JOB(06)/199
Committee on Agriculture
Special Session
DRAFT POSSIBLE MODALITIES ON AGRICULTURE
22 June 2006
Cover letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Special Session to the Chairman of
the Trade Negotiations Committee
Dear Mr Lamy,
I am sending to you in your capacity as TNC Chair, the attached document in line with the
discussions at the informal TNC of 30 May and your fax of 16 June to TNC participants.
It sets out draft Modalities for preparing the Schedules for the Agriculture negotiations. I
should stress that this document is not in a formal sense agreed by Members, even as a draft. But it is
intended to reflect in a balanced and accurate way the state of intensive discussions and reflection to
this point within the Special Session, consistent with the ground rules of our enterprise as laid down,
for instance, in TNC/1: "Chairpersons should reflect consensus, or where this is not possible,
different positions on issues." Of course, it is only the Members themselves that can establish
Modalities, and it is a matter for Members also as to what documentation they wish to adopt in
working to that end. That being the case, I forward this particular document in my capacity as Chair
of the Informal session on Agriculture to you as Chair of the TNC.
There should be no surprises therein. Indeed, it has long been the premise of our work that
this should not be the case. It has been clear that the draft that would emerge this week would be
unlikely to contain things Members have not seen or heard before, or things that Members would not
be able to work out for themselves. Members for their part have made it clear that they do not expect
invented "solutions" out of thin air, and even if they were to appear, they would serve no practical
purpose given that they emerge in a vacuum and are severed from any real emergent consensus or
convergence by Members themselves. They have made it just as clear that they see draft "Modalities"
as meaning precisely that: there is no basis to pick and choose among them. This is a "menu fixe" for
decision. It is no smorgasbord. Reflecting that approach, I foreshadowed in the Reference Paper
issued last week that: "unless or until there is such emergent consensus, one has to respect the
substantive positions of Members. Come that date, therefore, I will be issuing a document that does
so."
That is precisely the kind of document that is now attached.
It is not an elegant document. But it reflects the reality of where we are. When all is said and
done, where there are divergences, there are divergences. There is no point deluding oneself on that.
Indeed, it would be a profound error to do so. Apart from anything else, there will never be any
prospect of bridging differences if one does not have a sober and realistic view of them to begin with.
Brushing things under the carpet or wishing things were otherwise than they are is no way to resolve
differences. Dealing with them honestly and fairly can be the only way that has any chance of moving
us forward. I have not, therefore, attempted to invent solutions where none has so far emerged. To do
so would not only go against our agreed procedures but also against a Chair's more fundamental duty
to deal honestly and fairly with the Membership.
06-3054