JOB/AG/70  
 
11 May 2016  
(16-2606) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
 STATEMENT BY AMB. VANGELIS VIT ALIS TO THE  
 COMMITTEE ON AGRICUL TURE IN SPECIAL SESS ION 
9 May 2016  
1  INTRODUCTION  
Welcome to our second meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoASS) in our 
post-Nairobi MC10 Geneva process.  
 
I see this me eting as having three inter -related objectives:  
 
1.   For me to report back to you on what I have heard so far from the consultations I have 
been engaged in since our last meeting on 8 March this year;  
2.   For you to listen to one another about your respective pri orities and perspectives on 
the way ahead;  
3.   For us collectively to begin to shape and inform our forward agenda on agriculture.   
Against that background, and as is customary, I will now provide my report on my consultations to 
date, with reference to: context and substance . Finally, I will outline my proposed way forward in 
process terms.  
 
2  CONTEXT  
For transparency, let me record that my report back to you today is based on 46 bilateral 
consultations undertaken since 8 March. These were supplemented by meet ings with the following 
Groups in no particular order:  
 
 GRULAC ; 
 LDCs;  
 ACP; 
 Africa Group;  
 Asian Group of Developing Members  
 Cairns Group;  
 G-10; 
 Article XII Members ;  
 G-33; 
 SVEs;  
 Arab Group;  
 Informal Group of Developing Countries;  
 Mercosur , and 
 CARICOM . 
 
These consultations have been extremely helpful to me. What I am hearing from you has, in part, 
confirmed what I reported to you at our last meeting, but there are also some new elements.  
 JOB/AG/70  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3  SHARED OBJECTIVES  
Let me begin by sharing with you my understanding o f what you have told me about our shared 
objectives  for these negotiations. I am pleased to note that these remain largely as reported at our 
8 March CoASS meeting as follows:  
 
1.   Agriculture should form part of any outcome at MC11;  
2.   Ministerial expectations should be delivered to, including as set out in the various 
relevant Nairobi Ministerial Decisions, the Ministerial Declaration, as well as Article 20 
of the Agreement on Agriculture;  
3.   An outcome at MC11 on agriculture is difficult to envisage without prog ress in other 
areas of the negotiations, even if these other areas may move at different speeds , and 
4.   Members want to avoid as far as possible polarising debates here in CoASS that could 
result in paralysis, not simply in ag riculture but more generally.  
With these objectives in mind, Members have identified a number of contextual elements that are 
informing their approaches to the negotiations. I have distilled these into the following seven 
themes:  
 
1.   Impact of Rising Trade Protection : Many of you have expre ssed concern to me during 
our consultations about the rise in trade protectionism internationally and indeed the 
apparent decline in global trade flows. A recent WTO report underlines your concerns  that 
the risks to the international trading system "are ti lted to the downside ".1 A separate 
report from the WTO, OECD and UNCTAD has also observed the troubling rise in trade 
protectionism. It was interesting to note the conclusions Members have drawn from this 
evidence. Some of you fear that these kinds of expa nding restrictions and falling trade 
flows could have a chilling effect on progress multilaterally. Others have concluded that 
this situation underlines the urgency of our negotiations.  
 
2.    Rise of Preferential Trade Agreements : Preferential Trade Agreements  (PTAs) 
emerged very strongly as a contextual element for many of you, in at least three different 
ways. First, some of you have pointed out that a focus on PTAs may be very convenient for 
some Members given that issues like domestic support cannot be addr essed through such 
negotiations. Second, some Members have made it clear that you have no substantive 
interest in negotiating new agricultural market access at the WTO. To be very direct about 
it, these Members wish to withhold their " negotiating coin " in market access tariffs and 
prefer to pay these down only in their preferential agreements. A third group of Members 
has a more immediate defensive concern about preference erosion resulting from PTAs.  
 
3.    Sustainable Development Goals : For the first time in my consultations since I took on 
this role in September last year, some Members drew my attention to the UN Sustainable 
Development Goals which our Leaders agreed to last year. In particular, many Members 
have emphasised that they expect our negotiations t o contribute to the achievement of 
these Goals, including in particular the Goal 2 target. This target reminds us of the need to 
"correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortion s in world agricultural markets".2 I 
would observe that Members are to be  congratulated on having already delivered on part 
of the Goal 2 target  which related to the eliminat ion of agricultural export subsidies.  
 
