He did not spell out how he would convey this to the Trade Negotiations Committee on 21 April — the last working day before Easter and the target date for all negotiating groups to submit revised drafts, chairs’ reports or some other way to describe the latest state of play.

But he said members should not expect any surprises from him. He repeated that the process is entirely bottom-up — input coming only from the members themselves — and his and some delegations’ reports on their consultations indicated that the work they have been undertaking has not yet produced solutions. This includes neutral work on clarifying ambiguities in the present draft as well as negotiations over substance.

“My own conclusion from those [the chair’s] consultations is that as yet I have not seen any solution to any of those outstanding issues having been presented through those consultations. Nor have I seen any clearly defined further option on those issues at the present time,” he told the 45-minute meeting. (Audio below.)

“I am aware that people continue to work constructively on a number of those issues in order to identify possible options for bridge-building, problem solving solutions, but as I say none of that has visibly appeared, yet.”

WTO members will discuss the situation of the negotiations on all subjects on 29 April, in an informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), which oversees the Doha Round talks.

After that, Ambassador Walker said he will consult the agriculture negotiating group on next steps, based on any guidance resulting from the 29 April meeting.

“I think we have done a lot of good work, and we continue to do a lot of good work,” he concluded. “It seems to me that perhaps it’s a little bit like some agricultural products: they germinate away under the ground and all of a sudden they spring forth, and if the weather is right they will bloom and grow.

“So I’m looking forward to that phase of our work as soon as it can be reached. And meanwhile, you’ll be able to read and study, I’m sure, my document on the 21st, and I will look forward to working with you after Easter from that point.”

 

Substance

Ambassador Walker reported that his consultations with 38 delegations (listed below) in the WTO’s Room E went through the present (December 2008) draft “modalities”, but produced no new solutions to the remaining blocked issues.

One new proposal was submitted in the consultations and introduced in this meeting, a proposal from the Philippines on the special safeguard mechanism (SSM) for developing countries with low legally bound maximum tariff rates on agricultural products.

The Philippines defines countries with low bound tariff rates as those whose bindings average 40% or less. It says these countries face volatile prices and import quantities and it is calling for extra flexibility so that these countries can raise the tariffs as a safeguard — a temporary measure to deal with price falls or import surges — more than currently prescribed in the draft “modalities”.

Amb.Walker reported that in the Room E meeting the proposal was discussed, “but as yet, no conclusions [have been] drawn.” (The Philippines’ proposal — which follows a previous proposal also seeking additional flexibility on the SSM, from the small and vulnerable economies — drew some support, but objections were also raised by some exporting developing countries.)

Earlier, in another meeting of the full membership on 5 April 2011 to kick off this latest fortnight of talks, the net food-importing developing countries proposed new rules that would allow them and least-developed countries special treatment so that their imports are not affected by countries’ export restrictions — the restrictions would not apply to them.

Net food-importing developing countries (NFIDCs) are an official WTO category of nations. They come under a ministerial decision obliging members to ensure they and least-developed countries (LDCs) do not suffer as agricultural trade is reformed.

 

Technical stuff

Three delegations reported on meetings they have organized with groups of members on value-of-production data, some of which will be attached to the “modalities” to show where these countries’ domestic support limits come from, and on clarifying ambiguous or unclear parts of the draft on domestic support and market access.

Work on the data has progressed but time will be needed for example for countries to verify each other’s data, and work on clarification, which is neutral on the level of ambition and is not a negotiation, has not yet reached the stage where the results can be shared with the full membership, the three said.

 

Next

21 April — the chairperson submits the farm talks’ contribution.
29 April — informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee
After that — the chairperson consults agriculture negotiators on the way forward.

 

Room E

The chairperson held consultations with 38 delegations, representing all the main coalitions. This is a configuration used from time to time to allow a freer discussion that can then feed into the “multilateral” process involving all members, in a structure sometimes called “concentric circles”.

