   
  
JOB/AG/226  
 
29 March  2022 
(22-2570) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
REPORT BY AMBASSADOR GLORIA ABRAHAM PERALTA TO THE  
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE IN SPECIAL SESSION   
AND DEDICATED DISCUSSIONS ON PSH AND SSM  
21 MARCH  2022 
Report at the dedicated discussion on PSH  
 
1. I will now turn to my report that covers a round of bilateral consultations held between 8 and 
18 February, as well two consultations with groups of representative Members held on 11 February 
and 11 March on the state of play and process forward.  
 
2. I will provide a more detailed report on the general views expressed on the process during 
the CoA Special Session meeting.  
 
3.  In a few words, Members have clearly expressed a common will to make the best use of the 
additional time available.  
 
4. While Members considered open -ended meetings to be essential to ensure inclusiveness and 
transparency and to provide guidance, many Members also recogni zed that meetings in smaller 
settings might be more effective for narrowing differences and could therefore con stitute a useful 
complement.  
 
5. The importance of informing all Members of the small group consultations to ensure 
inclusiveness and transparency was also re -emphasized. This report is precisely aimed at responding 
to this very legitimate request, according to my constant past practice.  
 
6. Several Members emphasized that the process was Member -driven, and it was stressed that 
direct engagement between proponents and non -proponents was essential, something I have 
consistently called for myself. Suggestions were made to create a space for Members to negotiate 
among themselves.  
 
7. Specifically with regard to PSH, a request was made to allow some time for the proponents to 
work on a joint proposal and consult with non -proponents. I hope that these discussions would 
produce results which could feed into our process. So, I am looking forward to hearing about the 
work that is going on and the progress that is being made.  
 
8. In addition, it was suggested to re -introduce a Friend  of the Chair process for PSH to look at 
some of the proposals. Several delegations also stressed the need for further technical work or 
technical consultations in small groups to better understand the positions and to narrow the gaps. I 
am looking forward to hearing Members' views on this and any oth er specific suggestions they may 
have.  
 
9. Regarding substance, PSH remains a priority for many Members who have urged the  
intensification of efforts to adopt a Permanent Solution at MC12. The proponents have continued to 
stress the usefulness of PSH programm es as a tool for addressing food security and rural livelihoods 
concerns, especially in times of crisis such as the conflict in Ukraine and COVID -19 and consider that 
a solution to this issue is long overdue.  
 
  JOB/AG/226  
 
- 2 - 
 
  10. The non -proponents do not share all the views of the proponents. Given the stalemate and 
continued divergences in positions, some Members have suggested extending the Bali Decision to 
LDCs and some other vulnerable developing countries. It has been stressed that PSH is just one tool 
among many t o ensure Food Security and that the latter has to be addressed in a comprehensive 
manner.  
 
11. Members have also called for a Food Security side event, that is being considered for April. 
The precise date would be communicated shortly.  
 
12. I would also like to re call different ideas I have put forward over the months based on my 
consultations with Members and their submissions, ranging from a Bali -type permanent solution in 
JOB/AG/215, to the expansion of the Bali Interim Solution to new programmes for five ( 5) years, 
while the search for a Permanent Solution continues, to empowering the Committee on Agriculture 
to make decisions to expand the Bali Decision on an ad-hoc basis pursuant to requests made by 
certain developing countries, and to a Work Programme. In tot al, I have floated at least seven ideas, 
in different configurations, in addition to the proposals by the proponents.  
 
13. I am therefore keen to learn more about the ideas that are currently being worked on.  
 
Report at the dedicated discussion on SSM  
 
14. As indicated in my original convening message of 21 February, the purpose of today's meeting 
is to assess the situation in the SSM negotiations, including in light of the agreed timeline of 
June 2022 for holding MC12. This is also an opportunity to allow Memb ers to report on their ongoing 
work in this important area of the agriculture negotiations.  
 
15. As I had stated during the release of the draft text in TN/AG/50 that due to significant 
divergences among Members both on the possible technical parameters of an SSM as well as on the 
question of linkage with market access, a substantive outcome on SSM, even in a limited temporary 
setting, appeared unlikely.    
 
16. In my November 2021 draft text, I had accordingly proposed a work programme on the SSM 
where I also soug ht to address the fundamental issue of technical deficit in the SSM negotiations.  
 
