JOB/AG/222  
 
1 November  2021 
(21-8277) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
REPORT BY AMBASSADOR GLORIA ABRAHAM PERALTA TO THE  
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE IN SPECIAL SESSION  
AND DEDICATED SESSIONS ON PSH AND SSM  
28 OCTOBER 2021  
Introduction  
1. Following our last CoA Special Session meeting on 14 -15 October, I decided to extend the 
"Room  D" consultation process in light of the continuing efforts by Members to narrow gaps in 
negotiating positions.  
 
2. The latest such meeting dedicated to Market Acces s took place on Tuesday morning.  
 
3. Let me stress again that these meetings were not intended to make decisions, but to provide 
space and time for in -depth discussions on a "without prejudice" basis.  
 
4. I was again encouraged by the robust and candid discussions that confirmed a renewed sense  
of pragmatism and flexibility among Members.  
 
5. I also continued my consultations in various formats. In particular, I met with Group 
Coordinators on 21 October, so that I could report on my consultations, and hear their views on the 
state of play and the p rocess forward.  
 
6. Let me now turn to my topic -by-topic report, updating the previous one made at the last 
meeting and available in document JOB/AG/215 . 
 
Domestic Support  
7. The discussions on Domestic Support continued to focus on the potential changes to the draft 
text contained in J OB/AG/215, on a without prejudice basis. The discussions were lively, and new 
suggestions were made with the objective of identifying a potential landing zone. However, the key 
differences still remain , notably regarding the level of ambition and on the sequencing of different 
steps.  
 
8. Several Members reiterated that agreeing on a numerical target was not realistic and other 
alternatives should be considered. Suggestions included to agree on "substantial reductions" of 
trade-distort ing domestic support within a timeframe to be decided by Members.   
 
9. The sequencing of the reform steps was discussed again, with calls made for addressing AMS 
above de minimis  as a first step. In this respect, the discussions continued around the proposal to 
include a stand -still provision for AMS above de minimis  in the draft Decision on Domestic Support 
while negotiations continue post -MC12, with others suggesting that suppor t provided in "special 
circumstances " could be excluded.  
 
10. Other views expressed argued that all categories of Article 6 support should be addressed, 
although it was stressed that not all categories would be treated equally. It was also suggested that 
the proportional reduction should also take into account the demographics of developing countries.  
 JOB/AG/222  
 
- 2 - 
 
  11. A suggestion was also made to exclude the provision of support to low -income and resource 
poor farmers under Article 6.2 from any reduction commitment. In additi on, a call was made to give 
due consideration to the flexibilities needed by LDCs and NFIDCs.  
 
12. The request to include a reference to non -trade concerns was again reiterated.  
 
13. Regarding transparency, it was suggested that the WTO Secretariat should be requested to 
maintain and update on a regular basis a domestic support analytical tool on the WTO website as a 
publicly available resource, and to include some specific suggestions from JOB/AG/213 . 
 
Market Access  
14. In the Market Access pillar, on the issue o f applied tariff transparency, the proponents 
expressed openness to adopt the decision on a best -endeavour basis in order to allay concerns of 
the non -proponents regarding possible logistical constraints and legislative changes that the latter 
consider mig ht be required by the proposed decision.    
 
15. The non -proponents continue to have both systemic and logistical concerns and they prefer a 
work programme on this issue rather than a definitive decision at MC12.  
 
16. On the proposed market access work programme, Members are seeking to achieve a right 
balance in terms of the level of details it should entail. They also discussed a possible sequencing 
between the negotiations and preparatory technical discussions.  
 
17. The issue of balance and linkage with progress both  within and outside agriculture also comes 
up in the market access discussions  
 
Export Restrictions  
18. The first item discussed in the second round of consultation on Export Restrictions was the 
issue of transparency and clarification . 
 
19. The proponents express ed openness regarding several comments made by other Members in 
the previous round of discussions, including on the recognition of capacity constraints faced by some 
Members to comply with transparency requirements, an explicit limitation of the scope of t he 
discussions to quantitative export restrictions, and the confirmation that technical assistance 
provided by the Secretariat was Members -driven.  
 
