WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/117
13 February 2001
(01-0671)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FIFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
5-7 FEBRUARY 2001
Statement by Korea
G/AG/NG/W/90 (EC Comprehensive Negotiating Proposal)
Firstly, we fully share the fundamental views expressed in this proposal. We also believe that
the continuation of the reform process should be made in a manner providing benefits not just to a
limited number of Members but to all of us.
In the area of trade issues, we particularly endorse the argument that the overall average
reduction of bound tariffs enables Members to take into account the particular situation of specific
sectors without making any a priori exclusions. Therefore, it is a simple and effective way of
achieving across-the-board tariff reductions.  Korea also shares the view that the criteria of the GreenBox need to be revisited with a view to insuring appropriate coverage of measures that meet different
types of important social goals.
For the proposals on non-trade concerns, we already expressed our views several times in this
session including the one in November last year. I think there is no need to reiterate them.
Regarding the proposals on S&D treatment, we share the idea that necessary flexibility should
be provided in order to address non-trade concerns such as food security, vitality of rural society,
poverty alleviation, etc.  Finally, we  agree that the specific nature of agriculture should be recognized
and that there is a need for the continuation of the Peace Clause.
G/AG/NG/W/91 (Negotiating Proposal by Japan on WTO Agricultural Negotiations)
We are pleased to note that we share most of the elements contained in the Japanese proposal,
including the underlying principle that the various types of agriculture in different countries should
coexist in the future. In this perspective, we have no difficulty accepting the proposals in the area ofmarket access including the idea of flexible tariff levels, TRQ administration, maintaining SSG, and
introduction of a new safeguard mechanism for perishable products.
Regarding the proposals on domestic support, we also believe that the present framework of
rules and disciplines should be maintained so that the reform process can be continued in a consistent
manner.  Of course, we share the view that the starting point of further reduction of domestic support
should be the final commitment level of the Total AMS decided as a result of Uruguay Round
negotiations.
Proposals on rules and disciplines on exports include ideas to tariffy all export prohibitions
and restrictions, and to create quotas for export tax exemption. We are convinced that they are very
useful approaches to guarantee more balanced and fair outcomes of the negotiation.  In connectionwith the proposal on consideration for developing countries, we also believe that a wide range ofG/AG/NG/W/117
Page 2
flexibility should be given to developing countries with regard to the rules and disciplines on border
measures, domestic support, and food security.
Finally, we support the proposals addressing the concerns expressed by consumers and the
civil society. In particular, we endorse the idea that adequate information as well as opportunities forexpressing views should be provided to civil society in order to secure public support and ensure
transparency of the negotiation process.
G/AG/NG/W/92 (WTO Negotiations on Agriculture – Domestic support: Proposal by Canada)
Regarding the proposal on the Green Box, we basically share the idea that domestic support
meeting Annex 2 criteria should be permanently recognized as not countervailable.  We also go along
with the proposal to review the Green Box criteria. However, we believe it should be reviewed in
ways that take into account the different types of need of Members as well as the obligation not to
distort production or trade.
Secondly, we need further clarification on the idea of the so-called "overall limit on the
amount of domestic support of all types". We wish to point out that each category of domestic support
(Amber, Green and Blue) has its own legitimacy and that, by definition, the Green Box has no limit.
Nobody denies the existence of a wide variety of agriculture, as the starting point of
agricultural reform is different from country to country. This is why Article 20 of AoA stipulates that
the long-term objective of reduction in support and protection resulting in fundamental reform is an
ongoing process. In line with this we do not agree with the need for a harmonizing formula for the
Amber Box.
I believe the best way to ensure that reform moves in the right direction is not to create
unrealistically strict rules but to encourage Memb ers to continue their on-going reforms keeping the
long-term objective in mind.
