JOB/AG/107  
 
25 July 2017 
(17-4094) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
REPORT  BY AMB. STEPHEN NDŨN'GŨ KARAU  TO THE  
COMMITTEE ON AGRICUL TURE IN SPECIAL SESS ION1 
19 July  2017 
 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  As you will recall, following my appointment as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture in 
Special Session on 26 April, I have held a series of 35 bilateral consultations with group 
representatives or coordinators, and individual delegations representing the whole Membership in 
its diversity.  
1.2.  I concluded this first phase by holding an informal open -ended meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Special Session on 1  June, during which I reported on my consultations.  
1.3.  I also gave delegations the opportunity  to introduce during that meeting the 14 submissions 
and communications that had been circulated since the last informal meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Special Session in November 2016.  
1.4.  You will recall that in my concluding remarks at the meeti ng on 1  June, I invited delegations 
which had not yet tabled a submission to do so as quickly as possible, and in any event, before the 
summer break, if they wanted their ideas and suggestions to be part of our discussions.  
1.5.  Some new submissions were tabled  recently and will be introduced today, and it is my 
understanding that work is still in progress on a couple of others.  
1.6.  I concluded on 1 June that it was necessary to deepen our work, topic by topic based on all 
the submissions and communications received  thus far, with a view to engaging in an intense, 
pragmatic, focused and creative discussion process aimed at progressively reducing the gaps in 
negotiating positions and moving towards convergence.  
1.7.  I attended the informal ministerial meeting held on 8 Jun e in the margins of the OECD 
meetings in Paris where the Director -General requested Ministers to instruct Geneva delegations to 
"remain ready to work constructively, and with a willingness to engage with greater specificity " 
and to " show open -mindedness an d pragmatism ". 
1.8.  It is against this background that I decided to move to topic -based Room -E type meetings 
with the participation of approximately 30 delegations on all topics in which you have expressed an 
interest.  
1.9.  These topics are Public Stockholding for F ood Security Purposes  (PSH) , Domestic Support, 
Special Safeguard Mechanism for developing country Members  (SSM) , Market Access, Export 
Restrictions and Other Issues, including Export Competition and Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
measures. Following the practi ce established by my predecessors, I also held consultations on 
Cotton in a Quad plus format.  
                                                
1 As read  on his behalf  by Ambassador Harald  Neple from Norway.  JOB/AG/107  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.10.   To ensure inclusiveness and transparency in this process, I invited group coordinators in 
addition to the key stakeholders in these Room E type - meetings, so that  they could report back to 
their respective groups.  
1.11.   It represented in total seven meetings : two meetings on PSH and SSM on 15 June and on 
14 July, two meetings on Domestic Support on 20 June and 12 July, two meetings on Cotton on 
16 June and 30 June, and o ne meeting on Market Access, Export Restrictions and other issues on 
23 June.  
1.12.   As you are aware, I had initially intended to hold meetings more frequently. But on several 
occasions, delegations asked me to postpone our discussions either because of other 
commitments, overlap with other meetings or because they needed more time to get prepared.  
1.13.   I accommodated such requests for two main reasons:  
1.14.   First, because I consider there is no point in holding meetings for the sake of it. Adequate 
preparation in advance  of our meet ings within groups and between M embers with different visions 
is absolutely crucia l to make our meetings fruitful.  
1.15.   Secondly, to ensure inclusiveness and transparency and avoid a situation where some 
delegations, especially the smaller ones, would not be in a position to be appropriately 
represented.  
1.16.   This being said, I am of the view that we will need to significantly accelerate the rhythm of 
our discussions after the summer break, if we are committed to progress on substance and 
achieve conve rgence on the negotiating issues in time for MC11.  
2  SUBSTANCE  
2.1.  I will now report in detail on all these topic -based discussions.  
2.2.  I will not address PSH and SSM in my report today but will do so tomorrow during the 
respective dedicated sessions on these two t opics.  
Domestic Support  
2.3.  I held two consultations on domestic support. My consultations have confirmed that this pillar 
continues to be one of the priority issues for the vast majority of delegations.  
2.4.  To facilitate the discussions, I circulated a certain number of questions in advance of the 
meetings. The first set of questions  concerned: a potential  achievable for MC11; the key elements 
to constrain the use of trade -distorting domestic support; ways to  express any potential new 
element; the treatment of the different elements; and the priority issues for subsequent 
discussions on Domestic Support.  
2.5.  The second set of questions  built on debates resulting from the first one and concerned: the 
best potential  use of existing elements of the Agreement on Agriculture to limit trade -distorting 
support, and the level and coverage of a potential new overall limit, should this idea be retained.  
2.6.  My overall assessment of the meeting was that the engagement by Members was 
encouraging and demonstrated the will to try to find an outcome for MC11. It was also very clear, 
however, that any outcome would be just an incremental step.  
