TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Aug12/04)
7 August 2012
Third World Network

MC9 to be in Bali, TNC Chair reports meagre progress on Doha
Published in SUNS #7421 dated 30 July 2012

Geneva, 27 Jul (Kanaga Raja) -- The General Council of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), at its meeting on 25 July, formally agreed that the ninth session of its Ministerial Conference (MC9) will be held in Bali, Indonesia in the first week of December 2013.

The General Council also heard the report of Director-General Pascal Lamy, in his capacity as the Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), in which he said that the harvest from the first half of this year has been meagre, and called on members to "change gears" at various levels after the summer break (see below).

Commenting on the current state of play in the Doha negotiations following Lamy's report to the General Council, many developing countries stressed that the issue of trade facilitation (being proposed by some members as part of an "early harvest") should not be a stand-alone or self-balancing agreement, and that other development-related issues should be concluded simultaneously to ensure proper balance.

According to trade officials, members are starting to look at all the elements that might be part of the so-called "early harvest". One of the issues that has taken centre stage for some delegations is that of trade facilitation.

But it is clear that many delegations believe that while this is very important, there are concerns - both internal and external - on a number of fronts, particularly on the issue of balance, trade officials added.

The internal concerns pertain to providing adequate technical assistance. Developing countries are asking for a needs assessment, i. e. assistance from the secretariat and members that will help them identify exactly what they need to do to be able to put in place whatever agreement emerges on trade facilitation.

Another issue is how to ensure there is adequate matching up of what the developing countries are being asked to do and the funds that would be required to put those commitments into place.

On the external balance, trade officials pointed to other areas of negotiations that might be part of a trade facilitation deal. In this context, they noted the issues of export competition, cotton, and duty-free quota-free market access (DFQF) for LDC products. The question is are these to be issues that might also be included in the package, they said.

On MC9, trade officials said that the General Council formally agreed that it will be held in Bali, Indonesia in the first week of December 2013, and that it would revert to the precise dates after the summer break.

According to trade officials, under this agenda item, the General Council Chair, Ambassador Elin Johansen of Norway, said that as a result of the process of consultations regarding Indonesia's offer (to host MC9), she believed that members are now in a position to take a decision on this matter.

Therefore, she proposed that the General Council agree that the ninth session of the Ministerial Conference be held in Bali, Indonesia in the first week of December 2013. She also proposed that members come back to the matter of the precise dates after the summer break.

It was so agreed.

According to trade officials, Indonesia expressed gratitude for the decision and commitment towards the multilateral trading system and the Doha Development Agenda.

In his report to the General Council, TNC Chair Lamy said that in light of the deteriorating economic situation, and what he sees as rising downside risks, "I urged collective action to re-double efforts to strengthen multilateral co-operation to find global solutions to avoid further trade and investment tensions. I expressed hope that all members would live up to the commitment made by Ministers at MC8 [eighth ministerial conference] to keep markets open and resist protectionism in all forms. I also urged members to remain vigilant and begin to think about creative ways to improve our multilateral transparency and peer reviews through fruitful discussions such as the one that took place at the last TPRB [Trade Policy Review Body] meeting and also through the consultations that the Chair of the TPRB is conducting."

On the negotiating front, Lamy said he reported on the consultations that all Negotiating Group Chairs had been conducting with delegations in their respective areas. This included technical work that had taken place in the areas of trade facilitation, special and differential treatment and DSU (Dispute Settlement Understanding) reform.

At the informal Heads of Delegation meetings, the TNC Chair said he heard some delegations highlight specific areas where they wished to see tangible progress soon. They emphasized that whatever is agreed in any paragraph 47 outcomes, whether it be trade facilitation or something else, this did not imply the end of the Round. The Single Undertaking remains the guarantee that all mandated issues will have to be addressed. Several delegations, while stressing the significance of trade facilitation, noted that they did not at this stage consider this area as self-balancing. These delegations cautioned against selectivity in implementing paragraph 47 and expressed concern about achieving the right balance within this approach.

[Paragraph 47 of the Doha Declaration states: "With the exception of the improvements and clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, the conduct, conclusion and entry into force of the outcome of the negotiations shall be treated as parts of a single undertaking. However, agreements reached at an early stage may be implemented on a provisional or a definitive basis. Early agreements shall be taken into account in assessing the overall balance of the negotiations."]

