JOB/AG/53  
 
24 November 2015  
(15-6225) Page: 1/5 
Committe e on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
 COMMITTEE ON AGRICUL TURE IN SPECIAL SESS ION:  
INFORMAL MEETING, 18  NOVEMBER  2015  
REPORT BY THE CHAIR  
Before we commence this afternoon, allow me on behalf of Members to express our sincere 
condolences to our colleague the Representative of France for the t ragic and barbarous events 
of the weekend in Paris. I know colleagues stand should to shoulder with France during this 
terrible time. In New Zealand we have a saying at times like this – Kia Kaha – Stand Strong 
France, we are with you.  
Introduction  
In pre senting my report on my consultations, I will proceed along the usual lines:  (i) the process, 
(ii) the context, and  (iii). the substance of our forward work.    
Process  
1. Since we last met in this setting on 29 October, I have continued to hold numerous bilat eral 
consultations as well as consultations in variable geometry on a range of issues. I intend to 
continue with this process which I am pleased to report has intensified.  I have conducted three 
Room E meetings since we last met, as follows:  
 On 6 and 13 No vember, I chaired two Room E meetings on the Special Safeguard 
Mechanism . 
 On 5 November we discussed Public Stock holding, which is of course on a separate 
track from the wider negotiation. For the purposes of transparency, I will use this 
meeting to report  back on my consultations on this issue too.    
2. I am currently planning the next steps for all parts of our negotiations, as well as the 
separate track on Public Stockholding for Food Security.   
Context  
3. We are now in the middle of November and I am increasi ngly concerned about the lack 
of convergence on any of the issues we are working on. It is clear , too, that many of you are 
working intensively on the content of any Ministerial Declaration at Nairobi – across parts 1, 2 and 
3 of that instrument, with Part  2 widely recognised as the place in which we would slot any 
substantive outcome we can deliver here for agriculture.  
4. To state the obvious, time is short. In order to ensure we have something meaningful to 
contribute to the instrument I mentioned above, we  need urgently to find convergence. I urge you 
therefore to prioritise carefully your resources, including with regard to the work we are trying to 
do here.  
5. More broadly, let me reaffirm the context for my process – indeed a core guiding principle 
which I enunciated some time ago. This is that Members ' engagement on all of the issues we are 
working on and seeking to progress, is entirely without prejudice to their position on the overall JOB/AG/53  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Nairobi package – whatever that might look like, or which elements are  contained in it – or indeed 
to what the post -Nairobi agenda might look like. This is an important working principle.  
Substance  
6. Let me begin with Domestic Support  and Market Access . I sincerely regret that I have 
seen no evolution in the substantive positi ons of Members. I have been asking you all, individually, 
in groups and more broadly whether you have any new ideas, suggestions or other thoughts on 
these two vital pillars. Unfortunately I have nothing new to report. My conclusion therefore is 
a simple o ne. There is still no convergence on domestic support or market access support. If I am 
mistaken in this judgement, I expect Members to correct me.  
Export Competition  
7. The Export Competition  pillar remains in substance where it was at our last CoA  SS 
meeti ng on 30 October. That is a source of real frustration to Members – and many of you have 
been very direct with me about it and the absence of any written proposals. This situation is about 
to change.  
8. During previous meetings, Export Competition has been id entified – without prejudice to 
positions Members may take on other issues and indeed on the post -Nairobi context – as a 
possible deliverable on agriculture for Nairobi.  
9. There was a shared sense at the Room E meeting that the time had come to move into 
a text-based negotiation using the Rev.4 text on Export Competition as our basis for engagement.  
I reported this to you all at our CoA  SS meeting on 30 October, including that the time had come 
to move to a text -based negotiation using the Rev .4 text as the basis for this and I was pleased 
that this was not contradicted by any Member and indeed explicitly confirmed by many Members.  
10. You may also recall that at our CoA  SS meeting, I reminded Members of the four key 
principles which guide – and continue to guide  – my process: parallelism; without prejudice – 
which I have already highlighted earlier; no presumption of convergence and transparency.  I also 
described what I called my working operational guidelines, given the shared sense that the 
Rev.4 text on Export  Competition is our basis for engagement. I have been reminding many of you 
in our bilaterals that these are:  
 First, to encourage all Members to seek to stay as close as possible to the 
existing Rev .4 Text on Export Competition  and any amendments to that t ext be 
as limited as possible and only to the extent necessary . Let me repeat that: any 
amendments to that text be as limited as possible and only to the extent necessary . 
 
