JOB/AG/46  
 
3 November 2015  
(15-5816) Page: 1/8 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
 COMMITTEE ON AGRICUL TURE IN SPECIAL SESS ION:  
INFORMAL MEETING, 30  OCTOBER 2015  
REPORT BY THE CHAIR  
Today 's meeting has three inter -related objectives:  
 
1. I will report on my consultations since our last CoA SS on 2 October. As I have been 
saying since I was appointed to this role two months ago, I am determined to ensure 
transparency in this negotiation ;  
2. I want to give an opportunity to Members to introduce new submissions and to other 
Members to react; and  
3. I want us collectively to take stock of the negoti ations across all the pillars.  
 
In order to use our time efficiently I suggest that you make your comments in one statement 
covering both the new submissions and your assessment of where we are in the negotiations . 
 
Report on Consultations  
1.  In presenting m y report on my consultations, I will do my report following what is now my 
usual structure: (1) the process, (2) the context, and (3) the substance of our forward work.  
Process  
2.  Since we last met in this setting on 2 October, I have held many bilateral con sultations as well 
as consultations in variable geometries on a range of issues. That is the process I have in mind for 
the way ahead as well.  In addition to my bilateral and small group consultations – with a particular 
emphasis  on Export Competition and Cotton – I also conducted two Room E meetings – one on 
Public Stockholding on 14 October and the other on Export Competition on 16 October. This being 
said, I want to stress again that the Public Stockholding for Food Security issue is and remains on 
a sep arate track. For the purposes of transparency and with your permission, I will use this 
meeting to report back on my consultations on this issue too. In terms of the process I have in 
mind looking ahead I am prepared to organize as many meetings as necessa ry to take all issues as 
far as we can. But I will need your help and positive contribution for this. But please remain 
assured – whatever the setting for the meeting, I will always report back to the full Membership on 
a regular basis.  
Context  
3.  As you will  recall, in his Room W briefing on 17 September, the DG called for more clarity from 
Members "by mid to end of October " in order to prepare the ground for a successful ministerial. 
In the Room W meeting yesterday he warned about the current state of negoti ations and called for 
a serious engagement on substance, urging Members to reflect again and rethink their redlines. 
He stressed that what Members will decide to do in and after Nairobi will shape the future of the 
WTO.   
4.  So here we are, at the end of Octob er – not much time left but a big collective responsibility to 
take. While we may have a (rather unfortunate) increasing clarity on the issues (or even pillars) 
that may not be part of the MC10 deliverables, the situation with what actually would be 
delive rable for Nairobi needs to be clarified urgently. Even on an issue which may be more mature JOB/AG/46  
 
- 2 - 
 
  relative to others  – without prejudice to our broader positions as to whether an outcome on Export 
Competition may form part of the Nairobi package – we need furthe r convergence on what this 
specific outcome might be. Time is short and in order to work towards that objective we need 
Members intending to submit written amendments to do so as soon as possible.   
5.  The context for my forward process therefore remains diffi cult and with time running short. 
That said, the context for my process continues to be that all issues remain on the table, even if 
some are moving at variable speeds.  
Substance  
6.  Before I begin my report on the substance of my consultations I would like t o stress that my 
report here is of course without prejudice to the submissions that will be introduced later today.  
7.  Let me begin with Domestic Support  and Market Access. I sincerely regret that I have seen no 
evolution in the substantive  positions of Memb ers. 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. Nonetheless I invite anyone 
who may have a new p ositive element to contribute to do so.  
8.  As you know, there is a new proposal from the G33 on the SSM, and I can tell you already that 
I am planning to hold a Room E consultation on it next Friday , 6 November . It is important that we 
consider all options a nd as I have been emphasising throughout this process and since I took on 
this role, all issues will continue to be part of my forward work programme. Let us see where this 
takes us.  
1  EXPORT COMPETITION  
9.  The Export Competition  pillar is currently in a somew hat unique position in the agriculture 
negotiation.  As I said, it has been identified – without prejudice to positions we may take on other 
issues and indeed on the post -Nairobi context – as a possible deliverable on agriculture for 
Nairobi . It is also cle ar today that there are still some significant outstanding issues within this 
pillar.  But let me give you some more details on the process  specific to this pillar I have followed 
so far.   
10.  Following our last open -ended special session, I engaged in a first round of consultations 
specifically dedicated to this pillar, including the Room E meeting I mentioned before. 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 Compet ition as our basis for engagement . 
I enunciated during this meeting the four key principles which would guide my process: 
parallelism; without prejudice; no presumption of convergence and transparency . I also described 
what I called my working operational guidelines:  
1. 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 text 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 . 
 
