RESTRICTED   
  
JOB/AG/187  
 
24 June 2020  
(20-4397) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
COMMITTEE ON AGRICUL TURE IN SPECIAL SESS ION (COA -SS) 
IMPLICATIONS OF COVI D-19 AND CONTINUITY OF COA -SS NEGOTIATIO NS 
24 JUNE 2020  
Assessment by the Chairman, Ambassador John Ronald Dipchandra (Deep) Ford1 
INTRODUCTION  
1.   In my concluding remarks  to the informal virtual meeting of the CoA-SS held on 25 May 2020, 
I announced that I would be stepping down as the CoA-SS Chair at the end of June. I stated that 
while Guyana had been committed to chairing the agriculture negotiations up to MC12, this was no 
longer possible following the postponement of the Ministerial Conference by at least one year. My 
departure paves the way for a new Chair to be appointed as soon as possible to establish a new 
work programme in the run -up to MC12 in 2021.  I indicated my readiness, in order to keep the 
momentum going forward, to (i) share with the incoming Chair, a report from the 25 May CoA -SS 
meeting on COVID -19 and CoA -SS work and (ii) provide my own views on what might assist progress 
in the continuing agricu lture negotiations.  
2.   This document is divided into two sections for the two above -mentioned purposes, respectively, 
(i) report of the informal virtual meeting of the CoA -SS, 25 May 2020,  and (ii) a contribution to the 
continuity of CoA -SS negotiations.  
1  REPORT OF THE INFORMAL  VIRTUAL MEETING OF THE COA-SS, 25 MAY 2020  
3.   The sole purpose of the informal virtual meeting of the CoA -SS meeting on 25  May 2020 was to 
have a preliminary exchange of views and deliberate on how the work of the CoA -SS should proceed, 
taking into account COVID -19 related considerations and the postponement of MC12.  
4.   It was observed in my opening statement that the COVID -19 outbreak had affected the world in 
major ways and that many measures adopted by Members in this context were of direc t relevance 
for the work being undertaken in the CoA -SS. These included export limiting measures, expanding 
domestic support mechanisms, improved market access and stockpiling of key food supplies. I also 
indicated the impact of the COVID -19 crisis on the cotton market and the call by the World Food 
Programme ( WFP) for increased access to humanitarian and recovery assistance as also being 
relevant.  
5.   Thirty -nine (39) delegations took the floor during the meeting. Many of them provided 
information on COVID -19 pandemic's disruptive effects on agriculture and food supply chains in their 
respective regions. Several Members highlighted the threat of food insecurity as well as risks to the 
livelihoods of many farmers, especially small and vulnerable ones.  
6.   Several delegations stressed that the health crisis should not be allowed to turn into a food or 
humanitarian crisis and highlighted the need to preserve well -functioning a nd predictable food supply 
chains. It was noted by several delegations that the effects of the crisis had been exacerbated in 
some regions by the lack of development and other challenges, for instance those stemming from 
climate change.  
 
