JOB/AG/117  
 
24 October  2017 
(17-5771) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
REPORT  BY AMB. STEPHEN NDŨN'GŨ KARAU  TO THE  
COMMITTEE ON AGRICUL TURE IN SPECIAL SESS ION 
19 October  2017 
 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  Since our last meeting on 13 September, I have held room E type meetings on Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes ( PSH), Domestic Support and Export Restrictions  on 
21 September, 22 September and 4 October , respectively . I also held a Quad Plus meeting on 
Cotton on 13  October.  
1.2.  I have also had bilateral consultations with Members and held meetings in various 
configurations, i ncluding  one meeting with G roup Coordinators on 6  October.  
1.3.  Last but not least, I attended the Marrakech Mini -Ministerial meeting on 9 and 10 October. 
The meeting was very useful and characterized by a high level of engagement by Ministers who all 
supported  a successful 11th Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires.  
1.4.  Discussions on PSH and the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) will take place in dedicated 
sessions of the CoA Special Session tomorrow, Friday  20 October . 
2  SUBSTANCE  
2.1.  Let me now report in detail issue by issue on my consultations thus far.  
Domestic Support  
2.2.  Domestic Support remains the priority for the vast majority of Members. It is the pillar that 
has received  a lot of attention in all our meetings thus far, as well as in my consultations with 
Members. It was also one of the main issues discussed at the Marrakesh Mini-Ministerial meeting. 
This engagement is yet reflected again by two more submissions that will be introduced today, 
namely the one by the ACP Group in document JOB/AG/112 and the one by New Zealand, 
Australia, Canada, Chile and Paraguay in document JOB/AG/114.  
2.3.  Nevertheless, important gaps still remain in the positions of Members on the negotiating 
issues, which are well known to you all. Members remain broadly divided between:  
– those that favour  an overall limit on trade -distorting support, whether based on a 
percentage of the value of production or on a monetary ceiling; and  
– those that consider that the AMS should be eliminated first – notably because it allows 
for product -specific  subsidy concentration – and that at least some steps should be 
taken in that direction.  
2.4.  In addition, several Members consider that efforts should be proportional and the burden 
should not  be put more on some  Members  than others . They consider that new dis ciplines based JOB/AG/117  
 
