JOB/AG/108  
 
27 July 2017 
(17-4125) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
REPORT BY THE C OA-SS CHAIR, AMB. STEPHEN NDŨN'GŨ KARAU  
TO THE INFORMAL  MEETING OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS C OMMITTEE  
 
25 July 2017 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  Following my appointment as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session 
on 26 April, I have held a series of 35 bilateral consultations with group representatives or 
coordinators, and individual delegations representing the whole Membership  in its diversity.  
1.2.  I concluded this first phase by holding an informal open -ended meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Special Session on 1 June followed by two dedicated sessi ons on Public Stockholding 
for Food Security Purposes (PSH) and the Specia l Safeguard Mechanism for D eveloping Countries 
(SSM).  
1.3.  I then moved to topic -based Room -E type consultations with the participation of 
approximately 30 delegations on all topics in which you have expressed an interest.  
1.4.  These topics are Public Stockholding f or Food Security Purposes, Domestic Support, Special 
Safeguard Mechanism for developing country Members, Market Access, Export Restrictions and 
Other Issues, including Export Competition and Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures. Following 
the practice estab lished by my predecessors, I also held consultations on Cotton in a Quad plus 
format.  
1.5.  It represented in total seven meetings.  
1.6.  This second phase concluded last week with the informal open -ended meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture in Special Session held  on 19 July followed by two dedicated sessi ons on 
Public Stockholding for Food S ecurity Purposes (PSH) and the Special S afeguard Mechanism for 
Developing Countries (SSM) on 20 July.  
1.7.  Let me take this opportunity here to express all my gratitude to Ambassador Neple who 
accepted, as Friend of the Chair, to chair these meetings and read my reports to the Membership 
on the state of play of the negotiations on my behalf.  
1.8.  My report to the CoA -SS will be circulated soon as a JOB document.  
1.9.  For the sake of t ime, I am not going to repeat my full report here. Rather, I will briefly 
summarize my assessment of where the situation stands on each of the topics under consideration 
and conclude my report by some comments on the way forward.  
1.10.   My report today will incor porate elements from the discussions on 19 and 20 July as they 
were reported to me by Ambassador Neple and the Secretariat.  JOB/AG/108  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  SUBSTANCE  
Public Stockholding for F ood Security Purposes  
2.1.  Public stockholding remains clearly one of the priority issues. Two new pro posals were 
submitted during the dedicated session on 20 July, one by Brazil, European Union, Colombia, Peru 
and Uruguay and one by the G33.  The dedicated session was the first possibility to discuss these 
proposals, and most of the delegations took the floor to give their preliminary reactions. While the 
gaps between different positions remained broadly the same, the engagement was invigorated. 
Members have now some serious homework to do over the summer break and more indebt 
discussions will take place as  from September.  
Domestic Support  
2.2.  Domestic support is another topic that remains a priority issue for the vast majority of 
Members. Five new submissions were circulated ahead of the CoA -SS on 19 July, one of them as a 
proposal. The proposal by Brazil, Euro pean Union, Colombia, Peru and Uruguay suggests an overall 
limit as a percentage of the value of production. India and China put forward a submission 
suggesting the elimination of the AMS entitlement as a prior step to any domestic support reform. 
Other su bmissions stressed the advantages of a fixed overall limit over a floating one. The 
submissions received many preliminary reactions. Like in the case of public stockholding, Members 
will have a lot to think about over the summer break so as to facilitate  more in -depth discussions 
just after.  
Cotton  
2.3.  Most Members reiterated their support for a mean ingful and specific outcome on C otton 
Domestic Support, but a couple of participants recorded their lack of optimism, taking into account 
the overall negotiation pr ospects. Several participants also noted the link with the overall Domestic 
Support negotiation.  
2.4.  During Quad plus consultations on 30 June, participants made preliminary comments on a 
draft proposal on Cotton Domestic Support be ing currently prepared by th e C4.  
2.5.  Many participants were of the opinion that the most efficient way forward would be to focus 
on the most trade -distorting support granted to cotton farmers but divergent views were 
expressed as to how this could be done.  
Market Access  
2.6.  Members have expressed a wide range of views on the likelihood of an outcome on market 
access for MC11. Some think that incremental outcomes would be feasible at MC11, others 
consider that a commitment to pursue market access negotiations post -MC11 would b e a realistic 
outcome.  
2.7.  Others think that an outcome in this area would not be possible. The issues highlighted by 
Members as priorities in this area reflect the div ersity of positions and include:  
a. specific elemen ts in the market access pillar;  
b. updated mar ket access information in order to lay the ground work for fut ure market 
access outcomes, and  
c. the development of a work programme on market access.  
Special Safeguard Mechanism  
2.8.  The discussions on the SSM for developing country Members have not revealed an o bvious 
way forward to achieve concrete outcomes for MC11. Proponents continue to stress their views 
that the SSM is an essential tool to protect domestic producers from import surges, to fight against 
poverty, and to promote rural development. They conside r that a concrete, incremental outcome, JOB/AG/108  
 