Lamy said he also heard several participants stress the importance of transparency, inclusiveness and multilateralism in any processes ahead, including in agreeing on early harvest candidates. A number also emphasized the importance of respecting the development mandate of the Round.

Although work has continued at varying levels across the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) to implement the elements of political guidance from MC8, progress and activity have been mixed. Over the past six months, various processes and initiatives have benefited from the time and space which delicate and complicated issues sometimes merit.

"I understand that these discussions will continue after the summer break and I will continue to encourage their participants to reach out to the wider membership," said Lamy, adding, "But we should, I believe, all agree that the harvest from the first half of this year has been meagre."

Lamy said: "Of course, there have been important and positive achievements such as the LDC accession guidelines, on which we should build as we operationalize fully the guidelines from Ministers on the Doha part of our dossier, during the second half of this year. But in so doing, we have to recognize that prolonged and dogmatic discussions about whether or not to deliver on everything or a few things or nothing at all have not and will not take us very far. The only thing we know is that an ‘all' or ‘nothing' does not work. A ‘my way or the highway' is the best way to ensure paralysis."

"What I believe is important going forward is for all of us to remain faithful to the guidance that Ministers provided at MC8. This included remaining faithful to the mandate and recognizing that not all elements of the DDA could be concluded simultaneously in the near future. It included adopting a gradual approach and advancing those areas where progress can be achieved. It included exploring different negotiating approaches, while respecting the principles of transparency and inclusiveness. The time has also come for more serious and creative thinking about how to bridge gaps in areas where convergence remains elusive. It also included exploring issues relevant to the multilateral trading system."

Lamy said: "So, the guidance from Ministers is clear. On our part, we must collectively and urgently agree on what can be done at a technical level, how it should be achieved and when and where it should be done. I believe that after the summer break, we need to change gears at various levels so as to ensure that we use our time in the most efficient manner possible. We have a heavy collective responsibility, not only for the Doha Round but for the multilateral trading system in these difficult times to make sure 2012 is not a wasted year."

For his part, he said he intends to meet with the Negotiating Group Chairs immediately following the summer break to explore specific steps in which the work can be taken forward.

"As a college, the Negotiating Group Chairs and I will need to look at ways to deliver on the instructions stemming from MC8 in line with what many of you have requested. And we will try to look at creative ways to bridge the most difficult and intractable issues."

The TNC Chair noted that over the past few weeks and months - whether at the level of informal Heads of Delegation or in the General Council - "we have heard time and again that there is interest in re-engaging more seriously on a broad range of issues under the Doha Agenda. I firmly believe that we need to test this stated interest and do so in an inclusive and transparent fashion."

"But ultimately, the ball lies in your court. You, the negotiators, have to achieve the needed substantive and balanced progress across all areas of our negotiations that you all say you desire," Lamy stressed.

"Those of you who believe that, as time passes, inexorably, the Round might lose all its remaining steam may be right, whether we like it or not. What is clear, in my view, is that not engaging seriously in trying to find solutions to the present impasse will increase the probability of such a disappointing outcome. Credibility lies in the capacity to produce results, not statements. We should all face up to this reality and accept that there is no individual clever escape from this collective responsibility. As we break for the summer, I would urge each of you to reflect on your individual contribution towards collectively breaking the deadlock and allowing for forward movement in our work to fully operationalize the guidance we received at MC8 from our Ministers."

A number of delegations spoke following the report by the Chair of the TNC.

According to trade officials, Lesotho, on behalf of the African Group, said that what is important is to focus on those elements of any agreement that address concerns of developing countries, and these should be the building blocks for any agreement. Trade facilitation should not be a stand-alone or self-balancing agreement. Other development-related issues should be concluded simultaneously to ensure balance.

The African Group said that there is a need to be faithful to the development mandate. An early harvest for trade facilitation is something that will require intense effort and there is need to define the parameters and principles on which any early harvest agreement would be based.

Mauritius, on behalf of the ACP Group, said that the crisis is not about to end and it is making things difficult even though enhanced trade would make things much better. The single undertaking is key to maintaining balance. If members are to have trade facilitation as a single issue to discuss as an early harvest, it would make things more difficult for the group. It believes that trade facilitation is an issue that is worthwhile for enhancing trade in ACP countries. It has no objection to a trade facilitation deal.

