 RESTRICTED  
  
JOB/AG/202  
 
16 June 2021  
(21-4968) Page: 1/13 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session    
 
 
WAY FORWARD TOWARDS MC12  
REPORT  BY THE CHAIR PERSON  OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE IN SPECIAL SESSION, 
AMBASSADOR GLORIA ABRAHAM PERALTA  
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  Since my appointment as the Chairperson of the Special Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture (CoA-SS) in July 2020, I have been holding consultations in various configurations with 
the Membership to determine their priorities for the Twelfth Ministerial Conference (MC12). There is 
convergence among Members that the mandate in Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture should 
be fulfilled with the agriculture sector subjected to fair and market -oriented disciplines to unleash 
its full potential and make a positive contribution to global economic growth and sustainable 
development.  
1.2.  Accordingly, Members recognise as a priority the need to work towards reducing trade and 
production distorting support to level the playing field , provide opportunities to competi tive farmers 
around the world  and improve the sustainable allocation of scarce resources . Members are also 
conscious of the need to reform agri-food systems  to enhance food security in all countries , support 
rural development and ensure  the livelihood secu rity of billions of people who are dependent on this 
sector . With the world 's population expected to reach nearly nine billion by 2030, Governments must 
ensure , as part of their efforts to overcome hunger and malnutrition , that the international agri-food 
system  can produce and distribute , through international trade , more food sustainably . More efficient 
and equitable markets can also help boost productivity, raise rural incomes, and create jobs, thereby 
also improving access to food . There are also the challenge s related to climate change , including 
both mitigation and adaptation , for the sector.  
1.3.  Notwithstanding the clear reasons for reform of WTO disciplines governing the agriculture 
sector, progress in the negotiations has not been as rapid a s could have been expected. While all 
Members emphasi se the vital importance of an outcome on agriculture at MC12  to boost the 
credibility of the WTO 's efforts in this area , there are substantive differences in Members ' positions 
in all seven  negotiating a reas (domestic support, public stockholding for food security purposes, 
market access, special safeguard mechanism, export restrictions, export competition and cotton) as 
reflected in the Facilitators ' reports. While these differences have persisted for so me time, I 
witnessed in my consultations the determination of Members to work very hard to bridge the gaps 
in negotiating positions so as to obtain a credible outcome on agriculture at MC12. Members have 
been motivated by developments since the outbreak of  the COVID -19 pandemic to redouble their 
efforts to strengthen multilateral agricultural trade disciplines.  
1.4.  This report, which is drafted on my own responsibility, seeks to point the way forward in the 
negotiations  based on my assessment of the current sta te of play of the ongoing agriculture 
negotiations . It does not purport to comprehensively represent Members ' positions as they have 
expressed them in the negotiations and is without prejudice to the views expressed by any Member 
on any of the negotiating issues. The suggestions made by me are based on numerous meetings 
and consultations with Members during which they expressed their interests and lev el of ambition 
and the constraints they faced. They are also based on the many  submissions and presentations by 
Members as well as the discussions within the framework of the Facilitators -led process , which was  
established in October 2020.  In fact, this report must be read in conjunction with the Facilitators ' JOB/AG/202  
 
- 2 - 
 
  reports circulated on 10 June1 and those by previous Chairperson s of the CoA -SS.2 I would like to 
thank the Facilitators most sincerely for their hard work and dedication and the assistance provided  
to me and the Membership, particularly their recommendations on how progress can be made in the 
agriculture negotiations.  
1.5.  This report is intended to stimulate discussions among Members and clearly identify  the 
possible options for each negotiating subject  which could form the basis of text -based negotiations 
in the run -up to MC12. The report notes that the level of maturity of each of the negotiating topics 
is different necessitating varied outcomes at MC12. While some decisions could be taken in respect 
of a few specific issues, for others work needs to be continued post  MC12. In that regard, 
recommendations are made in the report for the possible adoption of framework agreements or 
guidelines for post -MC12 work programmes , particularly in the areas of domestic support and market 
access. In that sense, MC12 should be seen as offering Members an opportunity to take stock and 
decide on core principles and objectives that could guide the negotiations  as effectively as possible  
after the Conference , based on the level of advancement under each topic . Notwithstanding this, it 
is important for all issues to be considered concurrently and for any outcome at MC12 to be balanced 
and represent ative of  the interests of all Members.  
1.6.  The report also notes that while the agricultural negotiations do not directly deal with N on-
Tariff Barriers , it is important for disciplines in this area to be strengthened to complement any 
eventual outcome to make the agriculture sector more competitive and  fulfil the mandate set out in 
Article 20 of the AoA.  
1.7.  Special and Differential Treatment (SDT)  is also considered an essential component of a 
balanced outcome. While the principle of SD T has not been questioned  in the negotiations , some 
Members  have expres sed a preference for an approach under which flexibilities  would be conditioned 
on the individual needs and capacities of developing country Members . 
1.8.  As developed in the next section, t he challenges  faced by the agricultural negotiations  relate 
mainly to the three "Ts" – Time, Trust, and Transparency . 
1.9.  While all Members acknowledge the importance of Transparency  and would like to see 
enhanced disciplines and consistent practices, it is the considered view of many Members that a 
transparency -centred package would not be sufficient at MC12, while other Members have proffered 
the view that caution should be exercise d in view of the remaining divergences on substantive issues. 
The report considers transparency under each negotiating topic, while also conceding that it could 
also be considered globally as a cross -cutting issue.  
1.10.  Trust is at the core of our process: Fir st, it is an indispensable component to make progress 
and achieve an outcome at MC12, but similarly an outcome at MC12 on agricultural is critical to 
rebuild trust in the WTO ability's to find solutions and address today's challenges after MC11's failure 
to do so four years ago.  
1.11.  Time  is short until MC12. A lot has been done but much more remains to be done . This report 
is intended to constitute a useful step in the process forward to help  Members focus their discussions 
in the coming weeks with a view to  narrowing gaps and building the necessary bridges  to prepare 
the ground for a successful text -based negotiation.  I invite all Members to demonstrate the 
necessary flexibility, creativity and political will to help us deliver  the meaningful agriculture outcom e 
at MC12  that the world is expecting from us.  
2  DOMESTIC SUPPORT  
2.1.  The Domestic Support pillar has been at the heart of agricultural discussions for many years. 
Numerous submissions have been made on this subject by Members, stressing the need for 
advancing n egotiations in this pillar and/or suggesting ways to address trade -distorting domestic 
support (TDDS) and its individual components.  
2.2.  Given the high priority attributed to further disciplining TDDS, an outcome at MC12 on DS is 
expected by many  Members – developed and developing. It is widely agreed that, given the current 
 