1 This document  is circulated under the Chair's own responsibility.  JOB/AG/187  
 
- 2 - 
 
  7.   Many Members expres sed concerns over some of the measures that had been introduced 
following the COVID -19 outbreak. Export restrictive measures on food were highlighted, pointing to 
the negative effects such measures could have on global markets, including price volatility and the 
damage they could cause by disrupting supplies to net food importing countries, especially least 
developed and developing countries . Members urged that emergency trade restrictive measures be 
"targeted, proportionate, transparent and temporary" and in line with WTO rules.  
8.   Several delegations stressed the importance of fully respecting WTO disciplines. This was 
especially the case in relation to transparency, including through early and timely notifications, so 
as to enable the WTO to fulfil its monit oring role with regards to trade -related measures adopted as 
a result of the COVID -19 crisis. In this regard, some delegations expressed regret about what they 
considered to be "an insufficient record " of export restrictive measures adopted during the cris is. 
9.   Members also expressed their concerns over the increase in support to farmers, that might be 
trade distorting, as announced in some countries.  
10.   Several Members made reference to recent declarations such as the G20 Agriculture Ministers 
Statement adopted on  21 April, and the joint statement made by a group of WTO Members on 
"responding to the C OVID -19 pandemic with open and predictable trade in agricultural and food 
products" initially circulated on 22 April 2020.  
11.   Regarding the process going forward during t he COVID -19 pandemic,  several delegations 
stressed that capitals were devoting their resources to fighting the COVID -19 crisis and that reduced 
communications between delegations and their capitals made it difficult to conduct negotiations.  
12.   Despite these d ifficulties, Members supported a continuation of work in the CoA -SS. Some 
Members expressed the view that this work should give priority to addressing the negative impacts 
of the COVID -19 crisis, especially in relation to food security of the most affected  developing 
countries. Further, it was noted that additional time would be needed to reassess and recalibrate 
negotiating positions in light of the implications of the COVID -19 crisis. It was also mentioned that  
the upcoming Special Meeting of the Committe e on Agriculture, scheduled for 18 June, would 
constitute another opportunity to examine C OVID -19 impacts on the food and agricultural sector 
and to deliberate on Members' policies and responses within the framework of the Agreement on 
Agriculture  (AoA) . 
13.   Other Members expressed the view that the crisis should not stall discussions aimed at pursuing 
the long -term agriculture reform objective, especially building upon the work undertaken before the 
outbreak of the crisis.  
14.   Several Members indicated that support for continuing the work of the CoA-SS did not mean 
resuming negotiations. For these Members, substantive negotiations could only resume with 
in-person meetings and that, until then, Members should engage in technical exchanges on rel evant 
issues and share as much information as possible.  
15.   Many Members expressed their support for the holding of virtual meetings until face -to-face 
meetings become possible again. Some suggested that this could be combined with a written 
procedure. Some Members also discussed the format and frequency of possible future virtual 
meetings, the use of hybrid meetings (partly physical, partly virtual) when that became possible, 
the availability of relevant documents in advance of the meetings, and linkages with regular 
meetings of the Committee on Agriculture. One Member suggested that there should be a schedule 
of CoA -SS meetings until at least the end of the year to facilitate Members' preparation. Another 
Member suggested holding small group meetings to discus s different viewpoints on specific technical 
issues.  
16.   Several Members viewed the postponement of MC12 as an opportunity to devote more time to 
analytical work on all CoA -SS issues.  
17.   On substance in relation to COVID -19, most of the interventions focused on t he main 
measures that had been adopted by Members in their response to the crisis. In that regard, Export 
Restrictions, Domestic Support programmes and Public Stockholding were the topics  that got most 
of the attention.  JOB/AG/187  
 
- 3 - 
 
  18.   Regarding Export Restrictions , many Members considered that the current crisis made more 
obvious than ever the need to address this topic in the agriculture negotiations. They urged an 
intensification of work towards an outcome at MC12. One delegation observed that the anal ysis of 
export restrictive measures during the COVID -19 crisis would contribute to a better understanding 
of the issues and challenges related to this topic. Several Members  also highlighted that the 
COVID -19 crisis  had reinforced the urgent need to exempt  WFP food purchases for humanitarian 
purposes from export restrictive measures. One Member expressed its reservations about proposals 
suggesting a complete prohibition on export restrictions. In its view, this would not address the 
underlying food security  issues resulting mainly from historical asymmetries.  
19.   Regarding Domestic Support,  it was noted that several Members had introduced packages 
intended to stabilise markets and/or to alleviate the impact of COVID -19 on farmers. The view was 
proffered that the se packages could impact negatively on agricultural production and trade as well 
as on the recovery of the agriculture sector. Members were urged to respect WTO rules and principles 
when putting in place such support measures. Some Members considered that given the inability of 
their governments to match some of these packages financially, COVID -19 had highlighted the 
importance of addressing the imbalances in the AoA and further disciplining domestic support while 
at the same time preserving the policy spa ce for developing Members. One Member stressed that 
the problems posed by the use of trade -distorting subsidies had not diminished and that the 
importance of agricultural reform had been further highlighted by the COVID -19 crisis. Many 
Members called for t he reduction of trade -distorting domestic support and the exemption of LDCs 
and NFIDCs from any new future disciplines which should also take into account per capita  support. 
Some Members suggested focussing o n a target for domestic support reduction, with  the related 
modalities to be agreed at a later stage.  The need to examine recent support measures following 
the COVID -19 crisis was also stressed given their likely impact on the domestic support discussions.  
20.   Many Members considered that the COVID -19 crisis had highlighted the role of Public 
Stockholding  Programmes in addressing food security concerns, notably in emergency situations. 
Therefore, an accelerated pace of work was called for to find a Permanent Solution. It was reiterated 
that the Permanent Solution should cover both existing and future programme s, and the 
transparency provisions should not have the effect of deterring developing countries from using this 
measure. The concern was also voiced about the potential  impacts of stockpiles on markets, and 
especially with regard to how the stocks might be  disposed of.   
21.   Regarding Market Access,  the importance of tariff predictability and tariff simplification was 
stressed. The need to keep food supply chains open by avoiding trade restrictions was also 
highlighted. One Member considered that the crisis shou ld not be used as a pretext for seeking 
increased market access.   
22.   Several developing country Members urged an acceleration of work on  the Special Safeguard 
Mechanism  with a view to reaching an outcome at MC12, pointing to its importance for food 
security . 
23.   Regarding Cotton , the decline in prices during the recent period was highlighted and a call was 
made to agree on an outcome on product specific trade -distorting support at MC12.  
24.   Many developing country Members stressed the importance of preserving special and 
differential treatment  provisions  and called for appropriate technical assistance to strengthen 
their capacity to participate in agricultural trade. There were also calls for the implementation of the 
Marrakesh Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effe cts of the Reform Programme 
on LDCs and NFIDCs.  
25.   The vital role of transparency  in the overall trade negotiations was emphasized. Many 
delegations indicated that transparency  was even more critical in the current context and urged 
those Members adopting res trictive measures to notify them to the WTO.  
26.   In my concluding remarks, I summarized the key messages from the meeting as follows:  
a. CoA-SS meetings should be held in virtual format until face -to-face meetings become 
possible again;  
b. Members should continue t heir analysis on the negotiating issues and exchange documents 
to inform the discussions and understand the impacts of what is being experienced currently;  JOB/AG/187  
 