However, within the trade facilitation pillar, the group said that there is need to address the issue of the developmental balance, and special and differential treatment (SDT) is the key. But there needs to be a wider array of issues that can be discussed as well. Even if not everything is negotiated simultaneously, there is need to ensure that issues of importance to developing countries are not left by the wayside.

It said that there has been good progress in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development on agreement-specific proposals as well as the monitoring mechanism.

Australia, on behalf of the Cairns Group of agricultural exporters, called for serious engagement in agriculture, saying that it is disappointed at the lack of such engagement. There is need to recognise that meaningful progress in agriculture is extremely important.

Chad, for the Cotton-4 (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali), questioned how members could be discussing trade facilitation as a starting point for an early harvest, when at the Ministerial Conference last December, Ministers reaffirmed the importance of a specific, expeditious and ambitious treatment for cotton. The Cotton-4, Chad added, will not accept any early harvest without issues of importance to LDCs, including cotton.

Cambodia, speaking for ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), said that it recognised the good work that is going on in trade facilitation, on the agreement-specific proposals and the monitoring mechanism. It thought that the issue of export competition in agriculture should be addressed. All LDC issues should be taken up as a matter of priority for the organisation.

Barbados, on behalf of the Small and Vulnerable Economies, said that there are various approaches to negotiations that have been taking place since the last ministerial conference but it is important to recognise that these are merely supplementary to a multilateral approach. Transparency, inclusiveness and a bottom-up approach are central. It welcomed the LDC decision. It said that trade facilitation is an area in which progress is being made and it looked forward to a development-friendly outcome in this area.

Pakistan said that there is need to look at different approaches and to move forward. While it is prepared to look at issues, Members need to be faithful to the development mandate.

Mexico, agreeing with Mauritius, said that the MC8 guidelines should be followed and what needs to be done as well is an agreement on trade facilitation.

Japan said that its concern is on increasing protectionism despite what was agreed by the G20 for a standstill and a rollback of protectionist measures. It is concerned that it is not being made clear why an agreement on trade facilitation is beneficial to all.

Nigeria said that it is committed to serious engagement towards making progress through an incremental step-by-step approach. This should not deter members from seeking a fair and balanced outcome. It is important to advance the work on development issues, SDT, the monitoring mechanism and trade-related technical assistance and capacity-building.

The European Union said that transparency and monitoring is an important pillar in the organisation for combating protectionism. But members cannot forget the other pillar, i. e. the negotiations to improve existing rules and there is need to move the negotiations forward in the coming months. The work on the LDC guidelines shows that members are capable of reaching agreement and coming together in pursuit of a common goal.

There are other issues as well where good progress is being made, the EU said, pointing to SDT, agreement-specific proposals and the monitoring mechanism (taking place in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development). But there is need to build on short-term progress and the need to ensure that we are working on things that are important to the WTO. This should not cause us to forget that we need to conclude the DDA as a whole and that any work that is done with respect to provisional or definitive early harvest agreements are merely a stepping stone to the entire Doha agenda. Progress so far this year has not been what the EU expected or wanted.

China said that MC9 is already on the radar screen and there is need to assess progress and to begin to chart the way forward. It welcomed the agreement on the LDC accession guidelines. This agreement will serve as a confidence booster which will help members in terms of achieving common goals.

On the linkages that are developing, it said that this is a source of concern for some delegations. But these are arising from different interpretations of where members are. Some delegations see that we are at a big impasse and we can't conclude the round and the only solution is to agree on those issues that are easier, but others believe that we can overcome these difficulties and that we need to follow the single undertaking, said China, adding that it is very much a part of this latter group.

It said that development issues should be the focus in an early harvest. Trade facilitation will not be the only early harvest issue and it will not be the only issue we agree on in the DDA. It was pleased to see that the Director-General has said that the single undertaking is a guarantee that all DDA issues will be concluded in the future. The mandate is not to be blamed for any difficulty. It supported the African and ACP group statements.