G/AG/NG/W/93  (WTO  Negotiations on Agriculture – Cairns Group Negotiating Proposal:
Export Restrictions and Taxes)
Firstly, let me start by making it clear that we share the proposals contained in this paper.  We
already proposed to develop tighter disciplines on export restrictions. We also share the understanding
that tariff escalation prevents developing countries from adding value to their exports. Therefore, I do
not intend to challenge the argument on the relationship between export restriction and tariffescalation.
However, I would like to stress that the most im portant problem with export restrictions is the
existing imbalance of rights and obligations between net-exporters and net-importers. I hope this point
will not be overlooked in the discussions.
G/AG/NG/W/94  (WTO Negotiations on Agriculture: Proposal by Switzerland)
Firstly, we share Switzerland’s remark on the impact of UR agreements on world agricultural
trade. On the basis of our own observation and implementation experience, we endorse Switzerland’s
view that increased trade liberalization does not automatically lead to the achievement of all societal
objectives.G/AG/NG/W/117
Page 3
We agree with Switzerland's positions on many technical issues under the sub-title "further
commitments". On the issue of tariff reduction, we believe that a flexible approach for developing
countries, net-food importers and transitional economies should be adopted. It is also our view that no
TRQ administration methods should be excluded in advance and that we should examine the
disciplines required to ensure that specific application guarantees market access.
Regarding proposals in the area of domestic support, we read with great interest the ideas on
how to address non-trade concerns in connection with Amber, Blue and Green Boxes. Besides the
points I have just mentioned, we share many othe r points that I hope to discuss at a later stage.
G/AG/NG/W/96  (WTO Negotiations on Agriculture: Negotiating Proposal by Mauritius)
This proposal illustrates well the concerns of small-island developing countries and an aspect
of diversity in global agriculture. We respect their approach that seeks coexistence of all agriculture
patterns and a balance between trade and non-trade concerns.
As indicated in the proposal, Members should be allowed to use appropriate means to ensure
that their own agriculture coexists with others and plays necessary local roles including food security
and other functions. Considering the existence of structural and historical differences between
developed and developing Members, we share the view that S&D treatment needs to include
instruments that can alleviate poverty and enhance agricultural competitiveness.
We also agree with many other specific points of this proposal such as specific consideration
on certain sensitive products, maintaining the SSG and Peace Clause, flexible criteria in the Green
Box and de minimis , etc.  However, I do not want to go into further details today but I will get back to
these points at a later stage.
G/AG/NG/W/98  (Proposal for WTO Negotiation on Agriculture: Submitted by the Republic of
Korea)
Introduction of Proposal
Korea is a typical net food-importing country and one of the big three Members, together with
Japan and EU, which have negative balances in agricultural trade as indicated in the Secretariat paper,
G/AG/NG/S/11/Add.1.  In spite of domestic difficulti es, Korea has implemented its commitments in a
very faithful manner. However, contrary to the situations in food exporting Members, this
implementation has deteriorated terms of trade for farm households and widened the income gapbetween urban and rural sectors, both of which are largely due to the sharp increase in agricultural
imports since the conclusion of UR negotiations.
These problems have been underlined many times during public hearings and other
discussions conducted for the preparation of this proposal. The Korean proposal is based on itsimplementation experiences and starts with suggested guidelines for new negotiations.
Firstly, Korea believes that the agricultural negotiations should proceed as a part of a New
Round with a broad-based agenda in order to reflect the interest of all Members in an equitable
manner.  Secondly, we also believe that a flexible and gradual approach is crucial to secure Members'support. Thirdly, provisions regarding NTCs and S&D need to be strengthened.  Finally, new issues in
agricultural trade need to be addressed properly.
Based on these guidelines, Korea proposes the following specific measures in each area of
negotiations.  In the area of market access, we believe that the existing framework of the tarifficationG/AG/NG/W/117
Page 4
model needs to be maintained and we propose that the reduction of tariffs be based on the final bound
level.  In tariff reduction and TRQ administration, Korea proposes that a flexible and gradual
approach considering the specific situation of individual Members be adopted.
In the area of domestic support, Korea believes that the current framework of the Amber,
Green and Blue Boxes need to be maintained for the continuation of reform in a consistent manner.