 Second, and against that background, I have been asking Members who have 
identified  an issue in the Rev .4 text on Export Competi tion the following three 
questions:  
 
1. Where  in Rev.4 do you have a concern?  
2. What precisely  is the nature of your concern? and 
3. How do you propose to address your concern?  
And I added that I would be expe cting written amendments  to be proposed for the text to reply to 
this "How?" question.  
 
11. I am pleased to see that a number of delegations have now submitted a set of proposed  
written amendments to the Rev. 4 text, which they will be introducing today. Anothe r Member has 
circulated an input which does not contain drafting proposals  but emphasizes certain issues. I trust 
that these initiatives  – and others which are still await ed – will deliver some momentum to help 
take us where we urgently need to be  – in an intensive textual negotiation.  JOB/AG/53  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Special Safeguard Mechanism  
12. We have had two meetings in the Room E format on this important subject. The first 
meeting on 6 November was an opportunity to hear from the G33 on their newly tabled proposal, 
including significan t detail on the areas of flexibility that they identified for consideration. 
There  were four such areas namely:  
 Special dispensation for LDCs and SVEs ; 
 product coverage;  
 remed ies breaching pre -Doha bindings;  and  
 application and duration of volume SSM . 
13. Our second meeting on 13 November was an opportunity to explore in more detail a number 
of the technical issues that had arisen at the 6 November meeting. This was a solid and 
constructive exchange.  
14. Notwithstanding this useful discussion, it is clear that a d ifficult political threshold question 
remains unresolved. This is whether there is a shared sensed that the SSM is a pot ential 
deliverable for Nairobi.  
15. My assessment – and it is an obvious one – is that there are two groups with diamet rically 
opposing view s. On the one hand the G33 has made clear its expectation that this mus t be 
a deliverable for Nairobi. On the other hand is another group of countries that was equally clear 
that it did not see this as a deliverable for Nairobi . As Chair I cannot ignore ei ther view, or the fact 
of this deep division. So we are at an impasse – there is no other way to describe it.  
16. In my concluding remarks at our 13 November meeting I said that what I had heard did not 
change my assessment that work on this issue should conti nue. I have not chan ged my mind on 
this assessment.  
17. There is a recently tabled proposal on the table and it is only fair to continue work against 
that background with the usual caveats relating to "without prejudice " that I have already noted 
and within th e usual parameters I have outlined across this negotiation.  
18. The G33 has also just tabled another submission (JOB/AG/49) which they will no doubt wish 
to introduce today. This too will need to be taken into account in our further work.  
19. I am currently consid ering "what next? " and will be reflecting further, including on whether 
to change the format for a future meeting into a smaller group process if that is helpful.   
Cotton  
20. Let me start by repeating what is obvious, but still needs to be said: cotton must be  part of 
any outcome from the 10th Ministerial Conference – not least because of the expected benefits for 
LDC Members. On this there is a clear convergence.  
21. This being said, there is no convergence as of today on what should constitute such an 
outcome.  I have held a number of meetings in a range of the "classical " Cotton formats – 
bilaterally with the C4 countries as well as the major cotton players and also with the Cotton Quad 
and the Cotton Quad Plus, as well as through  an extended cotton -focused meetin g with a broader 
group this morning.  As Members know, the C4 circulated on 12 October its proposal on cotton and 
this was  introduced at our last CoA  SS. I also received some written textual proposals from some 
Members in relation to the C4 proposal. We hav e made solid if not particularly impressive progress 
on this part of the negotiation.  
22. I am currently in the process of preparing what I hope will be a workable basis for a forward 
negotiation. Initially this will be in the form of some elements, based on w hat I have heard from 
Members as well as the C4. Once I have road tested this, I expect to turn this into a text -based 
proposal under my own responsibility and I have appreciated the support of the major cotton 
players and the C4 in m aking my preparations for this.  JOB/AG/53  
 