Kenya said that it is important that the donor community continues to fund Aid for Trade and trade finance. Transparency, inclusiveness and a bottom-up approach are key. Any reference to trade facilitation as stand-alone or self-balancing is not helpful. Trade facilitation is very much part of the basket but it must be balanced with LDC issues, export competition and other issues.

Kenya said it has a five-stage approach, whereby there should be discussion and agreement on five issues - agricultural issues, LDC issues, SDT, trade facilitation and services. It would like to open a dialogue in areas where a provisional or definitive agreement is possible.

Chile said that the all-or-nothing approach is not viable, and members must leave behind dogmatic approaches. Trade facilitation is important and is to the benefit of all. It also mentioned DSU reform, areas involving transparency, ensuring full compliance with notification requirements, and fisheries subsidies which is another area where a deal can be reached.

South Africa said: "Let us remind ourselves that it took 40 years since the rejection of the Havana Charter and ITO by the US Congress in 1955 - for the world to create a World Trade Organization in 1995. In its preamble, the Marrakesh Agreement that established the WTO promised to build new agreements on the basis of the principle of sustainable development."

According to South Africa, the Doha round was the first round that agreed at the outset in its mandate to build new agreements on the basis of the internationally recognized principles of equity, balance and development. The built-in agenda of the Uruguay Round on agriculture failed to gain traction amongst members. It was therefore recognized that the only way to encourage developed countries to make the necessary reforms in agriculture would be through trade-offs on other issues of interest to them such as NAMA (non-agricultural market access) and Services.

"It is for this reason that the single undertaking was agreed to be a basis for the negotiations. In addition, the Doha round chose the more inclusive multilateral route to negotiations - rather than the plurilateral and request and offer method of previous GATT rounds. In the Doha mandate we also agreed to recognize the plight of the LDCs and promised to create new opportunities for them to export into world markets in areas that they can compete. It is for these reasons that the Doha round became known as the Doha Development Agenda."

South Africa added: "At MC8, members agreed that in order to help us find a way out of the current impasse in the Doha round ‘new approaches' should be explored. We are in favour of seeking new approaches but not in favour of so-called ‘new approaches' suggested by some that are merely ‘old wine in new bottles'. We are not in favour of bringing back the old approach of request and offer and plurilaterals that was driven by the main players in the GATT. We are in favour of an approach to negotiations that is multilateral, that seeks to create balance within and between issues, and that recognizes the different levels of development of developing countries. This is what we agreed to in the Doha mandate. Any approach that is not based on the principles of equity, balance, development, inclusiveness and transparency will not gain the support of the majority of members and the world at large."

On trade facilitation, South Africa said that it is engaged on advancing a fair and balanced Trade Facilitation Agreement in the WTO. "We recognize the need to upgrade our customs infrastructure, procedures and processes. We are already working to achieve this in our own economy and in our region. However, we also recognize that the wide disparities in the existing levels of development and modernization of customs infrastructure between developed and developing countries will require the developing countries and particularly the poorer countries in the ACP/Africa Group and LDCs to bear the brunt of the implementation burdens that result from such an Agreement. Therefore, appropriate and necessary capacity must be provided to these countries."

Whilst an upgrading of customs infrastructure, processes and procedures is clearly of interest to most developing countries, an agreement on Trade Facilitation cannot be self-balancing, as it will impose significant implementation burdens on them, said South Africa, adding that it is for this reason that to ensure a fair and balanced outcome for any "short-term" deliverables in the Doha round other priority issues of importance to developing countries, especially the poorest, must be part of this outcome.

"We cannot now only prioritize an issue such as Trade Facilitation where developed countries are the main demandeurs. We promised to prioritize the interests of the poorest countries such as; DFQFMA [duty-free quota-free market access], Cotton, S&D [special and differential treatment], and the elimination of harmful export subsidies, at various ministerial meetings. These issues must also be addressed in any ‘short-term' deal."

With regard to the discussion in the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) on the monitoring of trade restrictive measures, South Africa said that attempts to label the legitimate use of policy space available to developing countries under existing WTO rules as protectionist whilst refraining from commenting on the use of other measures witnessed in the recent bailouts of firms and banks in many developed countries will not succeed. These measures and their trade impacts will need to be monitored and evaluated in the WTO.

