JOB/AG/80  
 
20 July 2016  
(16-3888) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
  STATEMENT BY AMB. VANGELIS VIT ALIS TO THE  
 COMMITTEE ON AGRICUL TURE IN SPECIAL SESS ION 
18 July  2016 
1  INTRODUCTION  
This is the third meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoASS) in our 
post-Nairobi MC10 Geneva process. This 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 9 May;  
2. For you to engage with one another on the emerging questions and options which 
variou s Members have identified for the way ahead; and  
3. For us to start identifying what is practical and p lausible for this negotiation.  
Against that background, and as is customary, I will provide my report on my consultations to 
date, with reference to: contex t; and substance . Finally, I will outline my proposed way forward in 
process terms.  
 
At the outset let me draw your attention to the list of questions to help focus our discussions that I 
circulated last week. These are derived from what I have heard in my  consultations and from the 
submissions that have been received from delegations. They are not by any means intended to be 
an exhaustive list and they have no status beyond that of being an aid to your discussions and, in 
particular to enable us to collect ively engage in a process of "defining by doing ". I hope you will 
respond to them as fully and frankly as possible so that everyone can have a clearer idea of the 
priorities and concerns of their partners and try to find ways to address them. Once those wh o 
wish to introduce new submissions have done so and those speaking on behalf of Groups have had 
a chance to make any opening remarks or respond, I aim to structure our debate on the basis of 
these questions.  
2  CONTEXT  
For transparency, let me record that my  report back to you today is based on 49 bilateral 
consultations undertaken since our last meeting on 9 May. This was supplemented by a meeting 
on 14 July to which I invited all 15 Group Coordinators.1 As ever, these consultations – both 
bilaterally and in  the Group Coordinator format – have been invaluable to me in preparing for our 
negotiations.  
 
I have been particularly encouraged that broad agreement continues to a set of shared objectives 
for our negotiations . These are largely, but not entirely identi cal to those I reported to you in May, 
including that:  
                                                
1 All Group Coordinators were invited to this meeting, including GRULAC , LDCs, ACP, ASEAN,  Africa n 
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 C ARICOM .  
 JOB/AG/80  
 
- 2 - 
 
   
1. Agriculture should form part of any outcome at MC11;  
2. Ministerial expectations should be delivered to, 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;  
3. An outcome at MC11 on agriculture is difficult to envisage without progress across all 
the Doha agriculture issues, as well as in other areas of the wider (i.e. non -agriculture) 
negotiations a nd on "new issues ". It is acknowledged, however, that these other non -
agriculture areas may move at different speeds and deliver different types of outcomes 
both in scope and ambition; and  
4. Members continue to seek to avoid polarising debates in CoASS and u nderstand that 
any such polariz ation risks paralysis, not simply in agriculture, but more generally on 
the Doha issues.  
At our last meeting I identified seven contextual components for these negotiations that Members 
referenced during my consultations. The se remain very much part of your thinking, including: the 
Impact of Rising Trade Protection: 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 ; implications for domestic policy reform; and supporting the multilateral trading system.  
 
In my latest round of consultations, however, three very specific contextual elements appear to  be 
at the forefront of Members'  thinking:  
 
1. Impact of Rising Trade P rotection:  This remains a serious concern for Members. This is 
reinforced by the WTO 's Fifteenth Trade Monitoring report on G20 trade measures 
which was issued on 12 June . According to this report, between mid -October last year 
and the middle of May this y ear, 145 new trade restrictive measures have been put in 
place. This is the most significant uptick of such measures since 2009.2 Judging by my 
meetings with you since May, there appear to be two ways that Members are thinking 
about this. Either these kind s of expanding restrictions will have a chilling effect on 
progress multilaterally; or this trend amplifies the urgency of our negotiations.  
2. UN Sustainable Development Goals : When we last met in early May, I reported that for 
the first time since the Unite d Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) were 
endorsed in September last year by Leaders, Members were indicating a desire to 
ensure that the WTO makes a contribution to achieving these. This latest round of 
consultations has underlined an increasi ng level of interest in this aspect. To be very 
specific, Goal 2, for instance, reminds us of the need to "correct and prevent trade 
restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets ".3 As I said at our last 
meeting, Members have already delivered  one specific sub -component of the Goal 2 
target – that which relates to the elimination of agricultural export subsidies. There is 
obviously much more that needs to be done.  
3. The Known -unknowns:  This is a delicate way of observing that the recent referendu m 
result in the United Kingdom has led many to ask about the likely impact on the wider 
negotiations here at the WTO. While my consultations commenced before the 
referendum result was known, it is fair to say that since the outcome was announced, 
this "known-unknown " has come very much to the fore of Members ' thinking.   
3  SUBSTANCE  
On substance, let me provide a brief overview about what I am hearing from Members. First and 
most significantly, for the first time since Ministers met in Nairobi, Members appear  poised to 
move from reflection to action in these negotiations. We are therefore at an important inflection 
point.  
 
