WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/182
25 April 2001
(01-2080)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
SIXTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
22-23 MARCH 2001
Statements by Norway
G/AG/NG/W/101  (Proposal by Norway)
While I understand your difficult task in managing our meeting and finalizing our agenda, I
must say that I find it unfortunate that the discussion of individual proposals be limited to only 45
minutes.  Especially for us, since we were supposed to present our proposal at our last meeting, butwaived that opportunity at the request of India.
I will therefore make my intervention shorter than planned in order to use the precious time to
listen to comments from other delegations.
It is a pleasure for me to present the Norweg ian proposal for continuing the reform process
under Article 20.  Our proposal is divided into an operational and concrete Part I containing specific
proposals, and a Part II that elaborates some background elements.
Article 20 recognises the "long-term objective of substantial progressive reductions in support
and protection".  However, while Article 20 represents an obligation to continue the reform process,
the process should not necessarily be finalised by reaching the long-term objective in the ongoingnegotiations.  Moreover, the size of the reductions in support and protection should be determined by,
among other things, the experience gained fr om implementing the existing Agreement, the
consequences of the agreement, non-trade concerns (NTCs), special and differential treatment to
developing countries and the objective of establishing a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading
system.
Most NTCs are unique to agriculture and have public goods characteristics that may justify
government intervention. Most of these public goods can only be provided jointly with agricultural
production. Further, agricultural production is biological and site-specific.  All these special and
multifunctional characteristics need to be recognised and call for continued special treatment of theagricultural sector within the multilateral trading system.  Furthermore, I would like to underline that
the promotion of sustainable development and envi ronmental concerns should be taken into account
in the negotiations.
Every Member should be granted flexibility in national policy design to foster domestic
agricultural production necessary to address domestic NTCs, based on each country's production
conditions and potentials, policy objectives and historical and cultural background.  Domestic
production of key agricultural products is of vital importance to Norway as a means of safeguarding
domestic NTCs.  As a result of differences in production conditions between and within countries and
in order to be able to sustain domestic production required to properly address these concerns,
countries with a comparative disadvantage need to be allowed to have recourse to a policy measure
combination that includes, to a large extent, the use of production-related policy measures.  On theother hand, export competition measures should not be deemed part of a long-term strategy to address
NTCs.  Provided that NTCs are safeguarded, such measures could be subject to stricter disciplines.G/AG/NG/W/182
Page 2
Let me then briefly recall some of our concrete proposals in each area of the negotiations.
Improved market access is a key element in the agricultural reform process.  Modalities on further
commitments must be designed to allow Members to make only limited MFN tariff reductions on
their key agricultural products.  When considerin g further MFN tariff reductions, special attention
should be paid to products of particular interest to  developing countries.  For countries with low self-
sufficiency and a narrow product range resulting from for example natural production conditions,
domestic production of key agricultural products is sensitive to further increases in minimum access
quotas.  Modalities on minimum access quotas should be designed accordingly.  The Special
Safeguard mechanism should be continued.
On domestic support, we would like to suggest the AMS to be divided into two categories.
The first category would consist of domestic support to agricultural production destined for thedomestic market.  Such support should be subject to less stringent reduction commitments.  The
second category would consist of AMS support to export-oriented production.  This support should be
subject to further reductions.  The non-product specificity of the AMS support as well as the Blue and
Green Box should be maintained.
On export competition, as part of a balanced approach through which NTCs of a
multifunctional agriculture are fully addressed, Norway acknowledges the need for stricter disciplines
on such measures.  However, it should be ensured that the subsidy element of all forms of export
competition measures, such as direct export subsidies, export credits, state trading export enterprises
and food aid, are treated equally in the continuation of the reform process.
Special attention should be paid to the interests of developing countries, in particular the
least-developed and net food-importing countries.  Norway recognises that improved market access
for agricultural products is of vital importance to many developing countries as a vehicle for
economic growth and poverty alleviation.  Furthermore, challenges faced by developing countries interms of acute food insecurity and in cases where a large share of their population is dependent on
agriculture should be carefully addressed in the negotiations to ensure adequate flexibility in national
policy design to foster domestic agricultural production.  In order to enable developing countries, in
particular the least developed, to take full advantage of the multilateral trading system, we have
submitted several concrete proposals for consideration with respect to S&D.
