TN/AG/30  
 
30 July 2015  
(15-3946)  Page: 1/3  
Committee on Agriculture 
Special Session    
 
 NEGOTIATING GROUP ON AGRICULTURE 
REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN, H.E. MR. JOHN ADANK, 
TO THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE 
31 July 2015 
1.1.  As Members are aware, since the beginning of the year there have been a range of open-
ended as well as smaller group consultations aimed at identifying consensus on the unresolved issues falling within the Agriculture component of the Doha mandate.   
1.2.  Following the last meeting of the TNC, I have continued consultations in various formats, 
culminating in an informal meeting of the Special Session on 22 July. While these consultations 
have deepened the debate, and led in some cases to a better understanding of positions and the objectives and constraints that inform them, overall there is regrettably little substantive progress 
to report.  
1.3.  In Domestic Support, discussions have continued to focus on different elements of the pillar 
and how they might combine to limit the use of trade-distorting support while enabling Members 
to pursue recognised policy goals. The elements of the pillar that have been discussed are: AMS, 
de minimis , Blue Box, OTDS and product-specific limits. Members have continued to express 
divergent views on the relative value of each individual element.   
1.4.  On the positive side of the ledger, I ha ve detected willingness among some Members to 
c o n s i d e r  r e f o r m s  i n  t h e  a r e a  o f  B l u e  B o x  s u p p o r t .  T h i s  s u p p o r t  i s  c u r r e n t l y  u n c a p p e d ,  a n d  
disciplining this support would therefore represent a degree of reform beyond that agreed in the Uruguay Round. Any further discussions in this area will of course require engagement with the 
Members who continue to use Blue Box support. It should be noted, however, that a number of 
Members that have expressed support for disciplining Blue Box support have also registered that they would only see this as viable in the context of broader domestic support outcomes.  
1.5.  Turning to more fundamental issues, while OTDS has been seen by many as important in 
order to limit the use of trade-distorting domestic support effectively over the longer term, it has also proved to be one of the most contentious issues. This is because exemptions provided for some Members in the draft modalities have been put into question by some other Members, who 
argue in favour of comparable disciplines for all large subsidizers. This, in turn, has made it 
difficult to get some Members to engage on other elements such as AMS and de minimis  
reductions and product specific limits.  
1.6.  Positions on these threshold issues have not evolved in recent months and Members are still 
far from convergence. However, two non-papers have  been submitted recently and circulated to all 
Members with the aim of taking these discussions forward: one submitted by Canada and Australia 
(JOB/AG/40), focusing on the current policy space available to Members to provide trade-distorting 
support and the other submitted by Norway (JOB /AG/42) focusing on existing disciplines.   
1.7.  In relation to proposed reductions in de minimis  and AMS support, it is clear that some 
Members now object to reductions of the sort envisaged in the draft modalities. Other Members 
without access to AMS commitments point out that as de minimis  is the only basis on which they 
can provide trade distorting support they are more constrained, particularly with respect to product-specific support which remains capped at de minimis  levels. My more general observation TN/AG/30 
 