2. Second, and against that background, that I will be asking Members who have identified 
an issue in the Rev .4 text on Export Compe tition 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?  
 
11.  And I added that I would be expecting written amendments  to be proposed for the text to 
reply to this "How?" question.  JOB/AG/46  
 
- 3 - 
 
  12.  Following the Ro om E meeting I engaged in a range of consultations in a variety of 
formats , including:  
1. a group of developed country Members still using export subsidies;  
2. a group of developing country Members with export subsidies reduction commitments or 
having used expo rt subsidies under the Article 9.4 flexibility;  and  
3. several group coordinators.  
 
13.  My intention is to continue and intensify  this consultation process in the coming weeks.  
14.  The Director -General's message from yesterday's Room W meeting only reinforced the 
conclusion reached at the Room E meeting on 16 October, i.e. the need to pursue in an intensive 
manner our text-based negotiation using the Rev.4 text on Export Competition as our 
basis for engagement.  
1.1  General considerations on the EC consultations  
15.  Let me be gin by saying that I have appreciated the time Delegations have been prepared to 
give me during these various consultations which were frank, in some cases robust, and always 
helpful.  Before getting specifically to each of the four components of the Export  Competition pillar, 
let me start with a certain number of general considerations which I have again heard during these 
consultations.   
16.  Many of the participants, and I think this is a shared feeling amongst all of you, expressed 
their regret – and in many cases real concern about the fact that a global outcome on Agriculture, 
including the Domestic Support and Market Access pillars, was out of reach for Nairobi.  And those 
of you who will need to make policy -related adjustments if an outcome on Export Compet ition is 
operationali zed – also reminded me how difficult it will be to agree to an outcome on Export 
Competition as a "stand -alone element ", given the lack of any "external balance " across the wider 
negotiation.   
17.  Some of you also indicated that an outcome  on Export Competition should be somehow 
rebalanced with outcomes on other elements within agriculture. In this regard, many of you told 
me that the Special Safeguard Mechanism was important to you – and I am please therefore that 
this sense of importance has translated into a further written proposal on this matter which we will 
discuss shortly.  
18.  The importance of the food security -related issues was also mentioned by one participant, 
including issues like the applicability of Export Restrictions to export s to LDCs.   
19.  There was also a wide recognition of the fact that an outcome on Export Competition in 
Nairobi would constitute a very sig nificant and meaningful outcome  and, as some of you stated 
during my consultations, a long overdue fix to what has constit uted – and still constitutes – one of 
the most egregious lacks of disciplines in the field of agriculture.   
20.  I also took good note again of the point that many of you registered with me – that the 
outcome on Export Competition will have to maintain an inter nal balance across the various 
components of the Rev .4 text.  And many of you insisted therefore on the need to minimize the 
changes to be brought to the Rev.4 text.  It was also said that in the case that some elements 
of the Rev.4 text had to be "recalibra ted" to take on board the concerns expressed by some 
Members, such a recalibration process should operate in a balanced manner across the whole 
Membership.   
21.  Several of you have also reminded me of the importance you attach to the various 
substantive refere nces to Special and Differential Treatment, in particular in relation to Article  9.4 
flexibility, as well as a range of other flexibilities being sought in the text. These particularly 
include, although not only, the flexibilities that may be on offer for Least Developed Countries and 
Net Food Importing Developing Countries, as well as Small and Vulnerable Economies.   
22.  Several of you also highlighted the need to enhance the provisions on transparency and 
monitoring in the Rev.4 text.   JOB/AG/46  
 
