Reporting on his consultations among a smaller group of countries, chairperson Adank said: “While the discussions suggested some possibilities for convergence, it’s clear that different views continue to exist regarding the suitability of various approaches.”

He went on: “The concerns raised by members on certain aspects of the proposals are familiar because many of these are linked to the fact that members in the WTO have extremely diverse tariff structures. This means, of course, that the results of any formula approach will affect each Member differently. These issues were present when we were negotiating the 2008 draft modalities and they persist today.”

Paraguay’s paper

The starting point of Paraguay’s unofficial paper is a formula for cutting tariffs that would specify an average cut across all agricultural products — except those that have “bound” tariff ceilings below 10% or are duty-free — subject to a minimum cut.

Countries would be free to propose bigger or smaller cuts for individual products, provided the averages and minimums were respected. This is unlike the stricter approach of the tiered formula of the present draft from 2008 (document TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4, sometimes called “Rev.4” for short. The tiered formula is explained here — scroll down to “market access”)

Those proposed cuts would be “initial offers”, which would then enter two months of bargaining if other countries request, for example, steeper cuts for products they export. Least developed countries, small and vulnerable economies and countries that joined the WTO “very” recently would not have to make any cuts. “Very recent” is not defined in the proposal.

Paraguay also suggests some figures tentatively (indicated by square brackets): a 54% average and 20% minimum cut for developed countries; a 36% average and 15% minimum for developing countries in general (apart from the least-developed, small and vulnerable economies and “very” recent new members); and a 30% average with a 10% minimum for new members except those that joined “very” recently.

The cuts would be phased in over a suggested five years (six cuts) for developed countries, and 10 years (11 cuts) for developing countries.

The paper includes other details such as allowing countries a limited number of “sensitive products” — or “special” products in the case of developing countries — that would have smaller minimum cuts of 10%. It also suggests a cap of 100%-150% on high tariffs that would not be compulsory, an issue that has been controversial over the years, deeper cuts on finished products that are in a list for being more protected than the raw materials used to make them (known as “tariff escalation”), and increased market access through tariff quotas (where the tariffs are lower or zero on quantities within the quotas).

Several countries said the proposal had helped focus the discussions. Those with reservations about it either said it was not ambitious enough — for example in dealing with extra-high tariffs known as “tariff peaks” — or that it was too ambitious — for example in the limits on room to manoeuvre for sensitive or special products.

The group of countries that joined the WTO after its creation said there should be no distinction between those that joined recently and those that joined earlier on, since the membership negotiations resulted in all of them having lower bound tariff ceilings than the rest of the membership — 17% on average for these new members, compared with 40% in developed countries and close to 62% in developing countries.

Argentina’s paper

Argentina, on the other hand, is not suggesting any formula. It proposes that countries request import tariff cuts from their trading partners, which could then respond with offers. The approach would be same the in agriculture, non-agricultural market access and services (where other trade barriers, not tariffs, apply).

Argentina argues that this is simpler than a formula and is better for ensuring similar levels of ambition across the three major areas of the Doha Round. It also offers a better balance of interests than a formula that applies across the board, when some countries have a limited number of products needing improved access to export markets.

A number of countries were unconvinced by this argument, suggesting the bargaining would take too long, with some arguing that smaller countries would be in a weaker bargaining position.

Flexibilities for developing countries

The G–33 group of developing countries continued to argue its members’ case for exempting some “special products” from tariff cuts completely, and to allow for the possibility that the “special safeguard mechanism” — used to defend against price falls or import surges — could raise tariffs above their present legally bound ceilings.

Some others— including some developing countries — repeated that they could not accept this, a difference about how flexible the two measures should be that surfaced in 2008 and has persisted since then.

Speakers included: small and vulnerable economies (Dominican Rep speaking), Recent new members (Chinese Taipei speaking, and for itself), Turkey, Paraguay, Rep. Korea, Chile, Thailand, Uruguay, New Zealand, Norway, EU, Japan, Argentina, Philippines, Australia, Canada, Nigeria, Pakistan, Argentina, India.

The discussion on domestic support followed on from the last meeting, with a sharper focus on “overall trade-distorting domestic support” (OTDS).

