JOB/AG/155  
 
9 May 2019 
(19-3186) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
REPORT BY AMB. J. R.  D. (DEEP) FORD TO T HE  
COMMITTEE ON AGRICUL TURE IN SPECIAL SESS ION 
1 MAY  2019 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  The objective of today's meeting is to discuss the process forward until at least the summer 
break, taking into account Members' views and building upon our collective assessment of the overall 
state of play in negotiations and of the Working Group process . 
1.2.  In order to help delegations to prepare for this meeting, I had outlined my preliminary 
conclusions in the invitation email sent on 12 April 2019.  
1.3.  I will now commence my report for our discussion today by sharing with you more 
comprehensively my views o n the way forward, based on my assessment of the current situation, 
taking into account work undertaken since January 2019.  
1.4.  My views have been shaped by the main take -aways from my past conversations with Members 
and Group Coordinators, particularly durin g the 21 consultations I held with them in the last week 
of March and in early April.  
2  PROCESS UNTIL THE EN D OF JULY  
2.1.  As noted in my  convening  invitation  my intention would be to suggest a three -track process 
until the end of July as follows:  
(i) continuati on of the CoA Special Session process on a monthly basis;  
 
(ii) extension of the Working Groups process, with some adjustments aimed at addressing the 
comments made by delegations , and  
 
(iii) ongoing Chair's consultations with delegations in various form ats.  
 
2.2.  First, the CoA Special Session: It is and will remain the central forum for our work, where 
reports on work undertaken under the other tracks will be provided, progress achieved elsewhere is 
reviewed and endorsed, new submissions are introduced to the full Membership and future 
orientation of work agreed upon.  
2.3.  The tentative dates for the next CoA Special Sessions until the end of July are 2 8-29 May, 
20-21 June and 15 -16 July.  
2.4.  Second, the Working Groups process.  
2.5.  The work of the Working  Groups since January has been guided by the following principles 
outlined in my communication dated 17 January 2019: (1) building confidence and trust through 
increased interaction and meaningful discussions; (2) focussing on substance by deepening 
discus sions on the relevant issues and accelerating the pace of work , and (3) discussing and 
generating thoughts and ideas that could facilitate greater convergence in Members' views . JOB/AG/155  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.6.  My assessment is that the Working Groups process is generally considered posit ively by 
delegations and has thus far achieved its basic purpose , namely triggering more informal and candid 
exchanges between delegations on the series of questions posed by the coordinators.  
2.7.  As reflected in the reports made by the coordinators since Feb ruary, and again yesterday, some 
Working Groups have started deepening the discussions element by element, contribut ing to a better 
appreciation of the concerns and the difficulties and in some instances have floated new ideas for 
the consideration by Memb ers. 
2.8.  However, the agriculture  negotiations remain difficult, both in terms of process and possible 
outcomes.  
2.9.  In terms of process, firstly, s everal delegations mentioned in particular the fact that a large 
number of meetings could become burdensome, especia lly for small delegations. This could lead to 
overlaps with other meetings and result in the lack of real substantive engagement due to lack of 
adequate time to prepare properly.  
2.10.   Secondly, s ome delegations also considered that the questions -based approach should not 
last too long and that it would be preferable to switch towards a more focu sed and negotiations -
oriented phase, driven by Members' submissions, ideas and options, with a view to facilitating 
greater convergence in Members' views.  
2.11.   Finally, the question of what the final outcome of the Working Groups process should be and 
the form it should take were also raised.  
2.12.   Having taken good note of all these comments, I would therefore suggest adjusting the 
Working Groups process as follows . 
2.13.   On the first comment  regarding the number of meetings and overlaps, we were all aware of 
the risk of possible overload due to the multiplication of meetings. This is the reason why we decided 
to phase in this process over the course of the year. The reality  is that the number of meetings at 
the WTO is not going to decrease in the coming months, far from it,  and we definitely need to 
address this issue.  
2.14.   Following my consultations with the coordinators, I would therefore suggest we respect the 
following guidel ines when programming future meetings of the Working Groups:  
• One, provide more lead time  to ensure delegations have the necessary time to prepare for 
each Working Group meeting in order to make each discussion as productive as possible.  
 
• Two, to continue making best efforts, with the help of the Secretariat to avoid overlap with 
other meetings.   
 
• Three, to convene meetings only when there are justifiable reasons for doing so , substance 
and demand.  
 
• Four, to try to sequence the meetings whenever possible, i.e. have back -to-back meetings 
on two different topics on the same half -day whenever possible.  
 
