JOB/AG/81  
 
26 July 2016  
(16-3962) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
 REPORT BY THE COA  SS CHAIR, AMB. VANGE LIS VITALIS,  
TO THE INFORMAL MEET ING OF HEADS OF DELE GATIONS  
25 July 2016  
Since my last report to the Heads of Delegations on 9 May, I have held 49 bilateral consultations, 
and a meeting to which all 15 Group Coordinat ors were invited. Those consultations informed my 
approach to the three meetings I held last week: an open -ended CoA  SS meeting, and two 
dedicated sessions – one on Public Stockholding (PSH) and the other on the Special Safeguard 
Mechanism (SSM).  
 
At the o utset let me confirm that I was encouraged by the level of engagement and the sense that 
the Membership is moving from reflection and into action.  
 
This shift was reflected in very practical terms by the large number of written submissions 
Members put forw ard in advance of the CoA  SS, notably on Domestic Support (including C otton), 
but also on Market Access, and Export Restrictions. I should also note that there was also a 
specific submission to help inform the exchanges on the SSM.  
 
The meetings last week confirmed my three conclusions from my bilateral and Group Coordinator  
consultations:  
 
First and most importantly, for the first time since Nairobi, Members are moving from 
reflection and into action in the agriculture negotiations. We are therefore at an important 
inflection point.  
 
Second , Members are for the first time since Nairobi engaging on substance, in detail and 
beginning to methodically work through different issues at hand .  
 
Third, there is a shared understanding that the negotiations will be f ramed by defining by 
doing – including through the question and answer process I launched in May.  
 
I will structure my observations on the negotiations since May as follows, first on substance and 
then on my process looking ahead.  
 
Substance  
My detailed r eport of my bilateral consultations can be found in my statement to the CoA  SS 
contained in J OB/AG/80 (20 July 2016). This also includes references to the different submissions 
provided for those meetings. For the sake of time, I am not going to repeat the m here.  
 
The meetings last week and my consultations confirmed the continued shared sense by Members 
on the following set of four objectives for our negotiation s: 
 
1. Agriculture should form part of any outcome at MC11;  
2. The process and outcomes on agriculture  should deliver on Ministerial expectations;  
3. For an outcome at MC11 on agriculture, progress is needed across the Doha agriculture 
issues, but also in the wider non -agriculture negotiations and on "new issues "; and  
4. Polariz ing debates should be avoided.    JOB/AG/81  
 
- 2 - 
 
  The negotiations last week were framed by the four principles I continue to use with Members: 
parallelism; without prejudice; no presump tion; and transparency. Members'  exchanges were 
focused around the questions I had circulated in advance for CoA SS and  both dedicated sessions. 
These were derived from Members' submissions and my consultations.   
 
The meetings confirmed that Domestic Support  is seen by the bulk of Members as a priority. 
Indeed, s ubmissions tabled for last week' s meetings on domestic support included those from the 
LDC Group, the ACP Group and the C4 Group. This underlines that most Members strongly agree 
that domestic support must form part of the MC11 outcomes.   
 
The question remains, however: what exactly should the domestic support con tent of the MC11 
package be? Exchanges have evolved notably around how to limit trade -distorting support – with a 
new broad limit or by using the existing elements of the AoA. Some old "new" elements (such as 
product -specific disciplines) and new "new" ele ments (such as a link to exports) were suggested, 
but doubts were raised by some others about their feasibility. Levelling the playing field remains 
critically important for many, while it remains unclear how precisely to achieve that. Many groups 
– such a s LDCs and ACPs – are concerned about the impact of domestic support on the specific 
products of interest to them, as well as their own domestic markets. Article XII Members continue 
to seek recognition for the efforts made during their accession to the WT O. And needless to say, 
S&D remains of crucial importance.  
Cotton  
Regarding Cotton, there are some new updates.  
 
First, the 5th Dedicated Discussion on Cotton took place on 1 July. While the C4 and other 
Members welcomed the Nairobi Ministerial decision,  all noted that more must be done to address 
distortions caused by domestic support. The C4 also asked how Members intend to implement the 
Nairobi cotton outcomes in export competition and market access.  
 
Second , during my recent consultations, many Member s reminded me that Ministers called in 
Nairobi for progress on domestic support for cotton as a priority.  
 
Third, several recent submissions in the CoA SS raised specific cotton -related questions. These led 
to a round of exchanges at the CoA SS with severa l Members stressing the importance of an 
outcome for cotton at MC11, including in particular as part of any overall outcome on domestic 
support.  
 
On domestic support and cotton, I should record that the substantive nature of the exchange we 
had last week i s in sharp contrast to our meetings earlier this year. There was a flurry of 
submissions; solid engagement by Members and, to take another metric by way of example – the 
meeting ran over time and continued until nearly 20 h00. 
 