Those seeking ambitious reductions in trade-distorting support (ie, support that has an impact on market prices or quantities supplied) said they saw the “overall” concept as a means of ensuring real cuts are made by preventing countries from shifting support between categories (sometimes called “box shifting”). Some repeated their view that the highest support should be cut the most. Some also repeated their call for limits on support given to individual products.

Some countries continued to argue that lower ambition and less ambitious disciplines would be more pragmatic and doable.

One said the issue boils down to two main questions: What is the US prepared to do, either if others do not “contribute” (by making their own cuts or contributing in some other way) or if others do contribute? What is China prepared to do?

Reporting on his consultations earlier in the month, chairperson Adank said these “were very useful. In short, it was seen by many to be a valuable concept in terms of its design to reduce trade distorting support, limit box-shifting, and/or level the playing field. However, the discussions also helped to uncover some important issues which attract sharply differing views. These will require further serious effort.

“Over the next few weeks, I intend to continue similar consultations on each key element of the Domestic Support toolbox, bearing in mind that of course they are inter-related.”

Speakers included: Australia, Japan, Philippines, Norway, Cotton Four (Benin speaking), EU, Argentina, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Pakistan, Paraguay, South Africa, US, Mexico, China, India, Brazil, Argentina.

• Secretariat document on the public stockholding proposal TN/AG/W/8
• Fact sheet on public stockholding for food security
• Groups in the negotiations

Want even more?

• www.wto.org/agriculture
• News archive
• Cotton
• Coalitions
• The latest (2008) text, other texts, and explanations
• Chairperson’s 25 June 2014 report to the trade negotiations committee
• 2013 Bali package

Explanation 

Modalities: The way or method of doing something — in this case, how to cut tariffs, enlarge quotas and reduce subsidies and support, along with flexibilities to deal with various sensitivities. The core methods are formulas for cutting tariffs and supports, with a number ways of achieving the flexibilities or tightening disciplines. Once the modalities have been agreed, countries can apply the formulas to tariffs on thousands of products and to various support programmes.

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

The chair’s statements:

Negotiations meeting

 Audio: Chairperson Adank’s opening statement (4’08”)
 Audio: Chairperson Adank’s remarks on domestic support (2’27”)
 Audio: Chairperson Adank’s remarks on market access (8’08”)
 Audio: Chairperson Adank’s closing statement (2’58”)
 

Public stockholding meeting

 Audio: Chairperson Adank’s opening statement (8’43”)
 Audio: Chairperson Adank’s closing statement (8’20”)

> help

Members’ active engagement, has seen a number of ideas put forward as well as some clarification of positions

I reported at the Room W meeting held by the Director General on Wednesday [see below] about my consultations since the last General Council on 20 February. I won’t repeat that report today, since it is important to allow the maximum possible time for delegations to speak and listen to each other. It will be made available to you in written form.

I will simply underline a few key points and then I move on in the order of business set out in the convening notice for this meeting, that is; proposals by members, domestic support and market access. When we get to market access I will update you on the consultation I held yesterday. Of course delegations are free to raise any other issues they may wish to — I would just ask you to try to work in this order as far as possible so that we can have a coherent discussion.

As I said on Wednesday, my consultations in a variety of formats on the work programme in agriculture have focused primarily on the domestic support and market access pillars, which is where some of the most difficult issues are. Nonetheless it has been made clear throughout the process so far that a result in agriculture has to be balanced across all the pillars and that the interests of all members have to be taken into account. It is also clear, of course, that any decisions can only be taken by the full membership.

The purpose of my consultations has been to encourage members to explore issues in greater depth so that members can work toward ways of resolving their differences. I would like to thank delegations involved for their active engagement, which has seen a number of ideas put forward as well as some clarification of positions. I remain available to all delegations and groups to discuss aspects of interest to them. I had the opportunity to meet with the G–33 and the SVEs (small and vulnerable economies) yesterday and took careful note of their concerns. I’m happy to meet with other groups as well.

In line with our order of business, I would now like to give the floor to any delegation who wishes either to introduce a new submission or speak further to an earlier one.

I will now turn to the second item on our list, domestic support. I already reported on my recent consultations on Wednesday, in Room W [see below]. In short, my consultations have sought to deepen the discussions on the specific elements of this pillar.

