulation ex ercise on the Tier Formula with a view of 
identifying the possible impact of the Tier approach on developing countries particularly those with a 
high ceiling binding like Kenya.  A similar exer cise on how the tier approach would lead to 
substantial reduction of trade di storting support would be useful. 
 
In order to allow a small delegation like Keny a to adequately prepare for the technical 
discussion ahead we need to have a clear structure of  our work for the coming weeks.  In addition we 
expect the list of technical issues to be discu ssed to be issued well ahead of the meeting. 
 
Lastly we expect the process of the negotiations in this phase to be transparent and inclusive. 
  TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 21 
 
 
  
Statement by Costa Rica  
  
I should like to join the statement made by Australia on behalf of the Cairns Group.  Allow 
me to congratulate you on being at the helm of the negotiations which resulted in the approval of 
Annex A on agriculture of the July package. 
WTO Members should be satisfied with the ag reements reached.  The development promise 
offered to developing countries with the launch of  the Doha Round is still valid and is now based on 
firmer foundations, such as the historic decisions to eliminate export subsidies on all products and 
implementation of the long-standing commitment to  liberalize trade in products of interest to 
developing countries. 
It is particularly important to Costa Ri ca that our commitments under the framework 
agreement result in modalities for the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. 
We support the commencement of the technical work which you proposed.  We should not, 
however, lose sight of the general principles of  the Agreements on Agriculture, nor of the 
liberalization objectives underp inning the July package. 
Technical work is needed to move agricultural reform forward in all three pillars.  We do, 
however, need to focus on rules and the way in whic h to achieve key objectives before giving effect to 
exceptions.  In other words, we believe that the discussions should focus on principles, not on 
exceptions. 
For a developing country such as mine, the objec tive as far as one of the three pillars, market 
access, is concerned can only be to obtain the greatest possible access for the products of interest to it. 
This pillar must therefore deliver clear and tangibl e results in favour of the offensive or export 
interests of developing countries.  We cannot envi sage the agricultural reform process heading in any 
other direction. 
For this very reason, the negotiations and th eir outcome cannot be made conditional upon the 
concept of the non-erosion of preferences.  WTO Me mbers endorse trade liberalization.  It is common 
knowledge that multilateral negotiations erode preferen ces, both reciprocal preferences – of which we 
have borne the cost – and non-reciprocal ones. 
Under no circumstances can we allow preferences to stand in the way of multilateral trade 
liberalization.  This is a basic underlying principl e.  Nevertheless, we are willing to work towards a 
solution for those countries which face difficulties as a result of preference erosion. 
Finally, I wish to offer you the full support of  this delegation in achieving the objectives 
which we have set ourselves for these negotiations. TN/AG/R/15 
Page 22  
 
  
Statement by Peru
 
  
We wish to begin by congratulating you, th e Secretariat and the Members on completing the 
Framework, which we regard as the basis for the ne gotiations that will lead us to the adoption of 
modalities. 
As regards the negotiating process, we believe that there is a great deal of technical work 
ahead of us, which will have to address all the elemen ts, in each of the pillars, that are of interest to 
the Members.  These elements will have to be dea lt with in parallel.  We appreciate receiving the 
initial list, which we see as an open-ended documen t to which Members' proposals can subsequently 
be added. 
It will also be necessary, in our view, to establish the timeframes under which we will be 
operating, both in terms of the final objective, which is the adoption of modalities, and in terms of the 
preceding stages relating to the technical proceedings. 
Turning to substantive aspects, we welcome the opportunity for Members to express general 
views on the Framework.  In this connection, I wish to highlight three principles which are part of the framework text and which my delegation considers should be incorporated in a final agreement on 
modalities – that is, the level of ambition set in  the Doha Ministerial Declaration should be 
maintained;  the final agreement should preserve a balance both between the pillars and within the 
single undertaking;  and the final modalities should in corporate substantive and effective special and 
differential treatment provisions for the developing countries. 
As you and the Members are aware, my count ry attaches the utmost importance to the 
phasing out of export subsidies, and we are pleased that it has been agreed to promptly establish a 
definitive time-limit, which in our view is a ke y requirement for reaching a final agreement on 
modalities. 
On the subject of domestic support, we have highly concrete objectives to fulfil, and we 
ourselves regard the provisions that restrict support fo r specific products as a sign of progress.  On the 
other hand, we are concerned about the breadth of  other provisions, as instruments available to the 
Members, since this could generate an imbalance be tween the different pillars of the agreement.  A 
great deal of work will therefore have to be put in to the framing of future di sciplines that will ensure 
harmonization and effective reduction of domestic support.  In particular, we wish to draw your 
attention to the de minimis provisions.  To our mi nd, the de minimis measures used by the developing 
countries should not be reduced.  Any agreement to the contrary would, in our view, jeopardize the 
balance we are seeking to achieve, especially in view of the current le vels of domestic support 
afforded by the developed countries. 
Concerning market access, I wish to add to th e comments of the Ambassador of Indonesia as 
the G-33 coordinator with regard to special products  and the special safeguard mechanism, by laying 
renewed emphasis on the importance, within the co ntext of S&D, of impl ementing paragraph 43, 
which refers to the fullest liberalization of trade in tropical products and products providing 
alternatives to those derived from illicit crops. 
Lastly, my delegation reiterates its readiness to continue working towards the achievement of 
modalities.  TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 23 
 