G/AG/NG/W/103  (Proposal by Poland)
We would like to welcome Poland's proposal, which underlines the need to take all elements
of Article 20 into account and learn from the experiences countries have gained from implementing
the UR commitments.  We share the call for equal treatment of the subsidy element of different exportcompetition measures.  We also agree that various elements of domestic agricultural policies may be
viewed as indispensable to maintain a domestic agricultural sector.  We therefore endorse the proposal
to maintain the Blue Box, and support the call fo r flexibility as regards further AMS commitments.
Regarding market access commitments, Norway is favourable to preferential allocation of
quotas, as stated in our own proposal.  The administration of tariff quotas should be transparent,
equitable and not put developing countries at a disadvantage.  However, tariff quotas represent export
opportunities , not export guarantees .  Whether commitments made under the multilateral trading
system actually translate into increased exports from a specific country depend on a number of
factors, including market conditions, consumer preferences and supply side constraints.
We agree with Poland that S&D is an indispensable element of the negotiations and in the
continuation of the reform process.  We also agree that our aim should be to ensure all WTO
Members that various functions of their agriculture could be preserved.  The ultimate result of our
negotiations should thus be a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system that enablescountries to safeguard the multiple functions that are vital to their agriculture, be it povertyG/AG/NG/W/182
Page 3
alleviation, food security, rural development, prot ection of the environment or preservation of the
cultural heritage.
G/AG/NG/W/105  (Proposal by Morocco)
Norway would like to thank the Moroccan delegation for its proposal, which we found
thought-provoking.  The proposal provides a good basis for further discussions on policy reform as
well as on non-trade concerns.  The situation characterising Moroccan agriculture is well described in
the proposal and is probably also relevant to a number of other developing countries.  Specifically, the
proposal describes the vulnerability of the sector and the difficulties that agriculture is facing as a
result of for instance natural disasters.  All in all this reduces the international competitiveness of the
sector and leads to a growing dependence on imports .  We fully support the Moroccan view that it is
essential to take account in the ongoing negotiations of the specific nature of the developing
economies.  We can also go along with several of the specific proposals that Morocco is tabling.  For
instance, in the area of market access, we propose that special attention should be paid to products of
particular interest to developing countries, when considering further MFN tariff reductions.  We havealso noted that Morocco would like to see reduced tariff escalation in foreign markets.  Regarding
protection of the domestic market, we support extending the right to have recourse to the SSG
provisions to all developing countries that do not have this right today.  Regarding the existing Green
Box measures we endorse the Moroccan proposal to introduce new provisions in the S&D category to
take account of the particular conditions prevailing in developing countries.  Regarding AMS support,we support the proposal to increase the de minimis  levels for developing countries.  On export
subsidies, Norway is, on certain conditions that are spelled out in our own proposal, prepared to
accept tighter disciplines.  Finally, on non-trade concerns we share the views expressed in the
proposal that such concerns are particularly relevant for developing countries, and that adequate
flexibility for developing countries is needed in or der to ensure rural development, food security by
supporting domestic production, the maintenance of agricultural activities and a balanced population
throughout the territory and the preservation of nature and biodiversity.  We also understand the views
expressed in the proposal concerning the lack of financial means to address these concerns.
Having said this, we also have several critical comments to the Moroccan proposal, in
particular as we believe the proposal does not adequately take into account the interests of all
Members.  Specifically, in its analysis of the current situation and the challenges facing Moroccanagriculture, Morocco's analysis seems to be based on a perception that all developed countries have a
large-scale, export-oriented agriculture dumping cheap products on the markets of developing
countries.  This is of course not the case.  Several developed countries are producing basically for
their own domestic market.  The level of trade distortions and negative impact on developing
countries of their agricultural policies are therefore more limited.  Moreover, in some of thesedeveloped countries production conditions are extremely difficult, due to a harsh climate, long
distances, a difficult topography, a low population density and small-scale structure, combined with a
general high cost level, resulting in high costs and a very low degree of competitiveness at world
market prices.  In some of these countries agriculture may only be possible through state interventions
implying sometimes considerable levels of support and protection.  In our case, the actual policymeasures needed to sustain domestic agriculture and safeguard non-trade concerns are spelled out in
detail in our own negotiation proposal.  We hope that countries like Morocco, while they are raising
awareness about the special difficulties that developing countries are facing and the special measures
these countries would need, also recognise that developed countries have legitimate interests, and that
every country has the right, according to mutually agreed rules, to secure its agriculture necessary toaddress non-trade concerns.G/AG/NG/W/182
Page 4
G/AG/NG/W/106  (Proposal by Turkey)
Norway would like to thank Turkey for its comprehensive proposal.  The Turkish proposal
emphasises the specificity of the agricultural sector and the special challenges facing developing
countries such as Turkey.  We note that according to Turkey, a purely market-oriented approach maynot be fully compatible with the existing conditions  in the agricultural sector in developing countries.
