RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/AG/R/21 
7 October 2005 
 (05-4520) 
Committee on Agriculture 
Special Session  
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE THIRTY-THIRD FORMAL SPECIAL SESSION OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, HELD ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2005 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
 1. The Special Session of the Committee on Ag riculture, established by the General Council 
(WT/GC/M/53), is pursuing negotiati ons under paragraphs 13, 14 and ot her relevant provisions of the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration.  The 33
rd Formal Special Session was held on 13 September under the 
chairmanship of Ambassador Crawford Falconer of New Zealand. 
 2. The agenda as contained in WTO/AI R/2638 of 1 September 2005 was adopted.  
 I
TEM A : ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
 
3. Although the General Council, at its 29 Ju ly 2005 meeting, had appointed Ambassador 
Crawford Falconer to the position of Chairman of  the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, 
the rules of procedure required that this appointme nt be agreed by the Comm ittee on Agriculture in its 
Special Session.  It was so agreed.   
I
TEM B: TOWARDS CONVERGENCE : STATEMENTS BY PARTICIPANTS  
 4. Prior to opening the floor for Members' co mments, the Chairman reminded delegates that 
there is, operationally, little more than two months in which sufficient preparations must be achieved 
if they are to be in a position to agree on modalities at the Sixth Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong.  Without needing to numerate all of the issu es that needed resolving, the Chairman remarked 
that it was clear to all that Members had a long list before them.  With the passing of almost six weeks 
since the previous Special Session, the Chairman hoped that delegations had taken the time to reflect and that the results of this reflection woul d be intimated in Members' interventions. 
 5. The Chairman stated that while much of the difficult work would need to be done by 
delegations, some political decisions also needed to be  made very soon, to allow the technical work to 
be completed.  6. Brazil, speaking on behalf of the G-20, drew Members attention to the communiqué issued at 
the recent G-20 ministerial meeting held in Bhurban, Pakistan (circulated as WT/L/621 on                
27 September 2005).  At Bhurban, G-20 Ministers had reiterated their commitment to the Doha 
process, achieving full modalities by the Sixth Minist erial Conference and concluding the negotiations 
in 2006.  With limited time until the Hong Kong Ministerial, the G-20 was of the view that the pace of the negotiations needed to be intensified, and di scussions should, where appropriate, include defined 
levels of ambition.  Brazil reminde d delegations that the G-20 had put forward a comprehensive set of 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. TN/AG/R/21 
Page 2  
 
 proposals which remained on the table.  Brazil encouraged Members, particularly the major 
subsidizing Members and other developed country  Members, to respond constructively to the 
proposal and fully commit themselves to reforming their agricultural sectors in order to ensure a 
successful conclusion to the Doha round.   
7. Brazil noted that a bottom-up approach should be the basis of the negotiating structure in the 
lead-up to Hong Kong.  Transparency in the nego tiating process and the participation by all Members 
must remain if progress and a balanced outcome that  benefit all are to be achieved.  The comments 
regarding the negotiating structure and the need fo r an inclusive and transparent process were echoed 
by many of the delegations who took the floor, in cluding Bolivia, Chinese Taipei,  Croatia (on behalf 
of recently acceded Members), Cuba, Egypt (on be half of the African Group), Korea, Mauritius (on 
behalf of ACP countries), Pakistan, Switzerland (on behalf of the G-10) and Turkey.  Brazil also 
commented, with concern, that some Members were trying to condition needed changes in their trade 
distorting domestic support policies to concessions from  others.  Brazil said that such linkages would 
lead to an unbalanced result and impose a disproportionately high and inappropriate burden on 
developing countries (Brazil's full statement is attached, as requested). 
 8. Pakistan, agreeing with the statement made by Brazil (as did other G-20 members who took the floor), noted that representatives from the Afri can Group, ACP countries, LDCs and the G-33 also 
attended the G-20 Ministerial meeti ng in Bhurban.  The representative of Pakistan commented that 
whatever text was to be submitted to the Sixth Ministerial Conference, it needed to be submitted 
sufficiently in advance of the Ministerial Conference to allow Ministers and officials adequate time to 
examine the text and assess its possible implications.    9. In the absence of the Indonesian Ambassador  and on behalf of the G-33, the Philippines 
welcomed the G-20 Ministerial communiqué.  The G- 33 also welcomed the preparedness of the G-20 
to contribute towards the development of a list of  indicators for the designation of special products 
based on the criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural development needs.  The 
Philippines re-emphasized the group's readiness to engage fully and constructively in the period 
leading up to Hong Kong.   10. Switzerland, on behalf of the G-10, agreed with the need to intensify e fforts to prepare for an 
agreement on modalities at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  Switzerland suggested that future 
discussions be based on the key issues iden tified in Chairman Groser's second status report of           
28 July 2005 (JOB(05)/163).  This would build upon  the progress that had been made to-date in the 
most effective manner.  
11. While recognizing the G-20 proposal on mark et access as being a useful contribution to the 
negotiations, Switzerland stated that flexibilities with in the tariff formula and within the selection and 
treatment of sensitive products are required to addr ess non-trade concerns and differences in current 
tariff structures.  Furthermore, tariff capping remain s unacceptable to the G-10.  Due to the different 
agricultural situations and sensitivities amongst Memb ers, Switzerland noted that a balanced outcome 
required flexibility.  This did not equate to le tting some Members 'off the hook', but a few Members 
could not be required to make disproportionately  large contributions in the overall outcome.  
Switzerland reminded Members that G-10 Ministers had,  at the end of July, expressed their readiness 
to make significant contributions in all three pilla rs of the agriculture negotiations.  This would, 
however, require similar efforts by all WTO Members.  Furthermore, progress in agriculture must go hand-in-hand with progress in othe r areas of the negotiations.   
 
