. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/22 
16 May 2006 
 (06-2383) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
STATUS OF CATEGORY II S&D PROPOSAL
1  
 
Progress Report to the General Council (15 May 2006 Meeting)  
  
The progress report is submitted under the responsibility of the Chairman, 
Mr. Christian Häberli, in the framework of the WTO's Work Programme on Special and Differential 
Treatment. 
_______________ 
 
Background 
 
1. My report relates to the Committee's considerati on of one Category II proposal tabled by the 
African Group, which  has been on the agenda of each of the regular meetings of the Committee since 
June 2003.  It has been considered in the context of the implementation of the Marrakesh Decision on 
Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed 
and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries (thereaf ter the "NFIDC Decision").  In addition, 
informal consultations specifically dedicated to that proposal were held in May 2005 and more 
recently, in February 2006. 
2. Several Members, particularly donor Members, c onsider that the proposal is unviable in the 
sense that it deals with questions which are either  currently under negotiation or outside the WTO's 
terms of reference, such as:  the scheduling by de veloped country Members of their contributions to 
the proposed revolving fund;  the review and est ablishment of effective disciplines on food aid 
commitments under the Food Aid Convention 1999;  disciplines on the degree of concessionality of 
food aid;  and appropriate S&D provisions in fa vour of LDCs and NFIDCs in any agreement on 
agricultural export credits, in accordance w ith paragraph 4 of the NFIDC Decision. 
3. In light of this, the discussions in the Committee have mainly focussed on the proposed 
revolving fund mechanism as a possible means to address the short-term financing difficulties that 
might be experienced by LDCs and NFIDCs. 
4. Recently, it became clear that the African Group di d not intend to revise the original proposal 
as previously announced.  Rather, some disappointment was expressed by the proponents at the absence of any counter-proposal, which might have  assisted in the fine-tuning of the original 
submission.  It also appeared that some of the pr oponents fully recognized that certain aspects of the 
Marrakesh Decision would be more effectively d ealt with under the DDA negotiations track.  There 
are concerns, however, that by shifting such i ssues from the Committee's implementation track onto 
the negotiations track, the opportunity for an adequa te resolution of these matters might be foregone. 
                                                     
 
1 See paragraph 52 of TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2. G/AG/22 
Page 2  
 
  Status of the proposal  
5. I share some of the proponents' opinion that the current "ping-pong" situation between two 
WTO bodies is most unfortunate, counter-productive, and untenable.  This is why I have tried to break 
the current deadlock by holding informal consu ltations in February 2006, unfortunately, without 
tangible results.  During the 12 May 2006 meeting of the Committee, I have also suggested that a 
concrete solution could perhaps bette r be reached if the proponents' e fforts were concentrated in the 
Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture alone.  This would send a clear signal to the membership as to where the main thrust of that pa rticular Category II proposal should be first and 
foremost, without prejudging any outcome, and w ithout imposing any obligation on any Member. 
6. From a practical point-of-view, that compromise would have also allowed the regular 
Committee on Agriculture to switch the Category II propo sal to a "stand-by" mode in its agenda, until 
the end of the Doha negotiations.  The regular Committee would have, of course, continued to 
monitor the follow-up of the Marrakech Decision on NFIDCs on a regular basis, and Members' rights 
to raise specific matters or to submit new proposal s in that context would have been safeguarded. 
7. A few delegations did not feel immediately comf ortable with this suggestion.  While being 
fully aware that nothing precluded Members from tabling negotiating proposals in any forum, these 
delegations indicated that they preferred to pursu e the debate in the regular session of the Committee 
on Agriculture as well, because the Marrakech Decisi on was primarily an implementation issue.  In 
our discussions, some participants recognized, how ever, that the suggested "stand-by" option was 
merely a reflection of the existing de facto  situation with respect to a pr oposal which has been before 
the Committee on Agriculture for the past three years.  Nevertheless, the Committee could not reach a 
decision on the course of action on this issue. 
8. In the absence of consensus over the proposal as it stands, and given the absence of additional 
inputs into the discussions, it is not possible to pr oceed any further with the current Category II 
proposal – not even with respect to the question as to  the most appropriate forum in which some of its 
key aspects could be better dealt with.   
9. The Committee on Agriculture, however, stands r eady to consider any proposal that might be 
presented to it in future. 
__________