For the Amber Box, Korea proposes to reduce the support on an aggregated basis within a scope
acceptable to all Members and reflecting the impact of inflation.  To the list in the Green Box, we
propose to add more measures including support for small-scale family farm households.
In terms of overall balance of rights and obligations between exporting and importing
Members, the Korean proposal stresses the need for disciplines on export restriction and export state-trading enterprises in the area of exporting competition.
For the S&D treatment for developing countries, our proposal includes a list of specific ideas
in each area.  We also raised the issues of consumers' concern on food safety and environment for
further discussion in the negotiation.   Finally, we hope this proposal will make a useful contributionto the negotiations and we sincerely welcome your valuable comments.
Closing Remark
We have listened to the views carefully. They were encouraging in many cases but painful to
me in some cases. Anyway I wish to express our appreciation firstly to delegations for their insightful
comments on and strong interests in our proposal.  We are particularly thankful to the colleagues who
expressed their understanding on the reality and difficulties which a net food-importing Member with
small scale family farms face.
We are pleased to confirm that not a few of us share the view that we need improvements in
global trade while securing the coexistence of various types of agriculture, and that a realistic and
gradual approach is important for the continuation of an effective reform.  We noted, with a great
interest and thanks, the views of Israel expressed yesterday morning as one of the comments on the
Japanese proposal, which emphasized the wide diversity of farming environments and implied the
right way we have to approach.
We also noted the comments on our will for the continuation of reform. It seems to me a
matter of difference in the point of view. Let's say, we are in the process of filling an empty cup with
water. Some think we have a half-filled cup, but others may say that Korea has a half-empty cup.
However it's very clear that our cup is being filled in a consistent manner as agreed.  For this point, I
wish to reply that Korea has actively joined the reform process since the launch of WTO in a veryfaithful manner, and this kind of our efforts will be continued keeping the long-term objective in
mind. The point we want to emphasize is a realistic approach which is acceptable to all of us.
Regarding the comments on our status of developing countries,  I'd like to express my simple
and clear understanding on this issue. I understand that developing countries are different fromalready developed countries in that they are still in the process of developing.  Korea has been in the
process of development in all areas including political, economic, social, cultural ones, and widely
recognized by international society as a developing country. This is why we are currently
maintaining the developing status in WTO.
We really want to jump up to the stage of developed. Unfortunately, however, we could not
find any improvement so far that implies the completion of developing process in these areas.
Particularly, agriculture maintains the most under-developed in Korean society and has shown
worsening situation since the launch of WTO and financial crisis. Like many other fellowG/AG/NG/W/117
Page 5
developing Members, an advanced Korea is still our dream that we wish to come true someday in the
future.
In connection with the interests expressed in our proposal on the Safeguard for perishable
products, let me briefly explain our experiences and the background of the proposal.  We believe theSpecial Safeguard (SSG) in Agreement on Agriculture is a very useful mechanism. Unfortunately,
however, it is helpless in many cases of unreasonably radical changes in trade, because it is
applicable only to the limited number of tariffied products.
Safeguard under Safeguard Agreement is also a useful mechanism which covers all products.
But it's not helpful either in case of perishable and seasonal products, because it requires very long
and complicated process in the situation that needs immediate actions.  Our proposal intends to solvethese problems by proposing a new criterion to cope timely with this kind of urgent situation.
We also carefully listened to the different views on other issues, but I'd like to remind you
that Korea has imported more than 10 billion US dollar of agricultural products every year reducing
the self-sufficiency ratio, in case of grain sector, less than 30%, and causing more and more serioussocio-political and economic problems.  Our proposal is based on these experiences and reality
which are typically those of a net food-importing Member with small scale farms.
I took note that a wide spectrum of positions remains but I do not intend to respond to all of
the points raised. But based on today's discussion, I hope we will be able to develop and reachsolutions acceptable to all of us.  Once again, I do thank all delegations for their comments on and
interests in our proposal.
__________