12. The EC reiterated its full support and commitme nt to the negotiations.  In this respect, the 
representative of the EC informed the Committee that the EC had started a series of global 
consultations.   TN/AG/R/21 
 Page 3 
 
 
 13. Benin, speaking on behalf of the co-sponsor s of the cotton initiative, Burkina Faso, Chad and 
Mali, noted that while some good progress had been  achieved on the cotton initiative with respect to 
procedure prior to July, a lack  of commitment had resulted in little tangible progress on substantive 
matters.  Indeed, Benin described the cotton negotiations as still being a long way from the decision adopted by Members to come up with ambitious, e xpeditious and specific results on cotton.  Recalling 
the African Group proposal for cotton modalities of 22 April 2005 (TN/AG/SCC/GEN/2), Benin 
stated that for an ambitious and expeditious outcome, the Sub-Committee on Cotton should provide 
concrete responses to the proposals put forward by  the African Group, and not wait until movement 
on other issues in the Committee on Agriculture.  It was more than four months since the proposal had 
been submitted to the Sub-Committee but it had still not  been inscribed on either the agenda of the 
Sub-Committee or the Committee on Agriculture.  This needed to be rectified.  Furthermore, Benin 
noted the importance of the Sub-Committee on Cott on reviewing, in accordance with its mandate, 
policies with trade-distorting effects on the cotton sect or, so that progress could be made in the lead-
up to the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.   
14. Mauritius, speaking on behalf of the ACP c ountries noted the importance of agriculture to 
ACP countries and thus the need for a fair and balanced modalities agreement at Hong Kong.  
Mauritius outlined the concern of ACP countries at the negotiating process, which to-date had focused 
on gateway issues, thereby leaving many important de velopment issues to one side.  Mauritius stated 
that it was important that these issues be given due priority in the remaining time before the 
Ministerial meeting.  As the negotiating process requi red an inclusive approach which allows for the 
ownership of outcomes, Mauritius noted that this  could only be achieved be through a balanced 
agenda that incorporated all issues.   15. As a recently acceded Member, China noted th e substantial commitments that it had made in 
its accession, particularly in the market access area .  As such, China believed that the particular 
market access concerns of recen tly acceded Members should be effectively addressed through specific 
flexibility provisions.  This would help to allevi ate concerns about the ability to safeguard food 
security, to maintain farmers' livelihood and devel op rural areas.  Being of vital importance to many 
developing countries for rural development, liveli hood and food security, China stated that in order 
for the Doha round to reflect its development focu s, a substantial reducti on of domestic support and 
expansion of market access must be made by de veloped countries in the agriculture negotiations.  
 