1 JOB/AG/201 . 
2 In particular JOB/AG/180 and JOB/AG/187 . JOB/AG/202  
 
- 3 - 
 
  context and state -of-play of the agriculture negotiations, MC12 can deliver an intermediary step 
forward in the DS reform process and will not constitute an endgame. However, an outcome at MC12 
is considered crucial for trust building and setting the future direction of the DS reform process. It 
is therefore seen by many Members as an opportunity that should not be missed.  
2.3.  While the objective of addressing trade -distorting supp ort is widely shared, there are divergent 
views on how to achieve this objective and where to start from. Wide differences remain on the 
degree of the trade -distorting impact of different DS categories, as well as the sequencing of the 
different steps in t he reform process. Among the numerous different ideas and proposals put 
forward, none has attracted consensus so far.   
2.4.  Members can be divided broadly into three groups  according to their positions in the DS 
negotiations.   
2.5.  The first group considers that a n outcome at MC12 should set the DS negotiations on the 
reform path and provide much needed impetus and direction for addressing trade -distorting 
domestic support post -MC12 by adopting a Framework Agreement3, Work Programme or Work Plan.     
2.6.  The second gr oup considers that an outcome on agriculture should address as a priority the 
imbalances in the Agreement on Agriculture by eliminating AMS above de minimis , while preserving 
Article 6.2 flexibilities considered essential in providing the necessary policy space for developing 
Members to support low -income and poor farmers.4 
2.7.  The third group  is of the view that given the wide divergences in Members' positions on the 
key issues, an outcome on domestic support could essentially focus only on transparency enhan cing 
elements.  
2.8.  The challenges  for bringing closer together the different views on Domestic Support have 
been expressed frequently in terms of the three "Ts" – Time, Trust, and Transparency .    
2.9.  Time is clearly of essence, with four working months left till  MC12. There is an urgent need to 
focus on what is realistically doable by MC12 and what should be left after the Conference. There is 
a risk of having no outcome if the level of ambition is unrealistically high. In contrast, by lowering 
the ambition too m uch, there is a risk of rendering the outcome meaningless. Therefore, there is a 
need to work constructively to occupy the middle ground and have a credible outcome.  
2.10.  The lack of trust has been commonly cited as a key issue preventing progress. However, th ere 
is no better way to build trust than working together and reaching an agreement that would help all 
Members to take a step forward on the reform path. In that regard, the Joint Statement by the 
African Group and the Cairns Group calling for a Ministeri al Decision at MC12 on DS, and informing 
Members that both groups were committed to working together and with other WTO Members to 
achieve meaningful reform was a very valuable contribution which indicated Members were prepared 
to set aside their differenc es and work towards common solutions that would appeal to the broader 
Membership.  
2.11.  The importance of transparency for informed discussions and decisions but also for enhancing 
trust has also been frequently invoked. Among the three "Ts", without underestim ating the 
difficulties many developing country Members face and could address with appropriate technical 
assistance, transparency is the element around which most Members could easily coalesce.  
2.12.  Regarding the potential outcome  on DS at MC12, Members have b een considering different 
options, ranging from a substantive outcome to a Framework Agreement, Work Programme, Work 
Plan, and Transparency, or any combination thereof.  
2.13.  The discussions on different potential components of a substantive outcome have been w ell 
captured in previous reports and more recently in the Facilitators' report. Based on these reports 
and my own consultations, a substantive outcome at MC12 whereby Members would agree on 
concrete modalities for the reduction of TD DS entitlements seems to be out of reach, unless there 
 
