WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/61
13 December 2000
(00-5402)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  Spanish
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
15-17 November 2000
Statements by Bolivia
Note on non-trade concerns (G/AG/NG/W/36)
Article 20(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture states that Members agree that negotiations for
continuing the reform process will be initiated "taking into account … non-trade concerns, special and
differential treatment to developing country Members, and the objective to establish a fair andmarket-oriented agricultural trading system, and the other objectives and concerns mentioned in the
preamble to this Agreement;".  The preamble indicates that food security and the need to protect the
environment are integral elements of non-trade concerns.
The Rome Summit defined food security as access by people "at all times … to sufficient …
food … for an active and healthy life".  This definition does not mention the need for all countries to
be self-sufficient and produce all or the majority of the food they consume, but some countries
consider that food security policies aimed at achieving a minimum level of self-sufficiency are
prudent.  Each country's special features will determine the level of support required by the
agricultural sector in order to attain this objective.  Nevertheless, achieving a minimum level of self-
sufficiency cannot be used as an excuse for granting trade-distorting subsidies.  Where this is the case,
the objective is no longer food security but access to international markets through unfair competition.
Consequently, food security is an abstract concep t that cannot be situated either in time or in
space.  At the end of the second millennium, the defining features of food security are very different
in developed and developing countries.  In 1997, the average daily per capita supply of calories in the
least-developed countries was 2,099 calories, in developing countries as a whole it was 2,663 caloriesand in OECD countries 3,380 calories.
1
It is not the same thing to talk of food security when the average GDP per capita in
least-developed countries is US$1,064.00, in developing countries as a whole US$3,270.00 and in
OECD countries US$20,357.00 (1998 data).2  The concept of food security takes on another
dimension when agriculture accounts for 32.7 per cent of GDP in the least-developed countries,
13.5 per cent in developing countries as a whole and 2.2 per cent in OECD countries3 and when it is
estimated that 30.3 per cent of the population will not survive until age 40 in least-developed
countries, 14.3 per cent in developing countries as a whole and 3.9 per cent in OECD countries.4
                                                     
1 Human Development Report 2000, page 240, published by the United National Development
Programme (UNDP).
2 Idem , page 160.
3 Idem , page 209.
4 Idem , page 171.G/AG/NG/W/61
Page 2
The adverse effects of the production and export subsidies granted by some developed
countries have a direct impact on food security in developing countries and jeopardize their political
and social stability by increasing the poverty of their populations, especially in rural areas, thus
creating an ever-increasing migratory flow to urban centres and the proliferation of belts of poverty incities.
It should be recalled that the urban population percentage rose from 26.1 per cent to 39 per
cent between 1975 and 1998, that the poverty ratio deteriorated and that combating poverty has
become the first item on the agenda of government policies in developing countries.
Indicators for Examining the Question of Food Security
in Developing Countries and in the OECD Countries
Least-developed
countriesAll developing
countriesOECD countries
Daily per capita supply
of calories2,099 2,663 3,380
GDP per capita (US$) 1,064 3,270 20,357
Agriculture as a
percentage of GDP32.7 3.5 2.2
People not expected to
survive to age 40 (%)30.3 14.3 3.9
Source: Human Development Report 2000, published by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP).
These are just some indicators which show that, in the agricultural negotiations, food security
cannot be dealt with in general terms but, on the contrary, specific contractual commitments will have
to be reached that take into account the special nature of this issue.  This is the only way of
establishing mechanisms that will guarantee food security to all Members of the WTO and prevent it
being used to continue distorting trade in agricultural products.
The need to protect the environment is another non-trade concern according to the preamble
to the Agreement on Agriculture.  As in the case of food security, we should look at the characteristics
of environmental protection in various countries through agriculture.  It is useful to recall here a
question that has been raised on several occasions:  by using larger quantities of insecticides,
herbicides, chemical fertilizers and agricultural mach inery, is it possible to preserve the environment
better, bearing in mind that these inputs are significant and are those most used in agriculturalproduction in developed countries?  The main source of environmental pollution is large industrial
centres and it is thus paradoxical that it is precisely some industrialized countries with the highest
levels of environmental pollution which are putting this issue on the table in the agricultural
negotiations.  The situation is very different in developing countries, where farmers have to supply
products at low prices in order to be able to compete with products subsidized by public funds insome developed countries.  This obliges them to use production methods that are not always
consistent with environmental protection.
There can be no doubt that non-trade concerns are real concerns for Members of the WTO
and they must be taken into account throughout the negotiating process, but at no time should theybecome disguised forms of international trade-distorting measures or be used arbitrarily by some
countries which have not resigned themselves to renouncing the protectionist practices that have such
an effect on developing countries.G/AG/NG/W/61
Page 3
Export subsidies – food security or food dependency?  (G/AG/NG/W/38)
The purpose of this document, which is co-sponsored by Bolivia and six other Latin
American countries, is to foster informed discussion of the adverse effects of export subsidies.
The delegation of Bolivia wishes to encourage this discussion by relating its experience of
how food security can end up by becoming food dependency.
According to the statistical data collected, food aid to Bolivia goes back to 1955, when
2,552 metric tonnes of food were donated, after which food aid steadily increased to an alarming
extent.  At that time, the estimated population was around 3.3 million, in other words, the per capita
donation was 0.77 kg., and the highest levels of food aid5 reached a figure of 278,055 metric tonnes in
1987 for a population of 6.7 million, equivalent to per capita food aid of 41.5 kg.  In 32 years, per
capita food aid increased by almost 54 times.  Sinc e 1987, the volume of food aid has declined and in
1999 72,400 tonnes were received.  The main products concerned were wheat and wheat flour.
