From 8 to 10 September 2026, the OECD Committee for Agriculture (CoAG) held an extraordinary meeting to seek agreement on its Programme of Work and Budget (PWB) for 2027–2030. The meeting had been convened following the reopening of discussions on a draft PWB that had been endorsed by consensus in April. As agreement could no longer be reached on the text, the extraordinary meeting provided an opportunity for Committee members to make a final effort to find common ground before the matter would potentially have to be referred to the OECD Council.
The discussions demonstrated the challenges of reaching consensus on issues where members have different views on terminology, priorities and the framing of environmental issues in agricultural policy. At the same time, the three-day meeting showed that continued dialogue and flexibility can help bridge these differences.
Where did the discussions get stuck?
One of the main challenges concerned references to climate change, greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprints. While these concepts are well established in scientific and policy discussions, there were different views among members on whether and how specific terminology should be reflected in the PWB.
The discussions therefore moved beyond the substance of the proposed activities and increasingly focused on how these activities and their objectives should be described in the agreed text.
Finding common ground through compromise
Throughout the meeting, delegations worked to identify formulations that could accommodate different perspectives while preserving the overall objectives of the OECD's work.
For example, rather than specifying the development of particular carbon footprint instruments as a concrete activity, the final compromise allows the OECD to continue exploring options in this area and to report on progress at the mid-term stage. This provided sufficient flexibility for members that preferred less specific wording, while allowing work on the issue to continue.
A similar approach was taken regarding references to emissions and climate-related impacts. Instead of explicitly listing specific emissions, the agreed wording refers more broadly to environmental effects on air, water and soil.
These examples illustrate the nature of the negotiations: the objective was not necessarily to resolve all differences in perspective, but to find language that would allow the Committee to continue its work on the basis of consensus.
Consensus reached at the final stage
Until the final morning, it remained uncertain whether the Committee would be able to reach consensus.
On Thursday morning, after further textual adjustments, the remaining reservations were lifted and the Committee was able to endorse the PWB for 2027–2030. Some members expressed regret that certain formulations had not been retained, but ultimately supported the compromise.
Reaching agreement at Committee level meant that the PWB did not have to be referred to the OECD Council for further consideration. This was significant from an operational perspective, as a referral could have introduced additional uncertainty regarding the proposed activities and available resources for the coming years.
The outcome therefore provides a basis for continuity in the OECD's work on agriculture, including research, statistical work, evidence-based analysis and policy recommendations.
Finally, the Netherlands received positive feedback from the OECD Secretariat and the European Commission representation for its constructive engagement and its role in helping to bridge different positions throughout the negotiations.