WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/116
20 February 2001
(01-0824)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FIFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
5-7 FEBRUARY 2001
Statement by Japan
G/AG/NG/W/91  (Proposal by Japan - Introductory Statement)
Let me begin my presentation of Japan's negotiating proposal by posing a couple of questions:
What kind of effects have the Uruguay Round agreements had on world agricultural trade?
Has the world supply and demand of agricultural products stabilized since the UR 
agreements?
Have agricultural policy reforms, in accordance with the UR agreements, contributed to the 
reduction of malnutrition and the stabilization of farm management in each country?
We must begin the negotiations by examining the implementation of the UR agreements.
Based on these examinations, we should proceed with the negotiations that will lead to the solutions
to difficult situations faced by various Members, and which will enable human beings to utilise the
limited resources of the earth in a sustainable manner.
Japan has been implementing its UR commitments  faithfully ever since the establishment of
the WTO.  We are currently proceeding with domestic agricultural policy reform, based on the new
Basic Law on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas that was enacted in 1999.  This includes changes of
price policy for a number of major agricultural products in order to allow the prices to better reflect
the supply and demand situations and quality of the products.
On the other hand, while the overall volume of world agricultural trade has been increasing,
only a limited number of countries have benefited from this enlarged trade.  Problems such as food
surplus in developed countries and food shortage in developing countries have been intensifying.
The current negotiations on agriculture are for continuing the process toward the long-term
objective of substantial and progressive reductions in support and protection.  The negotiation should
also take into account the considerations specified in (a) to (d) of Article 20 of the Agreement on
Agriculture.  As one of the Members that committed itself to Article 20, Japan proposes the necessary
improvements in rules and disciplines, taking into  account the experience gained from implementing
the UR agreements.
The current negotiations are of great importance as they will significantly influence the
worldwide trend of agricultural policy in the 21st century.  The 21st century should be an era when
different nations and regions should coexist and mutu ally respect each country's values.  That is why
the basic philosophy underlining our proposal is the "coexistence of various types of agriculture."
Agriculture is the foundation of society in each coun try, and provides a variety of functions that are
beneficial to the society.  As there are differ ences in the natural conditions and the historical
backgrounds from one country to another, the diversity and coexistence of agriculture among variousG/AG/NG/W/116
Page 2
countries needs to be preserved.  Trade rules that benefit only a small number of competitive
exporting countries and damage agriculture in other countries should be rejected.  Rather, we should
establish fair and equitable rules and disciplines that allow the coexistence of agriculture in each
country.
With this basic philosophy of the "coexistence of various types of agriculture" and under the
framework of Article 20, Japan pursues the following five main points in its proposal: namely, (1)
Consideration of the multifunctionality of agriculture; (2) Ensuring food security, which is the basis of
society in each country; (3) Redressing the imbalance in rules and disciplines applied to agricultural
exporting countries and importing countries; (4) Consideration for developing countries; and (5)
Consideration for the concerns of consumers and civil society.
In working out this proposal, the Government of Japan has received a large number of
opinions from a wide-range of members of society, including agricultural producers, the food
industry, consumers and non-governmental organiza tions.  A further variety of views have been
collected through an official opinion poll conducted by the Prime Minister's Office.  Also, we have
exchanged views with a number of developing countries.  The negotiating proposal we are presentingtoday is the result of this long process.  This is a proposal for fair and equitable rules and disciplines
by the biggest customer of world agricultural products which imports food equivalent to the
consumption of 75 million people.
Let me now introduce briefly the contents of the proposal.The proposal firstly emphasises the followin g two points as the basic elements to be
considered in the negotiations.
First, the examination of the implementation of the UR agreements:  Even after the UR
agreements, the instability of international food supply and demand has yet to be eliminated.  Some
major agricultural exporting countries had no choice but to take additional support measures under
such circumstances.  These facts reveal the limitation of market forces in addressing the international
agricultural trade.  As the first step in the curr ent negotiations, it is necessary to thoroughly examine
these implementation issues, based on Article 20 (a) and (b).