16. Barbados brought to the attention of the Co mmittee a paper circulated by small economies 
(JOB(05)/161) on their position for the agriculture  negotiations.  Emphasizing their low level of 
participation in the world agricultural trading envi ronment as well as the importance of agriculture to 
these countries' economies, Barbados noted that for mo st small economies, tariffs are the only tool at 
their disposal to protect their agricultural sector.  Therefore, in order to accommodate the concerns of 
small vulnerable economies, flexibility in the ta riff reduction formula was essential, including the 
exemption from tariff reductions and tariff quota commitments for special products and access to the special safeguard mechanism for special products.  Barbados comme nted that the small economies 
were also seeking the maintenance of the current de minimis  provisions for developing countries.  
With regards to the Sixth Ministerial Conference, Barbados pointed out that it was important that 
decisions relating to concrete measures designed to  address the problems of small economies be taken 
to ensure their fuller integration in to the multilateral trading system.  
 17. As chair of the Cairns Group, Australia info rmed delegates that the group had been actively 
seeking for ways to move the negotiations forward.  In this regard, the Cairns Group welcomed the  
G-20 Ministerial communiqué.  Australia also comm ented that the negotiations were crying out for 
political leadership and, without palpable progress  emanating from discussions between the major 
agricultural producers and subsidizers over the co ming weeks, it would be a difficult struggle to 
achieve modalities at Hong Kong.  TN/AG/R/21 
Page 4  
 
 18. Describing the inability to agree on a first appr oximation of draft modalities at the end of July 
as neither a failure nor crisis, Korea believes that the key challenge now seems to be whether and how 
to build flexibilities into various elements of the th ree pillars.  As noted earlier by Switzerland, Korea 
commented that flexibilities would be important for the success of Hong Kong.    
19. Paraguay, supporting the statements made by Brazil, Barbados and Australia noted that a 
group of 22 land-locked countries had met for the firs t time to specifically discuss their situation in 
the lead-up to the Sixth Ministerial Conference.  Paraguay remarked that agriculture and trade 
facilitation were the key issues for this group of countries in the negotiations.  While aid and co-
operation for poorer countries was we lcome and helpful, land-locked countries believed that it could 
in no way be a substitute for agricultural refo rm.  In this regard, the group acknowledged the 
agricultural reforms being undertaken by some Memb ers and urged other Members to follow a similar 
path.  Paraguay noted that such reform is vital to  assist land-locked countries' ability to progressively 
integrate themselves into the world trading environm ent.  Paraguay also noted that the land-locked 
group of countries was also fully supportive of the cotton initiative.   
 
20. Commenting on aspects of the G-20's market acce ss proposal, in particular reductions of all 
tariffs and a tariff cap for bot h developed and developing count ries, Sri Lanka informed the 
Committee that they already had low ceiling bindings for which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain constituent support to reduce fu rther.  The task of obtaining constituent support  
would be made more difficult when some devel oping countries with more advanced agricultural 
sectors than Sri Lanka, as well as some developed count ries, would be able to maintain tariffs at a 
higher level than Sri Lanka under the G-20 propo sal.  Being a low income net food-importing 
developing country with a vulnerable agricultural s ector, Sri Lanka noted that tariffs remained the 
only tool which it could use in order to protect its farmers as necessary.  As a result of its precarious situation, and not withstanding the fact that Sri Lanka imports a large amount  of agricultural products, 
Sri Lanka stated that they should not be require d to undertake further tariff reductions.  The G-20 
proposal on market access would not sufficiently ta ke account of the difficult situation faced by non-
LDC net food-importing developing countries.  Sri Lanka indicated that the concerns of these 
countries would need to be fully taken into account  during the lead-up to the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference.  
21. Speaking on behalf of a group of recently acced ed Members, Croatia noted that it was in the 
interests of all Members to achieve a balanced outcome from the negotiations.  This would not be 
possible without addressing the legitimate concerns of  recently acceded Members.  Croatia stated that 
recently acceded Members had, during the course of the negotiations, provided  detailed explanations 
that described their specific position, and that th ey had made concrete proposals to appropriately 
address their concerns.  Furthermore, the repre sentative of Croatia requested that the future 
negotiating process be as inclusive and transparent as possible.  Such approach would, to his mind, 
help members claim the ownership ove r the outcome of the negotiations. 
 22. In terms of the negotiating process, the representative of New Zealand remarked that the Doha mandate and July Framework provided a good basis to move forward from.  Any attempt to 
move away from this base would significantly set back the negotiating process.  Looking back at the 
progress achieved prior to the August summer break, New Zealand noted that, while not all elements 
of the July Framework were as equally developed,  a number of key concepts had emerged and it was 
important that these continue to be progressed.  In order to achie ve an agreement on modalities at 
Hong Kong, New Zealand stated that, not only was l eadership from the major players important, but 
that all Members needed to show a willingness to listen and search for solutions.  It would also be 
important for the negotiations to remain Geneva-based.  New Zealand believes that the core tariff 
reduction formula, treatment of sensitive products, a nd the blue box should form the initial focus of 
the work agenda, but that sufficient time would also be needed to wo rk through S&D issues. 
  TN/AG/R/21 
 Page 5 
 