- 4 - 
 
  23.  On process, at least on e of you mentioned the need to further consult within your group.  
24.   Finally, several of you remarked that written proposals with the suggested changes by the 
Members willing to adjust the Rev .4 text would be necessary to allow you to react in an 
appropriate  and timely manner.  
25.  Let me now be specific about what I have heard about the various elements contained in the 
Rev.4 Export Competition text, i .e. export subsidies; export credits; food aid and state trading 
enterprises.  
1.2  Export subsidies  
26.  Let me begin with Export Subsidies . There is a simple transposition required in this section 
of the text, by simply adding seven  years , to the various dates included in the text, since it is 
now seven years since the circulation of the Rev.4 text in 2008.  More specifically,  this would 
mean:  
1. The end of 2020 for the date of elimination of scheduled export subsidi es by developed 
country Members;  
2. The end of 2023 for the date of elimination of scheduled export subsidie s by developing 
country Members;  
3. The end of 2028 for the termi nation of the article 9.4 flexibility for developing country 
Members.  
 
27.  Following this approach, all the other dates included in the Rev.4 text would be adjusted in 
the same manner, including for example on Export Subsidies the need for developed country 
Members to reduce their budgetary outlay commitments by half by 2017 (instead of 2010).  
Most of the Members with whom I consulted agreed with my suggested approach.   
28.  However, a couple of you had reservations, in one case due to the absence of instructions 
from Capital.  Some of you indicated however that their assent could be revised in case some 
changes were brought in other sections of the text.  On the other hand, several of you expressed 
your readiness to eliminate more quickly your export subsidy commitmen ts, provided all the 
Members were ready to undertake such an accelerated time -frame.  A couple of you identified 
challenges in the conditions attached to the budgetary outlays phasing down and eventual 
elimination of export subsidies, including the various steps that underpin that phasing.  
29.  This remains an extremely sensitive issue for these Members.   
30.  As mentioned earlier, several of you remarked on the importance of the provisions on the 
duration of the Article 9.4 flexibility. On the other hand, one Member  has noted the need to state 
more clearly in the text that the new disciplines will put to an end the use of export subsidies 
covered by the Article 9.4 flexibility.  Other Members had strong reactions to this suggestion.  
31.  Finally, during the Room E meeting on 16 October one Member suggested the immediate 
elimination of export subsidies for exports to LDCs, NFIDCs and SVEs. The feasibility of such 
a proposal was questioned by one of you, and some of you asked whether this proposal would 
apply in the same way for developed and developing exporting country Members.   
32.  On balance, my sense is that this component of the Rev .4 text is in reasonable shape, but 
clearly there remain gaps between the Membership on specific items . Many Members have made 
clear that in orde r to consider any changes beyond the simple transposition time frames 
I described earlier, you would need elaborated proposals in written form, in order to take a final 
position.  
1.3  Export Finance  
33.  On Export Finance, one Member expressed several concerns in r elation to the current text as 
contained in Annex J of the Rev.4 text.  The first relates to the six months maximum repayment 
term contained in the text. This was considered too short by one Member.  This Member also noted 
the need to include in the text som e kind of Safe Harbour provision to grant some protection to JOB/AG/46  
 