17. While we have not convened a dedicated session on the SSM this year, I have heard some 
proponent Members at the CoA S pecial Session  meeting in January expressing their inter est in 
reaching an outcome on the SSM at MC12. The non -proponents, however, have consistently 
maintained that a definitive agreement on the SSM is out of reach at MC12, as it cannot precede a 
parallel agreement on new market access and that the two issues are intrinsically linked.  
 
18. At today's meeting, I would like to hear from you about your expectations on the SSM at MC12 
now that we have agreed to hold the Conference in June this year. I would specifically be interested 
to know if there has been any signi ficant change in Members' position s on this file since the release 
of my text in November last year.  
 
Report at the CoA Special Session  
 
19. As indicated in my message of 9 March reconvening this meeting, the agenda of our meeting 
today remains the same and the purpose of our meeting is twofold:  
 
a. First, take stock of the progress achieved since the beginning of the year and share 
information on  the ongoing work being undertaken by Members. I hope we will receive today 
news about the work undertaken on the different topics among and between Members and 
groups of Members with a view to identifying possible ways to narrow gaps and identify 
possible  landing zones;  
 
b. Second, assess the current situation in light of recent developments and seek guidance on 
the process on all negotiation topics, including exploring which additional technical work may 
be required in the coming weeks to make progress in th e negotiations.  
 
  JOB/AG/226  
 
- 3 - 
 
  20. The decision adopted on 23 February by the General Council to hold MC12 during the week of 
13 June in Geneva  constituted a major step forward, as it provided clarity on the timetable.  
 
21. Many of you had stressed at the open -ended meeting on 24 January , and in my subsequent 
consultations, that the uncertainty regarding the date of MC12 was likely to hamper the neg otiation 
process and that it would therefore be necessary to reassess the state of play and the way forward 
once the MC12 dates are known.  
 
22. This being said, it is also clear that the situation in Ukraine has modified the environment in 
which we are operati ng and has had also a significant impact on WTO activities as well as on food 
and agricultural markets.  
 
23. This meeting is the first opportunity to assess collectively the state of play in light of these 
new developments, and I will therefore invite Members to make suggestions, both in terms of topics 
and format, regarding the process forward and further consultations now that we have a clear 
timetable ahead of us.  
 
24. Of course, the COVID -19 pandemic has not completely disappeared, and we do not operate 
in comp lete isolation from international developments. But we must use the time available to us 
wisely and continue undertaking our duties and working hard towards MC12.   
 
25. Preserving a well -functioning rules -based multilateral trading system and finding ways to 
make a meaningful contribution to agriculture and food security is more important than ever.  
 
26. Some comments by Members during my consultations focussed on the importance of a clear 
roadmap to MC12. As just mentioned, the uncertainty regarding the MC12 date  has been removed, 
so I will not dwell on it. Rather, I will ask Members to express their updated views on the process 
forward with this clear timetable in mind.  
 
27. My report today covers a round of bilateral consultations held between 8 and 18 February, as 
well as two consultations with groups of representative Members held on 11 February and 11 March 
on the state of play and process forward.  
 
28. I had scheduled two more consultations on Domestic Support and Market Access on 2 and 
3 March 2022, respectively , but decided to postpone them until further notice.  
 
29. Members had expressed during my consultations a shared willingness to make the best 
possible use of the time available.   
 
30. Several Members noted that while the decision on the date of MC12 constituted a po sitive 
development, recent international developments would significantly hamper the work of the WTO, 
including the negotiations process. For these Members, the challenges facing the WTO could not be 
underestimated and Members should therefore recalibrate their expectations in light of this uncertain 
environment and not behave in a "business as usual" mode.  
 
31. Several Members also underlined in the course of my consultations the need for the process 
to remain open, transparent, inclusive, fair, and based on g ood faith.  
 
32. Regarding meetings' configurations, while Members see the CoA  Special Session  and the 
Dedicated Sessions as central in the process to ensure inclusivity and transparency and therefore 
build consensus and provide guidance, it was also recognized by many Members that meetings in 
smaller settings could be more efficient to identify po ssible options for narrowing differences. Such 
small group meetings with clearly defined objectives could, therefore, usefully complement and 
serve as an input in the preparations of open -ended meetings.  
 
