JOB/AG/88  
 
18 November 2016  
(16-6359) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
 STATEMENT BY AMB. VANGELIS VIT ALIS TO THE  
 COMMITTEE ON AGRICUL TURE IN SPECIAL SESS ION 
16 November  2016 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  This is the fourth meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoA -SS) in our 
post-Nairobi MC10 Geneva process. As ever, ou r meeting has 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 18 July;  
2)  For you to engage with one another on the issues we need to address, as well as to reflect 
further on the options which various Members have identified for the way ahead and any 
additional options which may emerge , and 
3)  For us to continue our process of "defining by doing " – including specifically what is 
practical and plau sible for this negotiation.   
 
1.2.  The agenda circulated on 13 October to all Members ahead of this meeting will frame our 
engagement today.  
1.3.  Against that background and as is my usual practice, I will provide my report on my 
consultations to date, with refere nce to: context , and substance . Finally, I will outline my proposed 
way forward in process terms.  
2  CONTEXT  
2.1.  For transparency, let me record that my report back to you today is based on 67 bilateral 
consultations undertaken since the summer break. This was su pplemented by meetings with 
several Groups1 that were able to see me, as well as a meeting on 9 November to which I invited 
all Group Coordinators.  
2.2.  As ever, these consultations – both bilaterally, with Groups and in the Group Coordinator 
format – have bee n invaluable to me in preparing for this meeting and for focusing my thinking on 
the issues we need to tackle collectively.  
2.3.  I have been particularly encouraged that broad agreement – if not necessarily consensus – 
continues for a set of shared objectives f or our negotiations , including that:  
1)  Agriculture should form part of any outcome at MC11;  
2)  Ministerial expectations should be delivered upon, including as set out in the relevant 
Nairobi Ministerial Decisions, the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, as well  as Article 20 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture;  
                                                
1 Requests 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 . JOB/AG/88  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3)  An outcome at MC11 on agriculture is difficult to envisage without progress across the 
Doha agriculture issues, as well as in other areas of the wider (i.e. non -agriculture) 
negotiations, including in NAMA,  services, Rules, Development and on "new issues ". It is 
acknowledged, however, that these other non -agriculture areas may move at different 
speeds and deliver different types of outc omes both in scope and ambition,  and 
4)  Members continue to seek to avoid p olarising debates in CoA -SS and understand that any 
such polari zation risks paralysis, not simply in agriculture, but more generally.    
 
2.4.  Since our meetings in Nairobi I identified seven contextual components for these negotiations 
that Members referenced during my consultations. These remain very much part of your thinking, 
including: the Impact of Rising Trade Protection2; the Rise of Preferential Trade Agreements; how 
we can achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals; the role of two -yearly Ministerial  
meetings; the known -unknowns; implicat ions for domestic policy reform,  and supporting the 
multilateral trading system.  
2.5.  In my latest round of consultations, however, five very specific contextual elements – two of 
which are new – appear to be at the forefr ont of Members ' thinking:  
1)  Engagement of Ministers : Since our last meeting, Norway' s Minister of Foreign Affairs 
convened an informal meeting of a group of Ministers in Oslo on 21-22 October. The 
purpose of the meeting was for Ministers to discuss a range  of issues related to the wider 
negotiations, including agriculture. The Chair 's Summary of Discussion Note, issued under 
his own authority, reports that:  
 
"Ministers were in general agreement that further work in the lead -up to MC11 with 
development at i ts centre would include elements of domestic support in agriculture 
based on updated notifications, the mandated permanent solution for public 
stockholding for food security purposes; other mandated tasks from Nairobi ".3  
 
