JOB/AG/43  
 
7 October 2015  
(15-5207) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
 COMMITTEE ON AGRICUL TURE IN SPECIAL SESS ION:  
INFORMAL MEETING, 2 OCTOBER 2015  
REPORT BY THE CHAIR  
As indicated in my convening fax, I have two objectives for this meeting.  
First, as I said when I was appointed to this role less than a month ago, I am deter mined to 
ensure transparency in this negotiation – this cannot be a Melian Dialogue. After all, this is a 
Member -driven organi zation and that means all Members, not simply a handful need to be 
consulted and engaged in our forward process. Please consider t his and future meetings in that 
context. Specifically, therefore this is an opportunity for me to report on my consultations so far to 
you as Members of this organi zation.    
Second, this open -ended meeting is another opportunity for delegations to engage with one 
another, including in particular on the possible outcomes for Nairobi.  
The way I intend to proceed today is the same as I have done in my smaller meetings. I will start 
therefore by making some comments on (i) the process, (ii) the context, and (iii) on the substance 
of our work.   
After that I will open the floor, [hopefully for some fresh ideas].  
1  PROCESS  
1.1.  As I have said, my plan is to hold consultations across all of the pillars.  
1.2.  Supplementing my bilateral and consultations in variable geometries , I conducted the first 
consultation on Domestic Support on 23 September, and followed that with a consultation on 
Market Access on 28 September.    
1.3.  I am also planning consultations on Export Competition, and of course Cotton.  
1.4.  In a separate process I will  take up Public Stockholding and for your information, I am 
planning to hold a meeting on this in the coming fortnight or so.  
1.5.  In parallel to all of these meetings I am certainly not letting the grass grow under my feet.  
1.6.  I continue with bilateral consultat ions and these have, if anything intensified in the past 
week.  
1.7.  As always, I am available to Members should they want to see me. Just contact my office 
please – and I am pleased that many of you are already doing so. That is appreciated.  
1.8.  Now to the contex t for my consultations.  JOB/AG/43  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  CONTEXT  
2.1.  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.  
2.2.  Given the very limited time left before the Ministe rial and the sombre account the DG 
provided of the current state of negotiations, I share the DG 's view that there is an urgent need 
for more clarity on what can be done – or cannot be done – before Nairobi. We need to reach an 
understanding of what is rea listic in the time we have and we clearly have no time to waste.  
2.3.  My consultations have therefore been tightly focused and framed around a discussion 
designed to establish how and whether we might achieve convergence on outcomes for Nairobi.  
2.4.  Last week, in my consultations on domestic support I concluded from what Members told me 
that we are facing a very serious situation in this pillar  
2.5.  In fact, I said that we are close to an existential moment on domestic support.   
2.6.  Unfortunately, this week's Room E consul tation on market access showed that we are in a 
very similar situation in that pillar.   
2.7.  In fact, in my summing up of both discussions I drew the obvious conclusion: that the failure 
to find convergence in domestic support and market access has wider impli cations and these are 
not positive  
2.8.  Now on to the substance. There are five inter-related elements I want to report back to you 
on today. These are: (i) Domestic Support; (ii) Market Access; (iii) Export Competition; 
(iv) Cotton; and (v) Public Stockholding .  
3  SUBSTANCE: DOMESTIC SUPPORT  
3.1.  Let me begin with Domestic Support.  
3.2.  During the Room E meeting on Domestic Support , one Member introduced ideas that had 
already been shared with some Members in early September and subsequently outlined during a 
Room W meeti ng on 17 September.  
3.3.  That proposal combined some non -binding commitments with limited binding commitments 
on certain types of trade distorting domestic support, such as market price support and input 
subsidies.  
3.4.  It's fair to say that these ideas provoked di verse reactions from Members. Some of you 
welcomed them with interest. Others made it clear that these ideas were not a basis for forward 
movement.  
3.5.  If I may summari ze there appeared to me to be five specific issues identified in our 
discussions. These incl uded a perception that the ideas presented:   
a.   may constrain developing countries' flexibilities and notably the use of their de minimis ;  
b.   failed to distinguish between commercial and subsistence farmers;  
c.   targeted two programmes some developing countries a re using the most;  
d.   have an impact on the public stockholding debates; and  
e.   implied that two specific programmes were considered more trade distorting than others.  
 