2.7.  The responses broadly confirmed the known positions. Regarding the objective for MC11, the 
majority of Members can be broadly divided in two groups: 1) those favoring an overall limit – 
fixed or floating, and 2) those calling for the elimination of the AMS entitlements as a pre -requisite 
for any other domestic support reform. A possible framework for the future work was also 
mentioned by some.  JOB/AG/107  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.8.  Regarding the overall limit itself, Members supporting the idea have different views on what 
it should apply to, both in the short run and at a later stage. The differences were more 
pronounced as regards the  Blue Box support and Art.6.2, as well as whether the limit should be 
combined with product -specific disciplines. Some other ideas were also suggested, notably 
considering per capita  support and inflation rates.  
2.9.  Regarding AMS, some Members called for its s ubstantial reduction, while others demanded its 
elimination for developed country Members, or making it correspond to the value of production in 
the case of developing Members.  
2.10.   Levelling the playing field, S&D, and transparency were also key priorities fo r many.  
2.11.   I also took note of redlines and sensitivities expressed. These are well known to you all: 
Article 6.2 and  de minimis  for developing Members, an overall limit based on the value of 
production, Blue Box, and product -specific disciplines for some.  
2.12.   Regarding product -specific limits, the opinions of those calling for disciplines ranged from 
general limits to per capita  limits, including a reduction of the per product support that is above 
the de minimis  limit. 
2.13.   These discussions confirmed that reducing trade -distorting domestic support is a priority for 
virtually all delegations. Nevertheless, how to go about it still differs significantly. I reminded 
delegations that doing nothing will not achieve their objective, nor does it help to level the playing 
field. 
2.14.   Regarding the priority issues for  the subsequent discussions on domestic s upport, the 
responses varied significantly and basically covered all the elements I mentioned in my report.  
2.15.   Finally, let me acknowledge the fact that s everal submissions on do mestic s upport were 
circulated in the last days and will be introduced today.  
Market Access  
2.16.   I held one consultation on market a ccess during which Members had the opportunity to 
comment on papers by Paraguay and Peru and a proposal from Russia.  
2.17.   Members exp ressed a wide range of views on t he likelihood of an outcome on market a ccess 
for MC11. Some thought incremental outcomes would be feasible at MC11, others considered that 
a commitment to pursue market access negotiations post -MC11 would be a realistic out come. 
Others thought that an outcome in this area would not be possible.  
2.18.   With respect to Paraguay and Peru's paper highlighting continuation of the reform process in 
market access, some Members supported the idea of incremental steps on tariff peaks, esca lation, 
simplification, and in -quota duties. Some expressed doubts that there was sufficient time to 
conduct the necessary technical work. Members expressed some reservations about pursuing the 
approach suggested – including with respect to postponing disc ussions on the tariff reduction 
formula, the lack of explicit S&D, and the linkage between agriculture market access and other 
areas in the negotiations.  
2.19.   With respect to the Russian Federation's paper proposing the elimination of the SSG, some 
supported th e idea that MC11 could deliver an outcome on SSG – either elimination or modification 
– others did not see this as a feasible outcome for MC11 given the current negotiating 
environment.  
2.20.   Members' comments on what they saw as priority issues reflected the di versity of positions 
in this area. Some would like to have concrete discussions on specific elements, while others 
considered that it would be better to focus on a work programme to support continuing discussions 
on market access. Still others advocated th at attention should be given to transparency and 
updated market access information in order to lay the ground work for future market access 
outcomes.  JOB/AG/107  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Cotton  
2.21.   On cotton, I held two meetings in Quad plus format composed of the C4, Argentina, 
Australia, Brazil , China, Colombia, the European Union, India, Pakistan and the United States.  
2.22.   The second meeting gave participants the opportunity to make initial comments on a draft 
proposal on Cotton Domestic Support currently being prepared by the C4. These comments 
constituted useful inputs to the C4 to finalize their proposal.  
2.23.   Many participants were of the opinion that the most efficient way forward would be to focus, 
in view of MC11, on the most trade -distorting support granted to cotton farmers.  
2.24.   More systemic sensit ivities as regards possible disciplines on Green Box and Blue Box 
support benefitting cotton producers were expressed by some delegations.  
2.25.   Some delegations suggested a ceiling on the trade -distorting support expressed as a 
percentage of the cotton value of  production.  
2.26.   Some Members supported the objective of total elimination of cotton AMS and opposed any 
new disciplines on de minimis  for developing country Members without an AMS commitment.  
2.27.   Some other Members disagreed with the principle of a differentiatio n in the disciplines 
between developing country Members with or without an AMS commitment.  
2.28.   The importance of special and differential treatment was underlined by some delegations, 
while some others insisted on the necessity for all Members providing trade -distorting support to 
contribute to an outcome on cotton, with one delegation suggesting that Article 6.2 support should 
also be included in the discussion.  
2.29.   The link between the overall negotiation on Domestic Support and the negotiation on cotton 
Domestic  Support was again highlighted.  
2.30.   It was agreed that the C4 would continue to work on its draft proposal based on inputs 
received from various Members and that another Quad plus meeting would be held as and when 
appropriate.  
2.31.   The C4 may wish to update the Me mbership on the state of play of their con sultations 
during this meeting.  
