WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/28
11 July 2000
(00-2822)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
SECOND SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
29-30 JUNE 2000
Statement by Mauritius
G/AG/NG/W/11
WTO Negotiations on Agriculture, Cairns Group Negotiating Proposal, Export Competition
Regarding the NFIDCs and the points made by certain Cairns Group countries, we would like
to reiterate our stance under item B when referring to a FAO report.
Regarding the proposal on Article 9(4), we shall revert to it under G/AG/NG/W/13.We note the token reference to S&D treatment fo r DCs in the paper.  We, however, regret that
S&D is once more perceived as a modality, for instance, longer time frames, rather than as an ongoing
instrument to enable DCs to, inter-alia,  raise standards of living and ensuring full employment as
envisioned in the Preamble to the WTO Agreement.  Finally, we have to regret the absence of any
reference to Article 16 in respect of the predicament of LDCs and NFIDCs.
G/AG/NG/W/12
Negotiating Proposal by Canada – Market Access
We would like to make two preliminary comments on this paper.
Firstly, we should exhaust the consideration of paragraph (a), (b) and (c) of Article 20 before
proceeding to examine issues that pertain to paragraph (d).
Secondly, while taking note of the explanations of Canada on the zero for zero initiatives, we
would wish to sound a note of caution on the risk of plurilateralism getting in the multilateral system
through the backdoor.  Consequently, we cannot at this stage support such an initiative.
G/AG/NG/W/13
A Special and Differential treatment and a development box, paper by Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Honduras, Pakistan, Haiti, Nicaragua, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and
El Salvador
We would at the very outset commend the various countries for the comprehensive paper on
the S&D subject.  In this submission we address mainly the issues in G/AG/NG/W/13.  However,
some of the points made cover certain of the proposals made in G/AG/NG/W/14.  We shall therefore,
at this juncture, make only one submission for G/AG/NG/W/13 and 14.G/AG/NG/W/28
Page 2
The paper raises several issues which are close to our concerns and many of the arguments
advanced are fully shared by us.  For instance, the fact that food security is not just an economic issue
but goes at the very heart of national security, political independence and sovereignty.
In this regard, Mr Chairman, Mauritius has always argued that agricultural issues cannot be
viewed in isolation.  Instead, they should be viewed against the background of the various
commitments made in other multilateral accords as  well as the requirements of these accords.
Consequently, Mauritius has always made the link between the Agreement on Agriculture, the first
paragraph of the Preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement and the FAO World Food Summit to
demonstrate that one should not adopt a narrow and restrictive attitude when dealing with agriculture.
We fully endorse the stance of these eleven countries that certain products should be
exempted from liberalization.  Equally, we agree with the argument that domestic production capacity
should not be "destroyed on the basis of non-competitiveness".  Let us remind ourselves that
Commitment Three of the FAO Food Summit recognizes the need to pursue participatory and
sustainable food, agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development policies and practices in high
and low potential areas.  This is far from the level playing field.
Mr Chairman, we support the statement that agriculture is, in the same vein, "not just another
sector of the economy".  Mauritius, and indeed many countries have repeatedly stated that agriculture
is multifunctional and it should not, in any circumstance, be considered from a "one size fits all"
perspective.
We have taken note of the various recommendations of these countries and would like to
submit the following:
(i) We fully support the first five points in paragraph 1 of the recommendations as well 
as the first two of para. 2 of the recommendations.
(ii) Regarding the sixth one, we note that there may be cases where cheap imports may
frustrate domestic production.  This situation has to be monitored.  However, we
would like to submit that export subsidies as well as export credits do facilitate
economic access to food in the case of NFIDCs.
(iii) We would like to recall that Article 20 provides for the long term objective of
substantial progressive reduction in support and protection.  Calling for an immediate
elimination of any measure of support or protection is contrary to the letter and spirit
of Article 20.  Furthermore, such an elimination would negatively impact on many
NFIDCs.
(iv) The Safeguard Clause is an essential element of the Agreement on Agriculture.  As
indicated in Article 5 (9), this Clause is there to stay as and until the Reform process
is on.  We would instead of limiting its scope as proposed in the paper at
paragraph 2 (c) of the recommendations rather support the proposal that DCs whichdid not have the opportunity to do so in the UR be now allowed to use all the
provisions of the Special Safeguard Clause.