- 4 - 
 
  c. WTO rules should be respected when putting in place measures and new policies to deal with 
the crisi s; 
d. The fundamental issues at stake in the agriculture negotiations remain the same. Food 
security, social and economic welfare depend on an open, fair, rules based, market oriented 
and predictable trading system;  
e. The COVID -19 crisis has brought to the fore  some particular needs and imbalances . This is 
particularly so in relation to food security. Therefore, how the COVID -19 experience, as 
dramatic as it is, could provide new ways to look at some negotiating topics and might assist 
in building convergence sh ould be explored;  
f. Time is needed to assess the impacts of the COVID -19 crisis, as it is still going on at different 
stages in different parts of the world.  
27.   I also acknowledged the clear reaffirmation by Members of their commitment to agricultural 
reform pursuant to Article 20 of the AoA and the numerous references made in the discussions to 
the substantive issues that we have been addressing in the negotiations.  
2  CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONTINUITY OF COA -SS NEGOTIATIONS  
28.   The sole purpose of this section is to  contribute to effectively continui ng the agriculture 
negotiations. The intention is to provide a view on the work done thus far and usefully contribute to 
facilitating outcomes at MC12 and beyond.  
29.   It is my view that the COVID -19 crisis has highlighted even more the importance of our 
collective commitment to continue the reform process in agriculture. This is needed to achieve the 
UN Sustainable Development Goals, including "No poverty" and "Zero hunger" which also call for 
correcting and preventing "trade restrictions and distortions in wo rld agricultural markets".    
30.   What follows  is prepared under my own responsibility and without prejudice to Members' 
positions. It reflects my  views on the key issues that would benefit from further discussions and 
around which convergence is needed to ach ieve outcomes as the process moves towards MC12. 
Progress will be made incrementally as a greater understanding of the issues facilitates convergence. 
My consultations and Members ' written and oral contributions  during my tenure as Chair of the 
CoA-SS, from April 2018 to June 2020 form the basis of the views expressed here. This document 
is not intended as an options paper or a negotiation document.  
31.   Progress will be made on the basis of new inputs and creative ideas from Members, taking into 
account the ne w negotiating environment in which we are operating.   
2.1  Domestic Support  
32.   The COVID -19 crisis has further highlighted the importance of appropriate Domestic Support 
disciplines, namely disciplines that will limit the use of the most trade -distorting forms of  support 
and simultaneously will enable the required policy space, including for dealing with unpredictable 
events such as the current health crisis and its impact on food production.  
33.   COVID -19 has not changed the broad commitment of Members to establish a  fair and market -
oriented agricultural trading system. For almost all WTO Members, developed and developing, the 
highest priority to be addressed in this regard is Trade -Distorting Domestic Support (TD DS).   
34.   Over the past two years the revival of activity  in the CoA -SS has been characterized by a large 
number of technical papers on TD DS and increased engagement by Members. These papers 
presented detailed analysis on how trade -distorting support has evolved over the years, including 
utilization and potenti al growth of entitlements. The submissions have focused on the imbalances in 
entitlements, the most distorting forms of support, and the similarities/differences in the effects of 
different forms of support. The submissions have also suggested creative way s to make progress on 
reform through addressing the major issues that have resulted in the impasse of the last two 
decades.   
35.   There is  a significant overlapping of views reflected in the approaches to disciplining support 
levels, to harmonizing the levels and forms of support, to reducing imbalances and to allowing 
flexibility. The understanding that could lead to accommodating different policy needs of Members, JOB/AG/187  
 