The first element that had a whole session dedicated to it was the concept of “overall trade distorting support” (OTDS). The descriptive note I used in that meeting to help delegations refresh their understanding of the OTDS concept as it has evolved in the negotiations was circulated to the full membership on 12 March.

The discussions on the OTDS on 12 March were very useful. It was seen by many to be a valuable concept in terms of its design to reduce trade distorting support, limit box-shifting, and/or level the playing field. However, the discussions also helped to uncover some important issues which attract sharply differing views. These will require further serious effort.

Over the next few weeks, I intend to continue similar consultations on each key element of the domestic support toolbox, bearing in mind that of course they are inter-related.

I invite any delegations that wish to make any specific comments on domestic support to take the floor.

WTO members have extremely diverse tariff structures. This means, of course, that the results of any formula approach will affect each member differently

I will now say something about yesterday’s market access consultation in a smaller configuration. First and foremost, this provided an opportunity for members to focus or refocus on a number of inputs that have been made, some last year before the negotiations paused, others quite recently. These are:

• Two G-33 papers on special products and the SSM [special safeguard mechanism] for the post-Bali work programme (JOB/AG/28 and JOB/AG/29) [“JOBs” are unofficial documents, usually restricted];
• A Tropical Products Group paper on market access on trade in tropical agricultural products (JOB/AG/33)
• A paper by Argentina: The market access negotiation: A most favoured nation request & offer approach for agriculture, NAMA [non-agricultural market access] and services (JOB/AG/36)
• A non-paper by Paraguay on market access agriculture negotiations (RD/AG/37, circulated on 18 March); and
• A paper circulated by the ACP [African-Caribbean-Pacific group]last week : Elements for defining a post-Bali work program on remaining Doha Development Agenda negotiations (JOB/TNC/46)

All of those documents provided the backdrop or context of the discussions that we had. While the discussions suggested some possibilities for convergence, it’s clear that different views continue to exist regarding the suitability of various approaches. The concerns raised by members on certain aspects of the proposals are familiar because many of these are linked to the fact that members in the WTO have extremely diverse tariff structures. This means, of course, that the results of any formula approach will affect each member differently. These issues were present when we were negotiating the 2008 draft modalities and they persist today.

To find a path to convergence, we’ll need to get into more depth on what members see as the critical elements in the landscape on market access. I plan to hold further consultations to work through various aspects of the market access pillar. First, we’ll need to get into more details on the general approaches for tariff reductions and associated flexibilities. In addition to the tiered formula, some other ideas have been put on the table for tariff reduction approaches and we’ll also need to look at these more closely. Any basic tariff reduction architecture will have associated flexibilities, so I’d expect also to have discussions on the relevant elements linked to discussions on the formula approaches.

In my consultations delegations have also raised some questions on request-offer approaches that were described in some members’ submissions. Our discussions so far have highlighted some questions that delegations have about this approach, including whether it would be a stand-alone process or conducted as a supplement to formula-based approaches.

A number of members have stressed the importance of safeguards in any outcome in agriculture market access. The G–33’s proposal on SSM [special safeguard mechanism for developing countries] is relevant in this respect. Others have suggested that an outcome on the current special safeguard would also be important. It may be that developing greater clarity on the general approach for tariff reductions would help advance discussions on safeguards. In any case, this is an issue to which we will have to dedicate focused attention.

Other issues, such as tropical products, will also have to be considered at an appropriate time, recognizing that they will play a role in the overall balance of the package.

Of course, S&D [special and differential treatment for developing countries] is an essential aspect of any tariff reduction approach. And S&D can come in many forms — through provisions that make S&D treatment generally available to developing countries, as well as through S&D targeted at specific groups such as LDCs [least developed countries], SVEs [small and vulnerable economies], VRAMs [very recently acceded members], and RAMs [recently acceded members]. S&D provisions will continue to be an integral part of discussions in this pillar, as well as all other areas of the agriculture negotiations.

That is my report on yesterday’s consultation on market access. Any delegations who would like to raise issues under this pillar are invited to take the floor.

As we see from the discussion on both market access and domestic support the issues are certainly becoming much more familiar with delegations, but finding convergence is still the real challenge. We face challenges to convergence on two levels. First, we need to think more clearly about what we are actually able to do in terms of agreeing conclusions on agriculture issues for the Doha Round, and working back from this we need to think what a work programme that will actually take us to those agreed conclusions would look like.

