WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
TN/AG/R/11 
5 May 2004 
 (04-1995) 
Committee on Agriculture 
Special Session  
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING  
OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE SPECIAL SESSION  
HELD ON 22 AND 26 MARCH 2004 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
 
1. The Special Session of the Committee on Agricu lture, which was established by the General 
Council (WT/GC/M/53), is pursuing negotiations under paragraphs 13, 14 and other relevant 
provisions of the Doha Ministerial Declaration a nd held its twenty-first meeting on 22 and 26 March 
2004.   
2. Due to the absence of the incumb ent Chairman, Mr Stuart Harbinson, and with his approval, 
the meeting was opened by the Chairman-designate, Ambassador Tim Groser of New Zealand, on Monday 22 March.   
3. The agenda as contained in WTO/AIR/2261 was adopted. 
I
TEM A:  E LECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
4. Following consultations undertaken in accord ance with the "Guidelines for Appointment of 
Officers to WTO Bodies" (WT/L/31), and as note d by the General Council at its meeting on 
11 February 2004, consensus had been reached, inter alia, on the nomination of Ambassador Tim Groser of New Zealand
 as Chairperson of the Special Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture.  Accordingly the election of Ambassad or Groser of New Zealand to Chairman of the 
Special Session was signified by acclamation. 
5. On taking over the position of Chairman, Amba ssador Groser, on behalf of the Special 
Session, thanked Mr Harbinson for the work he ha d undertaken over the previous two years.  He 
noted that thanks to this work the negotiations  were now well placed to move forward.  Under 
Mr Harbinson's guidance the Special Session now ha d solid foundations on wh ich delegations could 
build and without this work it would not be possibl e to address many of the delicate issues facing 
participants. 
ITEM B:  ORGANIZATION OF WORK 
6. Following the election of Ambassador Groser  as Chairman, the formal Special Session was 
suspended until Friday 26 March to  give delegations the opportunity  to conduct negotiations.  These 
negotiations took place under the initiative and resp onsibility of delegations with opportunities on 
Wednesday and Friday mornings, 24 and 26 March, for reports by participants on their discussions 
and on progress made at informal open-ended meetings. 
                                                      
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/11 
Page 2  
 
 I
TEM C(i):  S TATEMENT BY CHAIR  
7. A summary of the statement by the Ch airman is attached in Annex 1. 
ITEM C (ii):  STATEMENT BY PARTICIPANTS  
8. Brazil stated that it shared the views expressed  by the Chairman.  On behalf of the G-20 
group of countries it added that it was pleased w ith the way the "Agriculture Week" had been 
organized.  The G-20 had used the opportunity to ho ld a number of meetings with other participants, 
both individually and as groups.  While the members of the G-20 were satisfied with progress and the commitment shown by participants to get a framewo rk text finalized by the summer break it was clear 
that a there was some distance to go.  On export competition there had been some movement towards 
compromise.  For the G-20 a basic requirement for the framework text was a commitment to an end 
date for the elimination of all forms of export subsidies, including any subsidies provided through 
state trading enterprises, export credit schemes or food aid.  On domestic support the Group believed 
that, in order to meet the mandate in the Doha Mini sterial Declaration, three instruments were needed:  
cuts, better disciplines and monitoring.  Substan tial reductions were need ed in trade-distorting 
subsidies, better disciplines need ed to ensure that changes in domestic policy did not mean a 
continuation of trade-distortion and monitoring n eeded to ensure complian ce with commitments and 
rules.  Market access, however, was more complex.  A lot of work would be needed to ensure that the 
approach to improving market access used in the framework would be balanced, comprehensive, in-
line with the mandate and would address the needs of developing countries.  This required an open 
mind from all participants on the form of formula wh ich would have to generate additional trade and 
take into account the specific nature of agriculture  in developing countries and the different tariff 
structures in developed and developing countries.  Tariff quotas would also need to be expanded 
based on objective criteria and tariff quota administra tion addressed.  At the same time special and 
differential treatment should include proportionality in tariff reductions as well as the concepts of 
special products and a special safeguard mechanis m for developing countries.  The concerns of 
recently acceded countries also n eeded to be addressed.   
9. The representative of the United States stated th at his delegation had me t with numerous other 
delegations during the week.  He stated that he  was encouraged by these contacts and with the 
initiatives put forward at some of these meeti ngs.  There had been some good ideas on how export 
competition and domestic support should be addressed while his delegation had tried to explain how 
the Cancún text would mean reform for the United States.  Market access remained the most difficult area and the result should be improvements in market access for all products in all countries.  Of 
course, this would only become clear after the nu mbers had been agreed at a later stage in the 
negotiations but the United States hoped to see some ideas on how to improve the formula.  Overall, a change in approach was needed from many Members.  Having heard from them what others should do 
it was now their turn to indicate wh at they were prepared to do. 
10. Australia agreed with the Chai rman's statement.  On behalf of the Cairns Group, the 
representative of Australia stated that the Group w as encouraged by the constructive engagement of 
other delegations and welcomed the opportunity for direct interaction between Members.  The Cairns 
Group had taken advantage of the opportunity to discuss with other delegations and to explore 
different possibilities for making progress.  The Group was fully committed to making progress this year with a framework as the first objective.  Howe ver, this would only be possible if all Members 
were prepared to look again at their positions and to bridge gaps.  The critical test would be to deliver 
on the mandate in the Doha Ministerial Statement.  Nearly all of the meetings held by the Cairns 
Group had been useful, although there remained some difficulties with one group and Australia 
suggested that this group should reflect on what  was required to meet the mandate for the 
negotiations.  On export subsidies there would be no result unless it included a commitment to the 
elimination of all forms of export subsidies on a ll products although the dates and ways for achieving 
this result could be negotiated.  Trying to define a list of products of interest to developing countries  TN/AG/R/11 
 Page 3 
 