- 5 - 
 
  the agricultural export credit programmes in compliance with the future disciplines against 
challenges under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  Other issues raised by 
this Me mber related to the coverage of the self -financing provisions and to the need to get to the 
same end -point for exporting developed and developing country Members, with some longer 
implementation periods for developing countries.   
34.  Finally, this Member also regretted the lack of information reported to the WTO on the 
activities of several officially supported export finance programmes, and highlighted the urgent 
need to improve transparency.   
35.  The Small and Vulnerable Economies g roup indicated that it was stud ying the possibility to 
modify its proposal, as contained in document JOB/AG/16 to obtain, as importing country 
Members, similar flexibilities as those contained in paragraph 5 for NFIDCs.   
36.  Finally, one Member reiterated the critical importance of its requ est contained in document 
TN/AG/GEN/31 for some targeted changes in paragraph 5 of Annex  J. 
1.4  Agricultural exporting STEs  
37.  Annex K of the Rev.4 text on agricultural exporting STEs has not, so far, attracted specific 
concerns, at least to my knowledge.  Some of  you have underlined the importance of the 
elimination of exporting monopoly powers in line with the Rev .4 text as part of an overall outcome 
on Export Competition.  
1.5  International Food Aid  
38.  In relation to the provisions on International Food Aid contained in  Annex L, several 
developing country Members, in particular the African Group, highlighted the importance of this 
part of the Export Competition pillar, including on the in -kind food aid monetization provisions.   
39.  As with Export Credits, the Small and Vulne rable Economies group indicated that it was 
studying the possibility to modify its proposal, as contained in document JOB/AG/16 , to get similar 
flexibilities as NFIDCs in the field of in -kind food aid monetization.   
40.  Finally one Member considered that Annex  L of Rev.4 was lengthy and complex, and on the 
whole problematic. This Member has indicated that an appropriate alternative would be a shorter 
text containing guidelines on best practices to be followed in this area.  
41.  This concludes my report on Export Com petition . 
2  COTTON  
42.  Let me start by restating what seems to me the obvious: The fact that cotton should be part 
of any outcome from the 10th Ministerial Conference – not least because of the expected benefits 
for LDC Members. I think this fact has been acknow ledged by all of you.  This being said, here like 
elsewhere, while there is a shared understanding on this fact, there is no convergence as of today 
on what should constitute such an outcome.   
43.  Since taking up the Chairmanship, I have held a first round of d iscussions on cotton with key 
interested Members bilaterally, particularly C4 members . I asked the  C4 m embers to detail as 
specifically as possible their views on what could constitute an outcome on cotton at MC10.  
44.  To this end, the C4 circulated on 12 Oct ober its proposal on cotton which will be officially 
introduced to the full Membership today. On receipt of the proposal, I immediately initiated 
a consultation process to start discussing this proposal as a reference point for engagement in the 
traditiona l formats used for this negotiation. I will, as a matter of fact, have another such 
consultation this afternoon.  My consultations in the last two weeks focused therefore on the C4 
proposal. Objectively this is the only written proposal on cotton currently on the table.   JOB/AG/46  
 