We have to be very, very clear on what our goal and our purpose is. For the work programme, it is to reach convergence that will take us forward in the period ahead. So while I hear views that are very divergent on a number of these things, I’m sure you’re hearing that too, and I think that you need, all, to reflect very carefully on how close some of these gaps.

What I’ll be doing is working through a range of the various elements under these headings of market access and domestic support, as well as export competition. I think we now have heard from members that there is a proposal on export competition, and a wish to move into discussions in this area, so that will have to be part of the agenda as well. I’ll take those consultations forward in various configurations.

We will convene again in an open-ended session in some weeks where we can take stock again of where we’ve got to. Hopefully we will have achieved some progress beyond where we are now. As I say, I’m fully available to all delegations in the interim. So, with that I wish you all a good afternoon back here of course to look at the issue of public stockholding for food security, and I wish you a good lunch.

As announced in my fax of 10 March 2015 convening this second dedicated session on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes, the aim of this meeting is to advance our discussion on a permanent solution to the public stockholding issue in line with the General Council Decision of 27 November 2014 and following on from the First Dedicated Session on 28 January 2015.

As you will recall, in the beginning of the first dedicated session, I reminded you of the Bali mandate to “negotiate on an agreement for a permanent solution, for the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes for adoption by the 11th Ministerial Conference”. In addition, by the General Council Decision on Public Stockholding of 27 November, the negotiation on a permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes must be pursued in priority. All members accepted to engage constructively to negotiate and make all concentrated efforts to agree and adopt a permanent solution by 31 December 2015.

I would like to underline that both mandates — from Bali and from last November — both in respect of the post-Bali work programme which we have discussed this morning as well as the permanent solution for public stockholding were agreed by all members. Therefore, the responsibility for taking all of these issues forward is one that all members share. I urge everyone to approach this important issue in that light and with a spirit of constructive engagement.

But before opening the floor to give you an opportunity to exercise your responsibility, my intention is to brief members on my recent consultations since the first Dedicated Session on this issue. 

In short, my consultations have witnessed a wide gap between the proponents of the G–33 proposal, who expect greater engagement and specific inputs from others regarding any concerns they may have, and other members who have expressed concerns about the G–33 proposal and who are looking to the G–33 members to address these concerns. So it is in brief two sides of the same coin.

As you know, the G–33 proposal is aiming at improving the policy space for the WTO members who use or intend to use Public Stockholding programmes for food security purposes. During my consultations, the G–33 has emphasized that the problem has been acknowledged and there is a collective responsibility to find a permanent solution. The G–33 have suggested that the existing flexibility in the Green Box with regard to the public stockholding programmes has been eroded over time and also reminded that the issue members have to address deals with stockholding of staple food products only.

My consultations have witnessed a wide gap between proponents of the G–33 proposal — who expect greater engagement and specific inputs from others regarding any concerns they may have — and others who have expressed concerns about the proposal and look to the G–33 to address these concerns

As the G–33 members have been waiting for the reactions from others to their proposal, my recent consultations have aimed to provide an opportunity to the members to give their reactions. During these consultations two broad types of concerns have been expressed:

• the impact on the architecture of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) of transferring market price support (MPS) to the Green Box, and
• “unintended consequences” on export markets, on the domestic market of the country with a PSH programme, and on the food security of other members.

The ideas expressed so far by the non-proponents on how to resolve these issue have been diverse and rather preliminary in nature. They have included suggestions to find a solution on the basis of the AMS [aggregate measurement of support] calculation method (with or without associated limits and reduction commitments) — which is of course an issue that is related to work in the broader area of domestic support, or suggestions that some of the safeguards included in the Bali language for a temporary solution might provide some inspiration or insights for aspects of a permanent one. It was also suggested that it should be possible to find ways of guaranteeing fair prices for producers and feeding the poor without leading to distortion of markets.

As you can see, the views expressed are quite divergent and rather tentative. There is a clear need for further consultations aimed at getting deeper into the substance of a possible outcome. I am ready and willing to facilitate these, but greater willingness from members on all sides is needed to make them go anywhere. So I hope we will see a commitment to take this work forward today.

I would therefore like to invite you now to express your views and thoughts about the way forward on this issue, including any new submissions. And the Secretariat has just informed me that there is a new submission today from the US JOB/AG/37 which is available in the room and has been circulated by email to members.