- 2 - 
 
  on domestic support would be that the discussions have clearly identified that at a practical level it 
is possible for Members to undertake further disciplines. This is because – subject to a couple of exceptions – the existing WTO commitments of Members allow for support in excess of current applied settings. So in this respect additional disciplines are possible. And I know that many 
Members also make the point that it would be desirable for WTO disciplines to more closely reflect 
today's policies rather than those in place one or two decades ago. But whether this is politically 
doable appears, at least at the moment, to be another matter: Overall, the issues that stand in the 
way of agreement are political and reflect the different views among Members, particularly among the largest Members, on the respective contribution s each should make to the deal overall.    
1.8.  In Market Access , recent discussions have focused on alternative approaches to tariff 
reductions. While positions have not substantially evolved, Members have demonstrated a 
willingness to explore alternative tariff reduction approaches on a without-prejudice basis, 
including averaging approaches. At my request, on 24 June the Secretariat circulated a background paper on general tariff reduction approaches; a technical workshop on this issue was 
held on 26 June. As you will recall, the paper and workshop focused on three types of tariff 
reduction approaches that had been identified  in my communication JOB/AG/39: the tiered 
formula approach, an approach targeting a reduction in average bound tariffs – the so-called "cut 
to the average" approach – and an average tariff cut approach.   
1.9.  While Members have engaged constructively in these discussions, they have also expressed a 
range of concerns with respect to how other aspects of the market access pillar would relate to particular tariff reduction approaches. Deeper discussions are needed on such issues, which 
include minimum cuts, tariff escalation and tariff capping provisions, safeguards – and in particular 
the SSM – tropical products, TRQs, special and sensitive products, and specific provisions for special and differential treatment. Member views on  the relationship between the tariff reductions 
in agriculture and NAMA also vary significantly.  
1.10.  More fundamentally, if Members are to move into the area of alternative tariff approaches 
involving averaging they will need to decide whet her these approaches would be based on a cut to 
the average or an average cut, and what would be the target reduction that would apply to 
Members in different categories or situations for each approach. These issues have been under discussion in smaller group processes but it is fair to say we are still a long way from having clear answers here. The fundamental challenge, once ag ain, relates to the differences of views among 
key participants on their respective contributions to any outcome and what they stand to get in 
return. The point has also been registered very strongly from a range of Members that while they may accept that the level of ambition achievable in current circumstances may be less than that 
envisaged in the 2008 draft modalities, in order for a deal to be politically viable it must be of 
substantive value when compared to the status quo. Finding this optimal level, and being able to present it in a balanced way that respects the interests of all Members, therefore remains the key 
challenge if we are to reach closure here. 
1.11.  Export competition remains essential as part of a wider package. As indicated previously, 
overall this pillar can be considered to be more mature than the two others but some specific issues have been raised, particularly in respect of  the areas of export credits and, in the field of 
international food aid, the question of in-kind f ood aid monetization. In some cases, the concerns 
have been expressed in a written form and are well identified. On the other hand, delegations that have expressed concerns under this pillar but have not presented any written contribution so far 
will need to elaborate on the scope and nature of  the issues at stake, and to the extent possible 
make suggestions on how, according to them, such concerns could be addressed. This is a necessary step to enable Members to engage in a more focused discussion on this pillar.    
1.12.  Among other issues, not considered within the 3-pillar architecture, some Members have 
renewed their call to strengthen disciplines in the area of agricultural export prohibitions and 
restrictions and a specific proposal (in JOB/AG/41 dated 19 June 2015) to this effect has been 
submitted by a group of Members and circulated to the full Membership.    
1.13.  As regards Cotton , and pursuant to the Bali Ministerial Decision, I held the third dedicated 
discussion on cotton on 9 July, back to back with the 23
rd round of consultations under the 
Director-General's consultative framework mechanism on cotton. The revised Secretariat 
background paper (TN/AG/GEN/34/Rev.2) circulated  in advance of the meeting was welcomed as a 
useful basis for the discussions. TN/AG/30 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.14.  The dedicated discussion was again an exce llent opportunity for Members to exchange views 
on trade-related policies and relevant developments for cotton, with several Members updating participants on their cotton sector and relevant developments. On the negotiations front, cotton  
remains a priority issue, as noted again by the Director General on 8 July, and there is no doubt 
that cotton will necessarily need to be part of any outcome coming out of the 10
th Ministerial 
Conference in Nairobi. My assessment is that with only five months left before the Nairobi Ministerial Conference, we need to engage in a much more focused negotiation on what could 
constitute a possible outcome on cotton in relation to export competition, market access and 
domestic support.   
1.15.  Finally, though the issue of Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes  is on a 
separate track, I use this opportunity to report on my consultations on this issue with a group of 
Members. On the positive side, those present manifested more willingness to engage and there 
was more apparent acceptance to take account of elements of the Bali decision in devising a potential permanent solution, though most of  the views expressed were well-known ones. 
However, despite the signs of willingness to enga ge, it still remained unclear how far Members 
would be ready to go. These consultations will need to be continued and deepened in preparation for a further Dedicated Session. 
1.16.  Looking back on these consultations as a whole, and indeed on our work together since 
January this year, and as I mentioned in the meeting of the Special Session held on 22 July, I cannot escape a sense of disappointment that we have not been able to make more progress towards convergence on the key outstanding issues that I have recalled earlier. The further 
discussion at the 22 July Special Session underlined this assessment. We have all been working 
hard but we have to face the fact that we are still a long way from agreement on these issues, and that this basic lack of agreement is having a negative effect not only across the agriculture sector 
but also across the negotiations as a whole.  
1.17.  One point I would like to underline is this: whatever the outcome of the debate about a 
work programme, the substance of the issues before you in Agriculture will remain the same. We 
all know what the issues are and what approach es have been discussed. The answers have to 
come from you all, through negotiation, and be agreed by you all. In this context, it is very clear that Members are looking to the larger participants to provide some direction of what collectively the climate will bear for all of them as without this  we are very unlikely to be  able to evolve further 
consensus.    
1.18.  The task ahead remains to search for agreement on substantive results in all the pillars of 
agriculture by Nairobi. Based on my experience of working with you all over the last four years I 
continue to believe this is possible, but it will call for a very intense effort and a significant change 
of attitude when delegations return to Geneva after the summer recess. In particular, there remains an urgent need for delegations to consider not simply what they want, but how the 
interests of other players, whose consent will be required for any deal, can be effectively 
accommodated so that we are able to declare a collective victory. This is a necessary pre-requisite for any deal.   
1.19.  This is my last report as Chair of the CoASS.  Accordingly, I take this opportunity to thank 
delegations for their cooperation over the last four years and also want to wish my successor all 
the best in the further efforts to identify the agriculture landing zones that will be required to ensure we have a successful meeting in Nairobi.
 
__________