2.15.   Thus, the Working Groups will meet when necessary and possibly less frequently and better 
sequenced.  
2.16.   Moving now to the second comment made by delegations,  switching to a more focused and 
negotiations -oriented phase, I fully concur with the view that it is now time to move progressively 
towards a more focu sed and negotiations -oriented phase, this however must be driven by Members' 
proposals, submissions, ideas an d options. This suggestion is fully in line with preparatory work 
leading towards what I have in mind for the process after July, which I will introduce shortly.  
2.17.   I am therefore strongly encouraging Members to prepare and introduce such inputs into the 
process as soon as possible. These inputs can take various forms, including oral interventions, 
presentations, formal proposals and informal proposals for discussion by Members before the tabling JOB/AG/155  
 
- 3 - 
 
  of formal submissions or updating of previous submissions  – these can be tested informally in 
consultations between delegations, groups, in Working Groups and in the CoA Special Session.  
2.18.   This could also take the form of "case studies" type discussions in the Working Groups around 
elements for possible outcomes suggeste d by Members or even better by groups of Members having 
different perspectives.  
2.19.   The objective would be to have Members developing options on the various elements which 
they consider could help bridge the gaps and address the concerns and difficulties ident ified in recent 
months , including up to yesterday . 
2.20.   In this regard, I am pleased to report that we heard several delegations yesterday say that 
they are  working on possible new contributions , updating  and modifying  past proposals . I consider 
the presentation yesterday by the Russian Federation on Market Access a step in this direction.   
2.21.   I fully acknowledge the comment made by some delegations, particularly group coordinators, 
that preparing new submissions could take some time and this is why I invite you to engage in this 
exercise with others as soon as possible.  
2.22.   Finally, I think the mai n outcome of the Working Group process should be, as previously 
mentioned, the provision of new inputs by Members to nurture the CoA Special Session process.  
2.23.   We hope to see an increase in presentations in May and June, I will be working with Members 
and Co ordinators encouraging this result. In the July meeting I hope that we would have some kind 
of written report summarizing the work undertaken since January 2019  and importantly some clear 
signposts from the Working Group process , pointing the direction of work toward some meaningful 
positive convergence . 
2.24.   I would in particular appreciate your guidance on th ese points related to this aspect of the 
process.  
2.25.   I took some time describing the suggested way forward for the Working Groups process, but 
I think this was necessary, taking into account the importance I attach to this approach and the 
contribution it could make in advancing the negotiations.  
2.26.   Let me now move on to the third track of the suggested process until July . 
2.27.   This track is not new. I have been hol ding consultations in various formats since I was 
appointed as Chair of the CoA Special Session and I intend to continue with this practice , not 
periodically bu t continuously – building on what I hear in different consultations, what I hear from 
the Workin g Groups and what I hear in the CoA Special Session.  
2.28.   It has proved to be a useful complement to the other tracks thus far and as highlighted by 
some delegations in my consultations, s uch formats may help the Chair to gauge informally the 
possibilities and probabilities.   
2.29.   I will increase these consultations and r eport on the m during meetings of the CoA Special 
Sessions . I will continue to be guided by the principles of inclusiveness and transparency.  
2.30.   In this vein, m y door remains open to all delegations – and I stand ready to accept invitations 
by Members to participate in various meetings.  
3  PERSPECTIVE  AFTER JULY  
3.1.  Let me now relate  this May -July programme to my expectations for the period from July 2019 
until MC12.  JOB/AG/155  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.2.  As I mentioned yesterday, a s I see it, based on my conversations thus far, there are three 
possible outcomes of this whole process:  
• A transparency outcome;  
• An incremental  outcome ; 
• A broader more integrated more balanced outcome . 
 