Second, multifunctionality and food security should be pursued as the major issues of the
agricultural policies worldwide.  We should reco gnise that every country has its own society and
history based on agriculture.  And we should bear in mind that the functions of agriculture, such as
conservation of the natural environment and ru ral development, are manifested jointly with
agricultural production activities, and that these functions are not able to be supplied through
international trade.  Our negotiating proposal provides the definition and the characteristics of themultifunctionality of agriculture, based on the common understanding reached in the work in the
OECD.  It also stresses the importance and usefulness of the concept of the multifunctionality of
agriculture in finding out ways to harmonize the ideas of non-trade distortion and the coexistence of
various types of agriculture.  Furthermore, the proposal stresses the necessity to conduct the
negotiations bearing in mind the importance of food security, in light of strong interests on the matterby a number of developing countries.
Let me now quickly go through the details of our thinking on individual areas.On market access , we put importance on flexibility in determining the levels of tariffs and
access opportunities.  We also propose the improvement of institutional problems concerning
minimum access opportunity, and call for a new framework of a safeguard mechanism in light of the
seasonal and perishable nature of agricultural products.G/AG/NG/W/116
Page 3
On domestic support , we support maintaining the basic framework of the present rules, while
proposing the improvement of the criteria of the "Green Box" in order to facilitate agricultural policy
reform that reflects the real situation of agriculture.  We also call for realistic total AMS commitment
levels in order not to undermine the multifunctionality of agriculture.
On export competition , we propose strengthening disciplines on export promoting measures,
as well as export restrictive measures, including export prohibitions and restrictions, and export tax.
On state trading , we propose establishing appropriate disciplines to improve its transparency
and predictability, especially on export state trading.
On consideration for developing countries , we put importance on securing flexibility in the
rules and disciplines on border measures, domestic support, export competition and state trading for
developing countries.  We also propose examining a possible framework of international food
stockholding, which compliments bilateral and multilateral schemes for food assistance and can lend
food in cases of temporary shortage.
On concerns by consumers and the civil society , we propose taking into consideration their
concerns on food security and food safety as well as providing adequate information to consumers.
Finally but not least, Japan believes that agricultural negotiations should be conducted and
concluded in a single undertaking as a part of a sufficiently broad-based round.  Japan is makingevery effort for an early launch of a new round, including organising a recently-held informal
meeting.  We will continue this effort, while in para llel participating in agricultural negotiations in
good faith.
Japan is proposing various institutional issues that should be tackled in the negotiations under
Article 20.  Japan insists that constructive discussion will be held on these issues before talking about
specific figures and products, and sincerely hopes that  the negotiations will lead to the improvement
of the rules and disciplines of international agricultural trade, which in turn will ensure the
"coexistence of various types of agriculture" in the 21
st century.
Response by Japan to Comments made by Delegations
I would like to thank all the Delegations that have showed interest and have made comments
on Japan's negotiating proposal.  In return, I would like to react to some of the comments briefly.
But to begin with, I have to touch on the nature of the comments made by some Delegations.We Japanese are traditionally very polite people.  But polite people can sometimes get very
angry.  We are disturbed by the remarks made by some of the delegations, which are in our view sheer
slanders based either on misunderstanding or distorting the whole picture deliberately overlooking
these elements of our proposal that are very constructive in coming up with the fruitful outcome of theagricultural negotiations.  We certainly have differences of views but we do not merit some of the
remarks made about our proposal.
Also, one speaker criticised that we delayed the submission of our proposal, which is not at all
the case.  We have had an extensive discussion with a number of stakeholders including not only withfarmers but also consumers, food industry, and a number of NGOs before finalizing our negotiating
proposal.  Still, we submitted our proposal on 21st December, which was fully in conformity with the
working schedule we agreed last March.G/AG/NG/W/116
Page 4
Those remarks are not fitted in this room and, I would say, are counterproductive to the entire
process of the negotiations.
Japan has been a good customer to many food exporting countries, including those who made
unfriendly remarks.  Over the years, through seri es of market-opening measures, we have opened up
our market along with the drastic reform of its ag ricultural policies.  Japan imports approximately 60
per cent of total food intake, and is by far the largest net food-importer of the world.
Some delegates raised the questions of consumers' interest, and I thank them very much for
raising these questions.  Consumers are very much worried about the insecure structure of food supply
in Japan.