- 5 - 
 
  taking into account characteristics of Members' agricultural sectors, non -trade concerns and lev els 
of development is increasing. Similarly, an increased commitment to proper implementation of the 
current disciplines is being forged, particularly to ensure that non - or less TD DS measures are used 
in accordance with the prescribed criteria. Increased  appreciation for improving transparency and 
monitoring, on all categories of domestic support, is also a critical dimension of this potential for 
progress.  
36.   The current system allows TD DS entitlements that far exceed the utilization levels by almost 
all Members. Therefore, establishing the commitment by the vast majority of Members to reducing 
TD DS is possible without any major immediate disruption of the policies they use. The main 
challenge is to agree on how the entitlements to TD DS should be reduced . The most difficult aspects 
of reaching this agreement pertain to what TD DS should be cut, how much should the cut be and 
when different types of support should be cut. While the views on how to address these challenges 
differ, there are concrete proposa ls that have gained support and present a path to progress in 
reducing trade -distorting support and improving the efficiency and fairness of agricultural markets.   
37.   There are three critical aspects that Members need to consider as work continues on the pat h 
to progress in this area.  
38.   The first is to accept a broad objective for the proportional reduction and capping of TD DS. 
The architecture of the domestic support disciplines agreed on twenty -five years ago does not serve 
the current reality adequately an d negotiating only within their strict confines will make reaching the 
widely shared objective of reducing TD DS very difficult. More important than categories of domestic 
support, Members should have access to the appropriate levels of support that they c an use for their 
national development needs. Thus, as has been proposed, taking into consideration the needs of 
Members, a broad objective for the proportional reduction and capping of TD DS would be more 
helpful in providing the necessary impetus to the D S negotiations. In this regard, some Members 
have suggested a numerical target, proportionally applied, to cap and reduce the sum of current 
global agricultural TD DS entitlements by at least half by 2030.2 
39.   The second  aspect is to address the trade -distort ing support that is considered to have the 
largest trade -distorting effects and contribute the most to the inefficient functioning of markets. In 
this regard, Members have put forward proposals pointing to the use of product -specific support. 
However, wide  divergences remain in Members' views about this issue. Therefore, as a priority, 
beyond the first aspect of seeking agreement on reducing and capping overall support, consideration 
could be given to how this issue could be addressed.   
40.   The third aspect wo uld be to negotiate the modalities and phased commitments that Members 
would make to reduce their overall and product -specific TD DS levels. The additional time made 
available by the postponement of MC12 could be used to work towards agreeing on these moda lities.   
41.   In addition to the submissions mentioned above, there are many other submissions that 
provide approaches to addressing the aspects mentioned above. They include establishing a new 
overall limit; eliminating AMS entitlements above de minimis ; furt her limiting the individual 
categories of the AoA, using a formula reduction, and limiting product -specific support.3 The ideas 
in these submissions can potentially contribute to making progress on the objectives and modalities 
for the reduction and cappin g of TD DS. Different submissions also include the principle of 
proportionality in terms of contributions, and/or special and differential treatment (S&D); as well as 
other factors suggested for consideration during the negotiations, such as support by far mer or by 
hectare; by type of beneficiary; or by "destination" (e.g. domestic consumption or export).   
42.   Transparency and availability of information is essential for progress. It is even more crucial 
than ever in the current COVID -19 context in order to pr ovide a greater understanding of domestic 
support measures utilized by Members. Further, fulfilling commitments related to existing 
notification obligations and adhering to criteria related to use of different support measures is 
essential for building the  trust on which progress in reducing TD  DS is hinged.  
43.   In sum, my judgment is that a shared overall objective towards capping and reducing TD DS 
with numerical goals could possibly be agreed. A broad shared objective of this nature and modalities 
 