In terms of this issue that has come up concerning the mandate: the mandate is fairly clear. If I can recall it now, just to ensure there is no misunderstanding about it. The Ministerial Decision of 7 December, first paragraph, was as follows: “Members agree to put in place an interim mechanism as set out below, and to negotiate on an agreement for a permanent solution, for the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes for adoption by the 11th Ministerial Conference.” So I think the mandate is actually fairly clear.

Obviously what that permanent solution is, is up to members to work through. I think some of the exchanges that we’re now having are helping to give an idea of where members are going in that area. Of course the way in which you get to that conclusion is also something that members are free to discuss further. If individual members want to bring forward their own experience with public stockholding programmes, highlighting the concerns they have with the current constraints, then that’s something that members are free to do. But we also need to encourage reactions from other members about how they see any proposals for changes to the existing rules.

Just one clarification. I read out the mandate from the Bali Ministerial Conference. Obviously there was this important further decision last November where we did all agree to apply our best endeavours to finding a solution by December of this year, 2015. The actual issue has not changed in that decision. It’s an agreement for a permanent solution for the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes. I thought I would just clarify that in case there was any further querying of that. We all know that we’re in the right room. So I will leave it at that.

I think with these exchanges, it would seem we’ve exhausted the discussion for this afternoon. What we saw this afternoon was some elaboration of the points that members have been making, both in support of particular approaches, as well as some of the concerns that had been expressed in relation to those approaches. We had members coming forward to highlight perhaps with greater emphasis than we had in the past about some of the safeguards that were in the Bali decision regarding the interim mechanism that they considered to be important. And I did hear, I think it’s fair to say, a receptiveness on the part of the G–33 to consider those views that members have made in this regard.

We also had the US submission, which a number of members have said that they would like to look at in more detail, and to consider it, so I will take members’ advice on that. We now have these two submissions as part of the context for the discussion.

I would just emphasise, going back to this issue of the mandate, that there is no particular monopoly on solutions to this issue. Obviously the mandate makes it very clear that the goal is to reach an agreement on a permanent solution. Exactly what that permanent solution comprises is really up to members. It seems to me that members do need to listen very carefully to what each is saying, in this area, to see if that offers an opportunity for them to try and take the discussion forward in a particular way.

I do think there is a collective responsibility on everyone to participate in this discussion because obviously we’re not going to arrive at an agreement without that kind of engagement.

So I will continue to consult with members on these issues and how we take them forward. It’s also very incumbent on members here today to reach out to each other, particularly on World Happiness Day. Don’t be shy. Have a discussion about this, because if we’re actually interested in outcomes it will require us all to move a wee bit from our respective comfort zones into an area where we consider what might be possible. It’s the same issues that we faced in this morning’s meeting on the post-Bali work programme.

So, I will take things forward, and I’ll be in contact with delegations in that regard. I would invite any delegations that want to talk about any particular aspects of this in the interim to approach me as well as other delegations, to discuss those things, but I would suggest that today at least might be seen as a beginning, even If it is still rather tentative, of a deeper discussion on these issues that we see highlighted in this proposal and in the mandate that we have before us.

With that, I’ll wrap up this meeting and wish you all a good weekend, and I’ll be seeing you all quite soon, I’m sure. Thank you.

Since the General Council on 20 February I have continued consultations in a variety of formats on the Work Programme in Agriculture. These have been focused primarily on the Domestic Support and Market Access pillars, which is where some of the most difficult issues are. Nonetheless it has been made clear throughout the process so far that a result in Agriculture has to be balanced across all the pillars and that the interests of all Members have to be taken into account. It is also clear, of course, that any decisions can only be taken by the full membership.

The purpose of my consultations has been to simply encourage Members to explore issues in greater depth so that they can work toward ways of resolving their differences. I am continuing these consultations, including a meeting with the G–33 this afternoon and an expanded group on Market Access tomorrow, and I have scheduled an informal meeting of the Special Session for Friday morning, to be followed by the second Dedicated Session on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes.

For today I would like to share with you an overview of the main points in my consultations to date. Before doing so I would like to thank delegations with whom I have consulted for their active engagement, which has seen a number of ideas put forward as well as some clarification of positions. I remain available to all delegations and groups to discuss aspects of interest to them.