33. Therefore, suggestions were made to continue holdin g bilateral, small group and open -ended 
meetings. It was also noted that the process should follow a tailored approach for each topic, as not 
all topics under negotiation are in the same situation. Some Members also stressed the need to 
prioritize the disc ussions and focus on the main remaining gaps.  
 
  JOB/AG/226  
 
- 4 - 
 
  34. It was considered that the composition of small groups has to be representative of the 
Membership and balanced in terms of numbers, and clear criteria followed in the selection of these 
groups. It was also p roposed to invite more Members from the same group to participate in these 
discussions, and to include the key proponents and key opponents.  
 
35. The need to provide enough time to Members between Chair -led consultations as well as the 
importance of informing all Members of the results of small group consultations to ensure 
inclusiveness and transparency was also re -emphasized.  
 
36. This report is precisely aimed at responding to this very legitimate request, following my 
constant practice ever since I became the C oA-SS Chair in July 2020.  
 
37. Several Members emphasized that the process was Member -driven, and that direct 
engagement between proponents and non -proponents could complement the Chair -led negotiation 
process.  
 
38. Several Members stressed in this regard that ex changes between Members, proponents and 
non-proponents should be aimed at exploring ways to reduce gaps, narrow divergences and identify 
possible landing zones in order to be productive.  
 
39. While some Members suggested the re -introduction of a facilitator -led or coordinator -led 
process, where necessary, or the initiation of a Friend  of the Chair process, some other Members 
expressed reservations. In this regard, I would be interested in hearing your views now that we 
know the dates for MC12.  
 
40. Calls were made to address the inherent shortcomings in Members' engagement to date, to 
be pragmatic, to show flexibility regarding the ways of working and otherwise, to see the negotiation 
process as a whole, and to avoid engaging in a " take it or leave it " approach.  
 
41. Several delegations also stressed the need for further technical work or technical negotiations, 
in all formats, in order to fill the gaps on specific issues.  It was recommended to focus on issues 
where wide divergences remain in Members' positions. I am l ooking forward to hearing Members' 
more specific suggestions on how we may advance work on topics of interest to them.  
 
42. On substance, as we are all aware, divergences remain regarding  the latest text circulated in 
document TN/AG/50.  
 
43. For several Members, t he text constitutes a good and honest assessment of the state of play 
and an appropriate basis to continue the negotiations.  
 
44. Other Members have stressed the need to significantly revise the draft text in some areas, 
and possibly in some instances consider  new alternatives, in light of the remaining gaps in 
negotiating positions. A few Members doubted whether it could be the basis for negotiations going 
forward.  
 
45. Some Members consider the text as too ambitious. Other Members consider that it lacks 
ambition.  
 
46. In any event, all Members agree that more work is needed to reach consensus.  
 
47. A few words on Domestic Support . As we all know, Domestic Support is a priority issue for 
the vast majority of Members. The importance of addressing trade -distorting domestic support has 
consistently been raised by Members. In my consultations since the postponement of MC12, many 
Members thought that the additional time gained would be most usefully spent on technical work 
with the view of acquiring a better understand ing of the positions and narrowing the remaining gaps. 
Different formats were suggested, such as small group meetings, facilitator -led process, or Friend 
of the Chair process. All Members agree that - independently of the format chosen - the CoA S pecial 
Session  meetings will remain essential for transparency and inclusiveness . 
 
  JOB/AG/226  
 
- 5 - 
 
  48. Regarding substance, most Members came to the conclusion last year that a substantive 
modalities -based outcome was out of reach and that the most realistic outcome would b e a work 
plan-type outcome that would set Members on the path to reform after MC12. This view is reflected 
in TN/AG/50, which suggests that Members establish modalities by MC13 to substantially reduce 
trade-distorting domestic support by a date to be agree d by them, as well as some guiding principles 
and improved transparency requirements. From my consultations, the situation has not changed 
notwithstanding the additional few months gained by the postponement of MC12.  
 
49. The importance of making progress on Market Access  has been underscored by some 
Members with a view to facilitating a substantive outcome on agriculture at MC12. The need for a 
more targeted technical engagement on certain elements, including on applied tariff transparency, 
and market access t ransparency and notification compliance has also been highlighted in my 
consultations.  
 