2 JOB/AG/177.  
3 See also JOB/AG/163, and the submissions made since then i.e. JOB/AG/171, RD/AG/74, JOB/AG/172, 
JOB/AG/173, RD/AG/75, JOB/AG/177  and RD/AG/76.  JOB/AG/187  
 
- 6 - 
 
  to achieve  it would remove the need to address beforehand differences among Members as to which 
categories of Domestic Support should be addressed (all Article 6 support or some of its sub -
categories only) and the sequencing, notably regarding which categories of su pport should be 
addressed first. I believe that agreement on the first two aspects, with a proportionality principle 
and some specific Member flexibility, and agreement on modalities for reducing the most trade -
distorting forms of domestic support could be  achieved. As deemed necessary by Members to 
facilitate progress, there can be a parallel commitment to explicitly address some other specific 
areas of domestic support at a later stage.   
2.2  Market Access  
44.   The Market Access file continues to receive noticeabl e attention of Members in the agriculture 
negotiations. The significant number of written contributions, especially since 2018, underscores the 
interest that Members have in making progress in this pillar. These technical papers have focused 
on a number of  market access issues that Members currently face in this pillar. Nevertheless, in view 
of the high political sensitivity associated with undertaking Market Access liberalization for several 
Members, a serious engagement on tariff reduction commitments is yet to take place. It has also 
been manifest that for reasons of an overall balance, singling out one or a few selected issues for 
an early -harvest outcome may be more politically difficult than first thought.  
45.   However, for some Members, it is necessary to have a Market Access component forming part 
of an incremental agriculture package that Members seek to agree on at MC12. In this context, the 
first possibility arises where the negotiating emphasis has been concentrated most recently. This 
has been on seeking results in respect of select market access issues where the thrust is principally 
on enhancing transparency and facilitating agricultural trade without altering the core tariff 
commitments in Members ' schedules. These elements include appl ied tariffs transparency and 
treatment of shipments en route , tariff simplification and transparency of TRQ administration. Of 
these elements, the issue of shipments en route  has received increasing traction among Members, 
including by way of written contributions. Some Members have also expressed practical constraints 
in according specific treatment to shipments en route  when applied tariffs are modified. Subsequent 
to my Opt ions paper of 16 March, a joint contribution by Australia and Canada in J OB/AG/185 further 
elaborates on a number of options to make progress on this topic. From a political perspective, 
progress on this topic could occur if it was made clear that the scop e of the discussions here was 
without prejudice to Members ' right to raise applied tariffs within their bound rates.  
46.   An outcome on tariff simplification  has also been supported by a wide group of Members, 
including a number of developing Members who have otherwise been less vocal in the discussions 
on the market access pillar. I have also sensed from the discussions that the issue may not be seen 
only from the perspective of enhanced transparency, as an outcome in this area will eventually 
require changes in the concerned Members ' Schedules of Commitments. Simultaneously, it is also a 
fact that there would be a long technically complex path that Members have to traverse to reach 
that final stage. The question therefore is whether some initial incremental st eps may be taken along 
that path. This is what I suggested in my Options paper of 16 March. On TRQ transparency, Members 
seem to have differing views on the proper division of labour between the regular and special 
sessions of the Committee on Agriculture.  
47.   Given the extended time for MC12, Members could consider presenting proposals so that a 
detailed and phased MA reform work programme can be agreed at MC 12.   
2.3  Export Competition  
48.   Export Competition has been in a unique position compared to the other topics  under 
negotiations since the adoption of the December 2015 Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition. This Decision also established a specific monitoring process building upon the 
examination process resulting from the December 2013 Bali Decisio n. Members therefore generally 
seem to be ready to consider a phased process in the negotiations:  
• First, improving transparency by enhancing the current monitoring process. My assessment 
is that the main issue at this juncture is to identify which elements  of enhanced transparency 
might be agreed by MC12 and initiate detailed work on these areas.  JOB/AG/187  
 
- 7 - 
 
  • Beyond transparency and taking into account available information collected through the 
transparency mechanisms in place, Members could then consider developing a framework 
to continue negotiations aimed at achieving enhanced disciplines on export credits, export 
credit guarantees or insurance programmes, agricultural export state trading enterprises 
and international food aid.  
 