The 38 delegations invited were: Argentina (Cairns Group, G-20), Australia (Cairns Group coordinator), Bangladesh (least-developed countries coordinator), Brazil (G-20 coordinator, also Cairns), Burkina Faso (Cotton-4 coordinator, also African Group, least-developed, Africa-Caribbean-Pacific), Canada (Cairns), Chile (Cairns), China (G-33, G-20, recent new member), Colombia (Cairns, tropical products group), Costa Rica (tropical products coordinator, also Cairns), Cuba (G-33, G-20, small and vulnerable economies, ACP), Dominican Rep (small-vulnerable economies coordinator, also G-33), Ecuador (tropical products, recent new member), Egypt (African Group agriculture coordinator, G-20), EU, India (G-33, G-20), Indonesia (G-33 coordinator, also G-20, Cairns), Jamaica (ACP, also G-33, small-vulnerable), Japan (G-10), Kenya (African Group coordinator, also G-33, ACP, Commodities Group), Rep. Korea (G-33, G-10), Malaysia (Cairns), Mauritius (ACP coordinator, G-33, African), Mexico (G-20), New Zealand (Cairns), Norway (G-10), Pakistan (Cairns, G-20, G-33), Paraguay (Cairns, G-20, tropical products, small-vulnerable), Philippines (G-33, G-20, Cairns), South Africa (Cairns Group, African Group, ACP), Switzerland (G-10 coordinator), Chinese Taipei (recent new members coordinator, also G–10), Thailand (Cairns, G-20), Turkey (G-33), Uruguay (Cairns, G-20), US, Venezuela (G-33, G-20), Zambia (African Group, ACP, least-developed)

 

 

Audio

Use these links to download the audio files or to listen to what he said in the meeting:

The chair’s statements:

 

Explanations

This meeting

This was an informal agriculture negotiations meeting of the full membership, officially an “Informal Open-Ended Special Session” of the Agriculture Committee.

The latest texts and a number of related issues can be found with explanations here, including what “the text” is and says, and a “jargon buster”.

The current phase of the negotiations is about “modalities”, explained here.

 

Outstanding issues

Chairperson David Walker describes the issues he is currently dealing with as topics that are “bracketed and otherwise annotated” in the 2008 documents. He listed these issues and his assessments in his 22 March 2010 report to the Trade Negotiations Committee.

 

From templates and data, to commitments

Templates: Here, these are blank forms prepared for the “schedules” (lists or tables) of commitments, and for data used to calculate the commitments. Some of the data will be in “supporting tables” attached to the schedules of commitments.

Part of the technical work is on organizing the data. Electronic forms or tables will be used to present base data — data to be used as the starting point for calculating commitments — in a way that is transparent and verifiable. Eventually they will be used to design “templates” for how the commitments will be presented.

Among the data needed are domestic consumption, for calculating the tariff quotas on sensitive products, and values of production for calculating domestic support commitments.

The technical work follows the draft “modalities” text of December 2008 and takes negotiators through the following sequence:

1. Members identify data needs and design blank forms (“templates”) for data and for commitments.

This is in two steps:

• Step 1: considering what “base data” are needed under the present draft “modalities” — what is already available, what will need to be “constructed”, and whether the draft “modalities” says how this should be done. This step also includes the question of whether supporting tables — tables displaying the data and how they are derived — are needed and what their format would be.
   
• Step 2: developed from step 1, designing “templates” or blank forms to be used for the commitments resulting from the Doha Round negotiations, and for any supporting data required. Parts of the data could be presented before, during or after “modalities” have been agreed.

(Chairperson Walker has also referred to an eventual step 3: filling in the numbers.)

2. “Modalities” (formulas, flexibilities, disciplines) agreed, perhaps with agreed blank forms or tables, and with some data attached.

3. “Scheduling” — forms/tables filled in. Some are draft commitments, based on “modalities” formulas. Some are supporting tables of data.

4. Members verify each others’ draft commitments, using the supporting data.

5. Commitments are agreed as part of the Doha Round single undertaking.

This work is technical, but some political questions also still have to be sorted out before “modalities” can be agreed.