They are also very much worried that our rural community and beautiful countryside will be
wiped out forever if we continue this course of trend.
Despite all these situations in Japan, we are firmly committed to the reform process stipulated
in Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, contrary to the remarks made by some delegates.
However, in order for us to move forward, we need a precondition for this kind of exercise.
That is, this negotiation should fully take into account those factors which are clearly stipulated in
Article 20 (a) to (d), including non-trade concerns (multifunctionality of agriculture and others) and
the experience from the implementation of the Agreement.
Our proposal, based on Article 20, focuses on the institutional issues, such as the review of the
criteria for the Green Box measures as well as the strengthening of the disciplines on exports, with a
view to securing the coexistence of the various types of agriculture in the 21st Century.  Japan
believes that these institutional issues should be tackled before negotiating specific modality ofreductions.  This is why in our proposal there are few phrases like reductions or eliminations, which
lead to misunderstanding by some delegates here, but as I said, the long-term objective of substantial
and progressive reductions in support and protection is the premise of our negotiating proposal.  I
would say, please read carefully every word of our proposal.
Some speakers have commented on the relationship between the agriculture negotiations and
the launch of the new Round.  Indeed, Article 20 stipulates that the negotiations will be initiated oneyear before the end of the implementation period, but it does not specify at all about the deadline of
the negotiations nor the outcome of the negotiations.  And as a matter of reality, unless we have a
sufficiently broad-based new Round that can address diverse interests of the Members, it will be
difficult to narrow the gaps between different Members' positions in the agricultural negotiations.
Some Delegations have observed that it is because developed countries have not sufficiently
opened up their markets to developing countries that the benefits of the UR agreements have not been
shared by many developing countries.  Here, we are faced with a very difficult question:  that a
general reduction of support by the developed countries would only reduce the margin of preference,
which in turn would only benefit a small number of competitive exporting countries and notnecessarily the vast number of developing countries whose agriculture needs the most development.
Some of the comments raised refer to the specific points of our negotiating proposal.  Due to
the time constraint of this meeting, let me just touch upon a few major comments.
A number of Delegations have made comments on the multifunctionality of agriculture, and
have stressed that whatever the policy objectives are, the policy measures themselves should be
managed under the Green Box or as being non-trade distorting.G/AG/NG/W/116
Page 5
The multiple functions of agriculture have public good aspects; therefore, some policy
intervention is necessary in order to maintain the supply level as desired by the public.  Moreover,
these policy measures cannot be completely separated from production, as these multiple functions
can be only produced jointly with agricultural production activity.
Here there is a question of who would bear the cost of these public goods:  consumers,
taxpayers or farmers.  In our view, there must be a good policy mix to balance out this cost-bearing
question.
Some Members showed a strong interest on our idea of a new Safeguard mechanism on
seasonal and perishable agricultural products.  These products have difficulty in inventory
adjustments and although consumption itself remains stable, prices are elastic.  As a result, unlikeindustrial goods, these products are more susceptible to a sharp fall in prices, resulting from an
increase in imports, thus having a huge impact on producers over a short period of time.  In order to
address these characteristics of seasonal and perishable products, we propose introducing a new short-
term measures that will be applied automatically based on simple and transparent conditions.  The
measure will be useful in addressing short-term fluctuations regarding seasonal and perishableproducts both in developing and developed countries.
Interests were also shown by a number of countries on the international food stockholding.
This will meet the concern of the net food-importing developing countries and LDCs. This is meant to
complement existing bilateral and multilateral food aid schemes, and will enable loan of food in thecase of temporary shortage.  Of course, this is an ef fort we are pursuing in parallel with our long-term
technical assistance to enhance the food productivity in developing countries. We would like to
concretize the idea through further discussion especially with developing countries.
I would like to thank once again all the Delegations who have made comments, and will be
happy to discuss more about our proposal in a constructive and decent way with any of my colleagues
in this room, either at future meetings, or bilatera lly.  I sincerely hope that we will continue to have
constructive discussions and that these will lead to the improved trade rules that will ensure the
coexistence of the various types of agriculture in the 21
st Century.
__________