49.   In this regard, the proposal circulat ed on 30 March 2020 (document JOB/AG/184), which is yet 
to be formally introduced and discussed in the CoA -SS, constitutes a useful summary of the 
proponents' views on a possible outcome on this topic for MC12. While this proposal was circulated 
more than two months ago, the COVID -19 crisis appears not to have impacted significantly Members ' 
positions on this topic.  
50.   While export competition is, as noted above, in a unique position in the negotiations and should 
be addressed accordingly,  some of the issues  at stake may also be considered in the broader context 
of transparency taken as a cross -cutting issue.  
2.4  Export Restrictions  
51.   Members have renewed their focus on Export Restrictions as a result of the COVID -19 crisis. 
This is demonstrated by the many high -level declarations on this topic, as well as Members' 
interventions during the CoA -SS meeting held on 25 May.  
52.   A first element for progress on this topic relates to the need to continue work towards an 
outcome on the exemption of WFP food purchases for humanita rian purposes from export 
restrictions. This has been highlighted during this crisis on various occasions. In this regard, the 
reaffirmation of a previous pledge by G20 Ministers of Agriculture on 21 April 2020 could provide an 
impetus to the discussions o n this issue.  
53.   The discussions on the other elements under negotiations, namely transparency and 
clarification elements, should also be informed by the recent developments. As noted in this report, 
many Members have underscored the critical need of providin g adequate and timely information  in 
relation to export restrictions through the relevant WTO transparency mechanisms in crisis situations 
such as the current one. This is notably due to the immediate effects such measures can have on 
international markets  and importing countries. Calls have also been made in recent weeks to 
underline the need for any export restriction emergency measures in response to the COVID -19 
crisis to be "targeted, proportionate, transparent, and temporary".  
54.   In this context, I agre e, as noted by one of the proponents, that further analytical  work to 
assess what happened during the on -going crisis would be useful to better understand the issues 
and challenges at stake. Such analysis, to be followed by an exchange of views between all  Members 
based on the experience acquired in recent weeks, should contribute to building the convergence 
for an outcome on this issue by MC12.  
2.5  Cotton  
55.   The Cotton -4 have highlighted the significant impact of the COVID -19 crisis on the cotton 
sector. From th e proponent standpoint this makes the work for an outcome at MC12 on this issue 
more relevant than ever.  
56.   Cotton specific trade -distorting support  constitutes the central element of the negotiations 
on Cotton.  This is the aspect that should be given priority attention and addressed, as Members 
agreed more than 15 years ago, " ambitiously, expeditiously, and specifically, within the agriculture 
negotiations ".4 An important thrust for making progress on cotton wil l be to address this issue on its 
own merits as a specific issue, bearing in mind its particularities, while also bearing in mind the 
linkages with the overall negotiations on Domestic Support.  
57.   Members' views have differed sharply thus far on what could co nstitute a realistic outcome on 
cotton -specific trade -distorting support. It is hoped that with the increased time for MC12 and 
possible increased focus on product -specific TD DS , the engagement on cotton will increase and 
progress can be made in reducing TD DS  affecting cotton markets. Members should take advantage 
 