 The sub -set of Ministers in Oslo  were also clear about their expectation that outcomes 
"should be achieved through incremental steps rather than major leaps, at least in the 
short term ". Ministers recalled the agreement at Nairobi that all Doha issues remain on the 
table, Minister pointe d to well -known topics that probably need more time before results 
may be harvested. They include: continued reform in agriculture; market access in NAMA ; 
agriculture , and services… ". Ministers also made it clear that they expect to continue to be 
directly  involved in the negotiations, including through the expected mini -Ministerial in 
Davos, Paris and potentially an additional meeting in September 2017 ahead of the full 
Ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires. I believe this level of Ministerial engagement and  
interaction is very important, particularly for agriculture where many of the issues we are 
dealing with have a significant political economy aspect to them. Finally, allow me to also 
record that Argentina, our hosts for MC11, had two Ministers in Oslo. T hese Ministers made 
it clear that "it would be impossible to be in Buenos Aires and not have an outcome on 
agriculture ".  
2)  Greater Engagement of private sector stakeholders : I am pleased to report that 
there has been a sharp rise in the interest of stakeho lders in our negotiations. To this end I 
have met several non -governmental groups working on agriculture, including the World 
Farmers ' Organisation, the International Dairy Federation, the Cairns Group Farm Leaders 
as well as many Members ' own individual a gricultural stakeholder groupings and farmer 
representative organisations. These meetings have been extremely valuable to me and I 
continue to welcome such approaches and expressions of interest. This level of interest is 
in sharp contrast to the situation  ahead of the Nairobi Ministerial last year. This suggests to 
me that we may have begun the process of re -energi zing agricultural stakeholders to 
believe that the WTO still matters to them. Many of those I have met with, for instance, 
warmly commended the outcomes from Nairobi, noting the positive impact this will have 
                                                
2 See in particular the detailed repor t available at 
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/trdev_09nov16_e.htm . 
3 The Summary of Discussion Note provided by Norway' s Minister of Foreign Affairs is available a t: 
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/dgra_21oct16_e.htm . JOB/AG/88  
 
- 3 - 
 
  on price and certainty. In this regard, I have also appreciated the various commitments4 
and enhanced coherence between stakeholders. Most recently, the Food and Agriculture 
Organisation and the International Dairy Federation, for instance, have agreed to work 
together to contribute to the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.5 I 
was also pleased to be invited to provide an update on our negotiations for the 
International Dairy Federation at their annual conference and most recently to Cairns 
Group Farm Leaders.  
3)  The Known -unknowns : Previously I have recalled that Members have been reflecting on 
the likely impact on our negotiations of the recent referendum result in the 
United  Kingdom. To this I would now add the recent election results in the United States. 
In addition, many Members are also considering the potential effect of the launch of a 
Dispute Settlement case by one Member on a sp ecific aspect of another Member' s 
agricul tural domestic support. Members have also been thinking about the implications for 
our negotiations of the ratification processes related to two significant preferential trade 
agreements – the Canada -EU Trade Agreement and the Trans -Pacific Partnership 
Agreement.  
4)  UN Sustainable Development Goals : I have been pleased to see that increasing 
numbers of Members have been expressing an interest in how to ensure that the WTO 
negotiations in agriculture can contribute to achieving the United Nations Sustainable 
Development Goals (UNSDGs). These Leader -level objectives contain several commitments 
directly relevant to our negotiations. Many of you have expressed concern, for instance, 
that in the absence of progress it will be difficult to achieve Goal 2 which empha sises the 
need to "correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural 
markets ".6 As I continue to remind Members, you have already delivered one specific sub -
component of the Goal 2 target – that which relates to the elimination o f agricultural 
export subsidies. We now need to deliver on the remainder.  
5)  The inter -face between the CoA -SS negotiations and domestic policy 
considerations : Many Members have underlined to me the emphasis they place on active 
and dynamic engagement at the  CoA-SS as a signalling mechanism for their i ntent to 
deliver outcomes at MC 11 in Buenos Aires. They expect that this will inform Members ' 
thinking on their domestic policy settings, including their future domestic agricultural policy 
settings.    
 
3  SUBSTAN CE 
3.1.  At our 18 July meeting, ag ain at the Heads of Delegations'  meeting on 25 July and the 
subsequent General Council meeting, I made it clear that it was my assessment that Members are 
moving from reflection to action in these negotiations. I also reported that we are at an important 
inflection point.  
3.2.  My latest round of consultations ahead of this meeting has reaffirmed that assessment – it is 
one that was reinforced by a sub -set of Ministers at the Oslo Informal mini -Ministerial on 
21-22 October.  
3.3.  Before I  turn to the substance of our negotiations, let me remind Members that, as mandated 
by our Ministers in Nairobi, negotiations on Public Stockholding (PSH) and the Special Safeguard 
Mechanism (SSM) will take place in dedicated sessions of the CoA -SS. This w eek we will therefore 
take up Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes and the Special Safeguard Mechanism on 
17 November. You will also have noted that the sixth Dedicated Discussion of the trade -aspects of 
cotton will take place on 23 November.  
                                                