                                                
2 https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/trdev_21jun16_e.htm . 
3 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hung er/. JOB/AG/80  
 
- 3 - 
 
  To be clear, the bilateral consultations since May this year have been substantively different to 
those which preceded our May meeting. In  particular, Members are engaging with me on 
substance, including identifying what they can and can not work with, while also signalling their 
expectation of further specific proposals, particularly on domestic support and market access.  
 
Second, Members a re beginning to methodically work through the range of issues that we need to 
grapple with. This is being informed by the questions that have been posed either in writing or 
which I have drawn together from my bilateral consultations. The significant numbe r of questions 
and submissions Members have circulated ahead of this meeting underscores both the significance 
of the issues we are grappling with, but also the determination of Members to come to grips with 
the challenges we confront.  
 
Third, there is a s hared understanding that our negotiations will be framed by defining by doing – 
including very specifically the question and answer process that we launched in May. It is this 
process of organic "bottom -up" negotiation that will I believe move us into the action phase of the 
negotiation and leave behind the reflection mode we have been in since Nairobi.  
 
Before I turn to the classical three pillars of the Agreement on Agriculture, let me remind Members 
that, as mandated by our Ministers in Nairobi, negotia tions on public stockholding (PSH) and the 
Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) will take place in dedicated sessions of the CoASS. This week 
we will therefore take up PSH on 19 July and SSM on 21 July. A separate set of questions has been 
circulated for each  of these meetings as well.  
Domestic Support  
Negotiations on domestic support  remain the clear priority for the overwhelming bulk of Members. 
Most Members strongly agree that domestic support should form part of the package of outcomes 
for MC11. I should record here too that this prioritisation includes outcomes in domestic support 
for cotton.  
 
For the first time too I am hearing specific suggestions from Members about how we might 
proceed. Again, this is a new development and supports my thesis that we ar e finally moving from 
reflection towards action.  
 
This shift is directly reflected in at least one of the submissions we will discuss today – that from 
Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Paraguay (JOB/AG/72 and Corr.1). This contribution is a useful 
complemen t to the questions posed by the LDC Group (JOB/AG/73), the C4 on cotton (JOB/AG/74) 
and the ACP Group (JOB/AG/75), which in themselves supplement the previous round of questions 
posed in writing by the Cairns Group Members listed in RD/AG/43 and in JOB/AG/ 69, combined 
with the submission made by Australia together with Argentina, Chile, Colombia and New  Zealand 
(JOB/AG/76 & Corr.1) as well as those posed orally at our last meeting by a number of Members, 
and those I heard from you during my bilateral consul tations since May.  
 
In terms of what I am hearing from Members it is clear that there is an appetite for enhanced and 
additional disciplines on domestic support in general and cotton in particular. On the latter, I want 
to emphasise that two Groups and a s ub-group have made it very clear that an outcome on 
domestic support for cotton is a "must have " for them in MC11.   
 
I should also reflect three other specific points – two of which I heard very clearly in my bilateral 
consultations and the third which I raised with Members bilaterally and at our last meeting.  
 
First, some Members have reminded me that, from their perspective, the focus of the negotiations 
should be on Aggregate Measures of Support (AMS). This would, in their view help to "level the 
playing field ". Other Members take a more expansive view.  
 
Second, a group of Members has substantive defensive concerns about some of the elements 
being canvassed. They have pointed out that quite apart from the difficulties these pose, there 
also needs to be  a better balance within the agriculture negotiations, as well as more broadly 
including in NAMA, services, Rules and new issues. They do not yet believe that this is the case.  
 
Third, and I am disappointed that I need to do this again – with regard to Do mestic Support – we 
continue to lack critical information. Those of you with whom I met bilaterally will be aware of my JOB/AG/80  
 
- 4 - 
 
  concern about this situation as I was very direct with Members on this. Frankly, it is difficult to 
know what one can say when, in an or ganization of 164 Members, only 29 can be considered as 
being up -to-date in their notifications to the year 2014.  
 
Let me underline that this is a problem for both developed and developing countries. By way of 
example, only four developed Members are up t o date in their domestic support notifications. They 
are Australia, New  Zealand, Norway and Russia. The remaining 24 Members which are up -to-date 
are developing Members, including several Least Developed Countries. Of these, only Brazil is a 
major agricult ural exporter.  
 
I would be pleased to hear from Members directly that I have miscalculated and that in fact more 
Members are up to date to 2014. The Secretariat is here to assist you if you have any questions 
about this.  
 
Let me restate the obvious, this  situation is simply not good enough. I encourage Members to 
engage their capitals to rectify the parlous state of their notifications and to do so as a matter of 
urgency.  
Market Access  
Negotiations on market access  remain a priority for many Members and s ome of you have raised 
with me and with other Members specific issues of interest to you.  
 
Some Members have suggested that there may be value in considering a trade -off between 
individual levels of ambition in market access and domestic support. Specific ally, it has been 
suggested to me bilaterally by a number of Members that a Member making a larger contribution 
in market access could, for instance, offset this with a more modest contribution in domestic 
support. And vice  versa. This is an intriguing con cept and one to which Members may wish to 
return in due course.  
 