 
  
Statement by Philippines  
  
Thank you for according us the opportunity to put across our views on the framework 
package agreed in July. 
 
Let me express our full endorsement of the stat ement delivered by Ambassador Sun of China 
on behalf of the G-20.  Our intervention will serve to supplement some of the points Ambassador Sun 
has raised, as well as touch on certain issues that are of crucial importance to us. 
 
The July Decision enabled Members to collectiv ely reaffirm their commitment to the Doha 
Declaration.  Agreement on the framework averted a possible crisis that would have meant a backlash 
not only to the multilateral trading system, but also to the global economy in general.  
On agriculture, we take comfort in the framewor k's assertion that the level of ambition in the 
Doha mandate remains the basis for the negotia tions.  The framework was useful in providing 
additional guidelines in pursuing the goals set in Doha, although it is clear that political guidance in 
key elements required for delivering results from th e framework that are genuinely liberalizing and 
developmental in character, still needs to be taken.  
The longer the delays in implementing needed reform, the longer we postpone the 
developmental gains that are envisioned to result fro m a fair and market oriented agricultural trading 
environment.  The projected difficulties from politic al scenarios should not deter us from seeking to 
attain full modalities by the 6
th Ministerial Conference in December 2005 in Hong Kong, which 
would mark the substantive c onclusion to these negotiations. 
 
Mindful of this timeframe, it is important to have a structure and work program that 
maximizes efforts to achie ve the best possible reform modalities by the Hong Kong meeting.  For this 
purpose, we emphasize the need to prioritize work on the general rules, and on areas with the greatest 
need for reform.  The initial set of issues menti oned in Ambassador Sun's statement provides a good 
indication of the range of items where the chief focus of our technical work must be devoted.  In our 
view, it would be more constructiv e and ambitious to take a big bite on the technical and drafting 
work required for arriving at the general rules and disciplines that would govern a rebalanced 
agriculture trading system.  Therefore the genera l rules must be established for all three pillars. 
 
We note the inclusion in the preliminary technical work the issue of de-minimis for 
developing countries.  The Doha Round is suppo sed to be the "catch up" phase for correcting 
imbalances that disadvantage deve loping countries.  To demand developing countries to reduce their 
de minimis support while developed countries have not  yet approached full elimination of their trade-
distorting measures, particularly the AMS, would only serve to exacerbate rather than cure the 
existing inequalities.  Thus, it is only  appropriate that even before we  contemplate cuts in de minimis 
for developing countries, a clear understanding s hould be reached first on the disciplines and 
commitments that would apply to cutting trade- distorting measures of developed countries. 
 