In my summary remarks on domestic support  including cotton , I commented that the way forward 
now, including after the summer break, is to proceed into the define by doing process in more 
detail. This more detailed and forensic negotiation will allow us to assess how the various 
approa ches being canvassed may work, and how they may respectively address known 
sensitivities, where appropriate and necessary.  
 
While I am on the subject of more detail, let me repeat one particular point I made at the CoA SS 
last week which I also want to dr aw to Heads of Delegations ' attention. I raised this at our meeting 
in May and I am disappointed to be doing it again. Frankly, it  is difficult to know what to say when, 
in an organization of 163 Members, only 29 can be considered as being up -to-date in th eir 
domestic support 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 -to-date in their domestic support notifications. They 
are Aust ralia, New  Zealand, Norway and Russia. The remaining 24 Members which are up -to-date 
include developing Members, several Least Developed Countries and of these, only Brazil is a 
major agricultural exporter.  
 JOB/AG/81  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Many Members also see Market Access  as a priori ty for MC 11. These Members expressed interest 
in topics such as: tariff peaks, escalation, simplification; and tropical products. Some Members 
indicated an interest in TRQs and in real tariff cuts. Others said Special Products would need to 
form part of an y tariff reduction negotiation. Members also recognized that despite the many FTAs 
under negotiation, levelling the playing field multilaterally remains valuable.  
 
Export Competition  – while seen as a priority by several Members – this is the least priorit ized 
pillar. Some specific interests were expressed, particularly on export finance and to a lesser extent 
on both international food aid, and exporting STEs.  
 
Several Members underlined the need to ensure the swift implementation of the Nairobi outcomes.  
 
Members also had a good introductory exchange on Export R estrictions  and there was both 
systemic and market access -related interest in the topic.   
 
Public Stockhol ding for Food Security Purposes  
I am pleased to report that the second dedicated session o f 2016 on this subject confirmed that 
Members explicitly agreed that the mandates and deadlines that require a permanent solution by 
the MC11 latest are informing their approach to this part of our negotiations.   
 
For its part, the G33 reconfirmed that it  sees its 2014 proposal as the basis for the negotiations.  
 
Many issues were discussed last week such as the scope of a permanent solution, including criteria 
to access it, safeguards, and monitoring. Several Members reminded colleagues that the eventual 
outcome needs to be one that would be available to all developing countries.   
 
More broadly, it is clear that basic positions have not changed from the pre -Nairobi period and 
hence the way forward remains unclear. In particular, the existing underlying con cerns remain 
unchanged: (i) food security and poverty alleviation for the G33, and (ii) potential "unintended 
consequences" and systemic impacts for the non -proponents.  
 
The disagreement continues about who should make the next move in terms of how to dea l with 
the issue in general and unintended consequences in particular. Consequently – while the debates 
were more engaged – substantive differences remain and I encourage delegations to work 
together to find a way to ensure we fulfil the mandates on which we all agree.   
 
Special Safeguard Mechanism  
The discussions during the second dedicated session on SSM were useful. These provided new 
insights into Members' experiences. That said, Members' basic positions have not changed.  
 
The G33 reconfirmed that it sees its 2014 proposal on this subject as the basis for the 
negotiations. It continues to stress the importance that it attaches to this issue and that the G33 
does not see a link between the SSM and the market access negotiations. The G33 also circulated 
a technical paper on the SSG which was based on a 2004 Secretariat background paper.  
 
Other Members consider that it would be difficult to achieve convergence on the SSM in the 
absence of outcomes on outstanding agricultural issues, including in particular  market access.   
 
Taken together, as with PSH, I see preliminary indications of Members' willingness to engage on 
substance and I welcome this. Nevertheless, positions remain deeply divided.  
 
In the next dedicated session on SSM we will continue our defi ne-by-doing approach, including 
hearing about Members' experiences with the SSG – both the users and those who have had these 
measures applied to them. This will be informed by an updated  Secretariat  paper on the SSG 
itself.  
 JOB/AG/81  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Process  
Looking ahead, I intend to resume and intensify my consultations after the summer break, 
including with the Groups and bilaterally. In particular, I expect to meet with as many Groups as  a 
whole as  I can ahead of our next meeting to seek views on how we bring this process tog ether 
ahead of MC11.  
 
I have also strongly encouraged Members to talk to each other – including between Groups. There 
is no substitute for that kind of engagement and against that background, I expect to hold the 
next round of agriculture -related meetings  in October.  
Conclusion  
In conclusion, Director -General at our last meeting in May you encouraged Chairs to work actively 
with Members to find ways forward in the negotiations and, in particular, to finally move from 
reflection into action.  
 
As I hope is clear from my report, I do believe that Members have heard your request and that in 
the agriculture negotiations the Membership is now moving from reflection and into action.  
 
__________