 
 would not work because it really only served try to  divide developing countries.  On domestic 
support, the Doha mandate require d substantial reductions in all forms of trade-distorting support 
which meant Amber Box, Blue Box and de minimis supports.  To achieve this the framework would 
have to include a commitment to negotiate a mixt ure of rules and reduction commitments as well as 
strengthened disciplines on the Green Box.  It was cl ear that market access was the greatest concern.  
All Members, except the least-developed, would have to contribute to improving market access, while 
the needs of developing countries would have to be  addressed.  However, Australia was not convinced 
that the current version of the blended formul a would deliver improvements in all products and 
markets.  Therefore, the formula would need to  be re-examined and a commitment to expand tariff 
quotas and improve administration of tariff quotas included in the final version.  At the same time, the 
Cairns Group was committed to better and appropriate  special and differential treatment which could 
take the form of reduced obligations, longer im plementation periods, and the special product and 
special safeguard mechanism for those countries th at had particular rura l development and food 
security needs. 
11. On behalf of the African Group, the representa tive of Mauritius stated that the procedures 
used for the Agriculture Week ha d worked.  The African Group had had several meetings both as the 
African Group and, along with the other member s of the least-developed group and the African-
Caribbean-Pacific Group.  The African Group had in dicated its willingness to move the process ahead 
as well as its commitment to the Doha Development Ag enda.  In doing so it needed to see its key 
concerns addressed, particularly in respect of i ssues relating to least-developed countries exemptions 
and access, net food-importing developing countries and LDCs issues, long-standing preferences, SPS 
and TBT barriers, the concept of special products and the special safeguard mechanism. The obstacles 
posed by some export competition and domestic s upport measures to the further access of African 
countries with export interests also needed to be  addressed.  Mauritius, on behalf of the African 
Group, also underscored the importance of finding a satisfactory solution to the cotton issue.  The African Group would be holding more meetings with  other participants.  In continuing the dialogue 
the Group would try to develop a greater understa nding of the positions of other participants. 
12. Switzerland, on behalf of the Group of 10 count ries, noted that this was the first time 
delegations had listened to each other and tried to understand th eir positions.  The G-10 would now 
reflect on the meetings it had held and would conti nue to work with other participants.  In its 
discussions with others it seemed clear to the Group that a "one-size-fits-all" approach to agriculture 
reform would not work.  Flexibility and balance were  needed in the framework, including in market 
access where it had to allow Members to take ac count of their development needs and non-trade 
concerns.  For many participants concepts like the blended formula needed clarifications and 
improvements.  The problem of preference erosion remained to be adequately tackled.  The G-10 
could envisage lending its support to a well-defined c oncept of special products.  Adequate rules and 
disciplines were normal and necessary complements to trade liberalization.  For the G-10 a blended 
formula was not an "acquis" and the G-10 continued to favour a formula for tariff reductions like that 
used during the Uruguay Round.  If a blended formula was to be used, then the Uruguay Round component should be the main element with no cap on tariffs and no mandatory expansion of tariff 
quotas. 
13. On behalf of the Group of 33 Members that favoured the special products and special 
safeguard mechanism Indonesi a stated that the G-33 had held consultations with all other Groups in 
the agriculture negotiations.  The Group's concerns were not limited only to the special products and 
special safeguard mechanism but shared similar vi ews on many other issues including the need to 
respect the mandate of the Doha Ministerial Declar ation and the view that liberalization should not 
aggravate rural poverty.  Indonesia noted that other groups and developed countries appeared to share 
these views as well.  Although some progress had been made over the past days it was clear that more 
work was needed.  For the G-33 the special product concept should not be linked to any other part of 
market access and it should mean no reduction in  tariffs nor new tariff quota commitments.  The 
special safeguard mechanism for developing countri es should also be included in the framework and TN/AG/R/11 
Page 4  
 