20. The proponents also suggested to rearrange the order of paragraphs and start with the 
reference to the post -MC12 work programme and confirmed their request to reintroduce a provision 
to explain reasons for continuing export restrictions for longer than six months.  
 
21. Most of the discussions focused on the possible provisions regarding advance notice pursuant 
to Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
22. Several non -proponents indicated that agreeing on possible advance notice periods would 
require more technical work and that this issue should therefore be part of a post -MC12 work 
programme.  
 
23. One Member also asked whether the decision would apply to all export restrictions or only 
those applied in the wake of the COVID -19 pandemic and noted the difficulty to provide advance 
notice in the latter case in situations of emergency. The proponents noted that the 10 days ex -post 
notice in cases of " force majeure " was intended to address such situations.  
 
24. Members then considered a possible decision to exempt WFP food purchases for 
humanitarian reasons from export restrictions  as a stand -alone Decision.  
 
25. The discussions focused on the text aimed at addressing the issue of WFP purchases not 
having a negative impact on the food security of the country where the food is procured. Participants 
agreed to continue their conversations with a view to exploring possib le compromise language . 
 JOB/AG/222  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Export Competition  
26. The discussions on Export Competition once more focused on paragraph 4 of the draft Decision 
on Export Competition contained in JOB/AG/215 read in conjunction with Annex 1.  
 
27. Following consultations held with othe r Members in various formats, the proponents suggested 
as a possible way forward some kind of grace period for developing Members not in a position to 
provide additional data, following the approach in the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition . 
 
28. The proponents also suggested the inclusion of a more specific evidence -based work 
programme to be undertaken in the Committee on Agriculture with a view to streamlining, clarifying 
and strengthening the monitoring and transparency requirements.  
 
29. A group of Members, while welcoming the efforts by the proponents to explore possible landing 
zones, noted that the grace period should be extended until the conclusion of the work programme 
suggested by the proponents . 
 
Transparency  
30. Following up on the previous r ound of discussions on transparency, Members , including 
proponents and non -proponents , generally confirmed their readiness to follow an approach 
composed of a horizontal Decision complemented by transparency -related elements incorporated in 
topic-by-topic decisions as suggested in document JOB/AG/215.  
 
31. Discussions focused, in particular, on the possible content and conditions of a work programme 
in the Committee on Agriculture to review, update and streamline the existing transparency 
requirements. Divergen t views were expressed on possible timelines for such an exercise.  
 
32. The proponents introduced new suggestions , notably to distinguish between transparency - 
related elements subject to a decision at MC12 and other ones to be addressed in the post MC12 
work programme.  
 
33. The discussions also continued on  how to give due consideration to the capacity constraints 
faced by developing countries, with special attention to LDCs and SVEs.  
 
34. Finally, several Members considered that some additional work would be useful in order to 
clarify and reorganize the various  inputs received so far . 
 
Cotton  
35. As you will recall, my last consultation on Cotton took place on 13 October in the Cotton Quad 
Plus format.  
 
36. The C -4 and other participating Members had expressed their willingness to engage 
constructively with each other t o explore ways to narrow remaining gaps on the way forward 
regarding Cotton Trade-Distorting Domestic Support.  
 
37. I will therefore invite these Members , as well as any other interested Member , to report on 
any recent developments in this area . 
 
Public Stockh olding for Food Security Purposes  (PSH)  
38. Since the previous Dedicated Session held on 15 October, I have held different consultations 
and notably one more "Room D " type meeting on the issue of Public Stockholding for Food Security 
Purposes, on 20 October. While significant differences and wide gaps persist in Member's positions 
on this file, discussions were once again lively and frank.  
 