Turning to Domestic Support, I have continued my consultations building on the previous discussions that had highlighted some significant divergences about the practicability of Rev 4. In those consultations, many delegations had argued that the architecture of Rev.4 should be preserved even if the details of various elements had to be looked at more closely.

Therefore, my consultations since the General Council of 20th February have sought to deepen the discussions on these elements. The first element that had a whole session dedicated to it was the concept of Overall Trade Distorting Support. The descriptive note I used in that meeting to help delegations refresh their understanding of the OTDS concept as it has evolved in the negotiations was circulated to the full Membership on 12 March.

The discussions on this subject were I believe useful. In short, the OTDS was seen by many to be a valuable concept in terms of its design to reduce trade distorting support, limit box-shifting, and/or level the playing field. However, the discussions also helped to uncover some issues which attract sharply differing views, and in particular some of the specific rules on OTDS applicable to certain members. Calls were made by some Members to look at what would be doable and to work with the tools in the OTDS and broader domestic support “toolbox” in order to find a solution acceptable to all. My intention is to continue the systematic examination of the concepts that have been proposed in the Domestic Support pillar in further consultations.

Since the General Council meeting on 20 February, I have also held consultations on market access. A number of contributions have been made by delegations and groups of delegations in this area, including a recent contribution by the ACP on defining a post-Bali work program. Some delegations have focused their contributions generally on alternative approaches to tariff reductions. Other groups of delegations have submitted proposals on specific elements from the draft modalities that they would like to see included in the post-Bali work programme.

Specific suggestions on alternatives to the tiered formula tariff reductions include request-offer, average reductions, and combinations of both of these. While Members are engaging constructively to identify practical ways forward in market access, the consultations have highlighted various concerns with the suggested alternatives. Some Members believe that request-offer negotiations would be time-consuming and difficult to manage. Some have expressed concerns that these approaches could disadvantage small economies. Others have emphasized that any new approach should not dilute the potential for meaningful market access. Some members continue to prefer Rev.4 and query whether new approaches could provide meaningful S&D treatment. In addition members have noted the relationship and interplay of potential outcomes in market access in agriculture with those in NAMA which was the subject of a specific consultation yesterday.

Let me now turn to the two last key elements under the agriculture heading for the post-Bali work programme.

As I indicated in my report to the General Council on 19 February, there is a clear understanding that an outcome on Export Competition remains essential as part of a wider package encompassing other areas of the negotiation. On substance, the product of the past negotiations on export competition is widely accepted as an important basis for a possible outcome. This being said, it is also clear that discussions will be required in due course on some specific issues. This includes in particular the timetable for the elimination of all forms of export subsidies and entry into force of disciplines on export measures with equivalent effect. This also includes a couple of specific — still outstanding — issues raised by specific members since 2010, like the Cuban proposal dated June 2010 in relation to special and differential treatment provisions in the field of export finance.

Since the last meeting of the special session on 28 January, a proposal on export competition was circulated by a group of Members on 9 February (JOB/AG/34) and export competition is also touched upon in the submission dated 12 March by the ACP Group of States (JOB/TNC/46).

Cotton also remains an important and unavoidable cross-cutting issue of the agriculture negotiation. The dedicated discussions process put in place as a result of the Bali ministerial decision is a very useful informative tool. But it does not constitute a substitute for the actual negotiations. I encourage all interested parties to engage with each other, in order to stand ready to propose possible ways forward when consultations resume on this issue. Finally, cotton is also included in the submission dated 12 March by the ACP Group of States (JOB/TNC/46).

On a different track, let me also say something about Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. At the second Dedicated Session to be held on Friday afternoon, my intention is to brief members on my consultations since the first Dedicated Session on 28 January and to discuss the way forward. It is clear that there is still a wide gap between the proponents of the G33 proposal, who expect greater engagement and specific inputs from others, and other members who have expressed concerns about the G-33 proposal and are looking to the G33 to consider ways of addressing their concerns. The mandate for this issue from Bali does not prejudge the nature of any particular outcome here but clearly greater engagement will be required to work out what is doable.

So that’s my report. Overall, the message is that it must be our collective priority to bring more energy and interaction to all of these debates relating to our work programme.