4 See in pa rticular http://www.dairydeclaration.org/ . 
5 See for instance http://mobile.dai ryreporter.com/Manufacturers/IDF -and-FAO-sign-Dairy -Declaration -
of-Rotterdam -at-summit?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20 -Oct-
2016&c=BydH89pJr2khDJbYWhVTqvXTnqVcxma6&p2 . 
6 See in particular: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/ . JOB/AG/88  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.4.  Let me now provide a brief overview about what I am hearing from Members regarding the 
issues identified in paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Declaration, i.e. domestic support, market access 
and export competition, as well as other issues that have arisen in the c ourse of my bilateral and 
Group consultations.  
3.5.  There are five interrelated aspects to this: Domestic Support and Cotton; Notifications; 
Market Access; Export Competition; Other issues, including Export Restrictions , and SPS.  
3.1  Domestic Support and Cotton  
3.6.  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 have detected 
no change in the determination or intensity of interest in this part of the n egotiations. If anything, 
I have been struck by the increased level of coordinated and coherent messaging to me during my 
consultations and more generally from almost all major Groupings involved in this aspect of the 
negotiation, particularly the LDC Grou p, the ACP Group, the Africa n Group, the C AIRNS  Group and 
the C4 Group. All of these Groups were represented in Oslo and I have met with them or their 
coordinators in preparing for this meeting. Their collective message on domestic support and 
cotton was t hat this was a priority for Buenos Aires, not least because of, as one Minister put it, 
"the development and poverty alleviation potential ".  
3.7.  I note also that with regard to Cotton, the Cotton Four have met at Ministerial -level in 
Bamako and issued an impo rtant Declaration – which I understand will be circulated shortly to 
Members, and which among other things : (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 ; (iii) urges Members to keep in mind the specific 
needs of LDCs , and (iv) encourages development partners to assist cotton sector reform and 
export efforts of the C4.7 The Director -General 's recent speeches an d statements during that 
Bamako C4 Ministerial underline his continued commitment on this matter and it is clear that 
many Members support his call for an outcome in this area.8 In this regard, I should also record 
that several Ministers at the Oslo Minist erial meetings who do not have an obvious commercial 
interest in cotton, made it clear that it was difficult to imagine an outcome on domestic support in 
the absence of an outcome in cotton.  
3.8.  In terms of the substance, a feature of this latest round of con sultations has been that 
Members are engaging with me on a level of detail that had been absent hitherto. This has 
included several Members and most Groups identifying what they can and can not work with, while 
also signalling their expectation of further s pecific proposals, particularly on domestic support, but 
also on cotton. This has been usefully informed by the questions that we used to frame the July 
set of meetings, as well as the responses Members provided to those questions.  
3.9.  As an objective fact th is is a shift in gear when compared to the situation that I reported on 
at our meeting in May this year. In particular, it is an intensification of the process I undertook 
ahead of our meeting in July. This has translated in concrete terms in to the new su bmissions 
received in advance of our meeting today, i.e. that from Brazil, Argentina,  Chile, Colombia, 
Paraguay, Peru  and Uruguay (JOB/AG/72/Add.1) and that from Argentina, Australia, Colombia, 
New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Viet Nam (JOB/AG/83  and Corr.1 ) and from the ACP 
Group on the ACP Position on Elements for Concrete Negotiations on Agriculture Domestic Support 
for Development Outcomes in the World Trade Organization (JOB/AG/87).   
3.10.   I continue to assess that the significant numbe r of questions  and submissions M embers 
have circulated over the past six months underlines the commitment of all Members to engage 
with one another on domestic support and, more particularly on what may be do able for the 
meetings in Buenos Aires.  
                                                