 it should be left to developing country Members to d ecide what products should be eligible for this 
mechanism.  On the general tariff reduction formula the G-33 was concerned that it should not lead to 
developing countries having greater tariff reductions th an those applying to developed countries and 
nor should it undermine the concept of special a nd differential treatment.  Indonesia stated that 
developing countries should not have to increase tariff quotas, particularly on Special Products.  
Given their common interests, the G-33 and the ACP group of countries would work together and the 
G-33 would continue its consu ltations with other delegations  as well.  Although the Group was 
encouraged by the week's work Indon esia noted that differences continued.  
14. The representative of China noted the commitme nt among participants to work towards a 
framework by the summer break.  He stated that the distortions in agriculture trade were the biggest 
problem facing trade at the moment and had the worst impact on development.  Trade-distorting 
domestic support would have to be su bstantially reduced and export s ubsidies eliminated.  On market 
access the tariff reduction formula would have to ad dress tariff peaks, escalation and complex tariffs.  
It would also have to address the differences in tariff  levels that existed between different Members.  
For its part China wanted to see the concepts of  special products and a sp ecial safeguard mechanism 
for all developing countries.  It already had low tari ffs but with many millions of farmers surviving on 
less than  $ 1 per day further market access c oncessions would be difficult, especially when 
agriculture trade was so distorted. 
15. The representative for the Europ ean Communities noted the constructive atmosphere in which 
all participants had worked over the week.  She stat ed that the EC had met with all the main groups 
during the week and had held a number of bilateral me etings as well.  She noted that, for the first time 
since negotiations began, delegati ons had been prepared to listen to the other side.  While this 
represented a definite shift in the process the mome ntum would have to be  maintained and would 
require real political engagement as well.  She po inted out that this week delegations had been 
identifying issues and concerns but participants would now have to move on to try to find solutions to 
differences in all three pillars.  While difficult decisions were needed in export competition and 
domestic support a lot of work was still required on market access.  All delegations would now have 
to return to capitals and consider how they might  move to address the concerns of others.  The EC 
was prepared to move but in doing so it would n eed to see all forms of export support addressed in 
parallel.  On domestic support it was prepared to work on some aspects – such as reducing the Amber 
Box and capping the Blue Box and to consider how an overall commitment on the Amber Box, Blue Box and de minimis support might work.  Green Box support was, by definition, non trade-distorting 
and, therefore, not covered by the mandate although the Communities could consider the criteria for 
such support to ensure it was "Green".  Market a ccess did represent a greater challenge.  She stated 
that the blended formula had the necessary flexibility  to meet the concerns of Members and, after 
hearing the concerns of developing countries, the EC could include the concepts of Special Product and the special safeguard mechanism and how special  and differential treatment might be included in 
the formula.  She also noted that a number of othe r issues would also have to be addressed such as 
geographical indications, concerns related to pr eferences, least-developed countries and recently 
acceded countries. 
16. Canada stated that real engagement on agri culture and the other issues under the Doha 
Development Agenda started in the second half of last  year with efforts to develop a framework.  This 
framework would be a move towards developing m odalities and would have to match the ambition of 
the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  To meet this ambition and to meet public concerns the framework 
would have to include a clear commitment to eliminat e all forms of export subsidies.  In addition, the 
negotiations should result in s ubstantial reductions in trade-di storting domestic support. The 
framework should allow some flexibility to find an eff ective mix  of means to achieve that goal, while 
making clear that flexibility was about how Members substantially reduce all trade-distorting support, 
not whether they would do so.  However, Canada was concerned that the drafts currently under 
consideration could weaken rules and commitments on domestic support.  On market access there was 
a considerable divergence between participants and th e final form of the framework was less certain.   TN/AG/R/11 
 Page 5 
 