50. On Cotton , several Members and groups of Members confirmed their support to the C -4. 
 
51. On Export Restrictions , several Members expressed once more their support for a de cision 
on the exemption of WFP food purchases from such measures, notably in light of the potential 
consequences of the conflict in Ukraine on overall food security. Some Members reiterated in this 
regard their readiness to consider the possibility to dise ntangle this issue from the overall package 
in case a consensus could be reached separately.  
 
52. In addition to Market Access, Transparency was also mentioned as a topic of interest by 
some Members across the board, and also in relation to export restrictions  and to a lesser extent 
Export Competition . 
 
53. Finally, one Member considered that it would also be necessary to discuss the " chapeau " of 
the draft decision contained in TN/AG/50.  
 
54. It was noted by several Members that the overall outcome had to be balanced, which implied 
an overall assessment of potential outputs across the board. As stated on several occasions, nothing 
is agreed until everything is agreed.  
 
55. Finally, some Members highlighted that the CoA  Special Session  was the most appropriate 
forum to addre ss globally the issue of food security  in the context of the WTO negotiations.  
 
56. Several Members emphasized the need to develop a broader perspective on how the WTO 
agriculture negotiations in general and an MC12 outcome in particular could effectively cont ribute to 
food security and poverty alleviation , including in the context of the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic as 
well as food markets developments following the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine.  
 
57. The views expressed on food security were diverse and it was suggested that a side event 
should be organized in the near future to inform this debate.  
 
58. Let me conclude with a few comments.  
 
59. It is an opportune time to collectively re -evaluate the negotiation process, so I will now invite 
you to express your views on the process forward . 
 
60. The clarity on the date of MC12 constituted a very positive development but we also have to 
factor in how the current international environment may impact on our p rocess.  
 
61. The question in front of us today is how to make the best possible use of the time left before 
MC12 to narrow the divergences and identify landing zones in a realistic and effective manner.  
 
62. At this stage, my initial thoughts on the process forwar d can be summarized as follows:  
 
63. We all agree that more work is required, and our task today is to make progress building upon 
what is already on the table and any new input that may be submitted . 
 JOB/AG/226  
 
- 6 - 
 
  64. While the agreement on the date for MC12 provides us with a clear timeline, the process must 
also remain pragmatic and flexible in order to respond to changing conditions in the negotiation 
process.  
 
65. This process is Member -driven as has been reiterated by many Members in recent weeks. This 
has several implication s. 
 
66. First, all Members must reassess their positions, analyse the remaining gaps, evaluate how 
they can contribute to a successful outcome and develop to this end possible options to identify 
landing zones and build convergences.  
 
67. Second, proponents and n on-proponents of various topics need to engage directly with each 
other and explore ways to narrow the gaps, and subsequently share the results of their work with 
the wider Membership and myself. It also means more submissions and inputs from Members that 
would help move us closer to consensus.  
 
68. I am encouraged by the indications of ongoing work being undertaken by Members on the 
different topics, and I am looking forward to listening today positive news when you report on these 
ongoing consultations.  
 
69. Such direct contacts between Members are absolutely indispensable, as negotiations must 
occur between Members and not between Members and the Chair.  
 
70. On my side, my intention would be, subject to the overall situation regarding the organi zation 
of meetings, t o continue convening in the coming weeks consultations on substance in various 
configurations according to Members' suggestions, as most of you underlined their usefulness in 
narrowing differences. I will keep in mind the representativity of groups and per spectives and make 
my best efforts to ensure mutual supportiveness with Member -led discussions.  
 
71. My consultations can also cover technical work that may be required, depending on Members' 
interest and submissions.  
 
72. I look forward to hearing your suggestions, both in terms of topics and format, regarding 
further consultations aimed at making progress on the outstanding issues.  
 
73. I will also listen carefully to Members' views regarding the possibility to re -introduce a 
facilitator -led, coordinator -led or Friend of the Chair process.  
 
74. Finally, given the importance of food security and rural livelihoods to the majority of Members, 
I have invited the Secretariat to explore the possibility of organizing an event on this issue in the 
coming weeks, probably  in April.  
 
75. This ad hoc  event could provide an excellent opportunity for an exchange of views between 
Members and high -level experts on this central and complex multifaceted topic.  
 
 
__________  