Several Members, as well as Groups of Members have made it clear to me that they have both 
offensive and defensive concerns. On the one hand, many Members have underlined to me that 
they see enhanced agricultural market access as a necessary component in any balanced package 
of outcomes from MC11. These Members have also suggested that this is a way to "level the 
playing field " noting that enhanced market access improves development prospects.    
 
Conversely, on the defensive side, some Members are concerned about losing or eroding their 
existing preferences and the potential impact this may have on development.  
 
Other Members argue that their interest in a multilateral negotiation is limited b ecause of the 
greater leverage they can exert in this area through their bilateral and regional negotiations.  
 
In terms of specifics in market access, I continue to hear an interest in the usual range of issues, 
including requests for "real tariff cuts ", suggestions of a focus first on "water ", as well as further 
work on Tropical Products, intensified engagement on tariff escalation, tariff peaks, the conversion 
of non -ad valorem  rates to ad valorem  rates, Special Products and binding in any remaining 
unbound rates.  
 
It is in this context that I welcome Paraguay' s recently tabled contribution on market access 
(JOB/AG/78) which highlights a number of issues that I know Members will want to discuss in 
detail.  
Export Competition  
As I reported at our last mee ting, continued negotiations on export competition  are of interest to a 
small group of Members. My bilateral consultations suggest that the primary area of interest 
remains enhanced disciplines in export credits, but there remains interest in the other "measures 
with equivalent effect ".  
 
I need to faithfully reflect, however, that several Members have made it clear that they do not 
consider this to be a useful way for the CoASS to spend its time. They have commented that 
Members should focus on where the g reatest interest and engagement lies, ie on domestic support JOB/AG/80  
 
- 5 - 
 
  and market access. According to these Members, CoASS should not be diverted into what one 
Member called "an unproductive line of enquiry ".  
 
While I understand the difficulties this may pose some  Members, I need to remind the Committee, 
as I did those particular Members, that Ministers were clear in their direction to us on this matter: 
paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Declaration is explicit that negotiations should continue on all three 
pillars of th e agriculture negotiations including export competition. I also note that the G20 
similarly reaffirmed the continuation of such negotiations, including in paragraph 15 which 
reaffirms their "strong commitment to advance negotiations on the remaining DDA is sues as a 
matter of priority, including all three pillars of agriculture (i.e. market access, domestic support 
and export competition ". 
 
Export Competition therefore remains a legitimate matter for our collective consideration. It will of 
course be up to t he Membership to determine how to proceed and it is for those Members with an 
interest in this aspect of the negotiations therefore to take the lead in develop ing proposals for the 
Committee' s consideration.  
Other Issues  
During this latest round of consul tations since May, Members continue to raise with me a number 
of what I have been calling "other issues ". As we heard in May, these include export restrictions; 
SPS; private standards for agricultural products;  disciplines on subsidies for biofuels and bio -
energy and, more recently, Geographical Indications.  
 
During this round of consultations, however, one issue emerged as being of particular interest – 
export restrictions. Specifically, there is now a proposal from Singapore posing some questions 
related  to enhancing transparency, including in terms of notifications for export restrictions.  
 
Reactions to this proposal in my bilateral consultations have been broadly supportive. Some 
Members have made, clear, however, that a move from enhanced transparency and notification 
requirements to actual disciplines on export restrictions as something they are not prepared to 
consider.  
4  PROCESS  
I want to now remind you of my approach to the negotiations. This continues to be informed by 
the four inter -related principl es I proposed at our last meeting: Parallelism: Without prejudice 
engagement: No presumption : and Transparency : Any Member that is unfamiliar with these terms 
is invited to seek out my last statement to the CoASS which is available on the WTO website. I  
intend similarly to make today' s statement available on the WTO website shortly.    
 
Looking ahead, next week I will deliver a statement to the Room W meeting called by the Director -
General. This will draw together the threads of our discussion today and ove r the coming days on 
PSH and SSM.  
 
Following the European Summer break, I intend to engage in a further round of bilateral 
consultations. I expect these to be at an enhanced level of detail, reflecting the fact that we are 
moving from reflection into the action phase of our negotiation.  
 
I also expect to arrange a further meeting of the CoASS, and the dedicated sessions on PSH and 
SSM in mid to late October.  
5  CONCLUSION  
In conclusion, I am encouraged about the state of our negotiations. Of course there is  a lot of work 
to be done, but as I noted at the outset, Members appear to me to be more engaged on the 
substance than ever before and certainly since the Nairobi Ministerial last year.  
 
In the meantime, let me assure you again that I intend to advance ou r process with all due caution 
and care through a process of defining by doing. This will continue to be informed by the four 
principles I enunciated at our last meeting and again today.  
 JOB/AG/80  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Taken together therefore I see today as a further opportunity to def ine by doing in more detail. In 
particular I expect us to use the question and answer process as a way to develop a sense of the 
kinds of elements that may plausibly form the basis for our next meeting after the summer break.  
 
__________