3 JOB/AG/177/Rev.1 . 
4 JOB/AG/112, JOB/AG/137, and JOB/AG/173 . JOB/AG/202  
 
- 4 - 
 
  are fundamental changes in Members' positions in the coming weeks. There has been no indication 
in my own consultations, the CoA SS meetings, or Facilitators -led process that this is likely to 
happen. In addition, the COVID  environment has made it difficult for Members to commit to reducing 
TD DS at this point in time. Consequently, I believe that it is unlikely for Members to reach such an 
outcome at MC12. This is not to suggest that the many ideas put on the table in the p ast by some 
Members are not relevant and may not be used in the future. I am of the considered view that some 
of these ideas are unlikely to gather sufficient support due to their level of ambition considering the 
time left till MC12.  
2.14.  Based on this assess ment, the next best option that could be envisaged appears to be a 
Framework Agreement, Work Programme, or Work Plan that would set the negotiations on the 
reform path and provide much needed guidance to address trade -distorting domestic support post -
MC12.  In that regard, if progress is to be realised, it is imperative that Members undertake the 
necessary technical work without delay so that they can have a common understanding of the 
elements that would form the basis of an agreement.   
2.15.  According to the con clusions from the Facilitators' process and my own assessment, with 
sufficient political will, this outcome could be within reach. This is not to say that such an outcome 
will be straightforward. It will require political compromise, constructive engagemen t, and flexibility 
from across the Membership. Its value, however, cannot be underestimated – it would be an 
important step forward in the agricultural reform process, crucial for trust -building and for the 
credibility of the WTO.  
2.16.  Independently of the form  of the outcome ( e.g. Framework Agreement, Work Programme or 
Work Plan), some Members have argued that the outcome at MC12 should at a minimum have the 
following elements: (i) set the level of ambition ( i.e. goal), (ii) a reduction approach ( i.e. key 
principles) and (iii) the scope ( i.e. what will be tackled).  
2.17.  Several Members have been calling for a substantial reduction of domestic support 
entitlements, thereby setting a high level of ambition. A group of members has been suggesting a 
numerical target, a cap and reduction of the sum of current global agricultural trade - and production -
distorting domestic support entitlements by at least half by 2030. Regarding the approach to be 
followed, Members have also put forward different principles and parameters t o be considered, 
including the proportionality principle such as that reflected in recent technical papers5 and the need 
to consider concentration of support  either on a per capita basis or by product .  
2.19.  Regarding the scope, it has been stressed that relat ive trade -distortive potential of different 
DS categories has to be taken into account.  
2.20.  Addressing asymmetries in entitlements to level the playing field as well as preserving policy 
space to support resource poor and low -income farmers remains of great importance to many 
Members.  
2.21.  From the foregoing, my assessment is that the key issue that needs to be considered is what 
sort of details/specificity ( e.g., principles, parameters, goals, timelines) should be included in a 
Framework Agreement, Work Programme, or Work Plan for it to attract consensus.  
2.22.  Transparency  is also seen by many Members as another potential component of the 
agricultural package at MC12, both generally and in the  Domestic Support pillar. Members disagree, 
however, on whether an outcome on transparency could be stand -alone or should be part of a 
package to be accept able. Many developing country Members also consider that they would not be 
in a position to accept additional burdensome transparency requirements.   
2.23.  On a positive note, there is no disagreement on the usefulness of transparency. While no 
specific proposal  has thus far been submitted, Members have suggested possible improvements 
ranging from simplifying and updating the current transparency requirements, to improving the 
quality of notified information, including requirements for specific domestic support b oxes. An 
important suggestion is requiring all Members to provide value of production (VoP) data for all 
products for which support is provided (under the Amber Box or any other Box) and for the 
 
5 JOB/AG/199.  JOB/AG/202  
 
- 5 - 
 
  agricultural sector in general even where the de minimis  provision is not invoked. Useful elements 
pertaining to transparency in Domestic Support can be found in the Facilitators' report, as well as 
the analytical paper contained in JOB/AG/197.  
2.24.  Building on the above, as well as on the Facilitators' report, it is my  assessment that 
transparency in DS could be one of the possible outcomes for MC12, bearing in mind the concerns 
expressed by many developing Members regarding the assumption of burdensome new obligations 
and the ability of Members to fulfil the transparen cy requirements.  
3  MARKET ACCESS  
3.1.  Over the last few years, especially since 2018, Members have invested significant time and 
attention to the Market Access pillar. This is manifest from the numerous detailed written 
submissions that have been made on specific  market access topics. Simultaneously, for various 
reasons, including the technical complexity of some issues, high political sensitivity in undertaking 
tariff reductions, challenges in achieving an overall balance in the negotiations and the practical 
reality that a majority of Members prioritize domestic support reforms in the negotiations, Members 
have not been able to seriously engage on tariff reduction modalities. Members' increasing reliance 
on free trade agreements (FTAs) for furthering market acces s objectives has been another reason 
often cited for limited engagement on tariff reforms multilaterally. Additionally, for some Members, 
agricultural tariffs reforms would be feasible when these were pursued in parallel to negotiations on 
NAMA and Service s market access. In the absence of engagement on tariff reduction and in view of 
serious opposition by several Members to cherry -picking, proponents of market access reforms have 
started to focus on developing a comprehensive process and framework for mark et access 
reforms . In a recent development, a group of Members presented a paper entitled "Framework for 
Negotiations on Market Access " proposing to commence negotiations on market access modalities 
post-MC12.6   
3.2.  While there has been limited preparedness among Members to engage currently in discussions 
on tariff reduction modalities, there is also the increasing recognition that an agriculture package at 
MC12 will be facilitated if market access forms part of it.  For some Members, a market access 
component  will be a necessary balancing factor of such an agriculture package at MC12. Enhancing 
transparency  of Members' agricultural tariff regimes has received noticeable attention  as 
elaborated below.   
3.1  Transparency  elements considered in the market access nego tiations  
3.3.  Some select transparency -related issues have been the subject of enhanced discussions among 
Members in the Market Access pillar. Among these, the issue of enhanced transparency of changes 
in applied tariffs and treatment of shipments en route  has received significant traction among 
Members.7 The topic was also dealt with extensively within the Facilitator -led process.8  
3.4.  In the discussions on applied tariff transparency and shipments en route , including the 
elaborate presentations and clarifi cations provided by the co -sponsors on the topic, there appears 
to be a broader understanding on the following: (i) the intended outcome will be informed by 
Members' current practices in dealing with changes in applied tariffs; and (ii) the attempt is towa rds 
the development of a toolbox of agreed options or best practices (rather than one -size-fits-all 
approach) that a Member can choose from depending on national practices and circumstances. This 
approach with in -built flexibilities is appealing to several  Members who consider that it could form 
the basis of an outcome at MC12. Simultaneously, there are genuine concerns and questions 
expressed by some Members, including those related to domestic capacity constraints, unintended 
market speculative tendencies  potentially caused by advance notice, treatment of cases when tariffs 
are lowered and revenue implications. These Members have also expressed their willingness to 
examine the various associated issues in light of detailed clarifications recently provided by the co -
sponsors.9 I also welcome the intention of the co -sponsors to convert their submission in 
JOB/AG/185/Rev.2 into a proposal which might offer additional clarity on the intended outcome and 
 