 
 The final result needed to be substantial improve ments in market access, to be achieved through an 
effective mix of modalities, including tari ff reductions, tariff quotas and through tariff quota 
administration.  Clearly, a lot of work would be needed over the next few weeks and this week represented a realisation of where the problems lay which would enable participants to concentrate 
their efforts at the next meeting.    
17. The delegate for India stated that progress ha d been made during the week's negotiations but 
not on all issues.  While agreeing that there was a general acceptance to work towards a framework by 
the summer break this would not result in any prej udging of positions in the subsequent phases of 
negotiations.  In working towards a framework some issues would have to be resolved, one of which 
was the blended formula.  Such a formula could l ead to asymmetrical results with greater tariff 
reductions from developing countries.  While all Members should contribute the capacity to do so 
differed among Members.  India would continue to  work on this and other issues in developing a 
framework acceptable to all Members. 
18. On behalf of the African, Caribbean and Paci fic (ACP) group of countries the delegate for 
Trinidad and Tobago stated that the group had he ld meetings with other groups and individual 
delegations.  In most cases, the ACP's views were reflected in the G-90's position.  While differences 
existed between Members the problems were not in surmountable and a broad framework by end-July 
that addressed the three pillars of  the agriculture negotiations in a balanced manner was possible.  
However, the differences between participants on  tariff reductions were of concern.  Whatever 
method was used for tariff reductions it should not  undermine special and differential treatment and 
should address tariff peaks and tariff escalation.  In  working towards reductions in trade-distorting 
domestic support he felt that the main differen ces concerned disciplines on the Blue Box and the 
review of the Green Box.  On export subsidies it wa s clear that all forms of export support had to be 
addressed but he noted that some delegations had stated that the depth of reform depended on 
movement in other areas.  Special and differential treatment had to be incorporated in the framework, 
as well as preferences and the instruments of speci al products and a special safeguard mechanism.  
Those two elements would provide developing coun tries with some scope for flexibility in their 
development-oriented policy intervention.. 
19. On behalf of a group of six countries that have recently acceded to the WTO (Albania, 
Croatia, Georgia, Jordan, Moldova and Oman) Croatia noted that this week's work had effectively got 
the negotiations back on track.  It also pointed out that in working towards a framework some issues 
would have to be left for later stages in the ne gotiations.  However, for recently acceded countries the 
issue of market access an d the commitments made in acceding to  the WTO were critical.  The group 
would continue to participate in  the negotiations and hoped that the outcome would reflect its 
concerns. 
20. Japan stated that it had participated in a numbe r of meetings, both bilaterally and as part of 
the G-10.  As part of the G-10 it supported the statement made by Switzerland.  On market access, 
Japan's experience with implementing the Urugua y Round formula for tari ff reductions had shown 
that it could deliver substantial improvements.  Some Members with difficu lt production conditions 
needed to be able to protect their agriculture sector s in order to ensure that non trade concerns were 
addressed.  Japan shared with many other particip ants the view that the tariff reduction formula 
should have sufficient flexibility to allow Member s to address these concerns.  Therefore, it had 
particular difficulties with the ideas of ta riff caps and increases in tariff quotas.   
21. 
The delegation of Zambia supported the statemen ts made by the representatives of the African 
Group and the ACP group.  He noted that participan ts were now negotiating with each other rather 
than making speeches.  However, political will was need ed to move forward.  For Zambia the political 
will was there.  He noted that some issues relati ng to least-developed countries already seemed to be 
accepted, such as no tariff reduction commitments a nd tariff and quota free access for their exports to 
developed countries.  Other issues were still outst anding, such as reducing or eliminating trade-TN/AG/R/11 
Page 6  
 