7 The Bamako Declaration will be made available shortly.  
8 The WTO Director -General' s remarks on cotton in Bamako are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/spra_e/spra143_e.htm . JOB/AG/88  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.11.   As I reported to the H ODs9 before the summer break, the question before us, however, 
remains as challenging as ever.  
3.12.   There are two aspects to the challenge we confront: (i) it is clear that notwithstanding the 
overwhelming majority of Members in favour of an outcome on domesti c support, several 
important Members who need to be involved in any outcome are signalling difficulties in this 
regard , and (ii) we remain some way away from knowing what the content or contours of the 
domestic support content of the MC11 package should be . 
3.13.   Notwithstanding these difficulties, a number of intriguing and in some cases new 
approaches have been proposed. These have includ ed suggestions of imposing new " ceilings " on 
trade -distorting support – whether through a new broad limit or by using the exi sting elements 
and disciplines contained in the Agreement on Agriculture.  
3.14.   There have also been what I am describing as old "new" elements (such as product -specific 
disciplines). There are also some genuinely new "new" elements, such as disciplines linked to 
exports and in my bilateral consultations I have heard other interesting approaches, including, for 
instance, expanding de minimis  levels for all Members and rolling AMS into that.  
3.15.   That said, clear doubts have been raised by some Members about the feas ibility of many of 
these approaches.  
3.16.   On the one hand, levelling the playing field remains critically important for many, but we 
are some distance from knowing how to do this. Some Members have reminded me that, from 
their perspective, the focus of the neg otiations should be on Aggregate Measures of Support (AMS) 
in the first instance. This would, in their view help to "level the playing field ". Other Members take 
a more expansive view, but it is clear that this is a clear fault line in our negotiations.  
3.17.   As in the past, many groups – such as the LDC and ACP groupings – are concerned about 
the impact of domestic support on the specific products of interest to them, as well as their own 
domestic markets in terms of price volatility, import surges, rural liveli hoods and so on.  
3.18.   Article XII Members continue to seek recognition for the efforts made during their accession 
to the WTO, though their approaches may differ on what precisely this means and a one -size-fits-
all solution may not necessarily reflect current realities.  
3.19.   Another group of Members has substantive defensive concerns about some of the elements 
being canvassed. They maintain that some approaches risk neglecting the importance of, inter 
alia, proportionality.  
3.20.   Some Members – regardless of their posit ion on domestic support, or on agriculture more 
generally – have argued that there needs to be a better balance both within the agriculture 
negotiations, as well as more broadly including in NAMA, services, Rules and new issues. They do 
not yet believe tha t this is the case and this is informing some  Members'  approaches.  
3.21.   And, needless to say, Special and Differential Treatment remains of crucial importance.  
3.2  Notifications  
3.22.   I am disappointed that I need to raise the issue of Domestic Support notifications ag ain. It 
is clear that we continue to lack critical information about what precisely many Members are doing 
to support their farmers.  
3.23.   Those of you with whom I met bilaterally will be aware of my concern about this situation. I 
have been very direct with Me mbers during my bilateral consultations and I have been similarly 
frank in my meetings with Groups. It is only fair that I do the same now.  
                                                