- 4 - 
 
  23. For your information, there will be three elements to what I intend to sketch out shortly  – 
market access ; domestic support  and export competition . We have agreed with the C4 and 
the major players and more broadly that the development component w ill be managed by the LDC 
facilitator in the first instance. Let me give you a flavour of where each of these elements currently 
stands.  
24. On Market Access , the C4 has identified the specific items on which it would like to have 
DFQF provided. This list has been circulated to all of you on 17 November. I have circulated this 
document to the Cotton Quad Plus and other members identified as markets of interest to LDCs 
asking them to verify the information that has been prepared by the Secretariat and describes our 
understanding of where M embers are at in offering DFQF.  
25. One Member has questioned the balance of efforts to be undertaken by developed country 
Members and some developing country ones.  My sense is that there is a modestly positive 
outcome possible on m arket access, given the mandate we are prosecuting. The outcome is, 
however, far from ambitious or spectacular. It is well short of expectations, but something is – in 
my judgement – possible. It will be important to sustain engagement on market access, in cluding 
through a "living list " process with adequate monitoring and review provisions.   
26. On Domestic Support , the outlook is even more negative. Based on what I have heard, 
I now have real doubts about the feasibility and the overall balance of a possible outcome in 
Domestic Support, least of all one which meets the C4 's stated expectations. This remains 
a challenging area.  
27. On Export Competition for cotton , there appears to be a shared sense that the export 
subsidy -related elements here can be realised. Mor e generally Members have underlined that 
a cotton -related outcome across the other aspects of Export Competition should be envisaged 
within the scope of a wider outcome on this issue (i .e. Export Competition).  
28. Finally, and more broadly let me repeat that t he negotiations on cotton are not occurring in 
a vacuum. They are not isolated from the overall negotiations, in particular agricultural market 
access and domestic support. That is an unavoidable fact.  
Public Stock holding  
29. As you know, on 5 November I held  my second Room E -type meeting on this subject since 
I took over as Chair. This meeting involved close to 40 Members , including group coordinators. 
With regret I have to say that I did not see not see any fundamental change in Members' 
well-known positions . There is thus still no convergence on this issue. Again, I trust Members will 
correct m e if my judgement is incorrect.  
30. In the meantime, let me remind Members that we have a mandate both from the 
Bali Ministerial in 2013 and from the General Council in 20 14. And as you recall, the former set 
a deadline for MC11 for resolution of this matter, while the latter instructed Members to make all 
concerted efforts to resolve t his matter by 31 December 2015. For my part I will continue to work 
in various formats on  this matter, and I expect to convene a further meeting on this matter 
shortly.  This concludes my report on my consultations to date.  
Submissions  
31. We have three new submissions that have be en presented since the last CoA  SS: I will give 
the floor first to Australia to introduce its submission and then to the EU / Brazil to introduce the 
submission made by a number of Members and a proposal from the G33 which will be introduced 
by Indonesia. Once we have heard these presentations I will open the floor for yo ur comments and 
thoughts. In order to use our time efficiently I suggest that you make any comments on the new 
submissions, as well on your assessment of where we are at in the negotiations and the way 
ahead, in a single statement. As ever, interactive exc hanges among delegations would be very 
welcome too.  JOB/AG/53  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Conclusion  
32. Looking ahead, I am beginning to reflect on what I can reasonably report to the Chair of t he 
TNC before we go to Nairobi. At this point let me tell you that if I had to write that report today it 
would be a pretty bleak one, with no convergence on any of the key areas. This can still c hange, 
but time is running out.  
33. At our last meeting I suggested that we are inching towards our Thalassa Thalassa moment. 
Nearly two weeks later, we are quite pate ntly still only inching our way forward and remain some 
distance away from that "rosy fingered dawn ". In this regard, let me remind you of what I said 
when I first took on this role on 8 September. I said it very clearly, but it appears I need to remind 
colleagues: "I have neither a magic wand nor a magic draft, nor any other kind of magical powers. 
Sadly, the magical powers so dramatically presented in Lord of the Rings –despite being filmed in 
New Zealand – seem to have passed me by. "  
34. Since I said that n othing has happened to alter my view that it is up to Members to resolve 
outstanding issues and I cannot wave those away by saying "Abracadabra Kazam Kazam ". As I am 
constantly reminded here, this is a Member -driven process and in this regard I expect the 
solutions and thus progress to come from you. That process of securing progress needs to be 
driven by you and I expect you collectively to deliver solutions.  
35. My role as Chair is not to negotiate with you, my role is to facilitate your ongoing 
negotiations . I therefore encourage you to work with one another actively and intensively in 
whatever formats you judge useful and then bring wh at you think is possible to me. In the 
meantime, I will of course intensify my efforts to facilitate negotiations and outcom es in the short 
time remaining. No stone will be left unturned – on this I am absolutely determined. I ask you all 
to be ready to meet at extremely short notice and at unsocial hours. We need a high level of 
engagement from everyone if there are to be wort hwhile results at Nairobi.  
__________