JOB/AG/89  
 
2 December 2016  
(16-6630) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
 CHAIR 'S REPORT TO THE INFORMAL MEET ING OF HEADS OF DELE GATIONS  
 ON THE AGRICULTURE N EGOTIATIONS  
H.E. MR VANGELIS VIT ALIS 
1 December 2016  
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  Since the summer break, I have undertaken 69 bilateral consultations on the agriculture 
negotiations. This  brings us to a total of more than 220 bilateral consultations on these 
negotiations since the beginning of the year. Ahead of the meetings I chaired a fortnight ago, I 
also conducted several meetings with Groups1 and held a meeting to which I invited all 15 Group 
Coordinators working on agricultural issues.2   
1.2.  These consultations informed my approach to the Committee on Agriculture in Special 
Session which I chaired on 16 November; and the two dedicated sessions I chaired directly 
thereafter on 17 November , i.e. on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes and separately 
on the Special Safeguard Mechanism. My detailed report on the state of play of these negotiations 
as a whole can be found in my statement to the CoA -SS contained in JOB/AG/88 (circulat ed on 
18 November  2016).  
1.3.  For the sake of time, I am not going to repeat my full report here.  Rather, I will briefly 
summariz e its main elements and my assessment of where the situation stands. I will structure 
my remarks along familiar lines, i.e. on conte xt, substance  and then on the process  looking ahead.  
2  CONTEXT  
2.1.  In my report to the CoA -SS last week , I reported that I had been particularly encouraged 
that broad agreement – if not necessarily consensus – continues for a set of shared objectives that 
provide the context for our negotiations, including that:  
 Agriculture should form part of any outcome at MC11;  
 Ministerial expectations should be delivered upon, including as set out in the relevant 
Nairobi Ministerial Decisions, the Nairobi Ministerial Decla ration, as well as Article 20 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture;  
 An outcome at MC11 on agriculture is difficult to envisage without progress across the 
suite of Doha agriculture issues, as well as in other areas of the wider (i.e. non -
agriculture) negotiatio ns, includ ing in NAMA, S ervices, Rules, Development and on "new 
issues", and  
 Members continue to seek to avoid polari zing debates in CoA -SS.  
                                                