4.    Two-year Ministerial Cycles : Many of you have noted that outcomes have been 
delivered in Bali and Nairobi and that  our next Ministerial Council meeting at the end of 
2017 (MC11) should therefore be no different. While Members generally agreed with that 
ambition, several of you told me that MC11 should be seen as a stepping stone and not an 
end-point to the reform of t he distortions in global agricultural markets.  
 
5.    The Known -knowns : This is my reference to what all of you have been saying to me 
directly or indirectly about the impact of various domestic political cycles that are occurring 
this year and into the next.  
                                                
1 https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres16_e/p r768_e.htm . 
2 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/ . JOB/AG/70  
 
- 3 - 
 
   
6.    Domestic Policy Reform : As part of the wider Article 20 agricultural reform process, 
several Members reminded me of the importance of the negotiating process we are 
engaged in here, not least because of the way it can inform domestic reforms. I strongly  
share that perspective – this is what the Agreement on Agriculture is intended to do, i.e. to 
have a dynamic effect on policy evolution over time.  
 
7.    Supporting the multilateral trading system : Finally, Members expressed very clearly 
to me their commitmen t to supporting and sustaining the multilateral trading system. This 
was identified by many groups as a key priority.  
 
With regard to substance,  my report today will be very similar to the one I presented at our last 
meeting in March. This is a positive de velopment as it suggests an emerging consensus around 
what is do -able. 
 
One observation that I do want to make before I move to the specific elements of our negotiation, 
however, is the interesting evolution of views about what we should be working on. Dur ing my 
initial rounds of consultations in September last year, there was a strong view from the 
overwhelming majority of Members – if not quite all – that the focus of negotiations in agriculture  
should be on " real cuts " – in market access and in domestic support.  
 
Since Nairobi, I have detected a gradual but discernible shift in what Members believe is practical 
and do -able, at least at this early point in the negotiating arc to MC11. Many Members consider 
that looking at ways to "cut water" in market acc ess and domestic support might be a pragmatic 
and realistic way forward, at least initially. On the other hand, at least two groups indicated that 
their objective had always been and remains "real cuts" – in both market access and domestic 
support.  
 
Before  I proceed to the detail, let me remind you that negotiations on public stockholding (PSH) 
and the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) will take place in dedicated sessions of the CoASS as 
mandated by our Ministers in Nairobi. The first such meeting will tak e place tomorrow, followed by 
another the day after. I intend therefore to report back on my consultations on these two issues in 
each of these dedicated sessions. Please note that I also intend for the questions that have been 
posed by Cairns Group Member s in RD/AG/41 and RD/AG/42 on these issues to be taken up in 
those dedicated sessions tomorrow and the day after.  
 
Turning to the classical three pillars of the Agreement on Agriculture overall, the situation is as 
follows:  
 
Domestic Support  
Negotiations on domestic support  remain the clear priority for the overwhelming bulk of Members. 
In fact, domestic support has been identified by many of you quite explicitly as a key potential 
outcome for MC11. This includes in particular cotton as an area of priority  for a large number of 
Members, though a couple of Members have expressed some caution in that regard.  
 
Unfortunately, and as I said last time, I have not heard so far any specific ideas for how to proceed 
on domestic support at this stage. And this is why  today 's submission and questions from Cairns 
Group Members listed in RD/AG/43 and in Job/AG/69 is a very useful development. I trust these 
can help us initiate a discussion on the kinds of issues Members believe we should be focusing on.  
 
Finally, on Dome stic Support, I want to make explicit one further important point. We cannot 
negotiate in the dark. Our negotiation needs to be well informed. It must therefore be based on 
recent and up -to-date data on Members' policies and levels of Domestic Support. Thi s is a point on 
which I have insisted several times in the context of the cotton dedicated discussions, but it 
applies mutatis mutandis  to Domestic Support overall. I must say the record today in that regard 
is far from satisfactory.  
 
