   
  
JOB/AG/223  
 
16 November  2021 
(21-8651) Page: 1/7 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
REPORT BY AMBASSADOR GLORIA ABRAHAM PERALTA TO THE  
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE IN SPECIAL SESSION  
AND DEDICATED SESSIONS ON PSH AND SSM  
15 NOVEM BER 2021  
Introduction  
 
1. Since the last CoA S pecial Session  meeting, I have continued my consultations in various 
formats. These have included bilateral meetings, small group consultations and meetings with Group 
Coordinators.  
 
2. I am also aware of the on -going consultations taking place among various groups of Memb ers 
and am hopeful that they will produce useful inputs towards assisting the Membership to reach 
consensus on the negotiating issues.  
  
3. I would like to stress again that transparency and inclusiveness have remained and will remain 
central in my process. I n consulting Members in different configurations, the objective has always 
been to try to narrow the gaps in the positions of  proponents and non -proponents on the key 
negotiating issues.  
 
4. Discussions have taken place on all the topics, but the main goal of my consultations has been 
to help Members to engage with each other towards identifying potential balance and landing zones 
across three topics: Domestic Support, PSH and to a lesser exte nt Market Access.  
 
5. The focus on these three issues does not in any way imply that Export Competition, Export 
Restrictions, Cotton, SSM or Transparency are less important.  These topics will be an integral part 
of an agricultural outcome, to ensure its overa ll balance.  
 
6. As stated on so many occasions, this is a Member -driven process, which I try to facilitate, and 
it is up to you – the Members – to collectively find a solution to outstanding issues.  
 
7. Let me now turn to substance.  
 
8. My description of the state of play on the different topics should of course be considered in a 
holistic manner, as the level of ambition on the different topics will have to be balanced across the 
board.  
 
Domestic Support  
9. My recent consultations on Domestic Support have continued to  focus on the necessary 
changes that have to be effected to make the draft text contained in J OB/AG/215 acceptable to the 
Membership, on a without prejudice basis. It is still my considered view that full modalities are out 
of reach for MC12. Positions of Members on the key negotiating issues continue to diverge, but I 
believe that with flexibility from Members a broad work pl an or framework containing some goals, 
timelines, and principles to guide our future negotiations can be achieved at MC12.    
 
10. While the discussions are still ongoing, it seems difficult for an agreement to be reached on a 
numerical target . Likewise, there  is no convergence on the timeline  for Members to reduce their 
trade -distorting domestic support. The proponents of a numerical goal and a timeline are concerned JOB/AG/223  
 
- 2 - 
 
  that without concrete targets, we would be merely restating old Ministerial mandates without a dding 
any real value. Other Members remain concerned that specific targets would prejudge the outcomes 
of the negotiations to be conducted. As a result of these divergent views, I have been consulting on 
these issues.  
 
11. The proportionality  principle is rega rded as essential by many Members. However, there are 
divergences in Members' views as to how it should be expressed. There are those who believe that 
the sole criterion should be the size of a Member's entitlements. This is opposed by several Members 
who have suggested per capita  support for farmers should also be taken into account. My text 
proposes that individual circumstances and development needs of Members should also be taken 
into account.   
 
12. Many Members consider that all categories of Article 6  need to be addressed, but they will 
not necessarily be treated equally. There is the opposing view that support provided under Article  6.2 
should be exempted from reduction commitments.   
 
13. In addition, many Members support the position that AMS above de mini mis needs to be 
addressed with the aim of reducing subsidy concentration. This view is also contested by some 
Members who believe that it prejudges the outcome of future negotiations and should be 
appropriately discussed when work on modalities begin.  
 
14. Regarding the Green Box , it is envisaged to review and consider updating Annex 2 criteria 
and related transparency requirements, including for making sure it remains fit for purpose. The 
case has been made that it is important to preserve the Green Box as Mem bers should be encouraged 
to reform and move from using trade -distorting support towards non -trade-distorting support. 
Therefore, it has been questioned whether it is appropriate to address this support together with 
other types of support.   
 
15. The request to include a reference to non-trade concerns  was again reiterated.  
 
16. In short, unlike in some other topics, a clear landing zone still remains elusive . Members 
will urgently need to close the gaps in their negotiating positions.    
 
17. Currently, there seems to be growing convergence on negotiating modalities possibly by a 
certain date (MC13 has been suggested) with a view to reducing substantially overall  entitlements 
under domestic support categories that have trade -distorting effects. There appears to be an 
agreement that different categories of support will not be treated equally . The elements to be 
considered in connection with the proportionality prin ciple is still under discussion. There appears to 
be less divergences in Members ' positions on transparency provisions, including regarding the 
request that the WTO Secretariat maintain and update on a regular basis the domestic support 
analytical tool dev eloped by Canada, or create a similar tool.  
 