The Philippines expresses its full endorsement of the intervention by Indonesia on behalf of 
the G-33.  It is indeed a positive step that the concepts of SP and SSM are now inscribed in the 
framework as fundamental and indispensable t ools for addressing the concerns of developing 
countries.  The next crucial task lies in giving gr eater precision and setting parameters in order to 
translate these ideas into concrete in struments that are capable of being implemented.  We wish to flag 
however, that there may be a desire by drafters of modalities to attempt to define or establish strict 
criteria for SP and elaborate terms and conditi ons for SSM which would negate the potential 
effectiveness of these concepts.  The rules for SP and SSM must allow developing countries the TN/AG/R/15 
Page 24  
 
 political and developmental flexibility, within bounds of institutionalized multilateral trade 
disciplines, to pursue their own national developm ent objectives and their own indigenously designed 
adjustment programs.  This in our view is the best  way to render viable and effective any provisions 
on SP and SSM.  
Finally, the Philippines stands ready to cooperate with the Chair and all Members in 
achieving tangible results for the D oha Work Programme in agriculture. 
  TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 25 
 
 
  
Statement by Mauritius  
   Green Box 
 
• There is a need to move the process ahead. • The framework represents a delicate balance where each and everyone has got something 
and it would not be advisable to reopen the framework. 
• In this context challenging the integrity of the Green Box would not be appropriate, so 
would challenges on other parts of the framework. 
• The attachments of the Harbinson text on th e Green Box can be useful for future work, 
however, it has to be noted that they were drafted on premises which are different from those agreed upon in the framework. 
 
 Para. 48 of the Framework Agreement 
 
• It relates to a new or amended Article 18 of the AoA. • It is an issue which is relevant fo r every pillar including the S&D aspects. 
• It is a neutral issue compared to the numerous politically sensitive ones. 
 
 Documents for future work 
 
• Attachments of the Harbinson work bearing in mind that the Harbinson text and the 
Framework are based on different premises.  
• Basic documents of Secretariat. 
• Relevant Job Papers. 
• Secretariat could help members in this regard by preparing base documents and drawing 
up reference lists. 
  NFIDC/LDC  
• Basis of work para 24, 26, 18 and 48 of the Framework Agreement. 
• Link and conflict between paragra phs, in particular 24 and 18. 
• Importance of monitoring and surveillance, indeed para. 24 is the one which places 
significant emphasis on para. 48. 
• Monitoring and surveillance should not become an obstacle in the way of the 
NFIDC/LDCs. 
• Attachment 5 of Harbinson text as modified and attached to TN/AG/10 of 7 July 2003 
can be a useful basis for technical work. 
• From the Mauritian perspective Job 167 cont ains relevant elemen ts regarding export 
credits. 
• Relation between work at the WTO and in other fora, the OECD in particular and 
adaptability of the latter work to the WTO context. 
• The NFIDC/LDC issue is but one element of  the overall food security issue, Job 182 is 
pertinent in this regard. 
• The NFIDC/LDC issue is also a key element in  the balancing act to ensure that there is 
not a winners/losers situation. 
 
 STEs  
• The basic concept is not being questioned, in  fact, the issue is about the new disciplines. 
• Attachment 7 of Harbinson could be one of the elements for future work. TN/AG/R/15 
Page 26  
 
 • There should be need to maintain the zone of exclusion provided for in 5(c) of 
Attachment 7.  Moreover, it should be noted that small single commodity exporters have not and will never distort trade. 
• The special flexibility afforded under para. 25 should be elaborated upon. 
 
 Food Aid  
 
• Objective should always be borne in mind. • Rome Summit defined food security. • Food Aid is one element of food security. 
• Food Aid is an important issue for Africa. 
• Link and conflict betw een para. 18 and 26. 
  S&D  
• S&D is as per the Doha Mandate an  integral part of the negotiations. 
• S&D and general work cannot be dissociated. • General work cannot undermin e S&D, re para. 18 and 24. 
• There is parity between general work and S&D and not a hierarchy with the former 
having precedence on the latter. 
• General work and S&D should be  conducted in tandem and at par in respect of measures. 
  TN/AG/R/15 
 Page 27 
 
 
  
Statement by Switzerland (on behalf of the G-10)  
  