6 JOB/AG/198 . 
7 JOB/AG/185/Rev.2 . 
8 JOB/AG/201, Section 2.2.1.  
9 JOB/AG/201, paragraph 2.9.  JOB/AG/202  
 
- 6 - 
 
  its application and should also provide the required impe tus to Members' ongoing engagement on 
this topic in the run up to MC12.  
3.5.   Transparency of TRQ administration  has been another theme that Members have looked at 
in the negotiations. Initially, suggestions were made by some Members to further elaborate on the  
disciplines forming part of the Bali TRQ Decision.10 Some other Members preferred to rather focus 
on the implementation of the Bali Decision in the Regular Committee on Agriculture (CoA). However, 
recently, I have heard some Members saying that an outcome  of the ongoing review concerning the 
future operation of paragraph 4 of the Bali TRQ Decision Underfill Mechanism11, currently being 
pursued in the CoA, could be a possible deliverable for MC12. I would naturally welcome an outcome 
on this issue at MC12 a nd would be willing to offer any assistance that Members may require at any 
stage.  
3.6.  A third specific area in the market access transparency debate concerns tariff simplification . 
While several developing Members have prioritised domestic support in the nego tiations over market 
access, they have expressed support for an outcome on tariff simplification at MC12.Some other 
Members, however, believe that tariff simplification does  not strictly fit into "transparency " and that 
an outcome on this issue would neces sitate changes to Members' goods schedules. Arguably, 
complex non -ad valorem  tariffs do pose a transparency challenge in assessing the incidence of 
tariffs, especially for small and medium -size exporters.  Further, looking at the past record of 
negotiating discussions on this file, deeper technical exchanges are inevitable to make progress. In 
this regard, I support the suggestions by  the Market Access Facilitator that it would be helpful to 
look at horizontal market access developments in the WTO to get ins piration for the agricultural 
market access negotiations. In her assessment, she made a specific reference to the Decision12 on 
Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Database. Transparency challenges associated with non -
ad valorem  tariffs should not b e underestimated and Members' incremental efforts on this technically 
complex file may assist enhanced transparency of agricultural tariff regimes.   
3.7.  Finally, I am also aware that some transparency -specific submissions in the context of MC12 
are in the pipe line. I welcome the initiatives of the concerned Members and urge them to expedite 
the circulation of their submissions for them to receive sufficient attention and engagement by other 
Members.  
3.2  Framework and process towards market access reforms  
3.8.  There is  general appreciation among Members of the need to further agricultural reforms in the 
Market Access pillar. The discussions also demonstrate that a comprehensive approach to deal with 
various market access challenges might be more effective, including for reasons of overall balance. 
Further, market access proponents consider that a transparency -alone outcome on this pillar may 
not be sufficient. I note the Market Access Facilitator's assessment that: "(i) "most Members are 
ready to explore ways to agree on a framework or a work programme on principle and ideas that 
would lay the groundwork for more comprehensive negotiations ", and (ii) the recently proposed 
framework on market access negotiations by a group of Members and a comprehensive approach 
suggested therein seem to respond to this negotiating reality".13 I am confident that Members will 
engage  in the coming weeks and months to agree on a negotiating path to carry out long -pending 
market access reforms.  
3.9.  The issue of non -tariff barriers (NTBs) has also been routinely raised in the negotiations. 
However, I sense a hesitation among some Members to  taking up NTBs in the agriculture 
negotiations as they would prefer to deal with such matters in the relevant committees. A group of 
Members are currently engaged in the SPS Committee to have an agreement on a work programme 
at MC12 to enhance the impleme ntation of the SPS Agreement.14 I welcome any ideas that Members 
may have on a possible additional contribution about how NTBs could be addressed in the agricultural 
sector. I also acknowledge some other issues raised in the recent market access discussions as 
captured in the Facilitato r's report.15   
 