Market Access  
18. In the discussions on market access, it has been apparent that an outcome in the Market 
Access pillar is not only expected by the proponents, but such an outcome would also assist Members 
to attain  an overall balance in the agriculture negotiations. Simultaneously, it is clear that it is 
perhaps the pillar where several Members have high sensitivities leading them to insist on an overall 
balance within agriculture, and even outside agriculture.  
 
19. Specifically, on the draft market access text, I have heard the following main messages during 
my consultations:  
 
• the work programme should entail comprehensive  negotiations covering all issues in the 
market access file ; 
• technical discussions  should feed into those negotiations in order to enable an informed 
participation among Members , and  
• the proposed way forward to be approved by MC12 should  not be excessively prescriptive .  
20. Simultaneously, I also heard that the proposed text in J OB/AG/215  was excessively detailed.  JOB/AG/223  
 
- 3 - 
 
  21. On the transparency  of bound non -ad valorem  tariffs and the proposed reporting of 
AVEs  by Members, some Members suggested that it should be considered on a voluntary basis akin 
to the agreement reached among Members in the Commi ttee on Market Access in 2019, whereas 
some others thought that such an exercise would be  premature in the absence of any clarity on the 
tariff reduction modality and not necessarily useful in the absence of common methodology to 
undertake the proposed con version.  
 
22. On the issue of applied tariff transparency , there appears to be a preference for adopting 
the decision on a best -endeavour basis in order to allay any concerns of the non -proponents 
regarding possible logistical constraints and legislative chan ges that the latter consider might be 
required by the proposed decision.    
 
23. A possible compromise  could be to agree on a mixture of an initial agreement on select 
illustrative practices which, in turn, have been derived from an examination of national practices 
over recent months, and a work programme to expand on those practices based on Members' 
requests.  
 
24. A voluntary or best endeavour effort  may also be proposed as regards the adherence to 
these practices, including on transparency requirements. Some Members, however, continue to 
prefer solely a work programme on this issue rather than a definitive  decision at MC12.  
 
Export Restrictions Clarification and Transparency  
 
25. As I see it, based on the discussions so far including in the "room D " context, a potential 
outcome on the clarification and transparency elements for export restrictions  could be 
comp osed of the following main components:  
 
• the continuation of the negotiation post MC12;  
• a transparency work programme in the context of the regular CoA aimed at updating, 
streamlining and making more effective transparency requirements, as part of the overa ll 
transparency enhancing related efforts. This transparency work programme should be 
considered in the context of a possible overall draft decision on transparency which I will 
address later;  
• the provision of technical assistance upon request by the Secre tariat as well as annual 
supporting trade data to facilitate the implementation of the existing transparency 
requirements;  
• a potential deliverable on the timeline for advance notice pursuant to Article 12 of the AoA 
on a best endeavour basis, pending the o utcome of a post MC12 work programme.  
26. Such an approach would aim at finding a compromise between proponents that ask for the 
adoption of a 30 -day advance notice with the notable exception of cases involving force majeure . 
There is opposition by several groups of Members to any transparency -related firm commitment that 
would pre -empt the post -MC12 work on this topic.  
 
Export Restrictions – WFP Exemption  
 
27. A stand -alone decision on the WFP food purchases exemption from expo rt 
restrictions  continues to be described by a vast majority of Members as a "very low hanging fruit" 
for a potential deliverable for MC12.  
 
28. All Members hold in high esteem the work of the WFP and are willing to make their best efforts 
to support it, especially at a moment when the number of undernourished people is growing again.  
 
29. To this end, Members need to agree on a drafting striking an adequate balance in the text to 
reflect the fact that WFP food purchases are undertaken in a way that does not i mpact negatively 
on Members where the food is procured in light of existing WFP practices and principles.  
 
30. My understanding is that discussions are continuing between proponents and non -proponents 
to explore possible compromise adjustments to the text cont ained in document JOB/AG/215 that JOB/AG/223  
 
- 4 - 
 
  reflects the intense work dedicated to this question in December 2020. I call on the Members 
involved to redouble their efforts and wrap up these discussions as soon as possible.  
 
31. Notwithstanding these developments, one Me mber has re -stated its questions to proponents 
and to the WFP, including on past examples of actual export restrictions hindering its work and 
assessment of the potential impact of such measures. As noted in my introduction, we have just 
received a communi cation by Singapore aimed at replying to these questions.  
 