We can also go along with a number of the proposals made by Turkey.  We understand that given the
importance of the agriculture sector, Turkey would like to have flexibility in identifying some key
products to be exempt from further tariff reductions or at least to be reduced at minimum rates.
We support the proposal to extend the special agricultural safeguards to developing countries
not having the right to have recourse to these safeguards today.  Norway is, within mutually agreedrules, generally in favour of ensuring adequate flexibility in national policy design to all developing
countries and economies in transition.  We believe domestic support to the agricultural sector may be
justified by difficult production conditions, regardless of whether the country in question is a
developing or developed country.  Regarding developed countries and future concessions to be made
in this area, we are prepared to work according to the principle of designing measures that are leasttrade-distorting.  However, we cannot go along with proposals that in reality undermine the
possibilities of countries with difficult and unfavourable production conditions to secure its domestic
agriculture necessary to safeguard non-trade concerns.
G/AG/NG/W/107  (Proposal by Egypt)
Norway would like to welcome the comprehensive proposal submitted by Egypt.  We firmly
share the fundamental belief presented in the proposal that a rules-based multilateral trading system isthe best for all nations.  We also endorse many of the guidelines suggested by Egypt, for instance that
any agreement reached within the WTO system should benefit all Members and that due
consideration should be made for the goals, needs and aspirations of developing and least-developed
countries.  We also agree with Egypt that trad e can be a powerful engine for growth, also in
agriculture.  However, increasing welfare is not only about economic growth.  In our view, the best
way to exploit the welfare-enhancing effects of agricultural trade is by recognizing the specific
characteristics of the agricultural sector and further developing the multilateral trading system based
on this specificity.  The specificity of the agricultural sector mainly stems from two factors.  First, on
the production side agriculture is characterised by its dependence on the natural environment, its site-
specificity and its complexity and long-term attributes as a biological production system.  Thesespecial characteristics have a number of implications for policy design and multilateral trade reform.
The second factor contributing to the specificity of the sector relates to the special role that
agriculture plays in most societies.  Agricultural products are unique and most essential commodities
in every society.  But agriculture is more than just producing food.
All these non-trade concerns of a multifunctional agriculture should, therefore, as stated in
Article 20, be taken into account in the agricultural reform process.
In the negotiations, we therefore need to take a broad approach, not only focusing on trade
concerns and comparative advantage, but also including non-trade concerns that are vital to us all.
We are confident that by dialogue and mutual understanding we will reach solutions that aresatisfactory to all of us.G/AG/NG/W/182
Page 5
G/AG/NG/W/137  (Proposal by Senegal)
Norway would like to thank Senegal for its co mprehensive proposal.  We have not had the
time to study the paper in detail, but I will be making some very preliminary comments.  We see merit
in many of the elements in the paper.  As Jordan, our position is that agriculture should not be dealtwith following a purely trade-centred approach.  I would like to associate myself with the comments
just made by my Swiss colleague.  Non-trade concerns have been firmly established on our agenda,
and we have to see to it that this will be reflected in our work programme for the second phase of the
negotiations.
We see the need to ensure adequate flexibility for countries like Senegal to address food
security, preserving jobs in rural areas and reducing poverty.  We agree that the SSG should be madeavailable to those developing countries not having recourse to it today.  We furthermore agree that
food aid should not distort the agricultural production systems of the developing countries.  Food aid
should in our view be made in fully grant form.
We will get back to the various elements of the proposal during the next phase of the
negotiations.