39. Members had the opportunity to make suggestions on how to amend the Chair's text in 
JOB/AG/215 and to respond to  other Members' comments on a without - prejudice basis. To facilitate 
the discussions and a parallel assessment of various suggestions, the Secretariat put together a 
table with different suggestions and proposals put forward or referred to in the recent d iscussions 
by Members.  JOB/AG/222  
 
- 4 - 
 
  40. The African Group presented on a without prejudice basis some possible modifications to 
Option 1 of the Chair's text. The suggested modifications concerned the issues of legal form, product 
and programme coverage, clarification of fi xed external reference price, transparency, anti -
circumvention and safeguards provisions.  
 
41. The ensuing discussions focused largely on the issues of legal certainty and access to the 
dispute settlement mechanism. While many proponents supported the suggeste d modifications by 
the African Group, non -proponents noted that the suggested modifications did not address their 
concerns which they had expressed on numerous occasions.  
 
42. Some non -proponents reiterated that they were not in a position to agree to a permanent 
solution at MC12 but were willing to look for a middle way – namely to agree on a work programme 
and commit to negotiate a permanent solution on the basis of some core themes and principles, 
such as programme and product coverage, prevention of distortive effects on trade and food security 
of other Members ' coverage, and legal form among other.  
 
43. On this basis, I must conclude once again that the familiar divisions persis t, and we are yet 
to identify the one option that can realistically provide a basis for convergence on PSH.  
 
Special Safeguard Mechanism  (SSM)  
44. The proponents underscored the importance of an SSM for the livelihood of domestic 
producers and food security. I n terms of a potential outcome on SSM at MC12, some proponents 
put forth the idea of an interim SSM (for a period of 6/9 years) to be agreed at the Ministerial 
meeting as a stopgap measure. These Members believe that the implementation of an interim SSM 
would enable all parties to gain practical experience with the operation of a safeguard mechanism 
and lead to a full appreciation of the impact an SSM may have on markets and trade. I also sensed 
from my consultations that some proponents would also be open to considering a targeted work 
programme on SSM with clear parameters on the future work to be conducted post -MC12.  
 
45. Other Members expressed the view that the proposed interim mechanism, even if time -
limited, could potentially allow tariffs to exceed exist ing tariff bindings. They indicated that it would 
be difficult for them to accept any such proposition in the absence of new market access 
opportunities. These Members expressed their preference for an elaboration of a post -MC12 wo rk 
programme on SSM for t he consideration of Ministers.  
 
46. Based on my consultations, and in view of numerous issues and limited time at our disposal, 
I believe that a candid conversation is required between the proponents and the non -proponents in 
their search for an agreeable land ing zone on SSM at MC12.  
 
Overall assessment1 
47. Let me now conclude with my overall assessment of the state of play.  
 
48. As I have described, some good progress has been made in the last couple of weeks on several 
issues. I am very encouraged by the spirit of compromise demonstrated by many of the participants 
in our discussions, and which has been expressed through various inputs that the Secretariat have 
compiled and which I intend to circulate soon after this meeting to all Members in order to ensure 
full transparency and inclusiveness.  
 
49. The progress towards MC12 outcomes is extremely valuable - and could also help guide o ur 
post-MC12 work.  
 
50. But we should not be complacent. Gaps remain on several issues, most importantly:  
 
(a) An option which can realistically provide a basis for convergence on PSH, a topic which 
will be addressed more specifically during the dedicated session after this CoA  SS 
meeting;  
 
 
1 As delivered at the end of the CoA Special Session meeting.  JOB/AG/222  
 
- 5 - 
 
  (b) On Domestic Support, whether Members can agree to pursue a numerical target or 
converge on an alternative language; the timeframe; a possible "standstill" provision; 
and how to address special and differential treatment for developing countries ; 
 
(c) Possible immediate deliverables on improved transparency, including on shipments en 
route  or advance notice for export restrictions;  
 
(d) A possible time -limited interim SSM, a topic which will be addressed more specifically 
during t he dedicated session after this CoA  SS meeting;  
 
(e) The language on a possible exemption from export restrictions of WFP's humanitarian 
food aid purchases;  
 
(f) And the possibility of including specific post -MC12 deadlines for some topics.  
 