Export Competition  
 
32. The situation on export competition is somehow similar to the one on export restrictions with 
the envisaged way forward also composed of three main elements:  
 
• The continuation o f the negotiation post MC12;  
• A transparency work programme in the context of the regular CoA aimed at updating, 
streamlining and making more effective transparency requirements. This would be 
particularly relevant following the adoption of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. 
Here again, this transparency element should be considered in the context of the overall 
draft decision on transparency ; 
• A possible deliverable consisting in an update of the data requirements in the annual Export 
Competition qu estionnaire on a best endeavour basis or with a grace period for developing 
country members not in a position to do so, and the provision of supporting trade data by 
the Secretariat . 
33. This last issue appears to be the most problematic in view of the capacit y constraints faced 
by some developing country Members.  
 
34. My understanding is that discussions are continuing between proponents and non -proponents 
to explore possible drafting compromise. I call on the Members involved to redouble their efforts 
and wrap u p these discussions as soon as possible  
 
Transparency  
 
35. Generally speaking, Members  seem to be ready to engage in a post -MC12 work programme 
aimed at reviewing, streamlining and updating transparency requirements, as well as a review in 
parallel of information technology tools through the Agriculture Informational Management System.  
 
36. On the form of a transparency outcome, Members have generally expressed their readiness 
to consider a horizontal decision on transparency complemented by transparency -related elements 
incorporated in topic -by-topic decisions, as suggested in JOB/AG/215.  
 
37. Proponents have also signalled their readiness to scale down their initial ambitions to consider 
an outcome composed of few immediate deliverables complemented by a post MC12 work 
programme.  
 
38. In my view, the work programme on transparency in general should be calibrated with the 
outcomes on the other topics and overall balance of the agricultural package. This includes the 
question of a possible timeframe for such a work programme.  
 
39. The recognition of the capacity constraints of some developing Members is also an important 
element for many non -proponents.  
 
Cotton  
40. Following our last meeting, I chaired the 16th Cotton Dedicated Discussion of the relevant 
trade related developments for cotton on 4 November and continued my consultation with the C -4 
and some interes ted Members.  
 
41. Here again, I was encouraged by the level of engagement and willingness from both sides to 
explore possible compromise solutions with a view to achieving an outcome on cotton at MC12.  JOB/AG/223  
 
- 5 - 
 
  42. Such an outcome will have to be considered in its globalit y, i.e., both its trade and 
development components. This latter component is developed under the Director -General's 
Consultative Framework Mechanism on the development aspects of cotton and could be recognized 
in one paragraph in a Ministerial outcome based on the proposal made by the C -4 in document 
TN/AG/GEN/51  - TN/AG/SCC/GEN/23.  
 
43. On the trade component, the main outstanding issue remains how to address the question of 
Cotton Trade-Distorting Domestic Support. I have detected a growing conve rgence around the fact 
that agreeing on modalities for its reduction by MC12 may not be possible in light of the short time 
left, remaining string divergences on key substantive issues and overall level of ambition for an 
agricultural package at MC12.  
 
44. Members could therefore consider how changes to the text currently in JOB/AG/215 could lead 
to a middle ground solution acceptable by both the C -4 and other Members with a direct interest on 
this topic.  
 
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes  
 
45. Since the previous Dedicated Session held on 28 October, I have held consultations in different 
formats, including bilateral meetings and some small group meetings on the issue of Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. While some possible landing zones have been discussed, I 
am sure that you are well aware of the disagreements regarding the level of ambition and wide 
differences that persist on this file.  
 
46. While some Members continue to aim for a permanent solution, non -proponents maintain that 
they are not in a position to agree to a permanent solution at MC12, notably because they consider 
that it would not be in line with the ambition level in other areas.  
 
47. Based on the state of play, and taking into account the stage of our process, I have to be  
completely frank and say that proposing a text that could become the basis for a permanent solution 
on PSH at MC12 remains extremely difficult for me as the Chair, despite my best efforts. At the same 
time, I consider that we can probably reach consensus on an intermediary step on this critical file 
for a success at MC12.  
 
48. The ideas and options for an intermediate step that have been discussed recently as possible 
inputs for a new text are:  
 
• A work programme with some key elements and commitment to intensi fy work post -MC12 
to find a permanent solution;  
• An expansion of the Bali Interim Solution to all PSH programmes of LDCs , and 
• An expansion of the Bali Interim Solution to PSH programmes of developing countries which 
do not benefit from it for a limited dur ation, and limited to the procurement of 15% of the 
volume of production (Alternative 1) , or 
• An expansion of the Bali Interim Solution to new PSH programmes of all developing 
countries enacted after 7 December 2013, subject to the same conditions as above 
(Alternative 2).  
49. In my view, there seems to be growing support for doing at least something for the LDCs 
while working intensively for a permanent solution post -MC12.  
 