G/AG/NG/W/139  (Proposal by MERCOSUR, Boli via, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India and
Malaysia)
We would like to welcome the proposal on export credits, submitted by Mercosur, Bolivia,
Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India and Malaysia.  Norway fully agrees on the need to develop
specific multilateral disciplines on export credits, export credit guarantees and export insurance
programmes, which also is called for in Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  This is also in
line with the idea in our own negotiation proposal that the subsidy element of the different export
competition measures should be treated equally.
G/AG/NG/W/140  (Proposal by Jordan)
Norway would like to make some very preliminary comments.  We welcome the Jordanian
proposal and have great understanding for the diffic ult situation described in the paper, which once
again demonstrates the diversity of country situations that we will have to take into account during the
negotiations.
The Jordanian proposal contains quite a few elements we can agree with.  Norway proposes
to make the SSG available to those developing coun tries not having the opportunity to use this today.
We are also in favour of establishing disciplines on export credits and export credit guarantees.
Furthermore, we want the Green Box retained.  We take note of the Jordanian proposal to retain the
Blue Box, even though we disagree that it should be subject to reduction commitments.  On marketaccess, our position remains that the starting point has to be the bound rates.
On NTCs, the Jordanian paper contains some very clear examples of non-trade concerns,
which illustrate the diversity of non-trade concerns that we will have to deal with in the negotiations.
G/AG/NG/W/142  (Proposal by the African Group)
I will be making some very preliminary comments.  We welcome the proposal by the African
Group and understand the difficult situation faced by many countries on the African continent.  Once
again this illustrates the diversity as just stated by Mauritius.G/AG/NG/W/182
Page 6
On market access, I would like to point out that the Norwegian market is already open for
essentially all products from LDCs, and that we are in the process of reviewing the system to further
improve it.
We agree with the African Group on the need for rules and disciplines governing trade in
agriculture to promote development.  We also see the need for S&D in the area of domestic support.
We also agree that food aid should be in fully grant form, and that it should not disrupt domestic
production in recipient countries.  Finally, we also agree on the need for greater policy coherence, not
only among international organizations.  There is also a need for greater coherence in our own
bilateral co-operation with our partners in Africa.
G/AG/NG/W/143  (Proposal by Namibia)
I will be making some very preliminary comments.  We are sympathetic to the special
problems mentioned by Namibia in its proposal, su ch as the low population density and drought.  We
agree with Namibia that food aid should not cause distortions in the market and replace domestic
production.
On non-trade concerns, the proposal seems to limit the scope of Article 20.  I would like to
stress, that Norway does not see non-trade concerns as a free for all for countries to do what theywant.  We see solutions for NTCs within mutually agreed rules and disciplines.
B. Work within the framework of paragraph (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Article 20 of the Agreement on
Agriculture
G/AG/NG/W/88  (Technical Submission by Argentina)
Argentina's submission points at important questions relating to world distribution of
resources and national capacities to support and protect agriculture.  We agree that there may be spill-
over effects on trading partners of a country's agricultural policy.  We also agree that in many cases
TCs and NTCs are complementary.  In particular Norway recognizes that improved market access for
agricultural products is of vital importance to many developing countries as a vehicle for economicgrowth and poverty alleviation.  However, contrary to  what seems to be indicated by Argentina, spill-
over effects may not only go in one direction due to high-support countries affecting low-support
countries.  In a given situation low-support countries may affect the ability to address NTCs in high-
support countries.  There may thus be important trade-offs between TCs and NTCs within and
between countries that call for careful attention. In accordance with Article 20, it is important to find a
balance between different interests in the continuation of the reform process.
G/AG/NG/S/22  (Background paper from the Secretariat on International Agreements)
We would like to thank the Secretariat for having prepared this background paper.  The WTO
policy reform must be undertaken in ways consistent with other relevant multilateral commitments.In the Second Phase of the negotiations Norway w ould like to participate in discussions on how such
consistency could best be ensured.  At this stage we would just like to make a few preliminary
remarks.  First, attention should be focused on multilateral agreements or plurilateral agreements with
a considerable number of Parties.  Second, we should focus on legally binding texts, not on statements
or interpretations.G/AG/NG/W/182
Page 7
We would like to encourage other Members to present their views, and in case of a possible
future update of background paper, inform the Secretariat about which agreements they consider to be
relevant to the reform process.
__________