2.32.   A recent  proposal tabled by a group of Members also makes reference to cotton along with 
Domestic Support and PSH.  
2.33.   Overall, most participants reiterated their support for a meaningfu l and specific outcome on 
cotton domestic support, but a couple of participants recorded their lack of optimism, taking into 
account the overall negotiation prospects.  
2.34.   Possible improvement in the duty -free and quota -free market access for exports of cotton  
and cotton -related products from Least Developed Countries and the cotton development 
component were also mentioned as possible elements for an outcome on cotton at MC11.  
2.35.   Finally, let me also recall that the next dedicated discussion on trade related aspe cts of 
Cotton will take place on 24 July.  
Export Restrictions  
2.36.   I held one consultation exploring the feasibility and the content of a possible outcome on 
export restrictions at MC11. There was broad support among the Membership on Singapore's ideas 
to enhan ce transparency of export restrictions, which could form the basis of such an outcome.  JOB/AG/107  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.37.   In this context, I note that Singapore just circulated a text -based proposal that may assist 
future discussions.  
2.38.   Some developing Members also underlined the importance o f export restrictions as a policy 
tool to support food security needs and to contain price volatility in the event of food shortages. 
They resisted any attempt to curtail the S&D element in the existing rules. The potential 
burdensomeness of the proposed t ransparency requirements, especially for developing countries, 
was also raised.  
2.39.   Some Members also considered that an outcome on export restrictions should not just be 
limited to transparency alone. The issue of exempting non -commercial humanitarian transac tions 
from such measures also came up in the discussions.  
Export Competition  
2.40.   A couple of Members reiterated that export competition was still an unfinished business, and 
that this fact should be recognized at MC11, but none of them classified this topic a s a priority for 
MC11.  
Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures  
2.41.   Two Members  have suggested that some SPS iss ues could be part of the deliverables for the 
next Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires. They indicated that they were still considering which 
body or bodies would be the most appropriate forum to discuss the ir submission.  
2.42.   These Members used the opportunity of the July 2017 meeting of the SPS Committee to 
draw Members' attention to their document and invited additional inputs. They also noted tha t 
they remained open to discuss their submission bilaterally with interested delegations as they 
planned the next steps.  
3  CONCLUSION  
3.1.  Let me now conclude my report with some comments of a general nature.  
3.2.  As already mentioned in my previous report, my assessm ent, based on what I have heard 
thus far in our discussions, is that different topics are at different levels of maturity. Many 
delegations considered that a substantial outcome at MC11 was within reach for Public 
Stockholding for Food Security purposes, D omestic Support, Cotton and Export Restrictions. The 
same could not be said of the other topics.  
3.3.  This being said, some delegations considered that a substantial outcome was still possible, at 
least partially, for some of the other topics. Some other delega tions expressed doubts about the 
possibility of reaching substantial outcomes on any of the topics under consideration.  
3.4.  The question we must ask ourselves now is how do we organize our work going forward?  
3.5.  This issue is now becoming absolutely critical, giv en the tight timeframe we are operating 
within. At best, we have 12 working weeks between the "Jeûne genevois" holiday period and 
MC11.  
3.6.  First, it seems to me we need to prioritize our discussions, based on the level of priority given 
by Members to the vari ous topics, and allocate our time accordingly.  
3.7.  Second, it is clear that we have not yet moved so far into what I would call a real intensive 
negotiation mode. We have had useful suggestions, discussions and exchanges but no real 
negotiation.  
3.8.  While this pre paratory phase is very important to prepare the ground for a successful 
negotiation, we also need to be realistic and pragmatic.  JOB/AG/107  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.9.  I have been asked several times by Members as to when we will move into text -based 
negotiations  
3.10.   This question is, of course, important for the topics where a substantial outcome is 
expected, but it is also relevant for topics where the Membership could envisage other types of 
outcomes, like a post MC11 work programme.  
3.11.   So, what is the current state of play? On some topics, we hav e one main written proposal 
which could serve as a possible basis for discussion, on other topics we have several contributions 
or proposals highlighting various options, sometimes close to each other, sometimes very far 
apart.  
3.12.   These written contributions are supplemented by your oral interventions during meetings, 
some of which contain very specific and concrete elements.  
3.13.   On some issues, some delegations also indicated that they did not see, for the time being, 
any prospect for such a text -based negotiati on leading to a substantial outcome at MC11.  
3.14.   The issue we face today is how do we move forward considering the numerous elements 
available on the various topics, and their respective degree of priority for the Membership, should 
we decide to move into text -based negotiations.  
3.15.   This issue cannot be addressed in isolation from the rest of the WTO negotiations. On one 
hand, as reaffirmed several times by delegations, agriculture should form part of any outcome at 
MC11. On the other hand, priorities, process and  prospects in agriculture must be seen in the 
context of overall priorities, process and prospects for MC11.  
3.16.   Keeping in mind this issue, I look forward to getting your views on the progress on 
substance made thus far, as well as on the process forward towa rds MC11.  
__________