. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/8
18 April 2000
(00-1572)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FIRST SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
23-24 MARCH 2000
Statement by Fiji
My delegation wishes to thank you for accepting  the Chairmanship of this Special Session of
the Committee on Agriculture.  We stand ready to assist you wherever possible.  We are confident
that through your able guidance, we would be able to achieve much-needed progress in launching the
new negotiations on agriculture.  Your own personal esteem and experience would galvanize thesupport needed to make our task a success.
The commencement of the negotiations on agriculture today, as you know, will certainly
restore much-needed confidence in the work of the Committee and indeed the WTO as a whole.  If we
succeed in our task, it will be a signal testimony that all is not lost post-Seattle, as some would haveus believe.  My delegation is hopeful that the process we will launch today will lead to a fairer trade in
agriculture, not just freer trade.
Fiji is a small island developing country.  Its economy and indeed the future of its people is
intricately interwoven with its ability to develop its agricultural resources, limited as they are.
Approximately 25 per cent of Fiji's total economic activities are in the agriculture sector.  This is
expected to rise significantly in the coming years as governments land use policy is implementedwhich is likely to see an increase in investment in this sector.  Agriculture provides 50 per cent of the
country's total employment and contributes 19 per cent to Fiji's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Frankly speaking Fiji has not done well under the liberalization of trade in agricultural
commodities.  Apart from the sale of approximately $250 million worth of raw sugar under specialarrangement (Lomé Convention) to the EU there has been very little positive development in our
agricultural trade with any of the developed world.  We have tried diversification in the fisheries and
tropical food products sectors, but we have found that some of the developed countries we trade with
have mastered the art of using other WTO rules as a trade barrier against market access for our
products.
The consultative mechanisms built in to various WTO agreements have become talk shops
that eat up valuable time, while our products lack market access.  Under the Uruguay Round
Agreements countries like Fiji came away believin g that the 'Special and Differential Treatment'
provision of the Agreement on Agriculture would be a positive step forward in achieving the objectiveof free and fair trade.  That all concerned would really make an effort to ensure that the developing
countries of WTO would be given real market access opportunity for their goods.  This is yet to
materialize.
At this early point in the negotiations, my delegation would simply wish to reiterate a few
issues of importance to us as we try to start the process again.  I refer to these issues briefly:G/AG/NG/W/8
Page 2
- We believe that it is important that an assessment of the effects of the Agreement on
Agriculture on developing countries and developed countries must be undertaken.
There is evidence in a recent study by the FAO which supports our concern that
poverty and unemployment rise in developing countries, as a result of the type of
trade liberalization that the Agreement on Agriculture has brought about.  We need toestablish the facts and see the imbalances that are occurring so that in our negotiation
we can address them to stop the unequal flow of benefits that is presently going only
to the developed countries.
- Some countries were too hasty in calculating their country schedules (tariff rates, etc.)
and made commitments which in hindsight are impossible to sustain if social and
economic development objectives are to be achieved.  These countries should beallowed to recalculate their tariff levels.
- The 'special and differential treatment provision' should be given a more flexible
interpretation to allow developing countries to use domestic support measures and
transparent import controls as national government sees fit, to encourage domesticfood production and reduce poverty.  These measures will not be trade-distorting
because they support small farmers and households who supply the local economy
and do not trade internationally.
- We acknowledge the multifunctional role of agriculture in small economies like ours.
It has contributed to raising of living standards in rural areas, poverty alleviation and
in the sustainable development of the environment.  We would support the
recognition of this fact as the basis for special consideration in the context of these
negotiations.
I have referred to those few issues more to illustrate the concerns that a small island
developing country like Fiji is concerned about in the context of the new agriculture negotiations we
are launching today.  The negotiations will only be a success if they seek to effectively address the
concerns of all Members of this organization in a manner that is transparent and fair.  The big and the
small must feel the same at the end of the process – that they have been given a fair hearing and
consideration.  Justice must not only be seen to be done, it has to be done and it must be blind to the
size or economic power of the participants.
On the issue of the sequencing of future meetings, we agree with the proposal that we hold
negotiating sessions back-to-back with the regular session of the Committee on Agriculture in June,
September and November 2000.  We also agree that submissions on negotiating proposals be made by
December this year.
Thank you again Mr Chairman for giving me this opportunity to make this statement at this
opening session and to the Members for their indulgence in listening.
__________