(v) Mauritius strongly feels that the due restraint clause is part and parcel of the
Agreement on Agriculture.  It is the prerequisite for the pursuit of the objectives ofthe Agreement on Agriculture.  As such it should continue to be in force as long as
the reform process is on, in a manner similar to the safeguard clause.G/AG/NG/W/28
Page 3
(vi) Given the serious difficulties encountered during the implementation period of the
UR, we would have difficulties to enter into further commitments.  The absence of a
due restraint clause would render our task impossible.
(vii) However, we support, as advocated in paper G/AG/NG/W/14, by the same group of
countries, the need to expand the scope of the due restraint clause to rebalance it so
that developed and developing countries are equitably treated.
(viii) Mauritius has taken note of the proposal of Zimbabwe in respect of Article 9(4).  We
strongly support this proposal and would suggest that the scope of this Article be
extended beyond the provisions of Article 9(1)(d) and (e).  In this regard, we should
bear in mind the principle enunciated under G/AG/NG/W/16 to have measures to takeinto account the development challenges facing developing countries and LDCs.
Regarding implementation issues, we consider that they are crucial in the context of our
negotiations.  For us, they should be tackled first before proceeding further.
Regarding the protection against the abuse of monopoly, we can lend our strong support to it.
Mr Chairman, we would like to point out that in a different context we have drawn the attention of the
Committee on the overarching role of certain multinationals on certain commodity markets.
Mr Chairman, the issues raised by the 11 countries are of crucial importance to us.  We,
therefore, consider that they should form an essential item of our special sessions meetings.  We
therefore make a formal proposal in this regard.  Our comments of today are by no means exhaustive
and we will come forward with further contributions as we move on.
G/AG/NG/W/15
Proposal for Comprehensive Long Term Agricultural Trade Reform (US)
The US has produced a comprehensive paper wherein it has spelt out its objectives on a wide
range of issues.
Mauritius would limit itself to some preliminary comments today.
We have taken note that the US calls upon us all to recognise "that liberalization alone will
not address food security needs in developed and least developing countries".  In this regard, we
further note that the US at page 5 does make reference to the continuing role of, inter-alia,  credit
programmes in providing for food import needs.  We have already pointed out the usefulness for
certain NFIDCs of export subsidies and export credit programmes.
The US has made several suggestions in respect of S&D.  We are examining them and would
in the near future comment on them.
We would wish to have some clarifications from the US on certain issues:(i) Should the STE issue be dealt with under the AA or by the Committee on STE which
is distinct from the Committee on Agriculture and operates under different legal
provisions?
(ii) In view of Article 10(2), would it not be appropriate to have WTO disciplines on
export credit programmes rather than OECD ones?
(iii) Why prefer a plurilateral forum?  On our part, we prefer the WTO route.G/AG/NG/W/28
Page 4
We note that the US on the issue of food security proposes the renewal of the commitment
made under the Marrakesh Decision on Measures concerning the possible negative effects of the
reform programme.  As an NFIDCs we would wish first to have concrete measures taken in the
context of an existing commitment.
The current negotiations should result in a binding commitment in favour of NFIDCs and
LDCs.  Such a commitment should be comprehensive and address the diverse concerns of these
countries in the light of the Rome Summit.
G/AG/NG/W/16
Note on Domestic Support Reform/ US
We would like to thank the US for the paper and note the positive attitude of the US vis-à-vis
certain concerns of the DCs, in particular the recognition of the "unique development challenges
facing DCs and LDCs".
At this stage, we are not going to make lengthy comments on this paper.
Our preliminary comments relate to some of the points made at page 2, namely Farm income
safety net and risk management tools and the development of biomass practices to help capture carbon
dioxide.
In Developed countries the safety net and the tools as well as the development of biomass
practices are achieved by way of Government contributions.
In case of DCs, these issues are vital for t hose which depend on one or two commodities for
export and which are devoid of fossil fuels, in particular the Small Island Developing States.
Consequently, we should in the course of the negotiations ensure that the interests and
concerns of these countries are adequately safeguarded and addressed.  And in this context, we
welcome the support given by the US in respect of "the exemption of additional criteria-based support
measures deemed essential to development objectives".
__________