10 WT/MIN(13)/39 -WT/L/914 . 
11 Annex A to WT/MIN(13)/39 -WT/L/914 . 
12 G/MA/367 dated 28 May 2019 . 
13 JOB/AG/201, paragraph 2.20.  
14 G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.5.  
15 JOB/AG/201, Section 2.2.3.  JOB/AG/202  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4  EXPORT COMPETITION  
4.1.  As highlighted on previous occasions, the topic of Export Competition has been in a unique 
position compared to the other topics under negotiation since the adoption of the December 2015 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Ex port Competition.  In this context, Members consider that a 
substantive outcome on this pillar may be elusive for MC12, as it is not a priority for most of them.  
4.2.  As reported by the Facilitator, Members have focused their recent discussions on transparency -
related elements, using as a reference the proposal circulated in March 2020 by a group of 
proponents.16 
4.3.  As with other topics, all Members recognize the intrinsic value of transparency in properly 
monitoring the implementation of existing WTO disciplines , including the Nairobi Ministerial Decision . 
It is also noted that information collected through the post Nairobi transparency mechanism would 
inform post -MC12 negotiations on possible additional disciplines on export measures , based on a 
thorough assessment of their impact on international markets.  
4.4.  However, also similarly to other topics, many developing country Members have reiterated 
concerns about  possible burdensome additional requirements , and many Members expressed the 
view that Members should focus on ways to improve compliance with existing transparency 
requirements, rather than exploring additional ones, particularly given that 2021 is the first year in 
which all developing country Members are expected to submit their r eplies to the annual Export 
Competition Questionnaire (ECQ).  
4.5.  At this point, based on the discussions to date, and using the four categories of elements listed 
by the Facilitator in her report17, my initial assessment is as follows.  
4.6.  With regard to the first category  covering a possible amendment of the ECQ to add with the 
support of the Secretariat contextual trade data on export financing, agricultural state trading 
enterprises, and international food aid, , the only proposal on the table is contained in do cument 
JOB/AG/184 . I have taken note of the efforts made by proponents to reach out to other Members. 
The main question here seems to be whether contextual trade data provided by the Secretariat 
either at the global or national level , provided it is valida ted by the corresponding Member in this 
latter case, would be an acceptable way forward.  
4.7.  On the second category , several Members expressed interest in pursuing discussions on how 
to update, strengthen and streamline the existing notification requirements contained in document 
G/AG/2 in the areas of export subsidies and international food aid. I understand this proposal could 
be part of a broader transparency enhancing approach and I encourage the proponents to circulate 
a proposal with concret e suggestions for a possible MC12 outcome as soon as possible.  
4.8.  The third category  concerns a possible review of the ECQ, with two objectives: first ly, to 
clarify those parts of the existing questionnaire where experience to date has shown different 
interpr etations; second ly, to explore ways to amend the questionnaire, in order to improve  the 
quality, completeness and accuracy of the data collected. Despite the interest expressed by several 
Members on various occasions, given the lack of concrete proposals a nd the time needed for such 
an exercise, Members may wish to consider launching a post -MC12 work programme on this issue, 
as suggested in document JOB/AG/184.  
4.9.  Measures  to improve the existing monitoring process , including the response rate to the ECQ, 
as listed in the fourth category  are widely supported by Members , who also emphasize  the need 
to undertake a proper assessment of the actual difficulties encountered by Members in replying to 
the ECQ.   
4.10.  A final element that has been highlighted by several Membe rs regarding the implementation 
of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition is  the need for the few remaining  Members 
that have not yet submitted  their revised export subsidy schedules to do so in the near future.  
4.11.  The transparency -related iss ues listed in the four categories above are also addressed in the 
context of the second triennial review currently under  way, under the leadership of the Chair of the 
 
16 JOB/AG/184 . 
17 JOB/AG/201 , paragraphs 3.11 to 3.14 . JOB/AG/202  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Committee on Agriculture. Members  expressed the view that these two tracks could and shou ld be 
mutually supportive  and I fully endorse this view, without prejudice to the content and timing of the 
outcome of the second triennial review.  
5  EXPORT RESTRICTI ONS18 
5.1.  Recent discussions on export restrictions, including during the Facilitators -led process, have 
centred around the following two issues:  
• First, the exemption of foodstuffs purchased for non -commercial humanitarian purposes by 
the World Food Programme (WFP) from the application of Export Restrictions  (hereafter the 
WFP exemption ); 
• Second , transparency and clarification elements , including possible ways to improve 
compliance with existing notification requirements and potential clarifications and 
strengthening  of relevant rules.  
5.1  WFP exemption  on foodstuffs purchased for non-commercial humanitarian purpose s 
5.2.  As noted by the Facilitator, all Members, both donors and recipients , appreciate the good work 
being done by the WFP  to save lives and ensure access to food for vulnerable people in emergencies.  
The exemption proposal has garnered widespread support among a broad cross -section of WTO 
Members, as evidenced by the number and the diversity of co-sponsors of the draft General Council 
Decision19 last December  and the subsequent Joint Statement in January 2021 .20 At the same time, 
some Members have sought reassurance regarding potential constraints on their policy space or 
possible impact on the ir domestic food security where WFP food purchases ar e made. The intense 
negotiations during last December bore testament to Members ' significant efforts in seeking to strike 
the right balance among these competing considerations.  The view was also expressed in the 
discussions that such a Decision could form  part of a larger package on food security.  
5.3.  While no consensus was achieved last December, interventions during recent CoA SS meetings 
have shown signs of positive momentum. In particular, non-proponents have indicated a willingness 
to re-engage with the view of reaching a multilateral decision, pro vided that their concerns regarding 
policy space and food security are adequately addressed.  
5.4.  During the December discussions, Members seemed largely receptive of the proposal to add 
two preambular paragraphs to the original text, which would contain : (i) a reference to the "do no 
harm" principle and to WFP 's policy to promote local and regional food procurement; and (ii) a 
reference to Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XI of GATT 1994. In addition, 
Members also held several rounds of d iscussions over possible texts in the operative part of the 
Decision related to Members ' food security vis-à-vis purchases for non -commercial humanitarian 
purposes by the WFP.21  
5.5.  The last iteration of the text emanating from the December discussions is set  out in the 
Facilitator 's report.22 Based on what I have heard so far, i t seems to me that this text reflects the 
progress made last December and could constitute a useful  platform for our work as we proceed to 
MC12.  While I am mindful of the remaining hurdles identified by the Facilitator in his report, it seems 
possible for WTO Members , with sufficient political will and flexibility from all sides,  to build on the 
intensive textual discussions of last December and work tow ards a decision that could both facilitate 
the humanitarian work of the WFP and take due account of Members ' policy and food security 
considerations.  
5.2  Transparency and clarification elements  
5.6.  Members have intensified their discussions  on enhancing transpare ncy of export restrictive 
measures on agriculture products following  the outbreak of the COVID -19 pandemic. Key recent 
 
