JOB/AG/228  
 
2 May 2022 
(22-3420) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
  
 
REPORT BY AMBASSADOR GLORIA ABRAHAM PERALTA TO THE  
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE IN SPECIAL SESSION   
AND DEDICATED SESSION S ON PSH  AND SSM1 
27 APRIL  2022 
Report at the CoA Special Session  
 
1. Let me start by once again thanking all the Members who participated in the WTO Seminar on 
Food Security that took place yesterday.  
 
2. In my view, the exchanges were extremely rich and intense, and gave us food for thought in 
our discussions today and in the coming weeks, as most if not all the topics  covered by the 
agriculture negotiations are related directly or indirectly to food security.  
 
3. Ensuring an outcome on agriculture at MC12 that would contribute towards the ending of 
hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition was already a share d objective at the end of 
last year, notably in the context of the COVID -19 pandemic and alarming figures on increasing 
hunger in the world.  
 
4. This is even more true today, as we are now at risk of facing a major food security crisis 
following the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine and its disrupting consequences on the food, energy 
and fertilizers market.  
 
5. I am convinced that the discussions w e had during the food security seminar constitute a 
substantive input to inform our negotiations and should help us in the short term to achieve a 
successful outcome at MC12 , and in the longer -term guide us to pursue the reform process under 
Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture in a way that would enable us to successfully and 
effectively address food security -related challenges.  
 
6. Better understanding each other's position and peculiar situations, learning from each other, 
agreeing on key principles w hile recognizing the diversity of situations are key to engaging 
constructively and identifying possible landing zones  
 
7. Let me now move to my topic -by-topic report.  
 
8. On Domestic Support, I held a small group consultation on 8 April. While Domestic Support  
remains clearly a high priority for many Members for MC12 and beyond, there were several calls to 
have a realistic level of ambition given the limited time left before MC12 and the current context 
which is even more challenging than last year.   
 
9. In this respect, it was suggested that a general work programme may be feasible. It was also 
stressed that the outcome should contribute to building the resilience of developing countries. In 
this regard, the need to preserve support for resource -poor farmers unde r Article 6.2 was 
highlighted.  
 
10. Addressing the imbalances, such as AMS above the de minimis  threshold, was also 
emphasized, and more clarity was sought on the implications of "proportionality". As food security 
 
1 In the absence of any consultation on SSM since the last CoA Special Session meeting, the Chair did 
not report  on this topic . JOB/AG/228  
 
- 2 - 
 
  has become even more important today, it was  also pointed out that domestic support - if not 
addressed - can lead to a lack of diversity of supply.   
 
11. The importance of a balance between all topics in an MC12 outcome was mentioned by several 
delegations.   
 
12. It was suggested to reengage on the basis of the Chair's text, while remaining pragmatic and 
realistic regarding what can be achieved at MC12.  
 
13. On Market access, I conducted a small group consultation on 8 April. On the core issue of tariff 
reduction, I broadly heard two main views:  
 
− For some Members, domestic support and market access negotiations should maintain a 
parallelism, including in the level of ambition of the proposed outcomes under the two 
pillars. This group of Members also considers that there was an imbalance in the curr ent 
draft text in TN/AG/50 in the level of ambition in domestic support vis-à-vis that in market 
access that would need to be suitably addressed.  
 
− Simultaneously, there are several Members who insist on a "sequencing " between the 
domestic support and market access negotiations where the negotiations on the latter 
could be contemplated only after progress were achieved on the former. Some developing 
Members in this group also attach importance to addressing non -tariff barriers (NTBs).  
 
14. I also heard a few Members, usually with high political sensitivity in the market access pillar, 
who doubt that negotiations on tariff reduction modalities would attrac t any traction in the 
foreseeable future.  
 
15. Additionally, I noticed support for targeting improvements in market access transparency, 
including in respect of applied tariffs and treatment of shipments en route . Some developing 
Members, however, continue to  have reservations on the issue of shipments en route  on the grounds 
of logistical challenges, potential loss of revenue, and systemic concerns on whether the CoA S pecial 
Session  was the right forum to deal with this matter.   
 
16. On export restrictions, I he ld a bilateral consultation last Friday with a group of LDC Members 
following the circulation of the communication JOB/AG/227 by Chad on behalf of the LDC group. This 
consultation was very useful. It focused to a large extent on the draft decision on WFP f ood purchases 
exemption from export restrictions and possible options to make progress with a view to narrowing 
gaps between proponents and non -proponents.  
 
17. My intention is also to hold a small group consultation next week on export restrictions, both  
on the draft decision on WFP food purchases exemption from export restrictions and transparency -
related elements, based on the numerous comments received on this topic in my recent 
consultations. This consultation will also be informed by today's discussions, including in relation to 
the LDC Group submission as well as exchanges yesterday during the food security seminar, 
including in light of the ongoing food security crisis triggered by the conflict in Ukraine.  
 
18. Regarding the other topics, I have not held any  new consultation s thus far, based on my 
assessment of the situation in light of comments expressed by Members. I understand that work 
has continued on some of these topics, and I am looking forward to listening to reports by the 
relevant Members on their consultations.  
 