Many of you have hear d me on this subject bilaterally and in my consultations with Groups. But let 
me state it clearly here. We cannot conduct a meaningful negotiation on agriculture, let alone 
Domestic Support, when, in an organisation of 162 Members, only twenty -four can be considered 
as being up -to-date in their notifications. By this I mean that the latest notification covers at a JOB/AG/70  
 
- 4 - 
 
  minimum the year 2014. Put simply to have only 24 Members up to date is embarrassing and 
troubling.  
 
So let me urge you very directly, as the Ch air of the regular Committee on Agriculture has already 
done: please get up to date in your notifications, especially in the field of Domestic Support. The 
Secretariat is here to assist you if you have any questions about this.  
 
Market  Access  
Negotiations  on market access  remain a priority for many Members and some of you have raised 
and are discussing some specific issues of interest to you, including work on Tropical Products, 
tariff escalation, tariff peaks, the conversion of non -ad valorem  rates to ad valorem  rates and 
Special Products.  
 
At the same time, however, and going back to a point that I alluded to in my contextual remarks 
about the impact of PTAs, some Members have defensive concerns here. There is a concern about 
the risk of preference erosi on arising from a multilateral outcome in agricultural market access. 
Conversely, other Members have made it clear they have only a limited interest in multilateral 
negotiations on agricultural market access because they see the greatest value accruing to them 
from preferential negotiations.  
 
While this conjunction of sceptical views may make it more challenging to find a pathway forward, 
I would remind members that our Ministers were very clear in their Declaration (paragraph 31) 
where they identified the  need to advance work "in all three pillars of agriculture ". This of course 
explicitly includes market access.  
 
It is in this context therefore that I welcome the questions posed on market access by Cairns 
Group Members listed in RD/AG/40. I look forward to an initial exchange of views on these today.  
 
Export Competition  
Further negotiations on export competition  remain a low priority for most Members, but a small 
group of you still consider this a high priority. In particular, export credits continue to be identified 
as an issue of "unfinished business ".  
 
I should also report, however, that at least two Members have made it clear to me that they do 
not consider that a focus on export competition or indeed export credits is particularly helpful or 
fruitfu l at this point.  
 
My response has been straightforward to those Members. As with Market Access, Ministers were 
clear in their Declaration at Nairobi that work should be advanced on all three pillars of the 
agriculture negotiations. Paragraph 31 explicitly  refers to export competition. It is now up to 
Members to crystalize what precisely they would like to focus on. In this regard I welcome the 
submission from Canada contained in JOB/AG/68 and look forward to a good discussion on the 
issues that this submis sion raises. It will be up to Members to determine how to proceed on this, 
but I trust that I have been clear that this is a legitimate matter for our collective consideration 
given the Ministerial direction provided to us by paragraph 31 of the Nairobi De claration.  
 
Other Issues  
A minority of Members has raised with me what might be termed "other issues ". These include 
export restrictions; SPS; private standards for agricultural products;  disciplines on subsidies for 
biofuels and bio -energy and, more rece ntly, Geographical Indications.  
 
Some of the members who raised these issues with me made it clear that they expect shortly to 
have a specific proposal for the negotiations in one or other of these areas and I look forward to 
seeing those in due course.  
 JOB/AG/70  
 
- 5 - 
 
  4  PROCESS  
I want to now give you a sense of my expectations for the way ahead.  
 
In particular, let me begin by reminding you of the four broad elements which informed our 
process in the run -up to the Nairobi Ministerial Conference. I intend that these will again guide our 
process.   
 
These are:  
 
1.   Parallelism: We will address a range of issues within the overall agriculture context. Ministers 
instructed us in Nairobi, for instance, to hold separate dedicated sessions of the CoASS on 
public stockholding and on the special safeguard mechanism. As I noted earlier, the first such 
open-ended dedicated session of the CoASS following the Nairobi Ministerial Conference will 
take place tomorrow for public stockholding (PSH). This will be followed the day after by a 
dedicated session on the special safeguard mechanism (SSM). We will therefore be, as we 
have been in the past, in a situation where we have several negotiating processes taking place 
in parallel on various issues. I do not regard this as problematic. Indeed, i t is a singular 
advantage since this parallelism allows us to focus in substance on specific issues of interest.  
 
