. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/AG/W/5 
6 December 2008 
 
 (08-6016) 
Committee on Agriculture 
Special Session  
 
 
 
REVISED DRAFT MODALITIES FOR AGRICULTURE 
SENSITIVE PRODUCTS:  DESIGNATION 
 
 
1. This paper, like TN/AG/W/6 and 7, is much more like work-in-progress than is the Revised 
Draft of Modalities itself (TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4).  In these papers, it is not my intention to put forward precise suggestions for modalities because such preci se suggestions as I have made in the fourth 
revision (which is actually the fifth revision of modalities which I have done if you start with 
TN/AG/W/3) were the result of convergence to the poi nt where I felt such progress could be captured. 
2. Rather than propose a single solution to the designation of Sensitive Products, this working 
document sets out the issue and indicates a way forwar d which could, hopefully, operate as a platform 
to get to closure.  My reason for issuing this, a nd the other working documents, in this more formal 
format is to ensure that it is distributed in the same way and at the same time as the fourth Revised 
Draft Modalities for Agriculture itself. 
3. Based on constructive consultations to this point, we have progressed over differences on 
Sensitive Products, but we are still short of a cl ean text, let alone agreement on key matters.  
4. As regards Japan and Canada they are si gnalling unambiguously that they cannot limit 
themselves to 4 per cent of sensitive products.  Cana da has signalled it desires 6 per cent and Japan 8 
per cent.  Various ideas have been tried but nothin g has commanded consensus.  One could just leave 
it at that for political decision – in a certain sense the text per se  now presents it that way which seems 
to be the fairest thing to do in the circumstanc es when you simply do not have agreement on such a 
sensitive matter. 
5.  But the constructive engagement we had did su ggest certain lines of possibility and, one of 
these days, a solution is actually going to have to be found that works for everyone.  In that spirit, and 
based on what I have heard, the best I can sugg est as regards Canada is that the following could 
represent options – they are not intended as last word legal drafting – from which a final decision 
could be made.  Adjustments could obviously be made  to these options, but if this is ever going to be 
resolved, my sense is that it something close to wh at is outlined below could be a way to create a 
springboard to closure. 
6.  
Either: 
Canada may also have access to the maximum num ber of tariff lines provided for in the 
second sentence of paragraph 71 provided that (a) for each tariff line that is additional to the 4 per cent
1 under paragraph 71 first sentence, they provide an additional 1.5 per cent of 
                                                      
1 This presentation assumes that the two-thirds deviation is used and there are no other adjustments.  If 
the one-half or one-third deviation or there were other adjustments made as provided for in the Revised Draft 
Modalities for Agriculture, then the figures th at follow should be adjusted accordingly. TN/AG/W/5 
Page 2  
 
domestic consumption to the 4 per cent of  domestic consumpti on provided for under 
paragraph 74 for those additional lines (i.e. 5. 5 per cent of domestic consumption for each 
additional line over the 4 per cen t limit); and (b) for all of th e 4 per cent of tariff lines 
referred to in paragraph 71 first sentence, they provide an additional 0.5 per cent of 
domestic consumption to the 4 per cent of  domestic consumpti on provided for under 
paragraph 74 (i.e. 4.5 per cent of domestic cons umption for the default 4 per cent of tariff 
lines). 
Or: 
Canada may also have access up to the maximum num ber of tariff lines provided for in the 
second sentence of paragraph 71 provided that  an additional 1 per cent of domestic 
consumption is provided for each and every tar iff line declared to be sensitive (i.e. 5 per 
cent of domestic consumption for each and every tariff line declared to be sensitive). 
7. As regards Japan, I have not to this point had the impression that either of the above two 
options would work.  Nor have I had any basis from the consultations to suggest any other approach 
that might generate convergence.  Of course, Japan  has tabled its own proposal as regards access to a 
total of 8 per cent of tariff lines for Sensitive Products.   
8. However, this is not, of course, just a questi on of numbers for Sensitive Products viewed in 
clinical isolation from everything else. There would be questions as to whether or how this affected those observing the default number and how it affected other elements in the text. 
9. As regards paragraph 76, some changes have been  made to the text within square brackets – 
which remains, as an issue, of real contention d espite ongoing consultations.  I have no emerging 
consensus by way of compromise or alternative.  Th e best I can suggest as a possible alternative is the 
following – proffered more in hope than expectation of agreement: 
Alternatively, certain Members
2 may retain no more than 2 per cent of their tariff lines in 
excess of 100 per cent ad valorem for no long er than four years after the implementation 
period of paragraph 61.  In addition, each year following the implementation period , they 
shall reduce one-quarter of retained lines to 100 per cent ad valorem. 
 
__________  
                                                      
2 Iceland, Japan, Norway, Switzerland