On "new issues" in the WTO, South Africa reiterated that whilst it supports the introduction of new issues for debate and analysis in the regular committees of the WTO, "we do not believe that it would be feasible or fair to move ahead with these issues before we have succeeded to addressing issues that affect the majority of members and that have been on the agenda for decades, such as trade distorting subsidies in agriculture."

On the issue of LDC accession, South Africa said that while it is fully committed to facilitate the accession of LDCs in the WTO and the international trading system, and will not stand in the way of the adoption of this decision, it was concerned over the high level of commitments (envisaged) from LDCs by the proposed Benchmarks on Goods.

South Africa added: "Whilst we respect the fact that this was a negotiated outcome, we wish to place on record our view that LDCs should be accorded the necessary policy space that they require to build their infant industries and advance their economic development. These guidelines should thus be implemented with this objective in mind and guidelines should be implemented with due regard to the specific development situation and needs of each LDC and not be applied in a ‘one-size-fits all' approach. In addition, the LDC Guidelines should not prejudice the negotiating rights nor constrain the negotiating space of LDCs, SVEs [Small and Vulnerable Economies] and other Developing countries in the Current Doha Round negotiations."

According to trade officials, Costa Rica supported the Cairns Group statement. It is not optimistic about the outlook. There needs to be an effort towards strengthening of the monitoring of the Trade Policy Review Body. There needs to be better monitoring and work addressing non-tariff measures.

Bolivia said that it has yet to learn how trade facilitation will help development. It wanted to know what this means in terms of how it will help their exporters. Why should developing countries show enthusiasm for this if it does not help their exporters? If there is to be an agreement on this, it should be sufficiently balanced and flexible. Many developing countries will have to implement new legislative reforms and this could come at great cost. There will be very little cost in this agreement for developed countries, it added.

On the LDC accession guidelines, it raised questions about the 100% binding of tariffs and 50% overall average tariffs for agriculture, as well as the 95% binding and 35% average tariffs in goods.

Canada said it valued the Director-General's stark assessment.

Switzerland shared Japan's concerns about protectionism. Even if the G20 had made pronouncements (on this issue), the members of the G20 have not followed these recommendations.

Tunisia supported the African Group.

Brazil said that by acknowledging the difficulties that we have with respect to the single undertaking, what it has done is put the spotlight on the fact that we have not been able to move forward in this way. We cannot sweep this under the carpet, and it keeps pressure on the members to try and find ways forward, it added.

On an early harvest, it said that it is not optimistic about a selective approach to issues. However, the overall stalemate should not prevent members from trying to reach agreement where they can. Negotiations should take place in the negotiating groups. We need to seek outcomes that are of importance to developing countries in general and LDCs in particular. Trade facilitation is not a self-balancing pillar, it added.

India said it agrees with the Director-General that the progress made in the negotiations in the first six months has been quite meagre. The Director-General has stressed the importance of the Single Undertaking and the imperative to conclude the Doha Round on its basis. India agreed with him entirely on this point as well as with the other delegations, who have reiterated this issue in their interventions.

Looking at the situation, India said that it can discern that there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the Doha Round negotiations in the minds of many developing country delegations, specially as to what happens after MC9 regarding the other unresolved issues. Do they get forgotten, with the demandeurs of new issues urging the membership to move on to a carefully selected set of 21st Century issues or are they going to be negotiated and agreements concluded on them before a de facto new round of negotiations is launched after MC9?

"I think this uncertainty lies at the heart of the problem that we are facing in terms of lack of progress in most areas. If we are to break out of this impasse and move the multilateral process forward, we need to build trust and confidence among the membership, not in terms of mere words, which are never in short supply in international negotiations, but in terms of concrete action in moving on areas of interest to others that the Doha Round would get concluded on the basis of the current mandate and the progress already achieved. Without this reassurance being provided in terms of concrete action, the chances of a breakthrough do not appear to be very bright."

As is evident from the interventions since the morning, India said that a large number of developing country groups and individual delegations are of the view that Trade Facilitation cannot be harvested on a stand-alone basis and is not self balancing either from the perspective of the demandeurs and recipients or from the perspective of a majority of developing countries.

The questions raised earlier on Trade Facilitation since Singapore and still being raised are who will it benefit in the short and medium term, what will be the costs to be borne and who will bear them. With the shape that the negotiations have taken in the current times, which is focused mainly on import facilitation, these questions need to be answered in order to provide comfort to the developing countries that the Trade Facilitation agreement would be one, which will have both internal as well as external balance.

