Agriculture Negotiators Discuss Revised
Draft Text at WTO
At a meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session
on 25 November, WTO negotiators discussed the revised draft negotiating text circulated
on 23 November by the chair, Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta (Costa Rica). The
objective of the meeting, the chair underlined, was to hear delegates’ views on
the new text ahead of the 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12). The conference was
originally scheduled to begin on 30 November but has now been postponed due to the
latest COVID-19 developments.
The new document updates
an earlier draft negotiating text, circulated in July, covering
domestic support, market access, export competition, export restrictions, cotton,
public stockholding for food security purposes, the special safeguard mechanism
and the cross-cutting issue of transparency. The revised text also contains a new
introductory section.
The chair
underscored the urgency of bridging the remaining gaps in negotiating positions
ahead of the Ministerial Conference. "This text reflects the reality of where
we are today. It acknowledges the current state of play in members' positions and
the difficulties we face in building convergence or narrowing the gaps on some key
issues," she said.
For this
reason, the draft text revises the level of ambition across all negotiating topics,
she said. The chair acknowledged that many members would therefore be disappointed
that their initial aspirations for the level of ambition were not reflected in the
new draft.
She also
told members that the revised draft text represented her best efforts to put on
the table a “balanced and realistic package”. “All members' positions have to be
respected and balanced in a fair manner,” she told the meeting.
The chair
stressed that the text did not represent the end of the road for the negotiations
but was intended to be a confidence-building milestone to reinvigorate the negotiation
process towards MC13 and future ministerial conferences.
"My
sincere hope is that this text constitutes a significant step forward in the right
direction to help ministers in their task at MC12," she said.
During
the meeting, delegations shared their preliminary reactions to the revised draft
text. Many members commended the chair’s
leadership and the intensive consultations she had held in recent weeks. Several
also highlighted their disappointment with what they saw as an insufficient level
of ambition on the topics of most concern to them, with delegations highlighting
domestic support, public stockholding for food security purposes and market access.
Some
members offered specific suggestions for further modifications to the draft while
many also explicitly supported the new text as the basis for ongoing negotiations.
Several delegations, despite expressing their disappointment with the level of ambition
on specific topics, said the draft reflects the current reality and provides good
guidance for MC12. A few also warned against making last-minute proposals which
could complicate ministers’ work at MC12.
Several
developing members expressed their concern that the revised draft text proposes
language on public stockholding for food security purposes (PSH) which falls far
short of their ambitions. They underscored the importance of agreeing a “permanent
solution” due to the difficulties that some developing countries say they face under
WTO rules when buying food at administered prices as part of these programmes.
In particular,
some members of the G33 group of developing countries reiterated their request for
the chair to transmit to ministers their proposal on this topic for consideration
at MC12. Other members said the G33's proposal had not gathered sufficient support,
and that it would therefore be counterproductive to present it for ministers’ attention.
In the absence of any convergence on this issue, the draft text anticipates that
members agree to adopt a work programme on this topic,
with a view to agreeing on a permanent solution by the 13th Ministerial Conference.
Underlying
many interventions was the question of the relationship between food security and
trade rules, with some members arguing that food security was a multifaceted challenge
that required a comprehensive approach. Some other members on the other hand questioned
the way food security was addressed in the introductory part of the chair's draft
text.
Members’
views also differed on the draft text on agricultural domestic support. Developed
and developing countries from the Cairns Group of agricultural exporters said they
were disappointed that the draft no longer contains clear numerical goals and timelines
for cutting subsidies (such as the group’s proposal to halve trade-distorting domestic
support by 2030, i.e. the completion date for the Sustainable Development Goals).
One member said it reserved the right to propose further amendments to the text
in this area due to its paramount importance to future negotiations.
Some
members also argued that certain support categories should be clearly excluded from
negotiations, such as subsidies for low-income and resource-poor producers that
are provided under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and subsidies that
cause no or minimal trade distortion (i.e. “green box” support).
Some
developing countries reiterated their view that cuts to support should be “sequenced”,
with members first cutting support that exceeds the “de minimis” thresholds expressed
as a percentage of the value of production. However, other members repeated their
opposition to this approach, and flagged their dissatisfaction with the text’s lower
ambition on market access.
Members
also continued to differ in their approach to proposed measures to enhance and streamline
transparency. Proponents of higher ambition expressed their dissatisfaction with
the text, while some developing members said they were concerned that new commitments
in this area could be too burdensome for them.
The C-4
group of West African cotton-producing countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and
Mali) welcomed language on transparency in the revised draft text but cautioned
that it did not specify how trade-distorting domestic support for cotton would be
cut. The group indicated they would consult their ministers on how to proceed.
Many
members reaffirmed their commitment to a multilateral agreement at MC12 that would
exempt from export restrictions the food purchased for humanitarian purposes by
the World Food Programme. As a few members continue to
express reservations about an outcome in this area, some textual changes were also
suggested at the meeting.
Members'
views also differed on the special safeguard mechanism
(SSM) - a tool that would enable developing countries to temporarily increase tariffs
to counter import surges and prices drops and on which the chair suggested a work
programme involving intensified technical engagement after
MC12. While some proponents considered the proposal as insufficiently ambitious,
some non-proponents criticized the suggested timeframe in light of the intrinsic
linkage in their views between the SSM and market access.