1 Reque sts for meetings were made to all Groups working on agriculture and meetings took place with 
the CAIRNS Group, the G10 and the Article XII Members.  
2 All Group Coordinators were invited to this meeting, including from GRULAC; LDCs; ACP; ASEAN; 
African Grou p; Asian Group of Developing Members; CAIRNS Group; G10; Article XII Members; G33; SVEs; 
Arab Group; Informal Group of Developing Countries; C4, MERCOSUR, and CARICOM.   JOB/AG/89  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.2.  I also highlighted five very specific contextual elements , two of which are new, that appear to 
be at the forefron t of Members' thinking:  
 Engagement of Ministers;  
 Greater engagement of private sector stakeholders;  
 The known -unknowns;  
 UN sustainable development goals;  
 The inter -face between the CoA -SS negotiations and domestic policy considerations . 
3  SUBSTANCE  
3.1.  On substa nce, th e "headline message"  from me to Members was that an outcome on 
Domestic Support  in general and Cotton  in particular continues to be regarded by the 
overwhelming majority of Members as a priority for Buenos Aires. I also reported that I had heard 
a renewed interest and level of engagement on Market Access  for the first time since the Nairobi 
Ministerial meetings.  
Domestic Support  
3.2.  It was evident during last week's CoA Special Session, as during my latest rounds of 
consultations, that Members' interest  in this part of the negotiations and their seriousness about 
identifying the contours of a potential outcome for MC11 in Buenos Aires remain high. Indeed, the 
recent submissions by Members on Domestic S upport  show a willingness to take negotiations 
forwar d and to target trade -distorting domestic support, including in cotton , by addressing it as a 
whole or by highlighting components considered to be the most trade distorting.  While none of the 
ideas or options enjoyed consensus so far, the intensity of the debates was encouraging, as was 
the renewed creativity that characterises this part of our negotiations.   
3.3.  Unfortunately, I also had to raise the issue of Domestic Support notifications  again. We 
continue to lack critical information about what many Members  are doing to support their farmers. 
It is difficult to know  what to say when, in an organiz ation of 164 Members and taking a very 
generous interpretation of the notification deadline, only 36 Members plus four recently acceded 
Members can be considered up  to date in their notifications to 2014. Of these only four are 
developed Members and are up to date – Australia, New  Zealand, Norway and the Russian 
Federation. Of the major developing countries which can be considered major agricultural 
exporters, only B razil and Argentina are up to date in their notifications.  
3.4.  Furthermore, Members will be as concerned as I was to learn that 29 Members have never 
submitted a domestic support notification. A further ten Members have not submitted notifications 
for the pas t 15 years (i.e. since 2002). This means that just under a quarter of the WTO 's 
Membership has either not troubled itself to submit a notification in the past 15 years, or worst 
still, has not ever bothered to make a notification.  
3.5.  The poor record in terms  of notifications is not only problematic from a systemic point of view 
but also presents a serious challenge in the negotiating context. This risks a negotiation in the 
dark, or at the very least in the dusk.  
Market Access  
3.6.  Turning to Market Access,  there  has been a noticeable shift in gear since the summer break. 
To be precise, there has been an intensification and expansion of interest in the negotiations, with 
some Members identifying, including in their latest submissions, specific topics of interest s uch as 
the special safeguard on agriculture, escalation, simplification, tariff peaks or tropical products. 
Certain  other Members expressed sensitivities and in some cases scepticism about a possible 
outcome in this area at MC11. The discussions were also usefully informed by the updated note by 
the Secretariat on the Special Agricultural Safeguard (TN/AG/S/29).  JOB/AG/89  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Cotton  
3.7.  On Cotton  in particular, I want to note two inter -related aspects. First, the Cotton Four (C4) 
have issued a Ministerial Declaration which : (i) seeks the implementation of the MC10 decision on 
cotton, including for export subsidies and market access; (ii) calls on WTO Members to work on 
the elimination of domestic support for cotton; and (iii) urges Members to keep in mind the 
specific needs o f LDCs , and (iv) encourages development partners to assist cotton sector reform 
and export efforts of the C4.3  
3.8.  Second, the 6th Dedicated Discussion on Cotton took place on 23 November. Members took 
this opportunity to have a good exchange around cotton ma rket and cotton trade -related policies 
with a view to informing the negotiation. As with domestic support, I also reiterated my strong 
concern regarding the absence of notifications and the resulting lack of critical information from 
key players on how the y support their cotton producers.  
3.9.  On substance, it remains absolutely clear from my consultations , as well as from the recent 
contributions submitted by Members, including from the discussions at the Special Session and at 
the Dedicated Discussion on Cotto n, that the overwhelming majority of Members who considers an 
outcome on domestic support as a priority for MC11 also think that cotton domestic support should 
be an integral part of it. I also note that the C 4 coordinator indicated that the group will soo n table 
a contribution on a possible outcome on domestic support for cotton at MC11.  
3.10.   Overall, I was greatly encouraged by the flurry of new submissions in both areas – domestic 
support (including cotton) and market access – and the quality of interventions . These provide the 
crucial foundation for our ongoing work of "defining by doing".  
Export Competition  
3.11.   With regard to Export Competition  there has not been a discernible shift in positioning since 
July, and indeed since the Nairobi Ministerial. Only a smal l group of Members continue to express 
an interest for a continuation of the negotiations, but we will continue our work on this aspect.  
Other Issues  
3.12.   As regards other issues,  Singapore's contribution on Export Restrictions continues to attract 
both interes t and support from a large number of Members and work will continue on this issue. 
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes  
3.13.   On Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes , Members presented their well -known 
positions, with proponents considering t hat their 2014 proposal should be the basis for the 
Permanent Solution negotiations, and the non -proponents rejecting the proposal as it stands.    
3.14.   The question has been and continues to be about the next move, notably who would have 
to submit a new proposa l or amendments to the one on the table.  Both sides raise legitimate 
concerns, whether it is about food security and rural livelihoods, or unintended consequences and 
the systemic impact of the current proposal. On a more positive note Members agreed that there is 
a clear mandate and clear deadline for an outcome.   
3.15.   I use this opportunity to call again upon Members to talk to each other. It will be your 
responsibility to respect the mandate and the deadline of 2017 reaffirmed by the Ministers in 
Nairobi. I will do whatever I can to facilitate that process.  
Special Safeguard Mechanism  
3.16.   In the absence of any new submissions from Members, the extent of substantive discussions 
at our meeting on 17 November was naturally limited.  
                                                
3 The Bamako Declaration will be made available shortly.  JOB/AG/89  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.17.   The sustained divergent views on this matter continue, including whether an outcome in 
SSM would be distinct from outcomes in other areas. The proponents and others seek an SSM to 
address imports surges, price volatility and food security objectives whereas the other side cannot 
envisage an SSM in the absence of a market access outcome. Members also had different views on 
the linkage between SSM and other outstanding issues in the negotiations in general, as well as on 
the Nairobi mandate itself.  
3.18.   Many proponents also argued that the SSM w as necessary to counter the use of trade -
distorting agricultural subsidies. Other Members simultaneously made the point that they were not 
prepared to be subject to SSM when their farmers did not receive subsidies.  
3.19.   As noted earl ier, the updated Secretaria t note on SSG had been circulated well in advance 
of our meetings. Some G33 Members attributed the relatively scant use of SSG by the currently 
eligible developing Members to the complexity of the SSG. They argued for a simple SSM to be 
established in the negotiations for use by developing Members.  
4  PROCESS  
4.1.  Looking ahead, I have again strongly encouraged Members to talk to each other and to build 
upon the work undertaken so far to develop synergies amongst themselves and find ways to 
engage pragmatically on  some well understood sensitivities. As already mentioned previously, 
there is no substitute for that kind of engagement. On my side, I remain fully committed to 
advancing our "defining by doing" process with both energy and caution, through my consultatio ns 
and further meetings in different configurations.  
5  CONCLUSION  
5.1.  In conclusion let me recall the eight guidelines that I have identified to inform the scope and 
contours of an outcome at MC11. These are that any outcome must be:  
 Transparent in result and i n negotiation;  
 Development -relevant;  
 Clear and simple to understand;  
 Practical and do -able; 
 Effective;  
 Proportionate;  
 Evolutionary not revolutionary, i.e. incremental, and  
 A stepping  stone to further engagement on agricultural reform.  
 
__________