9 See in particular, JOB/AG/81 of 25 July 2016.  JOB/AG/88  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.24.   It is difficult to know what one can say when, in an organi zation of 164 Members only 27 
have submitted data coveri ng the period to the year 2015. Only two of these are developed 
Members. Put another way that means that 106 Members (EU counted as one) are falling short of 
their notification commitments.  
3.25.   If we take a more generous interpretation of the notification dea dline, 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 – Australia, New  Zealand, Norway and the Russian Federation.  
3.26.   The remaining Members which are up -to-date are developing Members, including several 
least developed Members. Of these and in the context of our negotiations, only Brazil and 
Argentina are major agricultural exporters.  
3.27.   Put another way, this still means that 97 Members (EU counted as one ) – the majority in 
this organiz ation are out of date in their notifications.  
3.28.   Furthermore, Members will be as concerned as I was to learn that fully 29 Members have 
never submitted a domestic support notification. A further ten Members have not submitted 
notific ations for the past 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.  
3.29.   In ter ms of those Members which are either major agricultural exporters or significant 
agricultural importers, or both, there are some nuances, but the fact remains they are all out of 
date in their notifications. To be clear, two of these have only provided not ifications to 2013; and 
notifications from the other two Members date back to 2010, though one of those includes partial 
information for 2011.  
3.30.   Let me restate the obvious, this situation is simply not good enough. I welcome the fact 
that this is a matter t hat has also been raised in the Committee on Agriculture where the lack of 
up-to-date notifications presents a problem as well.  
3.31.   Put simply, the challenge we face in the negotiations is that we risk negotiating either in the 
dark, or at best in the dusk. T hat means there is a risk of error – an error that might benefit some 
and punish others. That clearly is an undesirable situation that none of us will want to risk.    
3.32.   As I have done before both in bilateral and Group discussions, I strongly encourage 
Memb ers therefore to engage their capitals to rectify the parlous state of their notifications and to 
do so as a matter of urgency.  
3.33.   The Secretariat is here to assist you if you have any questions about this.  
3.34.   I should also report that several Members have rais ed with me the possibility that there 
should be incentives and perhaps consequences for those Members who are out -of-date in their 
notifications. Those Members have offered various suggestions, including a certain grace period 
and reflecting further on app roaches taken to those Members in financial arrears.   
3.3  Market Access  
3.35.   My consultations ahead of the May and July meetings suggested that negotiations on 
market access  remain a priority for many Members. I also reported that some of you have raised 
with me a nd with other Members specific issues of interest to you.  
3.36.   During the consultations since July, and particularly since the Oslo WTO mini -Ministerial, 
there has been a noticeable shift on this part of our negotiations. To be precise, there has been an 
intens ification and expansion of interest in the negotiations on agricultural market access. More 
Members than ever before have raised the issue of market access with me bilaterally. Several 
Members have indicated that movement on market access may help them to encourage movement 
at home on domestic support.   JOB/AG/88  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.37.   I do not want to overstate the situation – the number of Members with an interest in market 
access is not comparable to the number with an interest in outcomes on Domestic Support. 
Equally, however, this ro und of consultations has revealed a larger group of Members than before, 
certainly since the Nairobi Ministerial meeting, with an interest in this part of our negotiations.  
3.38.   In fact, several Members made it clear that they are working on specific elements and 
issues related to market access and they expect to elaborate on their thinking in the coming 
months, including initially during our meeting today.  
3.39.   Those Members expressing an interest in market access have identified topics such as: 
escalation, simpli fication , tariff peaks, tropical products as well as the special safeguard on 
agriculture. Many Members also continue to encourage the conversion of non -ad valorem  rates to 
ad valorem  rates and binding in any remaining unbound rates.  
3.40.   Some Members continue  to have an interest in both real tariff cuts and to changes t o TRQs, 
including both liberaliz ation of administrative procedures, but also to movement in these TRQs 
themselves.  
3.41.   A number of Members have made it clear that if they were to engage on market a ccess, 
Special Products would need to form part of any tariff reduction negotiation. As a more general 
observation, I would note that many Members have underlined that notwithstanding the 
proliferation of Preferential Trade Agreements, levelling the playin g field multilaterally remains 
valuable.  
3.42.   One idea that has been raised again with me bilaterally is whether there may be value in 
considering a trade -off between individual levels of ambition in market access and domestic 
support. Equally, however, other M embers have proven somewhat resistant to the idea of such an 
inter-relationship.  
3.43.   Taken together, the message I want to leave you with is that. while this issue is not as high 
a priority as domestic support – on which there remains strong agreement about t he need for an 
outcome, if not consensus – market access is now of interest to rather more Members than was 
the case ahead of and during the July CoA -SS meeting.   
3.44.   And I welcome in this regard the contributions from Paraguay, Argentina, Australia, 
Colombia , Peru, Uruguay and Viet Nam (JOB/AG/84  and Corr.1 ) on Tariff Overhang ; from 
Paraguay, Argentina, Australia, Chile, Colombia, New  Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Uruguay and 
Viet Nam on the Special Agricultural Safeguard (JOB/AG/85  and Corr.1 and 2 ); from Uruguay , 
Argentina, Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, New  Zealand, Paraguay and Peru on Revisiting the 
most Frequent Problems for Agriculture (JOB/AG/86 and Corr.1),  and a Technical Paper on Recent 
Trends in Agricultural Tropical Products from Costa Rica (RD/AG/54 ).  
3.45.   I note also that the Secretariat has updated and revised its 20 December 2004 Note on the 
Special Agricultural Safeguard ( TN/AG/S/29). I have asked the Secretariat to briefly introduce the 
paper during our meeting.  
3.4  Expor t Competition  
3.46.   This is perhaps t he only part of the negotiation where there has not been a discernible shift 
in positioning since July, and indeed since the Nairobi Ministerial.  
3.47.   Continued negotiations on export competition  are of continuing interest to a small group of 
Members.  
3.48.   It is t he case, however, that this remains a lower priority item for most Members in terms of 
paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. In fact, several Members have made it clear 
during my bilateral consultations that they do not consider export compe tition to be "unfinished 
business " as some have suggested. They believe that the negotiations were taken as far as was 
possible in Nairobi and that this area is a distraction from the other issues, like domestic support 
and market access on which CoA -SS sh ould be focused.  JOB/AG/88  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.49.   As I have said at previous meetings, from my perspective, the situation is clear. Ministers 
instructed us on this matter: paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Declaration is explicit that negotiations 
should continue on all three pillars of the ag riculture negotiations including export competition. 
This aspect of our negotiations continues to be a legitimate element in our negotiating agenda. It 
is, however, for the Membership to determine the direction we should be taking and I encourage 
those Mem bers with an interest in this aspect of the negotiations to develop proposals for these 
negotiations.  
3.5  Other Issues  
3.50.   As I have been reporting since the Nairobi Ministerial meetings last year, Members continue 
to have an interest in what I have been calling "other issues ". At this point in our process, these 
include export restrictions , and SPS – these two items are referred to most frequently in my 
consultations.  
3.51.   In the past, including most recently in July, Members have also raised with me their interest 
in: private standards for agricultural products;  disciplines on subsidies for biofuels , and bio -energy 
and Geographical Indications. Between July and our current meeting, however, I have heard less 
about these issues than previously.  
3.52.   With regard to export restrictions, Singapore' s set of questions relating to enhancing 
transparency, including in terms of notifications for export restrictions (JOB/AG/77) continue to 
attract both attention and interest. Our discussion in July has helped frame the issues we ne ed to 
consider on this item.  
3.53.   My bilateral consultations since July on this subject continue to suggest that this is an issue 
on which there is broad agreement that an outcome may be workable for Buenos Aires, though not 
yet a consensus.  
3.54.   While there remai ns a willingness to consider enhanced transparency and notification 
commitments by many Members, several continue to express reservations about what they judge 
to be additional notification commitments. Some Members have also expressed a concern to me 
that there they believe that this may be  "the thin edge of the wedge " and that in fact what is being 
contemplated is the first phase of a process that will culminate in actual disciplines. This is 
something that clearly troubles some Members who have made it a  specific issue for my bilateral 
consultations.  
3.55.   I should also note that in Oslo and during my bilateral consultations, some Members were 
supportive of an outcome on export restrictions at MC11 as part of a wider package on agriculture. 
In this regard, the y were also clear, however, that they would not support this item if it was likely 
to be the only outcome from Buenos Aires in agriculture.  
4  PROCESS  
4.1.  This should come as no surprise. My approach on the process for our negotiations continues 
to be informed b y the four inter -related principles I proposed at our last meeting. These are: 
Parallelism ; Without prejudice engagement ; No presumption , and Transparency.   
4.2.  Any Member that is unfamiliar with these terms and what I mean by them is invited to seek 
out my st atement to the CoA -SS in May which is available on the WTO website. I  intend similarly 
to make today' s statement available on the WTO website shortly.    
4.3.  Looking ahead, we have our meetings in dedicated Sessions on PSH and SSM.  
4.4.  Following these meetings I encourage Members to intensify their engagement with one 
another – bilaterally, and in Groups. There is no substitute for that.  JOB/AG/88  
 
