. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/28/Add.1
18 July 2000
(00-2961)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
SECOND SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
29-30 JUNE 2000
Statement by Mauritius
Addendum
Intervention under Item B
We would like to congratulate you upon your assumption of office and assure you of our full
support in your challenging task.
We would also like to thank the Secretariat for the useful papers.  These papers are essential
for us to fully assess the provisions of para (a), (b) and (c) of Article 20.  Such an assessment iscrucial before we embark on the examination of para (d).
However, we would like to point out that we have received some documents in the last few
days, with one being obtained only today.  You would therefore understand that we can only tender
preliminary comments.  We would come back on these papers at a later stage.
In today’s submission we shall refer to  only a few papers G/AG/NG/S/6 and 11 and
G/AG/NG/S/3.
As Brazil we have noted in G/AG/NG/S/6 that th e share of some DCs has gone up.  After S/6,
we went on to G/AG/ NG/S/11 which has the breakdown for many countries and contains details on
numerous commodities.  The first analysis of G/ AG/NG/S/6 and 11 has resulted in a certain number
of findings which we would like to share with Members.  They are preliminary ones and will of
course have to be further investigated into.  Nevertheless, some of them are quite revealing and allow
us to point out to them:
(i) Some of the major beneficiaries of free trade are major exporters of several products;
and
(ii) The reduction in exports of, for instance, the EC does not benefit DCs as repeatedly
claimed by some.  Instead, it benefits only a few countries which are either developed
or multi-commodity exporting large DCs.
The initial conclusions one can draw are firstly, that the Uruguay Round has benefited only a
few countries and secondly, that as stated by the EU, just a few minutes ago, preferential trade
agreements would have to play a greater role in ensuring equitable participation of many DCs in
world trade.G/AG/NG/W/28/Add.1
Page 2
The trade movements have to be seen against the background of Article 16 (Title: Least
developed and net food importing developing countries) and its accompanying Marrakesh Decision.
In this regard paper G/AG/NG/S/3 is pertinent.  We would like to refer to some parts of the report:
(i) Page 14, relating to an FAO report, allow me to quote “FAO emphasized the fact that
as a result of declining levels of food aid and export subsidies a much greater volume
of cereals is now imported under commercial terms”.  In conclusion FAO noted that
“all the relevant statistics differentiate clearly the LDCs and the NFIDCs from the rest
of the developing countries as regards Food availability and capacity to import the
FAO has for quite some time been qualifying the situation of LDCs and NFIDCs as
"precarious".”
(ii) Page 30, relating to a statement by the re presentative of the FAO, allow me to quote
"Although food aid increased during 1998/99, it would account for only 8 per cent of
the cereal imports of LDCs and NFIDCs co mpared to 15 per cent in 93/94-97/95.  In
addition, subsidized imports of cereals under the US Export Enhancement
Programme which peaked at US$ 980 Million in 93/94 (of which US$ 454 to therecountries) are virtually absent after 95/96".  This latter stark reality, Mr Chairman
should lead to be more pragmatic in our analysis of export subsidies and credits as
opposed to the theoretical view which advo cates the pure and simple elimination of
these measures.
(iii) Page 31, table on cereal imports, the share of food aid in the total cereal import, of
LDCs has gone down from 35.2% in 93/94 to 20.5% in 98/99.  This speaks volumes
on the absence of political will to support LDCs.  In the case of DCs, the share has
gone down from 7.3% in 93/94 to a mere 2.1% in 98/99.
 In this context, the operationalization of the measures in favour of NFIDCs and LDCs is
crucial.  May I point out here to the provisions of the last paragraph preamble to the AA, namely:
"Nothing that commitments under the reform programme should be made in an
equitable way among all Members, having regard to --- food security --- and taking
into account the possible negative effects of the implementation of the reform
programme on least developed and net food importing developing countries".
The table at page 31 of G/AG/NG/ S/3 clearly demonstrates that we should stop referring to
"possible negative effects" and refer henceforth to the "negative effects".
Regarding Japan's proposals on a paper on NTCs to be prepared by the Secretariat, we
welcome this suggestion and would wish that the two papers of Mauritius tabled in the AIE process beused, for this exercise by the Secretariat.
We intend to circulate our various statements under items B and C so that they be used as
working documents.
__________