You have invited us to register any general vi ews we may have with respect to the agreed 
Framework for agriculture.  In this regard, I would like to recall that the G-10 has already set out its 
reading of the Framework at the meeting of the General Council held on 31 July and 1 August 2004.  
Interested Members can refer to our statement that  will be recorded in the minutes of this meeting 
(doc WT/GC/M/87). 
We are prepared to advance our work on the b asis of the agreed Framework with a view to 
establishing mutually acceptable modalities.  Howeve r, work on agriculture should move ahead whilst 
negotiations on the other subjects should step by step co me to the same level of specificity in order to 
achieve a balanced overall result.  This should also be perceptible to outsiders. 
The G-10 is ready to embark constructively on  this technical phase of the negotiations.  
Technical work should be undertaken on all three pilla rs in parallel.  We also hold that any list of 
technical issues should be open-ended.  This phase sh ould be used to address and clarify all technical 
issues of interest to Members.  Consistent with paragraph 2 of the Framew ork it is understood that 
non-trade concerns will be taken into account across a ll subjects.  NTC are not confined to Green Box 
issues only. 
The G-10 also assumes that the proposals made by Members are still on the table.  In 
addition, the availability of data should be improved.   To this effect, we su bmit that the Secretariat 
should draw up a list of the background material a nd figures necessary to make the notions contained 
in the Framework operational.  By the same token, an assessment of the availability of such material 
should also be made.  Members will then deci de on the course of action to be followed.  
Furthermore, it would be appropriate to use this phase to evaluate the implications for 
importers and exporters of the va rious concepts that are under scrutiny.  As well, we should 
investigate the impact of the elimination of expor t subsidies and substantia l reduction of domestic 
support on the overall objectives of the negotiations. 
As far as the process is concerned, the G-10 is in the hands of the Chairman with regards to 
the format and the scheduling of the meetings.  As always, the G-10 would like to insist on the vital 
importance of a transparent process including the sens itivities of all Members.  This is all the more 
crucial that we are not any longer discussing the broa d parameters of the deal or a framework.  In a 
negotiating phase where specific commitments are bei ng discussed, it is of utmost importance that 
Members share the same sense of ownership with the outcome of the negotiations.  And it is inconceivable that this new sense of ownership can  be created through a process like the one that led 
up to the July Framework where a handful of Me mbers played a disproportionate role in the 
negotiation. TN/AG/R/15 
Page 28  
 
 Annex : G-10 Statement on 31 July 
  
G10 Statement at the General Counc il Meeting held on 31 July 2004
 
 
 
1. The G-10 would like to stress that the Framework on agriculture provides non legally binding 
guidelines which should lead us to modalities.  It goes without saying that a number of notions will 
require further precision and elaboration in the ne xt phase of our work.  For the G-10, this work 
should aim at providing Members with the flexibil ity needed to reach the Doha objectives.  The 
sensitivities of Members in agriculture  are, like their tariff structures, fundamentally different.  These 
sensitivities are incompatible with rigid approaches. 
2. Non-trade concerns are an integral element of the Doha mandate and are of vital importance 
to the G-10.  In the framework, non-trade concerns are acknowledged in Para. 2 of Annex A.  This has 
a bearing on all aspects of the negotiations, including w ith respect to market access.  We would like to 
recall that the overall balance of trade and non-trad e concerns of the Doha mandate was decisive to 
many Members when they accepted to embark on th e reform process.  This balance needs to be 
retained in the final result. 
3. The framework acknowledges that the commitments made in respect of the Blue Box and 
Export Competition will preserve the integrity of on going reforms.  The G-10 sees this as a central 
principle that applies to all thr ee pillars, including market access. 
4. Our fundamental difficulties with the concept of a tariff cap have been made abundantly clear 
on several occasions.  In the framework, the referen ce to a tariff cap is now limited to a future 
evaluation of this concept and any role that it may have.  We are convinced that such an evaluation 
will show that there is no rationale for a cap wi thin a tiered formula with distinct treatment of 
sensitive products. 
5. To the G-10, the overall balance of the final out come of these negotiations is linked to the 
treatment of sensitive products.  We would like to stress that paragraph 33 recognises that balance in 
this negotiation will be found only if the final r esults also reflects the sensitivity of the product 
concerned.  Thus, the "substantial trade expansion" that we all agree to cannot contradict the more 
favourable treatment of sensitive products.  It is  our understanding that the next phase of the 
negotiations will achieve the balance referred to in pa ragraph 33 in a practical and concrete way.  The 
coherent and equitable criteria referred to in pa ragraph 34 should be developed in the same spirit. 
6. On the issue of domestic support, we understa nd that the framework that we have just 
endorsed implies that the harmonisation will be made on the basis of absolute levels of support.  In 
addition, the methodology to be agreed with re spect to product-specific capping of AMS should not 
undermine ongoing reforms.  It should also take acc ount of factors such as structural adjustment and 
emergency situations. 
__________