3.6.  Several Members, while showing a readiness to discuss new ideas, indicated their preference 
for limiting trade distorting support in general, and/or for the OTDS concept in particular.   
3.7.  Some Members said they were ready to work with the AMS concept.  JOB/AG/43  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.8.  Other Members focused on Rev.4 in particular stating that this was "the most 
promising/ viable sta rting point" . 
3.9.  Some of you expressed an interest in transparency -related issues, with at least one Member 
suggesting an exploration of the monitoring and transparency provisions (as per Annex M of 
Rev.4) as a potential deliverable for Nairobi.  
3.10.   And, finally,  in light of a possible nil outcome in Domestic Support, the question of the post - 
Nairobi scenario has become an increasingly important matter for many of you – indeed some of 
you suggested this is an urgent issue to clarify.  
3.11.   In short, my conclusion was t hat points of disagreement – and some of these were sharp -
edged – far outweighed the points of agreement.  
3.12.   On the positive side – and in terms of points of agreement, at least we all agreed about the 
importance of the domestic support pillar, and that the W TO remains the only place where it can 
be dealt with.  
3.13.   There was a sense too that agriculture and development are closely related.  
3.14.   There was widespread agreement too that Nairobi should include an outcome on agriculture.  
3.15.   There was also a shared understandi ng that domestic support could only be dealt with at 
the WTO and that even after the Nairobi Ministerial we would need to work on this.  
3.16.   Unfortunately, Members disagreed on all the rest.  
3.17.   There was, for instance, no agreement on new ideas, nor was there agre ement on what I 
called the "not so new ideas ", nor indeed on the way forward.  
3.18.   Nor was there agreement on how to move forward on domestic support.  
3.19.   As to the post -Nairobi agenda, notwithstanding the sense that domestic support would need 
to be discussed aft er Nairobi, there was certainly no agreement on how precisely this would be 
done and what the architecture of this would look like.  
3.20.   Put simply, we are far from agreeing on the content or the contours of an outcome in 
domestic support.  
3.21.   Unless I hear someth ing new or different today – and I do hope I do (I am an optimistic 
person from the New World after all), we are certainly going to need to confront directly an 
existential question in the area of domestic support.   
4  MARKET ACCESS  
4.1.  Turning to Market Access,  in my consultations on Monday I invited Members to share any 
new thoughts or contributions that could make a difference and help us to move forward on this 
pillar of the negotiations.  
4.2.  I regret to report back to you that it's clear from these consultations  that we are still faced 
with largely the same questions that have bedevilled our process for some time now.  
4.3.  Let me start with the points of agreement.  
4.4.  There was agreement that agricultural market access mattered.  
4.5.  There was also agreement that we have a  limited amount of time to deliver an outcome for 
Nairobi in this area.  JOB/AG/43  
 
