WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/30
11 July 2000
(00-2826)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
SECOND SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
29-30 JUNE 2000
Statement by Norway
I.  Comments on documents from the Secretariat and on Norwegian experiences
• As part of the initial negotiation phase, the Special Session needs to carefully consider the
elements (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Article 20.  Based on the background papers and our own
experience, we would like to highlight some lessons from the reform process.
• Since the implementation began in 1995 substantial progress has been made in reforming
agricultural policy and market-orienting the agricultural sector.  Domestic and international policy
reform efforts have resulted in a more predictable and stable trade and policy environment with
specific disciplines in the areas of market access, domestic support and export competition.  This
has contributed to reduced trade distortions, to gains in economic efficiency and to a closerrelationship between developments in domestic and world markets.
• The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture brought for the first time agricultural policy
measures under multilateral trade disciplines, with specific bindings and reduction commitments.This has lead  to increased attention being paid to the level of support and protection as well as to
different types of policy measures, both internationally and domestically, which in turn seems tohave had a significantly disciplining effect  on agricultural policy design, compared to the pre-UR
situation.
• The Agreement on Agriculture has brought substantially enhanced predictability and stability  to
the sector.  The transformation of non-tariff import  measures into bound customs duties and
binding commitments on domestic support and export subsidies represented a capital shift in and
streamlining of market access and support regimes.
• The establishment of binding Schedules and the procedure of annual notifications and reviews of
Members' support and protection schemes represent an important step forward regardingtransparency .  All notifications are published on WTO's Internet site and can be questioned by
other Members.  Also other stakeholders, academia and media thus have opportunity to follow
closely the developments in agricultural policies in Member countries.
• Regarding market access , in the case of Norway, imports of agricultural products have increased
by 23 per cent since 1995.  In connexion with the introduction of a tariff-only regime theNorwegian GSP scheme was improved to stimulate imports from developing countries, in
particular the least developed countries.  In 1999 the average MFN tariff in agriculture was
38.5 per cent, with wide dispersions between high tariffs on sensitive products such as meat and
low tariffs or duty free market access for imports of tropical products.  The value of total importsG/AG/NG/W/30
Page 2
of agricultural products in 1999 amounted to 2 billion USD with an average applied tariff of
6.5 per cent.
• We welcome the paper on tariff quota administration and tariff quota fill.  We see that no simple
conclusions can be drawn regarding which method or methods result in high or low quota fill.  In
our experience other factors than administration methods, such as price and market conditions aredeterminant.  Moreover, our experience with the auctioning system has been good.  It constitutes
a transparent and predictable system and imports under these quotas have increased since the
introduction of the system, partly due to importers getting familiar with the system.
• Regarding domestic support , in many Member countries the commitments seem to have caused
important restraints in the use of such support.  In the case of Norway, domestic supportcommitments have been a binding constraint in the determination of target prices and/or base
deficiency payments.  Furthermore, countries may have wished not to fully take advantage of theopportunities for political reasons and/or in order to establish a safeguard margin compared to the
commitments.
• Regarding export subsidies , the UR commitments have had a major impact on the support level
and have been an essential element  in our common endeavour towards a fair and market-oriented
agricultural trading system.  We see that major exporters as well as countries with limitedagricultural exports now face limitations in the use of export subsidies.
• Norway is a net-importer of agricultural products, and our agricultural policy aims inter alia at
securing a viable agricultural sector with domestic production required to properly address non-trade concerns.  However, we export a few products, in particular cheese.  In the case of Norway,
export subsidy commitments constitutes a binding constraint and has been a major force ofchange in the Norwegian dairy and milk marke ting regime, including substantial reductions in
milk quotas.  Therefore, based on our experience it seems that export subsidy commitments may
cause major changes also in domestic policies.
• Regarding the Decision on measures concerning the possible negative effects of the reform
programme on least-developed and net food-importing developing countries , we believe that
effective implementation of this Decision is important.  Norway welcomes the background papers
the secretariat has prepared on this issue.
• In order for LDCs and net food-importing developing countries to reap the benefits of agricultural
trade liberalization and mitigate possible negative effects of the reform process, food aid as well
as technical and financial assistance are important.  We are pleased to note that the negotiationson the new food aid convention were completed last year, though with a reduced level of
minimum annual contributions compared to the previous conventions of 1986 and 1995.  We are
concerned about this decline, even though food aid should never be viewed as an end in itself, but
as a means to mitigate possible negative effects and improve  food security.  In this connection it is
important to ensure that food aid distributed to LDCs and net food-importing developingcountries is well targeted in order to reach those segments of the population that need it the most.