- 6 - 
 
  45.  Let me acknowledge at the outset the positive attitude and constructive engagement 
demonstrated by the participants in my consultations to date. I trust that will continue – 
notwithstanding the clear differences that remain.   
46.  As Members will  be aware, there are three elements to the C4 proposal – market access; 
domestic support and export competition . Let me give you a flavour of where each of these 
elements currently stands.   
47.  On Market Access , some participants asked the C4 to detail the lis t of products that would be 
covered by the DFQF treatment under their proposal, including by providing the corresponding HS 
tariff line codes.  The C4 has provided this material which is now the focus of our negotiations 
alongside the existing proposal. One  Member has questioned the balance of efforts to be 
undertaken by developed country Members and some developing country ones.   
48.  On Domestic Support , some clarifications have been sought and I expect these to be the focus 
of our discussions in the coming day s. The feasibility and the overall balance of a possible outcome 
in Domestic Support remain a central issue at the core of my consultations and it is clear that this 
remains a challenging area.  
49.  On Export Competition , one Member has underlined that a cotton -related outcome here 
should be envisaged within the scope of a wider outcome on Export Competition.  
50.  Finally, one Member has also suggested adding some provisions related to Export Restrictions 
applied on cotton exports.  
3  PUBLIC STOCK HOLDING  
51.  In a separate process, I held a Room E meeting with close to 40 Members, including group 
coordinators on 14 October. Unfortunately, I did not see any fundamental change in Members' 
well-known positions.  
52.  On one hand, there were G33 members and others who saw the proposa l as the basis for 
a permanent solution, and on the other hand there were many other Members who highlighted 
what they considered to be the core problem of the proposal – that is transferring market price 
support to the Green Box. In terms of the unintende d consequences issue, the G33 has indicated 
its willingness to address those concerns, as well as the transparency issues.  The G33 has 
reminded us collectively that the mandate was about finding a permanent solution to the public 
stockholding issue and not  about food security in general.   
53.  Regarding a potential permanent solution, it was once more suggested to look at the different 
elements of the Bali Decision. Some Members indicated that it should cover all programmes – 
existing and new. One Member has mad e clear its concern and disappointment that some have 
suggested that a permanent solution was not doable for Nairobi.   
54.  In short, while Members ' views remained wide apart, at least they agreed on the mandate – 
both from Bali and from the General Council  in 2014. And as you recall, the latter instructed 
Members to "engage constructively to negotiate and make all concerted efforts to agree and adopt 
a permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes by 
31 December 2015 ".  
55.  For m y part – and I realise this is not necessarily a popular position for all of you – I will 
continue to work in various formats on this matter, and I expect to convene a further meeting on 
this matter shortly.   
56.  This concludes my report  of my work to date  
57.  For the purpose of efficiency, I would now like to give directly the floor to the Members 
wishing to introduce their submissions.    JOB/AG/46  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4  NEW SUBMISSIONS  
58.  We have three new submissions that have been presented since the last CoA SS:  
1. the C4 on cotton (TN/AG/GEN/38 -TN/AG/SCC/GEN/14 );  
2. the G33 on SSM (J OB/AG/44) ; and  
3. the African Group (J OB/AG/45) covering various aspects of our negotiations.  
 
59.  I will proceed by asking Lesotho to speak first on behalf of the Africa Group, followed by Mali 
speaking on behalf of the C4 ; Indonesia speaking on behalf of the G33 . Once we have heard these 
three presentations and in order to use our time efficiently I suggest that you make your 
comments in one statement covering two aspects:  
60.  the new submissions , and  
61.  your assessment of wher e we are at in the negotiations . 
5  CONCLUSION  
62.  I want to begin by thanking Members for their new written submissions. These now represent 
a further element in my thinking about the way forward. In terms of the convergence I heard, let 
me make the following si x observations . There is agreement on the:  
1. Importance of agriculture;  
2. Importance of the development aspect of agriculture;  
3. Imperative of an outcome in agriculture for the Nairobi Ministerial – the tenth such 
meeting since the WTO was founded and the first on the African continent ; 
4. The significance of the anniversary of this organi zation and the venue of our next 
ministerial meeting, including in terms of the preservation of the multilateral trading 
system;  
5. Deep disappointment about the likely absence of out comes in the important pillars 
of market access and domestic support ; and 
6. In terms of the new proposals today, let me just say that I take these  very seriously and 
I will be convening meetings on the issues raised and the proposals themselves in the 
immedi ate future.  
 