 
 23. As a member of the G-20, Bolivia associat ed itself with the comments made by Brazil and 
Pakistan on the outcomes from the Bhurban Ministerial Meeting, and as part of the Cairns Group, Bolivia also reaffirm their commitment with the pr ogress of the agricultural negotiations.  In Bolivia's 
view, in light of the limited time between now and the Sixth Ministerial Conference, all three pillars 
needed to form the basis of fu ture discussions.  Though market access should be the initial focus, 
being an integral element of the negotiations, S& D issues, including special treatment for tropical 
products and substitute crops for illicit narcotic cr ops, should not be forgotten.  All these issues 
needed to be viewed with special attention to  the size of the economies concerned as noted by 
Barbados and Paraguay.  Like ot her G-20 delegations before them , Bolivia felt that it would be 
important to hear the reaction of other delegations to the G-20 negotiating proposal and that work had 
to intensify, but not at the expen se of inclusiveness and transparency.  
 24. Endorsing the comments made by Switzerla nd on behalf of the G-10, Chinese Taipei 
remarked that finding the right balance between am bition and flexibility is the key to a successful 
modalities package.  As a recently acceded Member, Chinese Taipei noted that it had already made 
extensive commitments during their accession.  To be  able to continue with the reform process, 
Chinese Taipei, and other recently acceded Members, n eeded adequate flexibility , particularly in the 
market access pillar. In this re gard, the concept of a tariff cap is unacceptable for Chinese Taipei.  
Turning to the negotiating process as a whole, th e representative of Chinese Taipei commented that 
there was a need for political ownership of the process and outcomes and that this could only be 
achieved through engagement by the entire Membership. 
 
25. Reiterating comments made by previous speaker s, the delegate from Turkey noted that, with 
very little time until the Hong Kong Ministerial C onference, a very constructive approach to the 
negotiations is required, especially as many out standing issues remain.  For Turkey, key issues 
included Special Products, the special safeguard mechanism for developing countries and reductions 
in de minimis  provisions.  On the latter element, the represen tative of Turkey pointed out that this was 
an area of extreme sensitivity.  Like New Zealand, Tu rkey stated that was important that negotiations 
remained Geneva-based and, like other delegates who took the floor, agreed on the need for an 
inclusive and transparent negotiating process.   26. Associating itself with the statements made  by Brazil on behalf of the G-20, the Philippines 
on behalf of the G-33 and Barbados on behalf of small economies, Cuba  agreed that an inclusive and 
transparent negotiating process was required to gain the support of all dele gations in finding an 
agreement.  Cuba also associated  itself with the statement of Benin, noting that it considered the 
cotton initiative to be an important and fundamental  part of economies of very vulnerable countries.  
Cuba supported Benin's request for the draft cott on modalities proposed by the African Group to be 
included on the agenda of the Sub-Committee on Cotton and the Committee on Agriculture. 
 27. Uganda took the opportunity to remind Member s of the proposal it had tabled on behalf of 
Côte d'Ivoire, Kenya, Rwanda, Ta nzania and Zimbabwe regarding the problems they faced caused by 
declining commodity prices (JOB(05)/113).  R ecalling that these countries, as well as many LDCs, 
were dependent on commodities for rural developm ent, rural livelihood and balance of payment 
purposes, Uganda commented that a solution to unsta ble commodity prices needed to be found in the 
WTO.  Uganda hoped that the Committee would find time to dedicate to discussing and finding a solution to this issue prior to the Hong Kong Ministerial.   28. Malaysia reminded Members that they should not  be too defensive in the area of agriculture 
while at the same time, being aggressive in other areas of the negotiations.  Such an approach would 
not be a recipe for success.  Ma laysia noted that it would continue working with the Cairns Group in 
the effort to find ways to achieve progress.    TN/AG/R/21 
Page 6  
 
