WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/134
6 March 2001
(01-1089)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FIFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
5-7 FEBRUARY 2001
Statements by the Czech Republic
G/AG/NG/W/91   (Proposal by Japan)
At the outset, we would like to join with others in welcoming a comprehensive Negotiating
Proposal tabled by Japan and in thanking the authorities for the effort they have taken to provide
rationale for various elements contained therein.
Czech Republic can concur with most of the major points which frame Japan's proposal. In
particular, it agrees that the continuation of the WTO reform process in agriculture has to be
supported by public to produce some meaningful and mutually acceptable results.  From our
perspective, one of the prerequisites for that is the recognition of the role of non-trade concerns, such
as rural development, preservation of the environment, food security, consumer concerns and others,which have to play their role in the ongoing negotiations and be taken into account when establishing
modalities for further reductions in support and protection and setting new rules.  We believe that
those non-trade concerns are a legitimate part of the overall objectives of the reform process in
agriculture and we should be able to reconcile them with the trade liberalization efforts.  Moreover, it
is important to respect different models of agriculture and farming and concrete steps have to be taken
to preserve their coexistence.  Lastly, we too are of the firm view that the agricultural negotiations
should be conducted in a broader context of a sufficiently broad based new round.
With regard to market access issues, we noted the proposal according to which flexibility
should be provided to individual products, depending on individual country's current situation, while
recognizing that the reform process is underway.  As to the latter aspect, it corresponds to that part of
the submission made by a group of countries, including the Czech Republic, in which these countriesdrew Members' attention to some specific challenges and difficulties faced by them as a result of
unprecedented transformation  and opening of their agriculture sectors and sought flexibility during
future market access negotiations.
The Czech Republic also took note of the suggestion that the negotiating history be one of the
elements to be taken into account when determining appropriate tariff levels.  In this connection we
wish to point out that present levels of market openings were decided on the basis of various factors,
which in the case of the Czech Republic consisted of the high level of tariff bindings existing prior to
the Uruguay Round, limited scope of non-tariff measures to be converted into increased customs
tariffs and autonomous liberalization measures undertaken in the context of their transformation froma centrally-planned into a market economy.
Regarding safeguards on seasonal and perishable products, we find quite interesting the idea
of establishing new rules to be applied to such products and we wonder to what extent any new rules
could be also applied to other products.  Our experience shows that there is a need for measures
designed to allow for a timely and effective protection when a rapid increase of imports occurs.  At
the same time, we too are of the view that the ex isting SSG system should be maintained and, whereG/AG/NG/W/134
Page 2
necessary, improved to take account of experience gained to date and development in various WTO
Members.
As to the proposal on domestic support, there is a high degree of similarity between what is
contained in Japan's paper and the position of the Czech Republic regarding the usefulness of thepresent framework of rules and disciplines on domestic support and the need for their maintenance
and improvement, where necessary.  We share the view that the coverage of the "Green Box" should
not be limited which does not exclude further clarification and expansion of general rules and
disciplines applying to them.  In fact, we are st rongly interested in incorporating new provisions
allowing to recognize the specific situation of economies in transition through concrete measures as
described in the proposal submitted by a number of countries, including the Czech Republic.  With
respect to the "Blue Box", it is our view that all Members should have the right to introduce or
maintain "blue box" supports.
Regarding rules and disciplines on exports, at this stage we wish to limit our comments to the
issue of export subsidies.  We agree that further reductions in both values and volumes of subsidized
exports are needed.  However, these efforts will provide equitable playing field only if new orstrengthened rules and disciplines in the area of export competition are applied also in relation to such
instruments as officially supported export credits, activities of export state trading and food aid.
G/AG/NG/W/92  (Proposal by Canada)
We would like to express our thanks to Canada for its proposal on domestic support.
According to what is contained in the submission, it complements the proposal previously tabled by
Cairns Group and subsequently commented by Hungary on behalf of several Members, including the
Czech Republic.
We feel extremely uneasy to give positive consideration to most of the ideas developed by
Canada in its paper.  We have always held the view that the current framework for domestic support
as set forth in the Agreement on Agriculture should be maintained and further developed to enable to
take account of specific needs and situations of various Members.  The Canadian suggestion to
establish, for each Member, an overall limit on support of all types, would, if accepted, seriously
undermine the ongoing reform process in agriculture and structural adjustment in a number ofcountries, including mine.  Since this process has not been completed yet, it would be extremely
difficult to adopt any commitment of the type propos ed by Canada that would, in the future, limit
Members' right to develop appropriate agricultural policies and pursue legitimate objectives.
We may have some sympathy for the rationale behind this proposal which lies in reducing
inequities and removing disparities in support levels between countries.  However, we believe that
there are other possibilities and techniques allowing to take these considerations into account.
Turning now to another aspect of the Canadian proposal which is related to the "Green Box",
apparently the Czech Republic is ready to look at the rules and disciplines applied to this category ofsupports with a view to enabling Members to deal with their specific needs and domestic policy goals.
It remains to be seen, to what extent the revise d rules could cover concerns expressed in the joint
proposal by a group of countries, including the Czech Republic, or they would require the inclusion of
a specific provision into the Agreement on Agriculture.
As to permanent non-countervailability of support meeting Annex 2, this is something we will
be willing to consider.  However, we will not give any support to any attempts to limit the scope of
the Peace Clause as proposed by Canada.G/AG/NG/W/134
Page 3
G/AG/NG/W/94   (Proposal by Switzerland)
We would like to welcome the proposal by Switzerland which is another one in the row of
those pleading the case of agriculture in the broader context of non-commercial services the sector
renders to society and the role it plays in contri buting to the viability of rural areas, shaping the
landscape, addressing environmental concerns and meeting societal objectives.  Now, it is important,
as indicated in the Swiss proposal, to ensure that measures taken for legitimate policy objectives do
not harm the interests of other countries.  We believe that this is a crucial question we will have to
address in a constructive and result-oriented manner when discussing various elements of the
continuation of the reform process, including individual Member-specific commitments.
Turning now to other elements of the proposal, we are definitively in agreement with the
Swiss authorities that the extension of additional protection to other products than wines and spirits
that are distinct for their geographical origin should be an integral part of our joint efforts here aiming
at the establishment of a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system.
As to market access related issues, the position of the Czech Republic regarding the
modalities for further reductions in protection is well known.  At this stage, I would like to express
our appreciation to the Swiss authorities for their s upport to the proposal to provide a flexibility to the
transition economies in the future market access negotiations.  We have a sympathy for the idea of
defining modalities allowing to conduct negotiations in connection with the abolishment of tariff
quotas.  On special safeguard provisions, we would be more than ready to look at the ways to improve
the functioning of this mechanism.
With regard to domestic support, we find some merit in the proposal made by Switzerland to
discuss first rules regarding non-trade concerns and only then the criteria and scope of the different
instruments applied to the "amber box".  In that discussion, specific needs of the transition economieshave to be taken properly into account.  We agree that, for the reasons mentioned in reaction to the
proposal made by Canada, we must exclude an absolute multilateral ceiling for the "Green Box".  As
to the scope of the issues to be discussed in the context of export competition, our position is too
known to require any detailed repetition and appare ntly is now apart from the Swiss approach.  There
is one element in the proposal by Switzerland we have not commented yet.  It is about a procedure
enabling to conduct negotiations on a change in export subsidy commitments contained in respective
schedules.  If there are any doubts about the applicability of the existing procedures underArticle XXVIII of the GATT in this instance, then the situation should be clarified.
__________