Some other areas in Trade Facilitation that need to be fleshed out through discussions is Needs Assessment for meeting the financial and technical assistance requirements of the developing countries. Another area that needs more fleshing out at this juncture, which is in the middle game before MC9, is the nature of the compensation that has to be provided to a complaining country (to the DSB) in case of a default on the part of another country. In other areas covered by WTO agreements, dispute panels have been asking a defaulting country to bring the impugned measure in conformity with the relevant agreement. The demandeurs have so far not made it clear as to what shape a possible violation of a Trade Facilitation commitment would take. This would need to be discussed in detail in order to allay the misgivings of developing countries and bringing further clarity to the negotiations.

According to India, a number of delegations have stressed the importance of achieving some deliverable by MC9 and have emphasized para 19 of the MC8 guidance, which basically paraphrases para 47 of the Doha mandate, to state that Trade Facilitation is the prime candidate for early harvest by MC9. Some delegations have indicated that the Cancun Agreement Specific Proposals and the Monitoring Mechanism could be a good enough payment for Trade Facilitation in terms of being faithful to the Doha mandate, apart from the LDC Accessions Benchmark guidelines.

"The question we need to answer is whether this payment is enough from the perspective of the developing countries and the whole membership. We have heard many delegations say that it is not enough. A number of developing countries have stated that Agriculture has to be there in the package, with the Cotton 4 stating clearly their expectations in regard to Cotton."

India further said: "Others have mentioned market access issues of the LDCs like DFQF and Services Waiver as priority items along with Export Competition in Agriculture and a few other issues. Earlier we had heard of the TRIPS extension also being one of the priority issues for LDCs. This is one of the issues specifically mentioned in para 10 of the MC8 document and we hope that this does not fall through the cracks because the LDC's waiver period will come to an end by the middle of next year."

Bearing in mind all these factors, India said that it is of the view that the only way forward is to have a constructive, comprehensive and meaningful discussion after the summer break among the membership as to what kind of package can be aimed at in the short term.

"We cannot a priori include or exclude any issues from this package, including Trade Facilitation. We have heard in the past that a small package approach, initiated by the DG [Director-General] in 2011, has not worked in the past and will not work now. It will only be business as usual. However, the demandeurs need to bear in mind that Trade Facilitation has been around as a WTO issue since Singapore more than 15 years ago and pursuing it to the virtual exclusion of other development issues of the Doha Round, specially those which yield concrete market access gains to the poorest countries, may be difficult to get off the ground."

According to trade officials, Bangladesh said that what we need are practical and reasonable approaches to the issues in front of us. We have to remember the importance of keeping the single undertaking intact. There was basic convergence on an LDC package earlier and this is a self-balancing agreement. It could be a confidence booster to strike an LDC deal. The decision was taken long ago in Hong Kong and all that is required is implementation. The LDC package would be a strong bedrock for making progress in other areas, it added.

The United States said that overall we are in a better place than we were one year ago. One year ago, we were having abstract debates that got us nowhere and at MC8 we turned the page. The first step in resolving a problem is recognising that you have a problem. In the six months that have taken place since MC8, we have seen progress on trade facilitation and on the agreement-specific proposals and the monitoring mechanism.

It said that it hears concerns from some delegations that they are concerned about issues being left behind. It said that it wants a broad agenda too, something in agriculture, services, NAMA and rules. It would like to see progress in all these areas. But its approach is pragmatic and it sees opportunities for progress in some areas to go ahead, and we should not wait but try and go forward where we can, it added.

Norway said that it is concerned with what happens in market access and rules issues where there has been no progress and where they need to be part of a balanced outcome at some point.

Argentina agreed with the Cairns Group, and Cotton-4 on cotton. It was of the view that tariff rate quota administration should be improved and that export competition should be addressed. Agriculture continues to be the bastion of protectionism par excellence, and we see all manner of distortive practices including tariff escalation and subsidies.

It said it is facing difficulties with respect to private standards, SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary) standards and technical barriers to trade, all of which distort trade in agriculture. It would like to see all forms of agricultural export subsidies eliminated by the 2013 ministerial conference. +