One should also as far as possible seek to avoid that food aid becomes a disincentive for domestic
production .
• Technical and financial assistance to improve agricultural productivity and infrastructure in LDCs
and net food-importing developing countries are in the longer run the more important means in
order to facilitate these countries' better integration in the multilateral trading system.  Increased
exports of value-added products should be further encouraged in order to better diversify the
economies and improve the trade performance of the LDCs.  In addition to providing technicalG/AG/NG/W/30
Page 3
and financial assistance, industrialized countries, as well as developing countries that are in
position to do so, should make an even more important contribution by improving market access
for products of export interest to the LDCs.
• Regarding the agricultural trade performance by developing countries 1990-98 , the statistical
information contained in this paper provides us with valuable information.  Experience indicates
that there have been significant and important increases in developing countries value of exports
and their share of world agricultural exports.  Bearing in mind that implementation of the
Uruguay Round as a whole will generate increasing opportunities for trade expansion and
economic growth, Norway would like to empha sise the importance of further integrating
developing countries, and in particular the LDCs, into the multilateral trading system.
• However, the background papers for the Special Sessions on agriculture should not cover
products outside the Agreement on Agriculture as su ggested by Mexico.  More importantly, as the
data provided are very aggregated, we would like to obtain more specific information on the trade
performance of different developing countries, including which countries have gained or lost
market shares in the period examined.  This analysis should be limited to the main product
categories covered by the Agreement on Agriculture.
II.  Comments on documents from Members
• We have noted the preliminary proposals submitted by the US on comprehensive long-term
agricultural trade reform and domestic support, by Canada on market access and by the Cairnsgroup on export competition.
• First of all, the ideas put forward through these proposals need very careful scrutiny and
discussion.  Coming as they do from Members which have demonstrated a fairly differentapproach to the continuation of the reform process than we have, it should come as no surprise
that we have serious difficulties with some of these ideas.  In our view, the proposals go far
beyond Article 20.  Moreover, agricultural production conditions are varying considerably among
WTO Members.  The different levels of support and protection reflect the heterogeneity anddiversity of country situations.  As far as we can see, the proposals ignore important constraints
such as the difficult production conditions that many high-cost low-potential countries are facing
and the narrow product range countries, for climatic reasons, are relying on when non-trade
concerns are addressed.  Safeguarding of such concerns requires an appropriate combination of
policy measures, including measures related to production.
• We will get back to different proposals with more detailed comments when we get to the
stocktaking next year, after having finished the necessary analysis relating to Article 20 (a), (b)
and (c).
• We welcome the proposals number 13 and 14 submitted by 11 developing countries.  We
encourage the active participation of these countries and hope that also other developing countries
will submit proposals and papers for discussion.
• We share the view that developing countries need flexibility in national agricultural policy design
in order to ensure economic growth and achieve various development objectives.  As their paperrightly point out, special and differential treatment was conceived in acknowledgement of the fact
that developing countries have very different economic, financial, technological and developmentcircumstances as compared to developed countries.  In the continuation of the reform process
special advantages and flexibility must therefore be given to developing countries to take into
account their different needs and position.G/AG/NG/W/30
Page 4
• In the continuation of the policy reform process in agriculture, all Members, both developing and
developed, must be given sufficient flexibility and room for manoeuvre in national agriculturalpolicy design to ensure a viable domestic agricultural sector with domestic production required to
properly address NTCs.  In doing so, the specific situation of each country, including national
priorities and production conditions, must be duly taken into account.  We are looking forward to
co-operating with other Members, including developing countries, to this end.
III.  Proposals regarding preparation of documents from the Secretariat to the SS
• We would like to make two proposals for further background papers to be prepared by the
Secretariat.  First, the Secretariat should in  our view prepare a factual summary paper on non-
trade concerns, based on the AIE process.  This paper should list the various non-trade concerns
raised by Members and briefly report on the various proposals made by Members regarding how
NTCs should be addressed in the reform process.
• With respect to the Brazilian intervention made ye sterday, we would like to recall that the AIE-
process consisted of an exchange of analysis and information in order to prepare the ground for
negotiations.  We would therefore be surprised if analytical contributions to that process could not
be drawn upon in the present stage of the special sessions.
• Second, a factual paper identifying other international agreements and declarations that have
relevance for the agricultural negotiations should also be prepared by the Secretariat.
__________