WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/76
2 January 2001
(01-0003)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
15-17 NOVEMBER 2000
Statements by Namibia
Non-Trade Concerns   (G/AG/NG/W/36)
Namibia would like to thank the group of countries that have produced the various documents
on non-trade concerns.
The documents argue that agriculture has a specific non trade and multi-functional character.
Specifically, they attempt to use Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture to legitimize all forms of
non- trade concerns, trade distorting and non-trade distorting, by classifying these characteristics as a
land function based on cultural and natural values, a supply and demand function based on a country'sability to respond to market forces, characteristics that are external to normal economic measurement
(i.e. "beauty"), and finally, that countries have a right to provide their own food requirements.
Namibia has a relatively liberalized agricultural economy with virtually no domestic or
international trade distortive measures.  While the land use function of the Namibian countryside is
likely to be very high, government's scope to intervene is limited by its low income and distorted
income distribution resulting from historical factors such as colonialism and apartheid.  Low andunpredictable rainfall, poor rural infrastructure, very low levels of capital accumulation and a history
of under-investment in the rural sector means that our agriculture economy cannot respond quickly to
price messages.  Arguments based on positive ex ternalities are noted with concern by Namibia
especially taking into account that our farming conditions are extremely harsh.  Moreover, we feel
that food self sufficiency for strategic reasons runs  contrary to the spirit of the current negotiations
which aim towards greater freedom of trade.  Rather, policies and trade positions which promote
household and national food security are more in-line with our national policy.  Furthermore, Namibia
is also very concerned that the multi-functionality argument can be used to hide measures that distort
agricultural trade.
In conclusion, Namibia is reluctant to accept a broad definition of multi-functionality because
it is not precisely defined, its scope is not known and therefor open to misuse.  However, we recognise
that there are some non-trade concerns that should be taken into account when renegotiating the
Agreement on Agriculture.  Indeed, Namibia has its own non-trade concerns relating to food security,
rural poverty, unemployment and rural degradation.  We acknowledge that provision for theseconcerns has been made under Article 20, albeit vaguely, as Mauritius pointed out in her presentation
earlier, thereby rendering this particular provision open to abuse as opposed to the S&D provision
which is specifically meant for developing countries.
Yet, concerns for food security and for poverty alleviation cannot be accorded equal status
with landscape beauty, which frankly, remains a l uxury for the majority of food-insecure people in
developing Member states as they simply cannot afford such luxuries.G/AG/NG/W/76
Page 2
While Namibia may sympathize and have understanding for countries wishing to advance
legitimate non-trade concerns during the negotiations, we would appreciate it if such countries would
define such non-trade concerns precisely, indicate their scope and most importantly, provide a clearly
motivated estimate of their value and implication th ereof on world agricultural trade.  This would
avoid a situation where non-trade concerns of some become trade concerns of others as expressed by
South Africa and India.
MERCOSUR Proposal
Export Subsidies - Food Security or Food Dependency?   (G/AG/NG/W/38)
Namibia would like to thank the MERCOSUR c ountries for having put together a very
informative and detailed proposal on export subsidies and how they impact markets of countries such
as the NFIDCs.  The proposal calls for the total elimination of export subsidies to ensure that
international trade in agricultural commodities is broug ht in line with general rules of the multilateral
trading system.
Namibia shares the above concern but we however wish to state that it should not be ignored
that export subsidies have indeed benefitted consumers in some countries that are drought prone,NFIDCs and LDCs and countries through the provision of cheap commodities.  However, we also
recognise that the elimination of export subsidies would indeed be to the interest of drought prone,
LDCs and NFIDCs in the medium to long term.  The question that should be asked is how best can
these two anomalies be reconciled?  It would be desirable that whatever compromise that is reached
also addresses countries that benefit from cheap subsidized products.
Namibia would therefore suggest that a time-frame or transitional period be established for
substantial reduction of export subsidies leading to their eventual elimination.  The transitional period
would allow countries benefitting from subsidized imports to adjust, as well as, put in place
mechanisms that would address the eventual elimination of subsidized exports into their markets.
Sometimes countries cannot compete or produce enough for their domestic market due to
supply constraints.  Elimination of export subsidies alone is not a panacea for ensuring food security.
It is therefore imperative that during the transitional period, supply constraints such as infrastructure,
access to credit (in some cases) be addressed.  Otherwise the whole process of doing away withcheaper commodity imports for NFIDCs, LDCs and drought prone countries will not bear the desired
fruits and would indeed make such countries worse off and food insecure in the short term.
Cairns Group Proposal - Domestic Support   (G/AG/NG/W/35)
Namibia would like to comment on the proposal submitted by the Cairns group on domestic
support, document reference number G/AG/NG/W/35.