 I also invite you during this process not to place excessive importance on procedural matters. 
As far as I am aware, none of us has the gift  of ubiquity – we cannot have all the meetings 
taking place in parallel at the same time simply because we can 't all be in the same place at 
the same time. I have therefore had to make some decisions about when to schedule 
meetings. To this end, I formulat ed the current meeting schedule based on what I had heard 
from groups and bilaterally.  
 
 Let me emphasise, as I have done during my group consultations, the scheduling of meetings 
has been informed by my judgement as to what is in the best interests of th e wider 
negotiations. I also took into account what will best sustain these negotiations going forward.  
 
 That is not a one -size-fits-all prescription for all issues and the way ahead. Instead I have in 
mind an organic and evolving process that will respo nd to what I hear from you members and 
the conclusions I draw about the rhythm of our process going forward. To state the obvious, 
none of this changes the fact that all of our negotiations take place in parallel.  
 
2.   Without prejudice engagement: it is fully  understood by us all that Members ' engagement on 
one issue will be entirely without prejudice to their position on the overall agriculture 
negotiations – whatever that might look like. I expect therefore that Members will engage 
courteously and respectful ly on the issues in substance and without prejudice to where they 
believe an issue will end -up.  
 
3.   No presumption : Until the end of the negotiation process leading to MC11, there is no 
presumption of the content and contours of an outcome or Members ' positi on thereon. 
Outcomes are a matter for negotiation, not assumption, let alone presumption.  
 
4.   Transparency : Let me emphasise again my commitment to fully respect and deliver on the 
principles of transparency and inclusiveness. You have my commitment therefore  that his will 
continue to be the case. As I have said before, this will not be a Melian Dialogue.  
 
Let me also repeat that, given the sensitivities we are all aware of, I intend to advance with all due 
caution and care. In particular, my intention is for us collectively to engage in a process of what I 
have been calling "defining by doing ". I introduced this concept at our last meeting. It means that 
we proceed in a careful and constructive way to initiate an iterative and granular process by 
focusing on t he substance and not the process, with a view to helping us to better define and do 
what may be achievable in the current context, while at the same time identifying how, and what 
seems at this stage still out of reach, taking into account both Members' pr iorities and their 
sensitivities.  
 
It is with this concept of "defining by doing " in mind that I invited you at the end of our last 
meeting to come to this CoASS with written questions identifying in a crisp and clear manner what 
the current issues are.   JOB/AG/70  
 
- 6 - 
 
   
I am very pleased to note that we now have several such contributions. These are in the form of 
questions and a specific data -based submission on Domestic Support, supplemented by questions 
on Market Access and on the SSM and PSH by Members of the Cairns Group.  
 
We also have a contribution from Canada on the Case for Stronger Disciplines on Export Financing .  
 
I appreciate of course that many Members will not have had time to fully consider the questions 
posed and issues raised by these submissions given that these were only circulated in the middle 
of last week and just ahead of the Ascension Holiday.  
 
I intend therefore to use our meeting today as an opportunity for Members to offer their initial and 
general reactions on the questions posed and issues r aised by these submissions by Cairns Group 
Members, as well as on Canada' s submission with regard to export financing. I also would welcome 
any other comments Members may wish to make and I propose that these can be done in a single 
general statement.  
 
At our next CoASS, however, I will structure the discussion more deliberately.  
 
To be clear, this will mean that next time we will have a single CoASS meeting with an agenda that 
is divided into separate segments designed to facilitate a more focused discuss ion of the questions 
being posed and any issues Members want to raise. I will be expecting a more free -flowing 
discussion and will be encouraging Members to come to the meeting fully briefed, but prepared to 
engage in a conversation rather than reading out  prepared statements.  
 
In short, today I am seeking Members ' general observations and any specific responses they may 
have to the submissions on Domestic Support, Market Access and Export Financing which we have 
before us, as well as any other issues as a  prelude to a more structured engagement at our next 
CoASS.  
 
May I also remind you again that I intend for the questions that have been posed by the Cairns 
Group members listed in the relevant documents on the SSM and PSH to be the focus for our 
engagemen t tomorrow and the day after. Again, I expect a more structured engagement at a 
subsequent dedicated session on each issue.  
 
 
__________