 distorting domestic support and export subsidies in developed countries.  Wh ile he hoped the process 
would continue he pointed out that the Doha Minist erial Declaration concentr ated on development in 
developing countries, particularly the least-developed. 
22. Poland noted its support for the new momentum in  the negotiations and thanked the Chair for 
his efforts. Poland continued to believe in and woul d work hard to achieve a balanced result in the 
negotiations which would allow th e fullfillement of the Doha manda te and take into account the 
various concerns of Members. 
23. Korea stated that the process had got off to a good start.  Participants' different positions arose 
from their different agricultural conditions.  Consider ing the important role that agriculture played in 
each society, the results of the negotiations s hould allow critical concerns of Members to be 
addressed.  Korea preferred the tariff reduction form ula used in the Uruguay Round but if a blended 
formula were considered it should be applied in a balanced way.  Korea was also concerned with the 
ideas of a tariff cap and mandatory tariff quota expans ion, and these concepts, if applied, would mean 
Members would not be able to address critical concerns. 
24. Turkey stated that it had participated in a num ber of plurilateral and b ilateral meetings.  Its 
main concerns were the treatment of special produc ts and the special safeguard mechanism.  Some 
progress had been made during the week and there appeared to be clear recognition of those concerns and Turkey hoped to see them reflected in the fina l framework.  The special products concept should 
be based on self selection while the special safegua rd mechanism should be simple and based on both 
price and volume triggers.  However, much more  work was needed on market access and Turkey 
continued to have serious concerns about th e blended formula which would not give enough 
flexibility to some participants. 
25. Kenya supported the views put forward by the African Group, the G-33 and the ACP group of 
countries.  While it had been encouraged by the week it hoped to see some real progress at the next 
Special Session.  At the moment the only real co mmon point between all delegations was the Doha 
Mandate and the framework should not undermine the pr inciples set out in this Mandate of fair and 
equitable treatment.  Kenya wanted to see bette r market access, especially for exports from 
developing countries but the result should not mean excessive market  access into developing 
countries, particularly into net food-importing developing countries.  Kenya stated that the issues of principle interest to it and other developing count ries included the treatment of special products, the 
special safeguard mechanism and preferences.  All these elements should be addressed in the 
framework. 
26. The representative of Chile stated that he s upported the assessment by the Chairman and the 
representatives of the Cairns Group and the G-20.  He also pointed out that the issue of geographical indications should be addressed under the TRIPS ne gotiations and not in the agriculture Special 
Session. 
27. In response the delegation of Bulgaria underlin ed his country's interested in geographical 
indications and the rules aspects of the negotiations.  He also stated that he supported and agreed with 
the assessment by the Chairman and with the process used for the week's  negotiations.  He stated that 
a one-size-fits-all approach to agriculture would not  deliver a successful outcome.  Each Member had 
to find an acceptable balance across the negotiations  and the current formula for market access would 
not allow this. Bulgaria had never agreed to the blended formula and would look for others ways to 
balance the outcome of the negotiations for it self by approaching delegations accordingly. 
28. The representative of Peru stat ed that her country had participated in numerous meetings 
during the week.  Participants' positions seemed to  be close in some areas including some aspects of 
special and differential treatment .  The framework should include commitment to eliminating all 
forms of export subsidies by a specific date, substa ntial reductions in Amber and Blue Box subsidies  TN/AG/R/11 
 Page 7 
 