- 4 - 
 
  4.6.  There was also agreement that the failure to secure an outcome on market access for 
agriculture would have wider implications for the negotiations – and a sense that those 
implications  were negative.  
4.7.  Those were the point of agreement.  
4.8.  Unfortunately the points of disagreement were considerable.   
4.9.  There were serious question about our shared level of ambition, with on the one hand calls 
for what some Members called "realism " while on th e other hand, there was an insistence on 
bearing in mind the development aspects of this pillar and therefore calling for high ambition on 
tariff related matters.  
4.10.   There were a wide range of views of how and even whether to address other market access 
elements already discussed in this negotiations.  
4.11.   The issues you raised included minimum cuts, tariff escalation and tariff capping provisions, 
safeguards, including the SSM, tropical products, TRQs, special and sensitive products, and specific 
provisions for special and differential treatment.  
4.12.   It is clear that many, if not necessarily all of these remain firmly on the agenda for some 
countries, while equally some, if not necessarily all of these were equally firmly rejected – or set 
within the context of the o verall process of the negotiations.  
4.13.   More specifically, I heard a range of views about tariff reduction approaches, but again 
there was certainly no convergence apparent on any one approach.  
4.14.   Some Members suggested particular elements that could be addresse d regardless of what 
level of ambition was chosen, but others were not prepared to consider these in the absence of 
possible, let alone meaningful, tariff reductions.  
4.15.   As in domestic support therefore, both the content of a possible market access outcome a nd 
the contours of such an outcome are very unclear.  
4.16.   With respect to discussions relating to what would be possible for Nairobi and post -Nairobi, 
it's safe to say by the end of the consultations that we are no closer to reaching a common 
understanding on this.  
4.17.   My question of how to strike the optimal balance between ambition in market access and 
political viability, in the context of a low ambition outcome overall, remains unanswered.  
4.18.   And again, as with domestic support, Members face an existential momen t on market 
access for agricultural  products.  
5  EXPORT COMPETITION  
5.1.  On Export Competition , I have started by consulting extensively with delegations and these 
contacts are continuing.  
5.2.  I know that some of you consider this pillar as possibly a key element in any Nairobi 
package . 
5.3.  That may well be the case, but I must be very clear that there is not a consensus on the 
overall contours of such a package, let alone its precise content nor indeed how this might relate 
to what happens after Nairobi.  
5.4.  I am very consci ous of these inter -related elements. Indeed, be assured that I have heard 
these diverging views. This has all helped me frame, shape and inform the way I have conducted 
and will continue to conduct my consultations on this pillar.  JOB/AG/43  
 
- 5 - 
 
  5.5.  Let us be honest, however , this divergence does not make our task easier.  
5.6.  Let us also be frank with one another that there are also issues within the pillar itself that we 
will need to grapple with.  
5.7.  Some of you have raised questions about the internal balance of any outcome. And then 
there is the question of the "external balance " across the wider negotiation.  
5.8.  And that is notwithstanding the fact that this element has been considered as more mature 
than the two others and that at least on this pillar we have a well -developed text to work with.  
5.9.  These divergences exist – but at the same time, I sense a willingness nevertheless to see 
what may yet be possible – a kind of "define by doing " approach at least in the meantime and 
without prejudice to positions taken on other matters and m ore broadly.  
5.10.   In my continuing consultations therefore my objective will be to identify with you the 
precise scope of the remaining issues and work towards agreed formulations for dealing with 
these.  
5.11.   I will be looking for opportunities to engage in broader consultations in a variable geometry 
format, including formats like this one as we head towards Nairobi.  
6  COTTON  
6.1.  Let me be both clear and up front on this issue.  
6.2.  Cotton remains a priority issue for Nairobi.  
6.3.  As noted by my predecessor in July, we need to en gage in a much more focused negotiation 
on what could constitute a possible outcome on cotton in relation to export competition, market 
access and domestic support. I have made it clear that I share John 's assessment and am 
proceeding on that basis  
6.4.  During my first round of consultations, I therefore asked very directly some of the key 
interested Members and, in particular of course the C4 members, to detail as specifically as 
possible their views on what could constitute such an outcome on cotton, taking in to account the 
overall negotiation context.  
6.5.  My intention is to intensify my consultations on cotton in the coming weeks.  
7  PUBLIC STOCK HOLDING  
7.1.  I continue to consult widely on this matter and I understand the importance some Members 
attach to this, noting a lso the divergent views on the process going forward.  
7.2.  As I noted earlier I do intend a separate process on Public Stock Holding and I expect to hold 
a meeting on this in the coming fortnight or so.  
8  CONCLUSION  
8.1.  Taken together, I have given you a sense of w here matters stand in the consultations on the 
agriculture components. I have explained (i) the process, (ii) the context and (iii) the substance of 
the consultations thus far, including in some detail on all of the areas we are working on 
collectively.  
8.2.  Unfortunately. the areas of divergence remain and our challenge is to see what is still 
possible to narrow the gaps and precisely where.  
8.3.  As I noted at the outset, these kinds of open -ended consultations matter – this negotiation 
is, as I have already said no Melian Dialogue. Today is another opportunity for all Members – all JOB/AG/43  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Members – large and small, developed, developing and LDCs to consult, discuss and engage with 
one another and to help inform and guide my process as Chair going forward.  
8.4.  I look forward  to hearing from you today on your assessment of where we are at, including in 
particular on the possible outcomes for Nairobi.  
__________