3.3.  Let me briefly address each of these components.  
3.4.  Transparency and moni toring of commitments are currently attracting more interest in the 
WTO and it is by no means only confined to agriculture.  
3.5.  In the case of agriculture, it is being addressed not only in the regular Committee on Agriculture 
but also in some Working Groups. Almost in every session yesterday on every topic we heard 
references to and calls for transparency. The single presentation introduced yesterday was on 
transparency in applied tariffs.  
3.6.  Some delegations have suggested that an outcome on transparency could be the most realistic 
outcome at this juncture for MC12.  However, many delegations have expressed the view that an 
outcome on transparency only would fall far short of their expectations.  
3.7.  Increased transparency can be an important building block  for greater understanding and 
appreciation and above all for greater trust which can lead to more fruitful negotiations.  
3.8.  Other delegations expressed the view that any new disciplines on transparency could be an 
additional source of burden , especially for deve loping country Members, and particularly the smaller 
ones. One delegation also pointed out that some of the elements in the proposals on transparency, 
including the imposition of sanctions , were not helpful. It was also noted that Special and Differential 
treatment should also apply to transparency requirements.  
3.9.  Thus, a transparency outcome also has to be negotiated and will take work to achieve.  
3.10.   Secondly, a n incremental outcome  would be  a limited -scope outcome covering only a limited 
number of selected to pics. There are areas that will inevitably be seen in this light – Cotton, PSH, 
some elements of DS, maybe an aspect or two of MA.  
3.11.   A broader more integrated more balanced outcome  would be a multi-topic package that would 
seek to include progress under all three pillars.  That would be the third kind of outcome.  
3.12.   I fully acknowledge that such an agenda may seem ambitious.  
3.13.   Some delegations indeed stressed during my consultations that Members' positions had not 
moved on substance since MC11 and that their expect ations for a substantive agricultural outcome 
at MC12 were therefore low. It was also noted by many  that the current overall negotiation context, 
including the debate on Special and Differential treatment, was not helpful.  
3.14.   I am fully aware of these obstac les within and outside agriculture. It is precisely because I 
am fully aware of them that I am convinced we should "step carefully on the accelerator" a nd try to 
turn some corners so that we might get on a path towards an outcome in a timely manner.  
3.15.   My fir st conclusion from my initial consultations almost a year ago at our first informal CoA 
Special Session meeting in May 2018, was that we should use time differently and engage sooner 
rather than later. I am even more  convinced that this conclusion remains valid.  
3.16.   Several delegations have supported this view and suggested that various upcoming Ministerial 
meetings in the second half of 2019 might be explored as "stepping stones" to galvanize the 
negotiation process  towards an outcome.  
3.17.   Taking advantage of these galvanizing moments to work on the delivery of possible early 
harvest outcomes would contribute to creating a confidence -building virtuous circle preparing us for 
a successful integrated package type outcome at MC1 2. JOB/AG/155  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.18.   However, very importantly, let me emphasize, agreements reached in "less than universal" 
Ministerial settings would have to be prepared before and endorsed afterwards by the full 
Membership in Geneva.  
3.19.   On substance, and this echoes what was said yesterda y and on previous occasions – Domestic 
Support, PSH and Cotton – were the most frequently mentioned priority issues in my consultations. 
Market Access  (MA) was generally seen as very difficult  by many delegations because of the 
complexity of the negotiatin g issues . The view shared was that it would be  extremely difficult for 
substantive progress to be made in MA in the short term. Tariff  simplification, Tariff peaks, Tariff 
escalation, TRQ administration, and SSG were mentioned by some as possible issues to  focus on 
first, while , as you heard yesterday some others cautioned against the temptation of cherry picking.   
3.20.   For several delegations, Export Restrictions would constitute a credible potential deliverable 
and some qualified Export Competition as "unfini shed business" that must continue to be addressed . 
3.21.   The question of linkages both within agriculture and outside was raised by several delegations 
in relation to possible incremental  outcomes and balance within a possible integrated package. While 
some dele gations cautioned against unwarranted linkages, others considered them as unavoidable.  
3.22.   Some delegations considered that priority should be given to issues covered by past WTO 
Ministerial mandates for possible incremental  outcomes.  
3.23.   While recognizing that an outcome on Cotton Domestic Support was long overdue, some 
delegations questioned the feasibility of an incremental outcome  on this issue in the current context, 
absent of a broader  outcome on Domestic Support.  
3.24.   Export Restrictions, and more specifically a decision on the non -imposition of such restrictions 
on foodstuffs purchased for non -commercial humanitarian purposes by the World Food Programme, 
was also considered by many delegations to be a potential candidate for an incremental outcome.  
However, t here is clearly work to be done if we are to reach consensus on this.  
3.25.   Some delegations also considered that an outcome could also include an agreement on a clear 
path forward towards MC13.  
3.26.   These varied options need to be seriously considered over the next th ree months.  
3.27.   Finally , let me conclude with a few words on what I expect at the end of July. I see this next 
period as critical to moving us forward if after the summer break we can have a chance at delivering 
any of the outcomes I just described.  
3.28.   Let me be clear, I would like to see an outline of possible elements and related options for 
delegations to reflect on during the summer break. The form or level of detail of such an outline will 
directly stem from Members' contributions and inputs in the ongoing di scussions during May and 
June and this should become clearer closer to July.  
3.29.   The goal of this next period is for  Members to reflect harder on the possible elements  and to 
come up with revised updated written contributions and be ready to be  engage d in a full outcome -
oriented process after the summer break. There is absolutely no intention to prejudge the outcome 
or even the shape of the package but rather only to try to int roduce greater intensity and a clearer 
direction to the deliberations post -July.  
3.30.   Thank  you for your indulgence allowing me to elaborate on my vision of the process and path 
to outcomes based on what I have heard from you. This concludes my introductory st atement.  
 
__________