 
 and improved criteria for the Green Box.  On market  access, she noted that developing countries were 
still concerned by the blended formula although the actual impact of the formula did depend on the 
proportion of tariffs in each category and the tariff structure of the Member.  Under special and differential treatment she pointed out that the sp ecial products and the special safeguard mechanism 
were fundamentally important for food security and rural development but greater elaboration 
depended on progress in other areas. 
29. The representative for Israel presented a proposal th at had been circulated to participants as 
JOB(04)/10.  He noted that a number of alterna tive frameworks had been pu t forward by different 
Members and groups of Members and that although these had followed a similar structure they had implied very different approaches to reform.  For Israel, special and differe ntial treatment and non 
trade concerns were critical issues.  The result of  the negotiations should give Members flexibility and 
should distinguish between net im porters and net exporters, shoul d recognise the inter-relationship 
between the three pillars and should adequately address special and differential treatment and non 
trade concerns.  Flexibility was needed to allow production to continue in countries with difficult 
production conditions which meant a tariff cap and limits to produc t specific domestic support should 
not be included.  Distinguishing between net im porters and exporters should share the burden of 
reform, require a more moderate level of commit ments for net importers and allow production for 
domestic consumption to continue.  The interli nkages between pillars should be recognised and no 
limits placed on Green Box support, although the total level of support should be taken into account in 
determining tariff reductions, that  is low levels of support w ould mean lower tariff reductions. 
30. On behalf of all delegations, the Chairman thanked the representative of Israel for its 
contribution and noted for the record that the Special Session would consider and reflect on the 
proposal put forth by Israel. 
31. Bulgaria stated that it shared most of the c oncerns expressed by Israel and strongly supported 
a number of points it had made. 
32. In closing the meeting the Chairman highlighted  the following points made in his statement 
under Item C (i) (Annex 1 refers): the need for all Members to reflect on the week's discussions, the 
need to move forward to a problem-solving mode; a nd the need for discretion and transparency in the 
process. 
I
TEM D:  OTHER BUSINESS  
Dates of the next Special Sessions 
33. The Chairman informed the Co mmittee of the following four time slots which had been 
reserved for the next Special Sessions:  20-23 Apri l, 2-4 June, 23-25 June and 14-16 July 2004. TN/AG/R/11 
Page 8  
 
 Annex 1 
 
Twenty-First Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture 
 
Statement by Ambassador Tim Groser 
Chairman Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture held on 26 March 2004 
 
  Before making my statement I would like to thank delegations for the work they have 
undertaken over the past few days and for their invi tations to attend their meet ings and consultations.  
In addition to those meetings that I attended as an  observer I also met with some delegations that 
asked for private meetings with me.  As a resu lt of all these contacts I would like to give you my 
impression of this week's work.  These comments shoul d not be considered definitive.  They are only 
meant to convey to you my understanding of how matters stand based on the comments made to me 
by delegations and the discussions at th e meetings I attended as an observer. 
Political and Geneva Processes 
 First the broad question of the interaction between the political process among capitals and 
the Geneva process.  After this week's work we  now have a far better appreciation of how these 
negotiations can be brought to a successful conclusi on.  To achieve this goal both the Geneva process 
and the political process will have to work in symp athy with each other.  Without input from high 
political and official levels progress in Geneva will not  be possible.  Indeed, the clear signs of political 
engagement over the past few months were essential in getting the negotiations back on track.  Such 
engagement will have to continue  to keep them on track.  However, it is equally clear that all 
participants appreciate that the negotiation of the framework document is going to be done in Geneva 
or it will not be done anywhere.  This puts a heavy responsibility on us all, not only in terms of 
national interests but in broader term s as well and we need to bear this in mind in our work over the 
next few months. 
Procedures 
 The procedure we used this week of giving de legations responsibility for organising their own 
meetings and negotiating between th emselves rather than with the Chairman was experimental.  From 
the meetings I attended as an observer and the feedback  I have received it seems that we have at last 
moved on from speech-making to listening mode.  This  is a welcome move, particularly as we already 
have clear coalitions of Members and we are all aware of the differences between and within each 
coalition.  Each coalition has made compromises be tween its Members and we now need to try to 
develop compromises acceptable between coalitions.  In the meetings between different groups which 
took place this week we have made a successful tr ansition from only talking to a listening mode.  
Although there were some difficult moments in making this transition, overall the consultations were 
conducted in a good atmosphere with  delegations listening to each othe r.  This is a necessary step 
towards problem-solving but we are not there yet. 
Objective and Timeframe  
 From the consultations that took place this week there appears to be consensus on the 
objective of a framework by the su mmer break at the latest.  Hopefully we will achieve that sooner 
but there appears to be a window of opportunity between now and end-July in which we can make 
some progress.  However, I think it is necessary to  go deeper in analysing the underlying view.  It 
seems clear that we all know that a framework is but one essential step or tr ansitional device towards 
working an agreement on full modalities.  Indeed, a framework and full modalities are not separate 
concepts.  Personally, I have viewed the process  as a continuum, with the agreed objectives, or 
mandate, for the negotiations at one end and full moda lities at the other end.  The mandate is in the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration.  At the other end, the full modalities will include all the details needed  TN/AG/R/11 
 Page 9 
 
