WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/133
2 March 2001
(01-1053)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  Spanish
FIFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
5-7 FEBRUARY 2001
Statements by Venezuela
G/AG/NG/W/92 (Proposal by Canada)
We welcome Canada's contribution concerning domestic support and would like to make a
few general comments on the content of these proposals.
We particularly welcome Canada's comprehensive approach to the problems of the distorting
effects of domestic support programmes, whether they be classed as amber, blue or green.
We believe it is very appropriate to propose the establishment of an overall limit on the level
of support to agriculture so as not only to encourage reform of agricultural policy towards the
replacement of production and trade distorting programmes with those with no, or minimal, distorting
impact, but also to remove disparities between count ries, using a harmonizing formula.  In this way,
Members which maintain the highest levels of support will have to make greater reductions than
others in their contribution to the reform process.
Having said this, we must also express our disappointment at the failure to include specific
proposals to address the concerns of the developing countries with regard to domestic support.  Such
proposals should provide for, inter alia , the inclusion of flexible criteria for the categorization of
programmes which are not exempt from reduction but are designed to alleviate poverty and address
rural development and food security in developing countries.
We also have certain reservations concerning Canada's aim to achieve "permanent
international recognition that green box support should not be countervailable".  This could increase
the existing imbalance in the Agreement, since it is well known that the developing countries make
little use of green box programmes because of institutional and financial limitations.  The type ofprotection sought by Canada should be extended to programmes pursued by developing countries to
address non-trade concerns such as those mentioned above, namely those relating to food security,
rural development and poverty alleviation.
Lastly, we believe that Canada's proposal concerning the Peace Clause should be analysed
with great care in order to assess its repercussions, particularly for developing country trade.
G/AG/NG/W/94 (Proposal by Switzerland)
We would like to thank Switzerland for its comprehensive negotiating proposal, since it
shows a willingness to participate in a real negotiation process.  The proposals refer specifically to theG/AG/NG/W/133
Page 2
three pillars of the Agreement on Agriculture as well as to other areas related to non-trade concerns
and special and differential treatment.
We would like to make some preliminary comments concerning some areas of particular
interest to Venezuela.
First of all, we appreciate and fully agree with the importance Switzerland attaches to taking
into account previous experience in implementation of the Agreement in the negotiating process.  In
this regard, it is well known that the benefits developing countries hoped to obtain from the process of
liberalization have not materialized, and that this is because the Agreement itself allows for a whole
range of polices and practices that distort both production and trade to be pursued, which suits the
needs and situations of developed countries.  The reform process must lead to a fair system of worldagricultural trade, which requires the elimination of existing imbalances in the disciplines which are
damaging for the developing countries.
Secondly, we welcome Switzerland's recognition of the need to improve special and
differential treatment provisions for developing countries, in order to ensure their integration intoworld trade.  However, it is impossible to ignore the emphasis placed on the transitional nature of
these measures and the suggestion that a case-by-case approach should be adopted for the recognition
of special and differential treatment.  Such limitations are in contrast to the permanent and wide-
ranging scope with which Switzerland refers to its concerns in relation to "other agricultural policy
objectives" (Section 5).
With regard to this section in particular, we would like to express our concern over
Switzerland's desire to revise the Agreement on Tech nical Barriers to Trade (TBT) in order to include
explicit references to product labelling, relating to production methods and processes.  As we
understand it at the moment, the concept of "like product" is fundamental to effective implementationof the twin principles of national and most-favoured-nation treatment, which are the pillars of the
multilateral trading system.
In our view, the provisions of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures give each Member ample scope for adopting non-
discriminatory measures in order to ensure that food consumed by its population is safe.  Emphasis on
the precautionary principle in international trade could lead to unwarranted barriers to trade andadditional costs for exporting countries.  This situation would be particularly damaging to developing
countries.
G/AG/NG/W/102 (Proposal by India)
We welcome document G/AG/NG/W/102, submitted by India.  In our view, this document is
a valuable contribution to the process of agricultural negotiations, both for its analytical merit and for
the specific and concrete proposals it makes in the areas of food security, market access, domestic
support and export competition.
In our view, India has made a very important contribution by identifying concrete elements in
the different negotiating areas with particular interest for developing countries, based on the
experience of the past six years of implementation of the agreement.  Furthermore, it makes a
structured analysis of the specific food security situation in countries like ours, which must
undoubtedly be taken into consideration in future stages of the negotiation process.
Having said this, we would like to make a few preliminary comments on the document in
question.G/AG/NG/W/133
Page 3
First of all, we fully agree with India when it stresses the importance of food security for
developing countries as well as the critical importance of the role played by the agricultural sector in
the political, economic and social structure of these countries and also for their future development
prospects.
In this regard, the continuation of the reform process in world agricultural trade is vitally
important for developing countries insofar as it helps to correct the existing imbalances in the
disciplines which are damaging to their interests.
Clearly, against a background of large distortions caused by policies and practices beyond the
financial and institutional capacities of developing countries, it is legitimate to expect that greater
reduction commitments can only be made by those countries if there is a substantial reduction in thelevels of support and protection which cause such distortions.
Secondly, we share the view that experience in implementation of the Agreement on
Agriculture and special and differential treatment are a fundamental part of these negotiations, as
indicated by Article 20 of the Agreement.  Experience in implementation indicates that the benefitsdeveloping countries hoped to obtain from liberalization have not materialized and that, in fact, sharp
increases in imports and a small or zero increase in exports in many of these countries have worsened
the situation with regard to food security.
The continuation of the process of reform must therefore address the particular situation of
developing countries from two complementary perspectives:  on one hand, domestic support and
market access disciplines need to be given the necessary flexibility to allow for the domestic
production needed to preserve food security, promote rural development and alleviate poverty in
developing countries;  on the other, an improvement in market access conditions in developed
countries must be guaranteed, and these must not be impaired by non-tariff barriers, as well as tariffpeaks and escalation, with regard to products of particular interest to them.
In this regard, it must be emphasized once again that the financial and institutional limitations
of developing countries considerably restrict their ability to utilize the programmes provided for in
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (green box) in such a way as to increase production and
improve the productivity of the agricultural sector.  We therefore believe that the negotiations should
aim to incorporate criteria better suited to the particular conditions in developing countries asparameters for designing and implementing programmes exempted from reduction commitments.
Lastly, with regard to export competition, we wo uld simply reiterate that the problem needs to
be addressed in a comprehensive manner, covering all forms of subsidies in reduction commitments,
and taking into account the as yet unfulfilled mandate in Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculturefor the negotiation and adoption in the WTO of disciplines on the granting of export credits, export
credit guarantees and insurance programmes.
__________