 29. Speaking on behalf of the African Group, Egypt welcomed the G-20 declaration as it 
addressed most of their concerns, especially in the areas of market access for all products, S&D, 
preferences, addressing cotton in an expeditious ma nner, special products and the special safeguard 
mechanism, and no reduction commitments for LDCs .  Agreeing with the comments made by Brazil, 
Egypt noted the African Group's support for a botto m-up approach to the negotiating process in the 
lead-up to Hong Kong, which Egypt described as  being the only way to ensure transparency, 
inclusiveness and political ownership of the negotiating process.  30. Argentina agreed with others before them on the need to utilize the short period of time 
before Hong Kong in the best possible manner.  Ho wever, the delegate of Argentina noted that 
sometimes, silence from some delegations could be more revealing than words. 
 31. Noting that market access is the pillar which remains the least developed, Costa Rica agreed 
with Australia that priority should be given to addr essing all the outstanding issues in this area.  Costa 
Rica believes that priority must be given to de fining the way in which the mandate would lead to 
considerably improved market access, including  the maximum liberalization for tropical and 
alternatives to illicit narcotic products.  While co mmenting that it is important to take up themes 
related to flexibility, particularly sensitive products, Co sta Rica noted that in order to be able to do so 
successfully, first it is necessary to know in which regard flexibility is required.  It is therefore 
necessary to focus first on the core  market access formula before discussing where possible flexibility 
may be required.  
 
S
TATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN  
 32. A copy of the Chairman's statement is attached.  
I
TEM C:  OTHER BUSINESS  
 33. No items were raised under this agenda.  TN/AG/R/21 
 Page 7 
 
 
 Statement by the Chairman, Special Session, Committee on Agriculture 
 
17 September 2005 
 
 1. Thank you for your statements.  Although I would not say that I detected a lot of 
convergence, much was made of the need for vari ous flexibilities.  I would, however, note that the 
most important element of flexibility right now is your ability to meet at short notice.  2. With respect to the rest of this week, as you will be aware, there is a TNC meeting tomorrow 
morning and therefore I am not proposing to hold a meeting during this time.  I will attend the TNC 
myself and on the basis of the invitation from the Ch air of the TNC to the Chairs of the negotiating 
bodies, I expect that I will make some remarks about where we currently stand.  Do not expect me to 
say anything that will surprise you because I do not e xpect to say anything different from what I am 
saying today.  
 
3. On Thursday, there is an open ended informal Special Session scheduled.  When I had originally proposed this week's schedule, I had th ought that this would primarily be an occasion for 
transparency – an occasion for allowing individual a nd groups of Members to share with the rest of 
the Membership the outcomes of various bilateral an d plurilateral meetings.  However, I do not intend 
to hold any such meetings this week.  I do think th ough that Thursday morning could be used, not to 
make general statements, but to pr ovide an initial reaction to three questions which I will pose to you 
in a moment.  Of course, your reaction might ju st be that I am asking the wrong question – and 
therefore, you could use this occasion to tell me  what the right questions to ask are.   
 4. We have another informal Special Session scheduled for Friday afternoon.  Depending on 
how people feel, this could be turn ed into a Formal Special Session to allow those Members who wish 
to do so, to have their statements included on th e summary recorded.  We may be able to conclude 
this session of the Committee on Friday.  Though this is my current sense, it will depend on how the 
discussions go on Thursday and I would of course, be  delighted, and stand ready to keep this session 
open for as long as it takes if there is any sign of  momentum towards convergence over the course of 
the week. 
 
5. Having said that, we have another Special Session schedul ed for the week starting                
17 October.  But to be frank with you, I don't think for a moment that it is very credible to think that 
the next time we convene will be 17 October.  I don't think that you can expect to move from our 
current position to having completed everything th at we need to achieve before Hong Kong on the 
basis of only this week and one more.  If this were to be the case, I think that we would all know that 
we probably aren't seriously going to do what we need to do by Hong Kong. At least, that it my own 
sense of the situation.  Hence, my earlier comments about the most important flexibility that we need 
right now is for all delegations to be on-call.   6. In the interim, that is prior to this Friday , what I have proposed to do and what I have asked 
the Secretariat to organize on my behalf, is a series  of intensive bilateral meetings with individual 
Members and representatives of various groups.  I have  chosen to do this, rather than have larger 
plurilateral meetings simply because I believe that  this a more productive way to use our time right 
now.  We have moved on from the process which you were all engaged in prior to the end of July 
which was to reach a first draft approximation of possible modalities – a period characterized by 
rather intensive small groups with concentric circle s trying to negotiate specific details in each of the 
pillars.  For better or worse, we have now moved on from that process to one of seeking to prepare a 
draft modalities paper which will allow Ministers to ta ke decisions in Hong Kong.  As such, I think 
that the time has come for me to hear more direc tly from you responses to some questions about how 
we move from where we are, to where we want to be, by Hong Kong.  TN/AG/R/21 
Page 8  
 