4 Decision adopted by the Gener al Council on 1 August 2004 (WT/L/579).  JOB/AG/187  
 
- 8 - 
 
  of the postponement of MC12 to engage on what might be the nature and the shape of a possible 
outcome that would reduce cotton trade -distorting support.  
58.   Members will need to engage more continu ously and directly than over the past years for any 
progress to be made on the important aspect of TD DS  to cotton.  
59.   I did not detect any disagreement on the other elements. There is agreement on the 
continuation of discussions on factors negatively impact ing cotton trade and markets and to enhance 
transparency and monitoring of Cotton -related trade measures affecting the global Cotton market. 
This is in line with the cotton joint statement adopted by a group of Members on 7 October 2019. 
An important empha sis in the coming months should be how to operationalize as effectively as 
possible this commitment building upon the existing cotton -related transparency mechanisms and 
initiatives.  
60.   Cotton -related Market Access and Export Competition do not appear to be c ontroversial. Lastly, 
inputs in relation to cotton development assistance activities and cotton by -products should be 
developed under the Director General's Consultative Framework Mechanism on Cotton.  
2.6  Special  Safeguard  Mechanism  (SSM)  
61.   Deep fundamental differences between the proponents and the exporting Members on the very 
rationale of the safeguard mechanism to be negotiated have prevented virtually any serious technical 
engagement on this issue since the launch of the dedicated session pro cess pursuant to the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision. There is the chance that understanding the impacts of COVID -19 on food 
security strategies going forward might provide some traction for a discussion on  the SSM.  
62.   The linkage between market access and  the SSM is evidently the biggest political challenge to 
making progress in the SSM negotiations. The non -proponents have consistently argued that an 
SSM should not potentially reverse the existing market access commitments. While I sensed a 
possibility of tech nical engagement among Members to explore an SSM as a countervailing 
instrument to address subsidized imports, this has not been sufficiently supported by submissions 
and the existing state of technical engagement.  
63.   In my view, on one hand we need to deepe n the analysis investigating the role of an SSM; on 
the other hand, we need to increase the engagement on this issue by all sides. Both of these actions 
are needed if progress towards achieving the ministerial mandate to negotiate an SSM for developing 
countries is to be made. In other words, the provision of concrete examples of import surges or price 
depressions that would require remedies through an SSM and a sincere effort by the other side to 
examine this evidence is essential for progress. Both the pr oponents and the other side need to 
understand each other 's positions and concerns in order to make progress on this technically 
complex and politically sensitive issue.  
2.7  Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes (PSH)  
64.   PSH continues to be a priority is sue for the proponents and many other developing country 
Members. The COVID -19 crisis has attracted further attention to the role of PSH for food security 
and rural livelihoods. There has been increased stockpiling by some Members during the crisis and 
this has led to concerns by other Members about potentially excessive stocks being procured and 
how their release could affect food markets and food security. The crisis has therefore reinforced 
the arguments and concerns of the different sides but seem not t o have changed the fundamentals 
of their disagreement.  
65.   The mandates from the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial conferences are well acknowledged and the 
elements of a Permanent Solution are also known. In my view, the elements that Members could 
work with in or der to increase the possibility to find a permanent solution continue to be:  
− Core provision : Bali-type solution (i.e. a commitment by Members not to challenge through 
the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism compliance of a developing Member with its 
obligati ons under Articles 6.3 and 7.2(b) of the AoA);  JOB/AG/187  
 
- 9 - 
 
  − Product coverage : traditional staple food crops5; 
− Programme coverage : limited extension to new programmes, with possible special 
consideration given to LDCs programmes;  
− Transparency:  the Bali transparency provisions, amended to ensure that they are not too 
onerous by over -straining the already limited capacity of developing  Members;  
− Anti-circumvention and safeguards : Bali anti -circumvention and safeguards provisions, 
amended to address the concerns of the non -proponents regarding exports from stocks; and  
− Monitoring : periodic examination by the CoA Regular.  
66.   I believe that, in  order to be able to move towards a Permanent Solution, Members should 
focus on finding an appropriate balance between safeguards and transparency requirements. The 
need is to assure the non -proponents about exports not taking place from procured stocks, w hile 
ensuring that the requirements are not so stringent to make the use of the Permanent Solution de 
facto impossible.   
67.   Further, given that an expansion to new programmes is also seen as a crucial element, finding 
a reasonable limitation that would reass ure the non -proponents while at the same time allowing for 
an appropriate use of these programmes could also help to find the necessary balance and to break 
the stalemate on this issue.  
68.   Several Members have suggested trade -offs that could potentially assi st with finding an 
appropriate balance between safeguards, transparency requirements and the expansion of the 
Permanent Solution to new programmes, notably trade -offs between the stringency of requirements 
and a cap on programmes (e.g. less stringent requi rements if programmes are capped and vice 
versa ); and flexibilities for new programmes and the nature of safeguards (e.g. more flexible 
requirements if the safeguards are made stronger and vice versa ). 
69.   Finally, while the Permanent Solution is on a separate  track from the rest of the negotiations, 
a parallel outcome in some other areas could facilitate progress in this area. This would be evidenced 
in a broader agricultural package that would enjoy wider support among the Membership.  
__________  
 
 
5 This term refers to primary agricultural products that are predominant staples in the traditional diet of 
a developing Member.