51. As you can see, we sti ll have some urgent work to do if we are to reach consensus in time.  
 
52. All these issues require specific consideration, as was done in the "Room D " process, but also 
must be seen in a holistic manner to ensure we have the proper level of ambition and balanc e across 
the board.  
 
53. In my consultations I have also heard several Members emphasize the need for an outcome 
on agriculture at MC12 to be put in perspective in the context of the global challenges that the global 
food and agricultural system faces today.  
 
54. This means, in particular, we must ensure that an MC12 outcome contributes towards progress 
in ending hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition, and promoting sustainable 
agriculture. We also must make sure that any result we achieve contribu tes to our broader efforts 
to lay the foundations for recovery from the COVID -19 pandemic.  
 
55. As I said during the TNC meeting on Monday, we now urgently need clear political guidance 
on those issues where gaps remain, and clear indications of realistic "landing zones" that will help 
us to reach a meaningful and balanced outcome.  
 
56. With less than  five weeks left before MC12 opens, we are now at a critical juncture in our 
process.  
 
57. This is precisely why I decided to convene today's CoA Special Session meeting at the Heads 
of Delegations level.  
 
58. As this is a Member -driven process, i t is up to you – the Members – to collectively find a 
solution t o outstanding issues.  
 
59. I am the facilitator  and will listen carefully to what you have to say today in the hope that our 
meeting will provide the necessary signals for us to be able to prepare a revised draft text that could 
serve as a basis for Ministers  to consider at MC12. The revised text must reflect the "landing zones" 
that Members identify when negotiating with each other.  
 
60. And we no longer have the time we would need for a succession of multiple iterations before 
MC12.  
 
61. We are coming to the point where we have two choices: either we find a way to reduce the 
remaining gaps, or we have to adjust the level of ambition. That is the reality we are in.  
 
62. If there is to be another revised draft text, that attempt would have to hit the target – or be 
very close to doing so.  
63. Let me conclude by quoting the first three elements of my report to the CoA Special Session 
meeting on 25 September 2020:  
 
64. "Virtually al l Members, particularly developing countries, have reaffirmed the  critical 
importance of the agriculture negotiations.  
 JOB/AG/222  
 
- 6 - 
 
  65. Many emphasized the vital importance for the credibility of the WTO of an outcome on 
agriculture at MC12 after the lost opportunity in B uenos Aires.  
 
66. Most delegations, however, considered that an outcome on agriculture at MC12 could only be 
an incremental step in the reform process. Some suggested to look at the way forward with three 
successive time horizons: work to be undertaken in the short term, deliverables for MC12 and a 
post-MC12 work programme."  
 
67. In light of all my consultations so far, these conclusions are still perfectly valid.  
 
68. An outcome on agriculture is a necessary component of a successful MC12.  
 
69. After the lost opportunity in Buenos Aires, failure to agree on a result would constitute a major 
blow for the credibility of the Organization.  
 
70. And, more importantly, it would set back our efforts to ensure that trade makes a positive 
contribution to the challenges facing food and agricultural markets – now and in the years ahead.  
 
71. The good news is that you have all the necessary elements to build this outcome together. 
You now need to indicate what its architecture could be, and how we should put these el ements 
together.  
 
Conclusion2 
72. I will reflect carefully on what you have said today, and the implications of your remarks both 
for our process and for substance.  
 
73. I was encouraged by some statements, but also detected that some divergence persists.  
 
74. I urge you to try to bridge the remaining gaps by continuing to engage with one another in 
the coming hours and days and encourage you all to keep me informed about the progress you have 
made in doing so.  
 
75. The next CoA Special Session meeting, which is expec ted to be the last one before MC12, is 
scheduled to take place on 15 -16 November.  
 
76. My objective remains at this stage to present , sometime in the first half of November , a 
document that could serve as a basis for Ministers' consideration at MC12, based on all inputs 
received from Members.  
 
77. As of today, all options on the table remain open.  
 
78. The coming days are therefore critical for our process.  
 
79. I invite you once more to engage constructively with one another and to take the last steps 
needed to reach convergence . 
 
__________  
 
2 As delivered at the end of the CoA Special Session meeting.