  
7. Let me pose some questions for you to think about.  The first thing that occurs to me goes back to where we were at the end of July.  Th en, there was a process which I think I could fairly 
describe as a very pillar specific discussion and there are various terms used to describe what 
Members were endeavouring to do through that process.  The question I want to pose is that given we 
now have to achieve modalities in a very short time period, is it the case that the so called incremental 
approach that was being pursued before the end of July needs now to be transformed?  To put it 
another way, is it time to be thinking about issues in a more comprehensive way – do we need to be thinking about what levels of amb ition, and thus what numbers are in our minds for each of the three 
pillars? 
 
8. For example, in market access, efforts have b een made and can continue to be made to deal 
with questions like the number of bands, the place ment of the bands, the nature of the formula(s) 
within the bands, whether flexibilities should be provid ed within the formula(s), etc.  Indeed, we can 
try and achieve the answers to these questions in much  the same way as we were trying in July.  That 
is, first you resolve the structure question and then you fill in the numbers.  But at some point, you 
need to decide the relationship between the numbe rs, the number and treatment of sensitive products, 
and what flexibility may or may not be appropriate.    9. When we look at the process leading towards th e end of July, one could say that part of the 
reason why we haven't been able to move forw ard successfully is because nobody really wants to 
make what they would consider to be a concession on one of the elements, because they are afraid that 
this is only one piece of the puzzle and they won't see how the rest of the puzzle falls into place.  So 
you have a classic sequencing problem which is that you can't make any movement because 
everybody is afraid that when the numbers come out at the end of the process, tactical judgements 
would have implicitly been made about where the ot her elements lay and that will prejudge the final 
decision.  So is it therefore time to try and do these things together if that is the problem? 
 10. I am not, however, suggesting that even if you went in the other direction, you would 
magically unlock the problem.  But I don't think we have much time to make a mistaken judgement 
now about how we go about our business because we don' t have time to carry on down one particular 
route and then decide that its too difficult and come  back and go back down the other path.  I do think 
we need to have a pretty clear idea very soon abou t whether we want to do this in a piecemeal way or 
whether we accept that we have to try and do it as a bundle of issues.  I have only applied this to 
market access but it could just as easily apply to the domestic support and export competition pillars 
as well.  I don't have a view myself as to which is the best way to go, but I would like to hear from you how you feel about this. That's the first question that I have in my mind.   
 
11. The second question.  The purpose for which we  are here, is to prepare the way for political 
decisions to be made in Hong Kong about what the le vel of ambition is.  So at  a more general level, 
when do we want to start talking to each other about what the level of ambition is so that when we are 
talking about all of the elements in the three pillars , we are concise in our minds about the levels of 
ambition that we each respectively have for this exer cise, because ultimately, that will define what the 
modalities are in Hong Kong?   
 12. If we don't start talking to each other about wh ere we want to go now, will it be any easier for 
us to reach political decisions on what the numbers and level of ambition shoul d be at Hong Kong?  In 
other words, when is the right moment to start ta lking seriously about numbers, when is the time for 
that to be seriously on the table, with no mo re ambit claims, if you want to get a degree of 
convergence that would allow political deci sions to be taken in Hong Kong?  
 13. The third question in my mind is what really matters to you in terms of linkages within the 
framework of the negotiations?  A lot of this has been  implicit, it seems to me, up to the end of July.    TN/AG/R/21 
 Page 9 
 
 
  