- 9 - 
 
  5  CONCLUSION  
5.1.  In conclusion, I have been encouraged by the engagement we have had during this meeting 
and therefore the state of o ur negotiations. The engagement today, particularly on domestic 
support and market access has underlined my assessment based on my bilateral consultations and 
meetings with Groups. This is that an overwhelming majority of Members continue to seek an 
outcom e for domestic support for Buenos Aires. What precisely that will look like remains unclear, 
but the range of submissions and interventions underline that on domestic support there is a lot 
"on the table ". It is for Members to know find ways to engage on t he well understood sensitivities 
– many of which were reiterated today – and to find a way forward. On Market Access too this 
meeting has demonstrated that there is much greater interest than ever before in this part of the 
negotiation – a shift in gear. T hat is to be welcomed, though clearly a great deal still needs to be 
done to find an outcome that can secure consensus. As with domestic support, however, I am 
encouraged by the flurry of submissions that wi ll provide a helpful foundation for our ongoing w ork 
of "defining by doing ". 
5.2.  Taken together, I have listened carefully to Members, in both the Group meetings I have 
conducted, as well as during my bilateral consultations and of course during this CoA -SS meeting. 
It appears to me that we are able to ident ify a common set of eight guidelines for outcomes at 
MC11. These include that any outcome in whatever area we can agree on must be:  
1)  Transparent  in outcome and in negotiation;  
2)  Development -relevant;  
3)  Clear and simple to understand;  
4)  Practical and do -able; 
5)  Effective;  
6)  Proportionate;  
7)  Evolutionary not revolutionary, i.e. incremental , and 
8)  A stepping stone to further engagement on agricultural reform.  
5.3.  In the meantime, let me assure you again that I intend to advance our process with all due 
caution and care t hrough a process of defining by doing. This will continue to be informed by the 
four principles on process which I enunciated at our last meeting. As ever, be assured that I will 
undertake this work involving Members and reporting back to you in this forma t regularly and in a 
transparent and fair manner.   
__________