The increase in food aid had several negative effects on food security, including the
following:  (i) the creation of a fragile food supply system;  (ii) a disincentive to domestic agricultural
production;  (iii) the diminished importance of local production in relation to self-sufficiency;  (iv) a
reduction in domestic effective demand;  and (v) a change in the dietary habits of Bolivians.  Food
aid, principally in the form of wheat and wheat flour, has replaced the production and consumption of
other indigenous cereals with high yields and very rich in proteins and calories.  It is estimated thataround 10 per cent of the population has become dependent on the supplementary rations from food
aid programmes, which have become a basic element of their daily food intake.
The food donations policy, together with a pricing policy on converting them into cash, which
were applied for a long time, had the effect of decreasing domestic production to the minimum level.In order to counter the negative effects of food dependency, in 1992 an agreement was reached among
the main donors, farmers and the milling industry so that prices reflected the true cost of production
and this acted as an effective catalyst for domestic production, which rose from 3,500 hectares in
1994 to 112,000 hectares harvested in 1997.
At present, less than 25 per cent of the wheat consumed in Bolivia is produced domestically,
so more than 75 per cent of consumption is composed of commercial imports or food aid underinternational cooperation as part of the programmes to support the balance-of-payments.
According to studies carried out in 1998, Bolivia's population has an adequate supply of
calories and a deficit of 7 per cent in proteins, although it is clear that these studies show very positive
statistical averages whereas in reality large sectors of the population, particularly in rural areas, aresuffering from malnutrition.
Lastly, it should also be emphasized that Bolivia's agricultural production takes up over one
and a half million hectares and five and a half million hectares are used to raise livestock.  In relative
terms, this means that Bolivia is only using one fourth of its agricultural production potential foragricultural activities.  This situation is due to a number of internal factors, but also to the
distortionary factors currently dominating international trade in agricultural products.
Bolivia does not apply any subsidies and does not grant preferential credits for production or
export.  It will only be able to develop its agricultural potential and attain food self-sufficiency,dispensing completely with the annual food aid it receives, when all the protectionist measures
                                                     
5 The food aid received in 1993, amounting to 417.3 metr ic tonnes to offset the effects of the natural
disasters that occurred in 1992 and 1993, has not been included.G/AG/NG/W/61
Page 4
applied by its main developed trading partners are eliminated.  Food aid will then only be necessary in
cases of emergency and will cease to be a factor of dependence.
Market access, Cairns Group (G/AG/NG/W/54)
Bolivia, as a Member of the Cairns Group considers the question of market access to be
extremely important and hopes that the results of the agricultural negotiations will contain real and
effective provisions in this respect.
Bolivia is at present penalized on two counts for having a genuine market economy, which is
not limited to certain sectors and for applying trade liberalization policies.  Firstly, its agricultural
exports are facing unfair competition from subsidized products, as well as being subject to prohibitivetariff rates and restrictive tariff quotas, which are administered at discretion and with no transparency.
If our exports still continue to be competitive despite these protectionist measures, sanitary and
phytosanitary measures are then used abusively.
Secondly, Bolivia is penalized by the influx of subsidized products into its domestic market,
causing serious injury to its producers, notably the pe asants who work their land in order to feed their
family and send their small surpluses to city markets.
Consequently, the opening of markets as a result of the current negotiations will not benefit
countries such as Bolivia for the simple reason that Bolivian producers will once again have tocompete with their counterparts in rich countries  who receive billions of dollars in production and
export subsidies.  We shall embark on the same vicious circle.  The benefits of greater market access
will accrue to countries which distort trade in agricultural products and they will take up the new
market opportunities by dumping products.
For the above reasons, during the negotiations specific and contractual provisions must be
developed in recognition of the substantial efforts made by countries such as Bolivia, which remain
true to the principles of trade liberalization.  It should be determined that any new opening of markets
should first of all benefit non-trade-distorting countries .
We are certain that some delegations will ask which are the countries that do not distort trade.
In order to belong to this privileged group of countries, only five requirements have to be met:
1. Not grant any type of export subsidy.2. Not have any domestic support measures which distort trade (measures in the amber
and blue boxes).
3. Not grant preferential export credits.4. Not have tariff quotas, and finally
5. Not apply agricultural special safeguards.
To become a non-trade-distorting country should be the goal of every Member so that it
contributes towards meeting the objectives of the WTO and eliminates any discriminatory treatment
in international trade relations.
The situation we are experiencing is a sui generis  one because it is precisely in the WTO that
negotiations are taking place to ensure that further injury is not caused to Members which apply trade
liberalization policies.G/AG/NG/W/61
Page 5
This is why we are raising the issue of non-trade-distorting countries and are calling on the
major trading partners in the WTO to be consistent  in their statements and interventions highlighting
the positive elements of trade liberalization and to move forward in this direction with practical
measures.  As a first measure, they should open their markets to products from non-trade-distorting
countries.
Efficient Bolivian producers in the hot plains, gr owing soya that is not genetically modified,
palm hearts and sugar, as well as those gathering Brazil nuts, are awaiting the benefits of trade
liberalization.  They are not alone, Aymara and Quechua peasants working at an altitude of
4,000 metres to cultivate quinoa seed and amaranth, which are highly nutritional and biologically
produced cereals, are also awaiting the benefits.
These producers are poor because of the negative effects of the trade protectionism of the
main trading partners in the WTO and they demand that the agricultural negotiations lead to
mechanisms that will protect them against unfair competition from subsidized products.
What Bolivia is asking is that it no longer be doubly penalized by its commitment to the
principles of the WTO.
__________