14. What I would like to have is a sense of what the material linkages across the pillars are that 
make a difference to what is possible for individua l Members to commit to?  For example, for those 
seeking an more ambitious outcome on the Blue Box, is  this just something that people just want as a 
matter of course, or is there a price that would rea lly matter for them?  In other words, what could be 
offered as an inducement that would allow a truly ambitious outcome on the Blue Box for those who 
seek it?    15. Similarly, in the area of market access relative to domestic support, for those who want a more ambitious outcome on market access, what is it that would make a seriously interesting outcome 
to them relative to concessions in domestic support or  on export subsidies?  Or on export competition, 
what kind of trade-offs are important in that pillar and do they change if there is greater or lesser 
ambitions in domestic support or market access?   16. The purpose of this last question is two fold – (i) are people ready to talk about that, do they 
want to talk about that, and if not, when? and (ii) , in substance, which trade-offs really matter? 
 17. I hope that in posing these questions, I've give n you a sense that I think we are obliged to 
have a fundamental change of gear.  Not just becau se we have a greater sense of urgency, but also 
because we must focus very firmly on the fact that we are going to have to generate the modalities and 
we have very little time to do it.  So now is the ti me to be asking ourselves the serious questions.  I do 
realize that I have limited my ques tions very generally to the three pillars and that there is also a 
whole range of issues and questions relating to deve lopment and special and differential treatment.  
Please do not think that I have forgotten this.  No agreement can be reached without agreement on all 
issues.  That is all I have to say at this stage.  I look forward to seeing your on Thursday morning.  TN/AG/R/21 
Page 10  
 
 Statement by Brazil on behalf on the G-20 
 
1. Mr. Chairman, I would like, first of all, to give you a warm welcome to Geneva and to the 
Chairmanship of the Special Session. We are star ting an important phase in our negotiations. Brazil 
and the G-20 stand ready to work constructively w ith you, other Groups and individual Members in 
order to allow the process to move forward successfully.  
 2. Mr. Chairman, we have taken good note of the message in your airgram convening this 
week’s meetings in the sense that our work here must  not be a restating of positions.  We are aware of 
that and remain open to dialogue. 
 
3. As you certainly know, the G-20 has already star ted working. We have just held a Ministerial 
Meeting in Bhurban, Pakistan, on September 9 and 10, where our commitment to the process was reiterated at the highest political level. Ambassador Manzoor of Pakistan will talk about that, but 
without prejudice of the interventions by other Members of the G-20, I would like to highlight and 
share with you and the colleagues some aspects of the message conveyed by our Ministers.  
 4. We are committed to achieving full modaliti es by the Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference and 
to conclude the DDA negotiations in 2006 in a mann er that furthers our common goal of eliminating 
trade-distorting policies in agriculture mainta ined by developed countries, and providing for 
substantial improvement in market access for all pro ducts, in line with the level of ambition set out in 
the Doha Ministerial Declaration. In this light, we all agree that the lack of resu lts last July has put the 
DDA in a sort of critical situation. Under these conditions, there is no room for complacency or for treating the process in a business-as-usual manner.  5. Of course the pace of the negotiations must be  intensified and this s hould, when appropriate, 
include the definition of levels of ambition, throug h the use of concrete figures to facilitate agreement 
on key elements of the three pillars. It has been  widely recognized that we have achieved our 
objective to present proposals that constitute a genuine middle ground.  They are technically 
consistent. They provide a basic structure on wh ich to make progress towards consensus and they 
remain on the table.  
6. We expect that developed countries in general and the major subsidizers in particular respond 
to the G-20 proposals in a constructive way and full y commit themselves to reform their agricultural 
policies which is a precondition to a su ccessful conclusion of the negotiations.  
 7. While supporting an intensifica tion of negotiations, I would like to stress there is not a better 
alternative than a bottom-up approach.  Perhaps th is is the only good alternative. The format of 
meetings can vary, but transparency and involvemen t must be maintained.  Only through a genuine 
process of dialogue and negotiation involving the whole WTO membership can progress be achieved 
and results obtained that will be balanced  and that would entail benefits for all. 
 8. Although of course we are conducting the nego tiations on the basis of a single undertaking, 
we note with concern the insistence by some Member s of trying to condition needed changes in their 
trade distorting domestic policies to concessions from others that would lead to unbalanced results. 
We firmly believe that this would impose a dispr oportionate and high burden on developing countries. 
These countries do not apply trade-distorting policies and,  therefore, should not be expected to pay for 
the elimination of distortions that affect intern ational trade in agricultural products in developed 
countries.  
    TN/AG/R/21 
 Page 11 
 
 
 9. Mr. Chairman, in concluding, I would like to  reassure that you can count on Brazil’s full 
disposition to continue working hard with yo u and Members to meet these goals. The Sixth 
Ministerial Conference is only 13 weeks away from now. There is a long way to go in a very short time.  Let’s get to work.  We are ready.  
__________