The Cairns group proposal stresses that the Urug uay Round's principles that sought to reduce
trade and production distorting forms of support by allocation on the various boxes have not been
successful.  The results, the paper argues, is that trade disputes continue with the current provisions ofthe Uruguay Round favouring mostly developed countries.  Consequently, as measures to address
these disparities the Cairns group proposes a formula approach that would reduce over time, address
and reduce trade and production distorting domestic support with the aim of total elimination over
time.G/AG/NG/W/76
Page 3
While Namibia appreciates and agrees that eventual elimination of all trade distorting
domestic support as provided by developed countries will, in the medium and long term, be beneficial
to the world agricultural trading environment and to the economies of developing countries in
particular, Namibia wishes to point out that there are developing countries that benefit from theseanomalies in the agricultural markets through higher commodity prices.  In view of this, Namibia
would suggest that mechanisms be established, that would enable developing countries, during the
reduction phase, to cushion the impact of such reductions and to readjust before trade and production
distorting support mechanisms are totally eliminated.
One such mechanism would be to accord S&D provisions to developing countries in the form
of retention of NTBs and tariffs until such a time that fairness or substantial reductions in trade andproduction distorting support is achieved. Namibia wishes to emphasise that it does not have the
financial means to introduce programmes that would protect its producers from unfair competition.
The best that a country like Namibia can do in such circumstances is to revert to institutional
measures.
Furthermore, international support to developing countries could include enhancement of
food security programmes, as well as agricultural and rural development investment programmes that
enhance the supply side during the reduction phase.
In conclusion, Namibia notes that the formula approach being proposed by the Cairns Group
will be reduced over time but wishes to caution that any such formula must not be overly complicated
but rather simple in order to ease its implementation.  Namibia stands ready to explore the modalities
of such a formula together with all interested parties.
Market Access
Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Hondur as, Kenya, India, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Uganda
and Zimbabwe   (G/AG/NG/W/37)
Namibia welcomes and supports the proposal on "Market Access" which addresses some of
the problems and limitations encountered by many developing countries in accessing markets ofdeveloped nations.
The proposal is specific on various NTBs that are imposed on exports from the developing
countries into developed countries and emphasises the need for simplification of the tariff rate quota
administration.
On the issue of Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs), Namibia would like to see that these be
simplified, made more transparent and increased for developing countries.  Such a measure would
complement efforts by countries such as Namibia whose efforts to diversify their production base into
high value commodities through improved market acce ss have thus far been frustrated by the current
complicated and non-transparent TRQ administration procedures.
Consequently, on the issue of tariff peaks, Namibia would also like to see speedy tariff
reductions and reduction in tariff escalations in developed countries as this would effectively open
markets and encourage value addition to the primary exports of developing countries.
Namibia wishes to conclude by echoing the sentiments expressed on SPS provisions in the
proposal and how they are used as barriers to trade.  This issue is of importance to Namibia,
particularly as it is engaged, as already stated, in a process of diversifying its production base intoG/AG/NG/W/76
Page 4
non-traditional commodities.  However, such domestic efforts will remain futile if there are no
uniformly agreed SPS standards.  It is simply too costly for countries such as Namibia to pour
substantial resources into conforming with standard s of one country or region, and only to be told that
these standards are unacceptable in another market.
Market Access – Canada   (G/AG/NG/W/12 )
Namibia thanks Canada for its proposal on Market access.  The proposal emphasizes
simplifying tariffs in order to avoid them being used as a barrier to trade especially in the case of tariff
escalation between unprocessed and processed products.  It is important that conditions be established
that would induce developing countries to take opportunities of value-adding to their agriculturalproducts.
Namibia also wishes to state that while tariff quotas provide market access, problems with the
administration of quotas exist.  Tariff reduction can  be beneficial if implemented in combination with
reduced export subsidies, domestic support and Blue Box payments.  If not, those countries that havealready liberalized will continue to experience pr oblems with distorted market prices and dumping.
Namibia would also like to draw Canada's at tention to differentiate between developed and
developing countries, particularly regarding conditions that would serve the interests of these two
groupings.  Namibia believes that there is a clear need for further reduction of tariffs, improved quotasand improved S&D provisions for developing countries, LDCs and NFIDCs.
Agreement on Agriculture: Green Box/ ANNEX 2 Subsidies & Special and Differential
Treatment and a Development Box   (G/AG/NG/W/14)
Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Pakistan, Haiti, Nicaragua, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe,
Sri Lanka and El Salvador.
The paper addresses the Green Box measures under the Agreement on Agriculture which are
not subject to any reductions and argues that this has been misused by developed countries to hide
subsidies and other support to their producers.  Furthermore, despite these reductions, studies showthat the level of support to producers by developed countries has increased since 1995.  The lack of
transparency of the Green Box is also cited as a major problem as is the "due restraint clause" which
protects Green Box measures from any countervailing duties.
The proposal recommends collapsing all domestic support into one general "subsidies box".