18 Including Export Prohibitions as per Article 12 of the AoA.  
19 TN/AG/46 -WT/GC/W/810 . 
20 WT/L/1109 . 
21 JOB/AG/201, paragraph 4.19 . 
22 JOB/AG/201, paragraph 4.31 . JOB/AG/202  
 
- 9 - 
 
  developments in these discussions include the submission of an analytical paper on  "Findings from 
export restrictive measures in relation  to the COVID -19 pandemic "23, noting  in particular the lack of 
timely notification of such measures , and a paper on the "Scope  for possible discussion on export 
prohibitions and restrictions "24 (the Scop ing Paper),  setting out possible elements for  discuss ions 
and potential  inclusion in an MC12 outcome.  
5.7.  At this juncture , based on the discussions around the Scoping Paper so far, it appears that 
Members stand ready to consider elements to enhance compliance with existing requirements  
under the AoA, particularly through technical assistance and capacity building  by the 
Secretariat. As many Members further noted, the question of how to improve compliance with 
existing rules could complement, and benefit from, relevant discussions in the  regular sessions of 
the CoA.  
5.8.  One question that remains  is the extent to which  the Secretariat could support interested 
Members in fulfilling their notification requirements . One s uggestion set out in the Scoping Paper 
refers to  the possibility of using data based on relevant information sources such as  the Agricultural 
Market Information System (AMIS) policy database . Another suggestion is  for the Secretariat to 
provide trade data to inform the exemption of developing country Members that are net-food 
importers of the specific foodstuff s concerned . Members may need to consult further on the 
feasibility of these suggestions.   
5.9.  With respect to  advance notice  of export restrictions , recent discussions continue to reflect 
Members ' divergent views . While proponents consider it critical to provide importers with advance 
notice to allow for possible adjustments,  others have stressed the difficulty in predicting the 
imposition of such measures in advance, as well as th e risk s of speculation and price man ipulation . 
At the same time, past discussions had shown a level of maturity that could potentially be translated 
into a more concrete outcome. I note that my predecessor had identified , in the document on 
"elements and processes for a possible outcome in a griculture at MC12"25, two main options : (i) a 
timeline for advance notification  subject to flexibilities  (such as "force majeure ") as also envisaged 
in the Scoping Paper, or (ii) a timeline in the form of a best -endeavour clause .  
5.10.  Beyond the above elements,  it appears  that more discussions would be required on possible 
new requirements or clarifications , such as further guidelines for ER:1  notifications , notification 
requirements for measures of long duration , or maximum duration of  export prohibitions and 
restrictions. It thus  remains to be seen whether potential doable elements could be developed in 
this regard for MC12.  My current  assessment is that the best option would be to consider a process 
to continue identifying the needs a nd concerns including , as necessary , the continuation of some 
additional analytical work.  
5.11.  I encourag e the proponents to continue engag ing directly with other  Members in the coming 
weeks , building on the considerable work achieved so far , to identify more p recisely the elements 
that could constitute  an outcome on transparency of export restrictions for MC12.  
6  COTTON  
6.1.   Cotton is seen by many Members as an important element of an MC12 agricultural package, 
in view of its critical role for the socio-economic development and livelihoods of many people , 
particularly  in LDC Members.  
6.2.  As already noted by my predecessors, t he importance of Cotton in the negotiations was 
recognized by the General Council more than 15 years ago when Members agreed that Cotton " will 
be addressed ambitiously, expeditiously, and specifically, within the agriculture negotiations ".26 
6.3.  This sentence was carefully drafted. It acknowledges the fact  that Cotton should be addressed 
on its own merits, bearing in mind its particulari ties, but likewise that it cannot be considered in 
isolation from the rest of the agricultural negotiations.  
 
23 JOB/AG/188.  
24 JOB/AG/193 .  
25 JOB/AG/180 . 
26 WT/L/579.  JOB/AG/202  
 
- 10 - 
 
  6.4.  Cotton Specific Trade -Distorting Domestic Support  constitutes the central element of the 
negotiations on cotton. It is an important goal for many Members  - and a priority for some, including 
the C otton Four producing countries (C 4). The discussions over the last years on possible modalities 
for future dis ciplines in this area have been characterized by a very low level of engagement a mid 
no sign s of convergence.27 
6.5.  The main question faced by Members is therefore likely to be, as on some other topics, how to 
identify  the way forward in the negotiations on Co tton Domestic Support after MC12 to achieve 
tangible progress in the future. Some Members  consider  this question should  be addressed in light 
of the discussions under  the Domestic Support pillar and linked to its outcome , bearing in mind the 
specific statu s of cotton in the negotiations.  
6.6.   On their side, the Facilitators came to the conclusion, following a first round of consultations, 
that transparency  would constitute a good first step for the discussions under the Facilitators -led 
process . 
6.7.  Members acknowledge d the critical importance of cotton -related transparency for the proper 
monitoring of the implementation of existing WTO disciplines; for enhanced predictability; for the 
provision of information on policies and practices implemented by Members;  and finally for informing 
the ongoing negotiations.  
6.8.  As a matter of fact, this assessment is not new. The importance of enhancing transparency and 
monitoring of trade -related aspects of Cotton was recognized by Ministers in the December 2013 
Bali and Decem ber 2015 Nairobi Ministerial Decisions on Cotton, which led in particular to the 
establishment of the cotton trade related bi -annual dedicated discussion. This commitment was also 
reaffirmed in  the statement adopted on 7 October 2019 by a group of Members on the occasion of 
the WTO Launch of World Cotton Day.  
6.9.  Transparency  enhancement is also a dynamic and continuous process  as illustrated , for 
example , by the  Membership's  recent endorsement of C4's request  for a study by the Secretariat on 
the impact of COV ID-19 on the cotton sector in the C4 and other LDC Members . 
6.10.  Members  have explore d in the Cotton Quad Plus discussions concrete ways to improve and 
streamline the existing cotton transparency -related requirements , including to address potentially 
identified  information gaps, taking due account of the concerns expressed  regarding the need to 
avoid  additional burdensome requirements . 
6.11.  One suggestion made was the incorporation of the cotton questionnaire in document G/AG/2 
on notification requirements. This approach  could be part of a broader transparency enhancing 
proposal  also referred to in other sections of my report . 
6.12.  Other transpare ncy-related elements have been discussed but do not seem to be mature 
enough at this stage to be proposed as potential deliverables for MC12. As noted by the Facilitators, 
more discussions would be needed, based on concrete inputs by Members . 
6.13.  On Export Com petition  and Market Access , in the absence of any new input thus far, 
including on Market Access as a result of the work undertaken on cotton by products, my assessment  
at this stage  is that beyond the continuation of work as part the post -Nairobi Minister ial Decision 
monitoring exercise , it is no t apparent that there could be a specific outcome at MC12 . 
6.14.  Finally , and complementary to th e trade track  covered in this report , the Cotton 
Development Assistance  component  is also of great importance for a Cotton outcome at MC12  
by covering:  (i) Cotton Development Assistance  as addressed under the Director General's 
Consultative Framework Mechanism on Cotton  (DGCFMC); and (ii) the continuation of work  on the 
 