63.  Indeed, I expect to make announcements on the convening of specific meetings in the coming 
days.  
64.  Let me now offer you my thoughts on the way ahead. You will recall that when I concluded 
my assessment of where we were at on Export Competition , I indicated the four elements that 
framed my approach. I now intend to use this approach more broadly to frame our process going 
forward. To refresh your memory this was: parallelism; without prejudice; no presumption; and 
transparency.  Specifically:   
1. Parallel process : All elements in our negotiations remain as potential deliverables for 
the Nairobi package. We need to acknowledge, however, that while I am managing 
a comprehensive parallel process – not all parts are moving at the same speed. Variable 
speed is the way to think about what is happening. I do not rule out the possibility that 
suddenly one element accelerates and catches up with another or even over -takes it, but 
at the present time an objective fact is that while all pieces of the process ar e being 
consulted on and being discussed, variable speeds apply. In this regard it is obvious that 
Export Competition is ahead of the other areas as it is the only text -based negotiation in 
which we are presently engaged. The only other area where in my ju dgement there has 
been a modest measure of progress relative to the other areas is Cotton.  
 
In parallel to this of course is the fact that these issues are moving alongside the ongoing 
conversations on the post -Nairobi scenario. And all of these matter to  all of you in one 
way or the other.  
 JOB/AG/46  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2. Without prejudice engagement : it is fully understood by us all – fully understood – 
that Members ' engagement on all of the issues we are working on and seeking to 
progress, including in the text -based negotiations on E xport Competition is entirely 
without prejudice to their position on the overall 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 workin g principle . 
 
3. No presumption : There  is no presumption of convergence on what precisely an 
outcome should look like in any of the areas we are currently working on. In other words, 
there is no presumption of an outcome in any area, including those more adva nced than 
others, let alone the content and contours of that outcome. Be assured, however, that 
I will not leave a single stone unturned in my efforts to find a way forward across our 
negotiations.  
 
4. Transparency : Let me emphasise again my commitment to ful ly respect in this process 
the principles of transparency and inclusiveness. As I have said before – this will not be 
a Melian Dialogue. I will be reporting on a regular basis in open -ended sessions like this 
one to ensure that each and every Member is ful ly aware of how the process is evolving.  
 
Be prepared for lots of meetings – that is the price of an inclusive and transparent 
process. It is one I know we are all ready to pay .  
 
I also described what I called my two working operational guidelines for te xt-based 
negotiations where we are "defining by doing ". At present we have a text that is widely 
understood to be the basis for the negotiations in only one area – the Rev .4 text on 
Export Competition. As a consequence, my working operational guidelines ca n only apply 
in that case and at this point. Let me remind you what these were : 
 
1. All Members should seek to stay as close as possible to the existing Rev .4 text 
on Export Competition  and any amendments to that text be as limited as possible 
and only to the  extent necessary .  
 
2. Against that background, I will be asking Members who have identified an issue in the 
text on which we are negotiating – in this case the Rev .4 text on  Export Competition – 
the following three questions:  
 
1) Where  in the text do you have a concern?  
2) What  precisely is the nature of your concern? and  
3) How do you propose to address your concern in writing?  
 
65.  As I said, at present, these working operational guidelines can only apply in Export 
Competition where we are in a text -based negotiating phase. I expect, however, to apply these 
guidelines elsewhere and where necessary.  
66.  Before we conclude, let me pay a specific tribute to our colleague Ambassador Pambagyo 
of Indonesia. Iman and I have a long negotiating history that dates to the ASEAN -Australia-
New Zealand FTA. It is with sadness that we lose Iman here to our process, but I am pleased that 
our regional architecture will be part of his ongoing work in his new and exciting role. I learnt 
many things from Iman during our negotiations, not valu e of constructive and courteous 
engagement and patience. These are all skills we should bear in mind for the weeks ahead. Iman, 
thank you for your considera ble contribution to this organiz ation. This is of co urse not goodbye, 
merely au  revoir , or as we say  in New Zealand Ka Kite Ano (until we meet again).  
67.  Finally, while it is clear we are still some way away from that Thalassa Thalassa moment 
I hoped we might be approaching when I took on this responsibility as Chair of these negotiations, 
for my part I re main hopeful that we are inching forward and towards that happy moment. In fact, 
I remain confident that we can and must find a way and I urge you to work together to that 
shared objective.  
__________