- 3 - 
 
  focusing on the price -based SSM should be a workable option in MC11. Other Members consider  
that it would be difficult to achieve any outcome on the SSM in MC11 in the absence of outcomes 
on market access more genera lly.  
Export Restrictions  
2.9.  During my consultations, both bilateral and in a small -group setting, I noted a broad interest 
and support among the M embership for Singapore's ideas to enhance the transparency of export 
restrictions.  
2.10.   To make further progress in the discussions and in response to Members' requests, 
Singapore circulated last week a textual proposal (contained in J OB/AG/101) and presented that to 
the M embership in the CoA -SS open -ended session on 19 July. A number of Members supported 
the proposal to form a basis of a possible outco me on export restrictions at MC 11. Some Members 
also believed that the outcome should not be limited to transparency alone. Simultaneously I 
heard  concerns from some developing M embers on the po tential burdensomeness of the proposed 
transparency requirements.  
Export Competition  
2.11.   A couple of Members reiterated that export competition was still an unfinished business, and 
that this fact should be recognized, but no deliverable is expected on this t opic for MC11.  
Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures  
2.12.   Brazil and Argentina  indicated that their objective was  to start a discussion on a certain 
number of SPS issues listed in their discussion paper and that could be part of the deliverables for 
the nex t Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires. I understand these Members are reflecting on 
what the next steps could be to further discussions on this issue.  
3  CONCLUSION  
3.1.  Thus, the discussions in the last weeks have confirmed that the different topics are at 
different levels of maturity.  
3.2.  Many delegations consider that a substantial outcome at MC11 is within reach for Public 
Stockholding for Food Security P urposes, Domestic Support, Cotton and Export Restrictions but the 
same cannot be said of the other topics.  
3.3.  Some delegations consider nevertheless that a substantial outcome is still possible, at least 
partially, for some of the other topics.  
3.4.  Some other delegations express doubts about the possibility of reaching substantial 
outcomes on any of the topics under co nsideration.  
3.5.  It is indeed clear that key areas of divergence , and in some cases significant ones , remain.  
3.6.  On all these topics, with the notable exception of PSH where there is a mandate to agre e on 
a Permanent Solution at MC 11, there is agreement among the  Members that some issues would 
have to be taken up in a Work P rogramme post MC11  
3.7.  In terms of process, Members have now engaged in discussions  with a high level of 
specificity, at least on some issues. Most recently, the number of proposals – eight overall  
including some textual proposals for outcomes at MC11 – tabled last week confirmed the renewed 
engagement by Members.  
3.8.  This being said,  it is clear that we have not yet moved so far into what I would call a real 
intensive negotiation mode. We have had usef ul suggestions, discussions and exchanges but no 
real negotiation.  JOB/AG/108  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.9.  This preparatory phase was very important, and I would say indispensable, to prepare the 
ground for a successful negotiation, but we also need to be realistic and pragmatic.  
3.10.   The issue we fa ce today is , therefore , how do we move forward considering the numerous 
elements available on the various topics, and their respect ive degree of priority for the 
Membership, should we decide to move into text -based negotiations.  
3.11.   This issue is now becoming absolutely critical, given the tight timeframe we are operating 
in. 
3.12.   So what is the situation today?  
3.13.   On both topics – PSH and Domestic Support – we have several contributions – including 
proposals – that highlight various options and include sometimes common elements that 
nevertheless differ substance -wise. These written contributions are supplemented by oral 
interventions during meetings, some of which contain very specific additional elements.  
3.14.   On Export Restrictions, we have one main written proposal which could serve as a possible 
basis for discussion.  
3.15.   On cotton, we already have some suggestions on the table and we are still waiting for the 
submission by the C4 that will  of course be an important piece in the future negotiation.  
3.16.   On other topics like Market Access and SSM, we have submissi ons by proponents  that have 
not yet triggered in -depth detailed discussions with non -proponents.  
3.17.   Finally, proponents are still reflecting on the way forward for SP S-related issues and no text 
is expected on Export Competition.  
3.18.   On my side, I will carefully reflect in the coming days on how to organize my work based on 
all the inputs received so far.  
3.19.   My immediate objective after the summer recess will be to intensify discussions, based on 
the submissions thus far received with a view to capturing the convergences and identifying 
precisely the areas of divergence.  
3.20.   This will have to be done for all the topics on the table, while taking into account their 
different levels  of maturity.  
3.21.   This being said , let me stress again that I am only a facilitator and there is no substitute for 
direct discussion between and among delegations to bridge gaps and explore and develop possible 
options that might garner consensus, taking into  account the recent submissions and related 
discussions.  
3.22.   Time is extremely short and there will be no place for hesitation or procrastination in the 
fall. 
3.23.   This ends my report.  
__________