19. Let me add that the absence of consultations so far on some topics is not an indication of any 
level of priority but rather of the need expressed by Members to engage. In some cases, it may also 
reflect the fact that the topic appears to b e more mature for an outcome based on the work done 
thus far.  
 
20. Finally, some topics under negotiation could also benefit from the exchanges at the food 
security seminar. This could for example be the case of the " chapeau " of the draft decision contained  
in TN/AG/50.  
 
21. Before opening the floor to Members , let me conclude with  a few initial comments on the state 
of play in the negotiations.  JOB/AG/228  
 
- 3 - 
 
  22. We have around six weeks before MC12,  so we need to intensify our work and identify potential 
landing zones on the issues under negotiation.  
 
23. I am very grateful to Members for their engagement in recent weeks in my consultations , as 
well as in their direct contacts with each other, and I am l ooking forward to hearing Members report 
on this ongoing work.  
 
24. However, my assessment at this juncture and subject to what you will say today is that the 
pace of negotiations is too slow. And more importantly, I have not detected in the last couple of 
months any clear signal of progress towards narrowing gaps on the remaining contentious issues.  
 
25. This is not necessarily too worrying with respect to some topics where the potential landing 
zone as reflected in document TN/AG/50 seems to be rather well define d. 
 
26. But this is a source of concern as regards some key topics where Members' positions have not 
evolved,  and the divergences are still wide. Despite all the efforts made to try to engage with each 
other and demonstrate the required flexibility, spirit of compromise, creativity and mutual 
understanding, we are not yet there.  
 
27. Of course, the agricultural negotiations are not happening in a vacuum. We are all aware of 
the international context in which we are operating now.  
 
28. We had first the COVID -19 pandemi c that impacted the negotiations on process including by 
compelling us to postpone MC12 at the end of last year.  
 
29. And we are today in the midst of a major international crisis following the outbreak of the 
conflict in Ukraine that hampers the work of our o rganization at all levels , as well as all in other 
institutions, both in terms of process and substance, including as just mentioned in light of its 
tremendous impact on food security worldwide.  
 
30. What can be reasonably expected at MC12 in this context is therefore a question that goes 
beyond the agriculture negotiations alone, but that has a special resonance in the case of agriculture 
due to the considerable issues at stake in terms of food security.  
 
31. There will be next week an informal heads o f delegations meeting preceding the General 
Council scheduled on 9 May. These two meetings should provide us with a sense of direction for 
MC12.  
 
32. The uncertainty should not become an excuse for procrastination and prevent us from 
intensifying the process a nd moving forward with a view of the contours of an outcome for MC12, 
both in terms of shape and content.  
 
33. Regarding  the possible shape of the outcome, our working assumption so far has been and 
remains as of today something along the lines of the draft text contained in TN/AG/50, meaning an 
overall decision covering the seven topics of Domestic Support, Market Access, Export Competition, 
Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, Cotton, Special Safeguard Mechanism, PSH as well as 
Transparency, accompanied by a specific decision on WFP food purchases exemption from export 
restrictions.  
 
34. Regarding substance, as already mentio ned while some topics seem to be quite mature, some 
strong divergences remain on various key topics. In that regard, some Members have expressed 
strong concerns about some sections of the draft text contained in TN/AG/50.  
 
35. My intention today is not to app ear pessimistic with this sober assessment.  
 
36. I remain fully committed to do all my best to facilitate this process. But as I  have stated on 
numerous occasions, I am only a facilitator - so negotiations can only progress if they take place 
between Members,  and not between individual Members and me.  
 
37. And I thought it was my duty today to clearly set out the state of play as I see it today.  
 JOB/AG/228  
 
- 4 - 
 
  38. I hope we will hear today some good news on the progress accomplished in recent weeks, and 
I invite all of you to expre ss your views today in the most pragmatic and realistic manner on what 
appears doable by MC12.  
 
Report at the dedicated session  on PSH  
 
39. I conducted a small group consultation on PSH on 20 April. During th is meeting, I heard from 
proponents that they are c ontinuing their efforts to reach out to non -proponents and to harmonize 
different proposals. At the same time, they emphasized that the proposals by the G33 and the 
African Group remain valid. The proponents also noted that any small group consultations sh ould be 
guided by the aim of making progress in the negotiations and stressed that a PSH permanent solution 
was even more urgent in the current context. A request was made for MC12 to deliver a food security 
package that would also include a permanent solu tion on PSH as one of the tools to fight food 
insecurity.  
 
40. Given that we are a few weeks away from MC12, some proponents called for a pragmatic 
approach and suggested that if we cannot achieve a permanent solution, we could extend the Bali 
PSH decision to new developing country programmes that are not currently covered.  
 
41. Non-proponents acknowledged that the current crisis required Members to reconsider the 
context of the discussions on this issue. However, they questioned the need for increasing market 
price support. It was also suggested to look at the method of calculating AMS, to choose a limited 
list of products for a permanent solution on PSH, while ensuring transparency and not increasing 
production artificially.  
 
42. Some non -proponents said that they co uld not agree to an unlimited flexibility, and clear  rules 
on expenditure, transparency, safeguards, and anti -circumvention remained critical for them. They 
also said that reaching a substantive consensus by June seemed unrealistic and that Members should 
aim for a work programme.  
 
 
__________