This recommendation could provide a common level of support for all countries, with developing
countries granted protection under the Due Restraint Clause of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The
subsidies box would also prevent the misuse of Green Box subsidies which are potentially more trade
distorting than is acknowledged.  The subsidies box would also bring in more transparency.
However, will the formation of a general subsidies box lead to greater transparency?  Certain
subsidies such as export subsidies may increase as a result, which could disadvantage developing
countries if no set disciplines are incorporated into this box.
For Namibia, a "general subsidies box" would be desirable, although it remains that most
developing countries cannot afford the proposed or most subsidies.  Thus, such a box would again
only be of use to countries that can subsidize.  An alternative would be to set better and stricter
disciplines and limits on the Green Box measures with the eventual aim of reducing overall trade
distorting support levels.G/AG/NG/W/76
Page 5
Special and Differential Treatment G/AG/NG/W/13
Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Pakistan, Haiti, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka
and El Salvador.
Namibia would like to thank the group of eleven countries that submitted this proposal.  The
proposal stresses food security as not only being an economic issue but also considers its implications
such as political independence, sovereignty and national security.  The proposal further argues that the
Agreement on Agriculture gives Special and Differenti al treatment (S&D) to developed rather than to
developing countries as levels of subsidies have increased since the implementation of the Agreement
on Agriculture.
Namibia would like to provide two comments on the proposal.
1. Namibia agrees with the concept of creating a development box with policy instruments that
would consider domestic production in staples, employment of the rural population to alleviate
poverty, flexibility in providing support to small-holder farmers and the elimination of dumpingsubsidized products.  However, Namibia would like to point out that limited resources in most
developing countries may make such an initiative difficult to realise.
2. Namibia agrees with the proposal that developing countries would need improved S&D
treatment in order to achieve some of their developmental goals.  Developed countries have been ableto channel subsidies into the Green Box which are not subject to any reduction or discipline, thus
keeping existing subsidy levels from being reduced.
The Blue Box & other Support Measures to Agriculture – EU   (G/AG/NG/W/17)
The European Community's proposal G/AG/NG/W/17 on Blue Box focuses on the positive
aspects of this feature, particularly that it has been an important instrument in the domestic
agricultural reform process of the European Communities and therefore should be maintained.  The
EC's proposal also cites evidence from a study that was conducted by the OECD which supports the
view that Blue Box support measures have less impact on the production, trade and welfare of other
countries.
Namibia would however wish to make the fo llowing observation.  The Blue Box provision
was a compromise to move the process in the URRA forward.  Most of the provisions are limited to a
few countries and its provisions remain vague and less transparent.  It is precisely for these reasons
that Namibia questions the prudence of maintaining the Blue Box in its current form.  Is this "box"really necessary given that it only benefits a few countries?  While we understand that it would not be
possible to completely do away with the provisions  of the Blue Box, Namibia suggests that the Blue
Box be quantified to allow greater transparency, capped and then be subject to an eventual phase-
down commitment.
Food Quality:  Improvement of Ma rket Access – EC   (G/AG/NG/W/18)
The EC proposal on food quality touches on concerns of consumers to know what is
contained in the product and the regulations that should govern food quality.
Namibia recognizes the importance of the preservation of food quality specificity, consumer
choice and increased market access to producers.  Yet, Namibia also recognizes that consumerG/AG/NG/W/76
Page 6
perceptions in one country may not be in the interest of another.  This is especially true when exports
are met with resistance in a market that has a strong consumer lobby.
Namibia would like to make the following th ree observations to the proposal by the EC.
- Protection against the usurpation of names, unfair competition and predatory actions
of some multinationals in the food industry is strongly supported by Namibia,
however, we are concerned about the limited control that developing countries have
over this process.  Consequently, it is our suggestion that mechanisms be put in place
to ensure that developing countries play an active role in this process.
- The lack of harmonization of regulations among the various members of the EU to
food and beverages imports is equally of concern to Namibia and it is our hope that
the EC will work towards harmonising these instruments for the benefit of all
concerned.
- Finally, Namibia wishes to caution that the quest for products of high reputation due
to their regional specificity or traditional origin should not result in unfair
discrimination of products from non-traditional origins.
Animal Welfare and Trade in Agriculture – EC   (G/AG/NG/W19)
Namibia wishes to  briefly comment on the paper proposed by the EC on animal welfare.
As pointed out by other delegations before us, animal welfare, in the absence of
internationally agreed standards is highly subjective depending on the cultural, ethical attitudes andperspectives towards animals and animal production practices in a particular country or area.
Namibia is concerned that attempts to compensate producers for high standards could lead to
more subsidies and would also effectively rule out certain production systems where standards are not
applicable or known.
Namibia welcomes the debate on animal welfare standards but would suggest that this be
discussed at a different forum than the WTO, particularly as there are no set standards available.
__________