. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/22
11 July 2000
(00-2837)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
SECOND SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
29-30 JUNE 2000
Statement by Brazil
Let me first thank and congratulate the Secretariat for the enormous amount of work in
preparing the many background papers for this Second Special Session.
I would like to offer some preliminary comments on one of these papers.  The one on
"Agricultural Trade Performance by De veloping Countries" (G/AG/NG/S/6).
It deals with the performance of developing countries during the period pre- and post-
Uruguay Round.  It bases its analysis on data covering the period of 1990 to 1998.
A first reading of this paper may lead Members, as it led us, to a somewhat surprising
perception that the liberalization provided by the Agreement on Agriculture, although modest, hasproduced some positive impact to developing countries' agricultural exports.  As a developing country
that participates in the agricultural world market as an importer and exporter of food, Brazil can say
from experience that there is still vast room to improve the agricultural trade performance of
developing countries.
The section on "Highlights" and the supporting tables seem to suggest that liberalization of
agricultural world market has been positive for developing countries.  In this context, the paperpresents some key features, such as:
- "over the period 1994 to 1997, the growth of agricultural exports from developing
countries accelerated as compared to the first half of the 1990s";
- "agricultural exports of developing countri es expanded more rapidly than those of the
developed countries";
- "developing countries' import markets are becoming increasingly important as outlets
for agricultural exports from developing countries";  and so on.
These key features, while correct, may have different interpretations.  For example:- to say that from 1994 to 1997, the growth of  agricultural exports from developing
countries accelerated as compared to the first half of the 1990s is a correctassumption.  The emphasis, however, is excessive because the year of 1998 was
excluded.  If included, and the Secretariat did mention that, the picture would be
another one:  an annual growth of 3.7 per cent for the period 1994-1998 versus
6.1 per cent from 1990-1994;G/AG/NG/W/22
Page 2
- as for the agricultural exports of developing countries, which expanded more rapidly
than those of the developed countries, the supporting tables identify an increase of
only 1 per cent in the share of developing countries in the period of 1994 to 1998.
This minimal increase, within the range of statistical errors , means that our share
has raised from 41 ½ per cent to 42 ½ per cent.  Again, while correct, this informationhas to be put under the right perspective:  developing countries, which comprise
three-quarters of this Organization, are responsible for less than half of the world
agricultural exports.  This conclusion is even more worrisome if we take into
consideration that agriculture is the backbone of developing countries' economies.  In
sum, developing countries need a bigger share;
- The paper also flags that developing countries' import markets are becoming
increasingly important as outlets for agricultural exports from developing countries.
From the point of view of developing countries, this information means, among other
factors, that there is more trade and less protectionism  among developing
countries.  As for developed countries, however, it could be interpreted that the
richest countries are, as the OECD pointed out in a recent study, increasing theirlevels of support and protection.  The same OECD paper says – and I quote – "in
many [developed] countries, agriculture is only weakly influenced by market
signals".
- According to the Secretariat's paper, Western Europe is the most important market for
agricultural exports from developing countries.  But, let us not forget that Europe's
share of imports has declined;  so has Japan's .
Another information that reinforces the Brazilian perception that agricultural reform is
necessary and urgent is the fact that developed countries' imports of agricultural products fromdeveloping countries grew less in the post-Uruguay Round period than in the preceding period.
For Brazil, the Uruguay Round has asked for a lot in terms of concessions and commitments
and has still to deliver the expected results in terms of market access to our products.
To conclude, let me just say that Brazil found the structure of document G/AG/NG/S/6 quite
innovative.  It is the only background paper that presents a section called "highlights".  We could notfind the same approach in the background papers on export subsidies or domestic support.  We would
like to see a balance or a harmonized approach to all papers.
Additionally, Brazil would like to ask the Secretariat to update this paper so as to include
analysis of the performance of raw products agains t value added exports of developing countries.  We
would also like some additional information on th e participation of developing countries in the
agricultural trade of products that compete with the exports of developed countries;  the same for the
main products that receive export subsidies and domestic support from developed countries.  We
would also ask for this analysis to address both the questions of value and volume in order to measure
the real growth of developing countries' exports.
__________