50. I need not emphasi ze that this is an issue where Members' positions still remain far apa rt, and 
I need your constructive engagement and flexibility to help us identify the most consensual option 
going forward.  
Special Safeguard Mechanism  
 
51. Since the previous SSM Dedicated Session on 28 October, I have continued my consultations 
with Members on this matter in different formats.   
 JOB/AG/223  
 
- 6 - 
 
  52. Based on these consultations, a substantive outcome on SSM at MC12 even in a limited or 
temporary setting appears increasingly unlikely. Considering the current technical deficit in the SSM 
negotiations and as a way forward, Ministers may instruct that we engage in targeted thematic 
discussions post -MC12 to address this aspect. Technical elements of the SSG may inform these 
discussions to f acilitate timely agreement on numerous highly technical parameters on triggers, 
remedies etc.  
 
53. I also sensed that the proponents are also willing to consider a post -MC12 work programme 
on SSM. However, they insist on a precise timeline, namely MC13 to reac h a substantive agreement 
on SSM. The non -proponents are sympathetic to include timelines in the future work on SSM, 
however, these Members are very clear that a definitive agreement on SSM cannot precede a parallel 
agreement on new market access. Like the  existing SSG agreed during the Uruguay Round, these 
Members view the SSM to be part of an overall market access package.  
 
Overall Assessment1 
54. Let me now conclude with my overall assessment of the state of play.  
 
55. I am encouraged by the fact that many of y ou are working on potential landing zones for some 
of the issues we are considering. I urge you though to submit them as soon as possible.   
 
56. As I have described, some good discussions have taken place in the last couple of weeks on 
several issues and many  delegations have indicated some flexibility. However, we are not yet where 
we should be, notably in some key topics under negotiations.   
 
57. Gaps remain on several issues, most importantly:  
 
• on domestic support, where Members cannot agree whether to pursue a numerical target 
or converge on an alternative language; the timeframe; and how to address special and 
differential treatment for developing countries, particularly under Article 6.2 ; 
• possible immediate deliverables on improved transparency, including on  shipments en 
route  or advance notice for export restrictions;  
• the language on a possible exemption from export restrictions of WFP's humanitarian food 
aid purchases;  
• and the possibility of including specific post -MC12 deadlines for some topics ; 
• as well as  in PSH and SSM on which I will report during the Dedicated Sessions . 
58. It is clear from my consultations that an outcome on agriculture at MC12 is expected , 
notably in the context of the global challenges that the global food and agricultural system face 
today.  
 
59. This means we must ensure that an MC12 outcome contributes towards progress in ending 
hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture, 
among other s. We also must make sure that any result we achieve contributes to our broader efforts 
to lay the foundations for recovery from the COVID -19 pandemic.  
 
60. And as stated at the last meeting, an outc ome on agriculture is indispensable for a successful 
MC12. Failure to achieve an outcome would constitute a major blow for the credibility of the 
Organization and more importantly to the efforts to ensure that trade makes a positive contribution 
to the cha llenges facing food and agricultural markets – now and in the years ahead.  
 
61. With only two weeks  left before MC12 opens, it is now time to close the remaining 
gaps.  
 
 
1 As delivered at the end of the CoA Special Session meeting.  JOB/AG/223  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Conclusion2 
62. I thank all the Members who intervened.  I listened very carefully to you. I wi ll reflect on your 
views and positions expressed during this meeting and also in my consultations with groups of 
Members.  
 
63. As I have said on so many occasions  – we either find a way to reduce the remaining gaps or 
have to adjust the level of ambition. The reality is that many gaps still remain.   
 
64. I will continue to work with you to narrow the gaps and consult with you in the coming days. 
I may call consultations – bilateral or with a broader group of Members – at very short notice.   
 
65. I also urge you more than ever to try to bridge the remaining gaps by continuing to engage 
with one another in the coming hours and keep me informed about the progress.  
 
66. It remains  at this stage my intention to circulate a revised draft text for your consideration as 
soon as possible. It will be an attempt to reconcile the different points of view to the best of my 
ability. It is not an easy task given the divergences that continue to exi st, as we have seen again 
today.  
 
67. However, as it was the case two weeks ago, all options on the table still remain open.  
 
68. I will report in any event to the next meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee and Heads 
of delegation meeting  on Friday 19 November, in advance of the General Council meeting on 
22-23 November.  
 
69. I also consider holding , if necessary, another CoA Special Session meeting on 
24-25 November . 
 
__________  
 
2 As delivered at the end of the CoA Special Session meeting.  