27 Along with Cotton Quad Plus members that attended a consultation I held on 10 June, I was informed 
that the C4 is considering circulating a new proposal for a Ministerial Decision on Cotton, including modalities 
for the reduction of Trade -Distorting Domes tic Support. The assessment contained in this report is made 
without prejudice to the content of this proposal and possible comments by other Members.  
 JOB/AG/202  
 
- 11 - 
 
  WTO/UNCTAD/ITC  Cotton -by products  initiative following  the November 2018 mandate . As per 
previous practice, this component should be addressed through the DGCFMC.  
7  SPECIAL  SAFEGUARD MECHANISM (SSM)  
7.1.  The negotiations on SSM have remained an important part of the agriculture negotiations. 
Numerous technical contributions by both proponents and non -proponents have informed these 
negotiations in the past. The recent discussions on SSM, especially since the launch of the dedicated 
session process in 2015 pursuant to t he Nairobi Decision28, however, have encountered serious 
divergences on the very rationale of an SSM and on the reading of the Nairobi mandate. Proponents 
have consistently based the need for an SSM on food security and socio -economic grounds, whereas 
other Members consider the SSM as a tool primarily to facilitate market access reforms. The linkage 
between market access and SSM has been the biggest political challenge to commencing serious 
technical engagement on this issue.    
7.2.  Developing Member proponents  argue for an easy -to-use SSM with comprehensive product 
coverage. In the recent discussions, the proponents have further emphasized the importance of 
developing Members having access to a safeguard mechanism by referring to their experience during 
the C OVID-19 pandemic. They referred to situations where demand of various food commodities 
collapsed in the wake of the pandemic and continuing imports generated severe pressure on small 
vulnerable farmers in several developing Members who did not have space for  tariff adjustments.  
7.3.  Like my predecessors, I acknowledge  that progress on this file has been hampered by the 
linkage between market access and SSM . Without serious technical discussions and engagement 
among Members , it would be difficult for progress to b e made on this issue. This is especially the 
case for a technically complex trade remedy mechanism like the SSM . This may also be an effective 
way forward for making progress considering the reality that a debate devoid of technical substance 
may be more v ulnerable to political challenges and linkages. The Facilitator on the SSM also 
acknowledges that the current absence of technical submissions and data and evidence -driven 
discussions are impediments to making progress towards the design of an SSM.29  
7.4.  I share the assessment of the SSM Facilitator on the need for technical engagement on specific 
elements30 to make progress on the SSM issue and that using the current SSG as a basis of 
discussions could provide a practical path forward where both proponents an d non -proponents could 
benefit from more than 25 years of experience of its implementation.31 I am also encouraged that 
some developing Member proponents are reflecting on past technical work to develop new proposals 
on SSM.32 Both the proponents and non -proponents need to appreciate each other's positions and 
concerns to make progress on this file. I hope Members will make a judicious use of the remaining 
time until MC12 in finding an agreeable path forward for which they could seek the endorsement of 
Ministers.   
8  PUBLIC STOCKHOLDING FOR FOOD SECURITY PURPOSES  (PSH)  
8.1.  Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes (PSH) is a priority issue for the proponents and 
many other developing country Members. The proponents have underlined the importance of this 
policy tool for their food security and for rural livelihoods and consistently asked for a Permanent 
Solution to this issue. It has also been argued that the COVID pandemic has highlighted the role of 
this tool in ensuring food security in times of crisis and m ade an agreement on a Permanent Solution 
even more urgent. Calls have therefore been renewed to find a solution by MC12.   
8.2.  While Members acknowledge the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial mandates to find a Permanent 
Solution, the non -proponents remain particula rly concerned about potential trade distortions and an 
opening for unlimited market price support (MPS) and several have argued that PSH programmes 
are one tool among many that can be used to ensure food security.  
8.3.  Despite extensive discussions, gaps betwee n Members' positions continue to be wide. Members' 
discussions have been summarized in detail in the Facilitator's report and in previous reports, 
 
28 WT/MIN(15)/43 -WT/L/978 . 
29 JOB/AG/201, paragraph 6.10.  
30 JOB/AG/201, paragraph 6.9.  
31 JOB/AG/201, para graph 6.11.  
32 JOB/AG /201, paragraph 6.8 . JOB/AG/202  
 