- 2 - 
 
  on the current elements – AMS and de minimis  – would be more appropriate and cautioned against 
a one -size-fits-all-type of solution.  
2.5.  While acknowledging the usefulness of the proposal by the EU/Brazil and co -proponents, 
several Members regr etted the absence of disciplines on product -specific support and/or 
immediate disciplines on the Blue Box. Some Members reiterated th eir sensitivities regarding 
Article 6.2 and de minimis  entitlements.  
2.6.  Some Members stressed the need for all Members to make  a contribution. Calls were also 
made to recalibrate expectations and to be realistic and flexible . 
Cotton  
2.7.  The C4 proposal containing a draft ministerial decision on Cotton was circulated on 
11 October 2017 in document TN/AG/GEN/46. It will be introduced t oday and Members will 
subsequently have the opportunity to react to it.  
2.8.  The C4 proposal received preliminary comments from Quad Plus participants during a brief 
meeting on 13 October. Some of the Members who provided comments regretted the high level of 
ambition, while others requested the C4 to clarify some elements of the proposal, including the 
proposed treatment of developing country Members.  
2.9.  Let me also remind the Membership that there are other proposals on the table aimed at 
making progress on Cotton  Domestic Support including , in particular , the proposal by Brazil, the 
European Union, Colombia, Peru and Uruguay in document JOB/AG/99.  
2.10.   Finally, we should also keep in mind the fact that, as referred to in the C4 proposal, the 
issue of Cotton includes ot her components, including the development assistance dimension which 
merits our continued focus.  
Export Restrictions  
2.11.   The discussions thus far have confirmed that many Members support a limited outcome, 
mainly focused on enhancing transparency in Export Pro hibitions and Restrictions.  
2.12.   Many Members welcomed the latest proposal by Singapore in document JOB/AG/101 and 
considered that it was now time to engage in text -based negotiations on this issue.  
2.13.   Some Members sought clarification of certain provisions in the  Singaporean proposal. 
Singapore recognized that some parts of the proposal, in particular paragraph 2, might need some 
re-drafting for greater clarity.  
2.14.   Some Members  highlighted the usefulness of E xport Restriction measures, particularly 
seasonal measures,  for developing country Members. Several Members cautioned against making 
the notification requirements too burdensome for developing country Members.  
2.15.   Some Members, however, expressed the view that some elements not captured in 
Singapore's proposal should also be considered in the discussions, and that any limited outcome at 
MC11 should be complemented by a post -MC11 work programme.  
2.16.   In this regard, I note the submission by Israel, Japan, Republic of Korea, Switzerland and  
the Separate Customs Territory of T aiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  in document JOB/AG/115, 
which will be introduced today by the proponents.  
2.17.   It should also be highlighted that most Members consider that an outcome on Export 
Prohibitions and Restrictions could not be envisaged in the absence  of a more comprehensive 
outcome in the agricultural negotiations overall.  
2.18.   This latter point is well noted. It is fully understood by all of us that Members' engagement 
on this issue and, I should add here like on any other issue, is entirely without preju dice to their 
positions on the overall Buenos Aires outcome.  JOB/AG/117  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.19.   In other words, the progress on this issue , like on any other issue , will be assessed by the 
Membership in the context of the overall state of play on the various agricultural issues under 
negoti ations.  
Market Access  
2.20.   In Market Access, there is acknowledgement among the Members, including the proponents,  
that a substantive outcome in M arket Access may not be feasible at MC11. Simultaneously, I have 
not heard any Member questioning the impor tance of  Market Access reforms.  
2.21.   The best possible outcome that may be expected at MC11 would be a detailed post -MC11 
work programme. And, the challenge for us in the limited time available is to draft such a work 
programme that is acceptable to all to guide the po st-MC11 market access negotiations. Some 
Members have already cautioned against any selective approach that might potentially lead to 
"pick and choose " among the various Market Access issues.  
2.22.   The issue of elimination of SSG has also been raised specifical ly by some Members. In this 
regard, I note the submission by  the Russia n Federation  in document JOB/AG/116 which was 
circulated this morning and will be introduced today.  
Export Competition  
2.23.   On Export Competition, I have nothing new to report. As mentioned earlier, some Members 
have expressed the view that Export Competition was still an unfinished business and that this 
point should be recognized in a post -MC11 work programme.  
2.24.   For some Members, the priority for the time being is the implementation of the 
December  2015 Decision on Export Competition.  
Sanitary and P hytosanitary (SPS) measures  
2.25.   On Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures, my understanding is that the proponents are still 
consulting on the best way forward, but that this is not considered as a candidate for a substantive 
outcome at MC11 . 
3  CONCLUSION  
3.1.  Let me now conclude my report with some comments of a general nature.  
3.2.  The Marrakech Mini -Ministerial meeting was very useful and gave us a welcomed impetus to 
press ahead at this critical juncture.  
3.3.  We will be hearing more from Minister Malcorra this afternoon.  
3.4.  A lot of work , however , remains to be done given that we are only seven  weeks away from 
MC11 which, in principle, means that there are only five working weeks still available.  
3.5.  It is now time to translate the engagement demonstrated in Marrakech by our Ministers and 
the shared willingness to have success at MC11  into concrete actions . 
3.6.  What does it mean more specifically?  
3.7.  To prepare the ground for success at MC11, it should be our  objective to submit to Ministers 
a limited number of issues for their consideration. This implies that we need to intensify our work 
here in Geneva and close as many gaps as possible in the negotiating positions of Members on the 
issues. Experience has ta ught us that the agenda for Ministers must be manageable if results are 
to be obtained.  JOB/AG/117  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.8.  Put differently, our objective should be to submit to Ministers a clear understanding of what 
can be envisaged as agricultural outcomes at MC11, with as few points as possible left open for 
negotiation by Ministers.  
3.9.  Depending on the issue, the envisaged outcome cou ld be a substantive one, a post -MC11 
work programme or a combination of the two.  
3.10.   With that in mind, what do we need? Let me spell out seven elements  which I co nsider as 
critical for our success.  
3.11.   The first element  is realism and pragmatism : The time has passed for Members to 
indicate their "wish list" for Buenos Aires. Our focus should be on what we think can realistically be 
achieved , while respecting our own "r ed lines" as well as those of other Members'.  
3.12.   The second element  which directly derives from the first one is prioritization  and focus : 
As mentioned by t he DG at the Informal Heads of D elegations a month ago and again at 
Marrakech, we need to prioritize th e issues and agree on the types of outcomes that can 
realistically be envisaged at MC11.  
3.13.   We do not have the luxury of time to discuss possible outcomes that remain elusive. We 
must concentrate our discussions on outcomes that can realistically be achieved.  
3.14.   Where a substantive outcome does not seem to be within reach for MC11, we should 
engage without any further delay in defining what could be a possible post -MC11 work 
programme. This discussion will also require time and will understandably be difficult.  
3.15.   In this regard, I call on proponents to make suggestions on what could constitute elements 
of a possible work programme and engage with other Members to build consensus around their 
ideas.  
3.16.   The third element  is balance : We need to see an approach where every one is prepared to 
make some kind of contribution.  
3.17.   The fourth element  is flexibility and imagination : We all need to leave our comfort 
zones and enter into the "what if" zone in order to be able to bridge the gaps and move towards 
convergence.  
3.18.   The fifth e lement  is sense of urgency : As I mentioned to you we have only five working 
weeks left. It means we will have to accelerate our negotiation process. This implies being in a 
position to react quickly to ideas put forward by other Members.  
3.19.   The sixth element  is transparency and inclusiveness : Inherently linked with the 
previous element, this one is of utmost importance for our process and will continue to guide our 
work.  
3.20.   Last but not least, the seventh element  is the sense of collective ownership : The WTO 
Multilateral Trading System is ours. Success in Buenos Aires will collectively be ours.  There is no 
way out and we must all keep this in mind and work together to achieve success.  
__________