 
 for the preparation of draft Schedules.  The framework  is an intermediate point between the two.  In 
fact, the idea of a continuum is useful because it imp lies that the framework must be consistent with 
both the starting point, the mandate, and the finishing point, full modalities. 
 This leads us to two potentially controversial issues: the question of numbers; and the level of 
ambition.  On the first issue, I do not sense complete  consensus although it is my view that there is a 
general readiness to start with the working hypothesi s that there will be no numbers in the framework.  
The observations of one delegate on this point are, I think, worth repeating here.  He argued, rather 
astutely in my opinion, that the reason we have found it impossible to agree to full modalities was clear:  in practice, we have found it very hard to agree to bot h the underlying concepts and the level of 
ambition at the same time.  He went on to argue that our earlier experience also suggested that once 
we started to put some numbers into the framework  there would be a strong drive to put a more 
balanced and complete set of numbers into the fra mework.  At that point, we would have to come 
back full circle: we would not be negotiating a fra mework, but back trying to negotiate full modalities 
directly.  Therefore, I would suggest that we agree, as a working hypothesis,  to work towards a 
framework which will not include number s.  Having said that, I suggest we  keep an open-mind on 
this matter and revisit it later.  It might be unlik ely, but I do not totally exclude the possibility we 
could – depending on the dynamics of the negotia tions – agree to take a more nuanced position on 
this.   
 This leads us to the level of ambition that w ould be in the framework.  Of course, it will be 
impossible to know the exact level of ambition in a framework without numbers.  On the other hand, I 
would caution you not to make the mistake of thi nking that 'numbers' in themselves resolve all 
questions of uncertainty.  For example, an agr eement to reduce tariffs by a precise figure or 
percentage may in itself convey little certainty – one would need to know the HS level to which such 
reduction applied, special and differential treatment  provisions, safeguards, timeframes for reductions 
and so on.  But just as the presence of numbers do es not give full certain ty, nor does their absence 
imply the complete opposite.  My c onclusion is this: all delegations want clarity and certainty.  But 
complete clarity will come only at the very end of this negotiation.  In the meantime, to make progress 
we need to work on the basis of ‘conditional trus t’. As the negotiations progress the outcome will 
become clearer. 
 This is why the agreed mandate is so im portant for our work.  The Doha Ministerial 
Declaration is our ‘political anchor’ in these nego tiations.  It follows from that, since negotiating a 
framework implies less than complete knowledge of the outcome, that framework, and any papers 
leading to it, must not imply any compromising of that Declaration.   
Interlinkages  
 From the discussions this week it is clear th at the three pillars of domestic support, market 
access and export competition are all interlinked.  It is equally clear that it is impossible to have 
‘balance’ within each pillar from the perspective of each and every delegation: priorities and 
adjustment difficulties within each pillar will differ, delegation by delegation. 
 I would also add that the difficulties we face in negotiating a framework in each pillar are 
different.  On export competition and domestic support – while there is still a lot of work to be done – 
my sense is that some rough shape is emerging.  That does not mean the political decisions in the 
pillars of domestic support and export competition are by any means easy.  That is not my point.  
Rather, my point is that not even the outline of a possible basis for a political decision is evident on 
market access.  Far more work is needed here. 
 There is one other issue which has not figured much in our discussion – or at least in those 
discussions at which I was able to be present.  This is the matter of cotton and in particular the issues 
surrounding the initiative on cotton taken by Benin, Bu rkina Faso, Chad and Mali.  There is a very TN/AG/R/11 
Page 10  
 
 straightforward reason why cotton has been less prom inent this week: there was an important meeting 
in Cotonou to address the development, not the trad e, aspects and, as a result, key delegations were 
unable to participate in this Agriculture Week.  On their return, I will consult with them.  There is, as 
we know, a key procedural issue that needs to be resolved on the forum for negotiations on the trade 
aspect of the initiative. 
 In addition to the linkages between the differe nt aspects of the agriculture negotiations there 
are the linkages to other parts of the Doha Devel opment Agenda of which we are all aware.  Each 
delegation will have different views as to where the balance should lie.  All delegations however 
should recognise that if we start to make progr ess on agriculture, and thus create momentum, we 
could be cut off at the knees if progress is not seen in other areas of the negotiations. 
Finally 
 These comments have been made based on notes drawn from this weeks consultations and my 
discussions with delegates.  I do not expect that  all delegations will agree completely with my 
assessment and if there are any points you think are completely inaccurate you will now have an 
opportunity to give your assessment. 
 
_______________