- 12 - 
 
  including those by my predecessor. In short, the discussions have focussed on the type of solution, 
programme  coverage, product coverage, safeguards and anti -circumvention provision, and 
transparency requirements.   
8.4.  Regarding the type of solution , discussions have been mainly focusing on improvement of 
different elements of the Bali Decision. While many Members h ave shown their willingness to 
consider a Bali -type solution ( i.e. a Peace Clause) with appropriate amendments, the proponents 
have recently suggested to consider their proposal contained in J OB/AG/105 (i.e. an AMS exemption) 
for taking the negotiations fo rward. It has also been suggested that other alternatives should be 
explored given the failure to find a Permanent Solution at MC11. Many Members have also stressed 
the need to ensure that PSH programmes are strictly for food security purposes only.    
8.5.  Regarding programme coverage , the proponents continue to call for a Permanent Solution 
to cover new programmes. However, many non -proponents have indicated that they would be willing 
to consider an expansion of the programme coverage if there were appropriate  safeguards and 
enhanced transparency provisions.  
8.6.  The proponents have also demanded a broader product coverage  in the light of the changes 
in consumer preferences, the impact of climate change on crop patterns, as well as efforts by 
governments to encourag e healthier eating habits. The non -proponents, however, are of the view 
that the product coverage should be limited ( e.g. through an agreed list of products).  
8.7.  Safeguards  are considered a crucial component of a Permanent Solution by both sides. The 
non-proponents have been stressing the need for appropriate safeguards to ensure that the procured 
stocks do not distort trade or negatively impact the food security of others. One possible safeguard 
that has been frequently mentioned is ensuring that the stocks accumulated for food security 
purposes are not exported.  
8.8.  The importance of transparency  has also been generally recognized. However, the proponents 
have expressed concern s about transparency requirements that would be too burdensome for them 
to fulfil and thereby prevent their use of the Permanent Solution. The non -proponents, however, 
consider enhanced transparency provisions a crucial component of any solution and have c alled for 
any proposed flexibility to be proportional to the provisions on safeguards and transparency 
requirements.   
8.9.  Several trade -offs have been therefore considered in an attempt to bring the positions closer 
together, notably between product - and prog ramme coverage and the nature of the safeguards and 
transparency requirements ( e.g. the broader the coverage, the stronger the safeguards and 
transparency requirements and vice versa ). A trade -off between the nature of requirements and a cap 
on programmes (e.g. less stringent requirements if programmes are capped and vice versa ) has 
also been suggested. It has also been proposed that the requirements could be less strict for LDCs.  
8.10.  Given the importance of the PSH issue for the proponents and other developing  country 
Members, an agreement on a Permanent Solution would is seen as necessary  for the success of 
MC12. However, several non -proponents have stressed that an outcome on PSH should reflect the 
overall ambition of the agricultural negotiations. Some have also indicated that there is a linkage 
between PSH and domestic support or that an outcome on PSH needs necessarily to be part of an 
overall outcome on DS. The proponents, however, reject any linkage to other areas of negotiations 
as per the Nairobi Minist erial decision.  
8.11.  Some Members have also suggested that considering the divergences in Members' positions 
on the key issues, it will not be possible to bridge the gaps in negotiating positions in the limited 
time available before MC12 and that Members should  aim for a post -MC12 Work Programme to work 
towards a Permanent Solution. It has nevertheless been argued that it is too early to abandon the 
efforts to agree on a Permanent Solution at MC12.  
8.12.   In short,  while there are several areas of agreement among Mem bers as pointed out in the 
Facilitator's report ( e.g., recognition of the importance of the PSH programmes for food security in 
developing country Members, safeguards and transparency requirements, and the importance of not 
distorting trade or negatively a ffecting the food security of others), there are also areas where 
divergences still persist.  JOB/AG/202  
 
- 13 - 
 
  8.13.  In my assessment, political will and significant efforts by Members to bridg e gaps between 
Members' positions are needed if progress is to be made on this issue a nd a Permanent Solution 
agreed at MC12. Finding an appropriate balance between the accessibility to the PSH tool on the one 
hand and well calibrated safeguards and transparency requirements on the other hand seems to be 
crucial to bringing the positions cl oser together. I encourage Members to exercise as much flexibility 
as possible in order to allow the much -needed  progress on this issue.  
8.14.  I understand that some Members are still working on submissions. I will encourage these 
Members to finalise them as qui ckly as possible so that they can be deliberated upon to identify 
possible areas of compromise which could lay the basis for an agreement on this issue . 
9  CONCLUSION  
9.1.  While the gaps on some of the negotiating issues may appear to be insurmountable, I believe 
that with hard work, dedication and flexibility on all sides, we should be able to make progress in 
the negotiations and get a credible outcome on agriculture at MC 12. It is evident from the 
consultations with Members that they are determined to fulfil the mandate in Article 20 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and subject the agriculture sector to fair and market -oriented disciplines 
to level the playing field to prom ote competition and enable the sector to overcome the myriad of 
challenges confronting it, including climate change and produce more sustainably to feed a growing 
world population.  
9.2.  I will invite Members to see reform of the multilateral agricultural trade  framework as a public 
good. All Members will gain from an efficient agricultural trading system, so we need to redouble 
our efforts and make the necessary compromises that would enable progress to be made on this 
important subject. The Decision s on agricu lture adopted at the Bali and  Nairobi Ministerial 
Conferences  demonstrate that when we work together, we can achieve results. We should work 
intensively together in the remaining months we have before MC12 in a spirit of cooperation and 
compromise to achie ve balanced results that reflect the interests of all Members.  
 
__________  
 
 
 
 