WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/163
6 April 2001
(01-1761)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  Spanish
SIXTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
22-23 MARCH 2001
Statements by Cuba, Honduras and the Dominican Republic
G/AG/NG/W/102  (Proposal by India)
On behalf of the delegations of Cuba, Honduras and the Dominican Republic we wish to
thank the delegation of India for submitting its paper G/AG/NG/W/102.  We regard it as a very usefulcontribution to this negotiating process.  Our delegations welcome the fact that India has taken
account in its proposal of many of the elements that we had already submitted in our paper on
establishing a development box, envisaged within special and differential treatment, and our proposals
on market access and on domestic support.
With regard to food security, we share the principle emphasized in the Indian paper, but take
the view that the development perspective should be a priority in the present negotiations and it
should be recognized that the economic, financial, technological and development situations in the
developing countries are different from those of the developed countries.  Consequently, we consider
it highly important to establish a development box that will cover the special advantages and the
flexibility needed to narrow these differences.  We hope to be able to work together with the
distinguished delegation of India so as to arrive at a common framework in managing to meet ourconcerns, which are after all the same.
In connection with the section on market access, we fully agree with the Indian delegation's
opinion that tariff reduction in the developing countries should be closely tied in with existing
distortions, especially in the domestic support and export subsidy sectors, as well as with thedevelopment needs of those countries.  The developed countries that cause distortions of this kind can
not demand or expect the developing countries to make substantial tariff reductions during the present
negotiations.  Similarly, as we had indicated in our proposal on special and differential treatment, we
consider that all developing countries should be allowed the special safeguard mechanism,
irrespective of the tariffication process, since the majority of our countries do not have a defencemechanism against a surge in imports and a substantial decline in international prices.  We believe
that India's proposal that the developing countries should be exempted from the obligation to offer
minimum market access is very important.  It is a good idea and we support it.
We also fully agree, as we had already indi cated in our paper G/AG/NG/W/37, in connection
with market access, that it needs to be simplified, that tariff rate quota administration by the
developed countries should be more transparent and equitable, that tariff quota volumes should be
progressively increased, and the allocation of quotas should be product-specific.  Also very important
is the proposal for an initial 50 per cent reduction in the tariff levels of the developed countries.  We
fully support this position.  However, as to the preferential allocation of quotas to developing
countries with a per capita income of under $1,000, we share the overall concept but believe that theG/AG/NG/W/163
Page 2
$1,000 threshold is not suitable, since an internationally accepted category, like the World Bank's
middle lower level, for example, should be used.
In connection with the section on domestic support, we are grateful for India's contribution, as
it goes deeper into several elements already raised in our paper G/AG/NG/W/14.  In particular, weendorse the idea that the developed countries should make an initial contribution before the end of
2001 by a 50 per cent reduction in domestic support in relation to the level granted in the year 2000.
We also support the proposal that all measures the developing countries can take to reduce poverty
and foster rural development, rural employment and agricultural diversification should be exempted
from reduction commitments.
Lastly, with regard to the section on export competition, we fully support the elimination of
export subsidies, as well as the idea that the developed countries ought to reduce subsidy outlays and
subsidized volumes by 50 per cent compared with the year 2000, before the end of 2001.
G/AG/NG/W/107  (Proposal by Egypt)
On behalf on the delegations of Cuba, Honduras and the Dominican Republic, we wish to
thank the Egyptian delegation for submitting its paper G/AG/NG/W/107.  We regard it as a very
useful contribution to this negotiating process.  Our delegations welcome the fact that Egypt has taken
into account in its proposal many of the elements we had already submitted in our paper on the
establishment of a development box, within special and differential treatment, and in our proposals onmarket access and domestic support.
We agree with the elements proposed in the sections on market access, domestic support and
export subsidies.  We cannot, however, support Egypt's position when it says that the Agreement on
Safeguards would be enough to protect production sectors from massive imports of subsidizedproducts.  With reference to the section on special and differential treatment, by and large we share
the arguments advanced.  Nevertheless, while we agree that any tariff reduction by the developing
countries should be on the basis of the bound rates, we feel that, as long as the trade distortions
continue, the developing countries should not reduce their tariffs still more.  We concur that tariff
reductions by the developed countries should be on the basis of the rates actually applied.  The rates
resulting from this reduction will have to be bound.
G/AG/NG/W/130  (Proposal by Nigeria)
On behalf of the delegations of Cuba, Honduras and the Dominican Republic we wish to
thank the delegation of Nigeria for submitting its paper G/AG/NG/W/130 and would also like to make
the following comments.
We fully share Nigeria's expectations that the current negotiations should manage to establish
a fairer and more balanced trade in agriculture, eliminating trade-distorting practices and at the same
time responding to the concerns of the developing countries.  In this connection, we fully agree with
the section of the proposal on special and differential treatment and on food security.  As the Nigeriandelegation states in its paper, the developing countries must enjoy the requisite flexibility, both in
market access and in domestic support, to succeed in establishing an equitable situation as between
the developing and the developed countries.  We also share the idea that agreement must be reached
on concrete action in favour of the net food-importing countries.
G/AG/NG/W/136  (Proposal by Kenya)
On behalf on the delegations of Cuba, Honduras and the Dominican Republic we wish to
thank the delegation of Kenya for submitting its excellent paper G/AG/NG/W/130.  We are gratifiedG/AG/NG/W/163
Page 3
to note that the delegation of Kenya has endorsed our proposal on the establishment of a development
box to consolidate, strengthen and materialize the provisions on special and differential treatment.
Again, we fully agree with the Kenyan proposal that all agricultural trade-distorting subsidies should
be abolished and that the developing countries must not be expected to grant greater market access
concessions until such distortions have been eliminated.  We also support the establishment of atechnical and financial assistance mechanism to help the developing countries meet international
sanitary standards, as well as concrete measures to implement the Decision of the Food-Importing
Countries.
__________