WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/120
15 February 2001
(01-0749)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FIFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
5-7 FEBRUARY 2001
Statement by Norway
G/AG/NG/W/90  (Proposal by the EC)
The EC proposal contains a number of elements that we would like to endorse.  In particular,
we share the proposal’s emphasis on the need for balancing trade and non-trade concerns relating to a
multifunctional agriculture.  Like the EC we believe that negotiations in the agricultural field would
be further facilitated by broader WTO negotiations.  We also agree that participation of developing
countries, and in particular the least-developed, in the multilateral trading system should be promotedas improved market access for agricultural products is of vital importance to many developing
countries as a vehicle for economic growth and poverty alleviation.
Furthermore, the EC proposal underlines the need for flexibility when undertaking tariff
reductions, which enables Members to take into account the particular situation of specific sectors.Given the special character of agriculture, we agree that the special safeguard clause should be
continued for the purpose of providing sufficient protection against sudden import surges and price
fluctuations.
On export competition, it is important to treat equally the subsidy element of all export
measures in order to create a more level playing field.  Officially supported export credits in
agriculture should as pointed out by the EC, be covered by specific WTO rules and disciplines.  Foodaid should also be subject to such treatment, without restricting the availability of genuine food aid in
fully grant form and while taking fully into account possible negative effects of the reform process on
net-food importing developing countries.  As part  of a balanced approach we acknowledge the need
for stricter disciplines on export competition measures.
With regard to domestic support, we agree that aid, which is variable in relation to market
prices and paid on products, which are exported, can be particularly trade-distorting.  As proposed by
the EC such aid requires specific discipline.  Furthermore, we endorse the proposal to maintain the
Blue Box as well as the Green Box.
Moreover, the Peace Clause should be maintain ed as the logical corollary of the specific
nature of the Agreement on Agriculture.  We also share the view of the EC that the specific role of
agriculture as a provider of public goods, and thus the multifunctional role of agriculture, should be
recognised.
Finally, the proposal contains a number of valuable proposals relating to developing
countries.  Market access for products originating in LDCs should be improved in terms of
predictability and product coverage.  Both developed countries and the more developed developing
countries should as a first step grant duty free and quota-free market access on a preferential basis forG/AG/NG/W/120
Page 2
essentially all products from LDCs.  We also agree with the EC proposal that necessary flexibility be
provided to address developing countries’ concerns.
G/AG/NG/W/91  (Proposal by Japan)
Japan has submitted a comprehensive proposal.  Like Japan, we would like to stress the
multifunctional roles agriculture plays in society.  The Japanese proposal is based on the fundamental
concept of coexistence of various types of agriculture.  We agree that every country should have the
right, according to mutually agreed  rules, to secure its agriculture.  Every Member should thus be
granted flexibility in national policy design to foster domestic agricultural production necessary to
address domestic NTCs, based on each country’s production conditions and policy objectives.  As aresult of differences in production conditions between and within countries and in order to be able to
sustain domestic production required to properly address NTCs, countries with a comparative
disadvantage need to be allowed to have recourse to a policy measure combination that includes, to a
large extent, the use of production-related policy measures.  On the other hand, as outlined also in the
Japanese proposal, export competition measures shou ld not be deemed part of a long-term strategy to
address NTCs.
We agree with Japan that it is necessary to examine thoroughly experience gained from
implementing the Uruguay Round and that agriculture cannot be sufficiently managed by market
mechanisms alone.  We also agree that the agricultural negotiations should be conducted andconcluded in a single undertaking as part of a broad round.  As regards market access, Japan has
rightly pointed out that access opportunities, tariff levels, TRQ administration and safeguard
mechanisms are important issues that need to be addressed.  For countries with low self–sufficiency
and a narrow product range resulting from for example natural production conditions domestic
production of key agricultural products is sensitive to further increases in minimum access quotas.We concur with the Japanese proposal that the present basic framework of rules and disciplines on
domestic support should be maintained.  This implies continuing the Blue Box as well as the Green
Box.  Finally, we agree that due consideration should be given to the special needs of developing
countries inter alia as regards food security.
G/AG/NG/W/92  (Proposal by Canada)
The Canadian submission contained in W/93 consists of two separate proposals.  The first
suggests Green Box policies to be permanently recognised as not countervailable.  This is a proposal
that Norway would like to endorse.  The second proposal to impose an overall limit on all types of
support is unfortunately not acceptable.  We do not understand the rationale of capping Green Boxsupport as long as it is non-trade distorting.  The same applies to the Blue Box. Such support is
subject to production-limiting programmes and therefore has only limited effects on trade.  As regards
amber support, such support is already subject to specific ceilings that have been reduced since the
Uruguay Round.  We are prepared to undertake further reductions in domestic support, and propose
that a distinction should be made between AMS support to export-oriented products and to productsfor the home market.  The latter should be subject to less stringent reduction commitments.
G/AG/NG/W/94  (Proposal by Switzerland)
The Swiss proposal emphasises the need to give due consideration to non-trade concerns as
well as to the special needs of developing countries.  The Swiss submission contains a description of
their experiences from implementing the existing agreement.  As stipulated in Article 20 experiences
to date are to be taken into account in the negotiations, and we welcome the presentation of which
effects the agreement has had in Switzerland.  The proposal stresses that further analyses should beG/AG/NG/W/120
Page 3
conducted and that the rules must be in keeping with the objective to achieve sustainable
development.  We agree that all relevant aspects have to be examined throughout the negotiations and
taken into account when preparing the rules and disciplines for agricultural trade in the future.
Furthermore, Switzerland, as well as other Members, has pointed to the fact that the
negotiations have to meet several concerns in order to gain sufficient public support.  The Swiss
proposal refers to a number of such elements which we would like to endorse, for example that further
reform must not only avoid harm to the environment, but that it must seek solutions favourable to the
economy, to social conditions and to the environment.  The promotion of sustainable development
and environmental concerns should thus, as pointed out in our own proposal, be taken into account in
the negotiations.  We agree with Switzerland that a flexible approach to tariff reductions is needed and
that tariff quotas should be administered in ways that are transparent and equitable.  Like Switzerlandwe believe that there should be no absolute multilateral ceiling on the green box and that disciplines
should be developed for all export competition instruments.  Finally, we would like to echo
Switzerland’s call for a coordinated and consensual approach with due consideration to the interests
of all parties.
G/AG/NG/W/95  (Proposal by Swaziland)
We would like to thank Swaziland for its contribution and for sharing with us its national
experiences and views on the continuation of the reform process.  The Swaziland proposal throwslight on the challenges many developing countries are facing and emphasizes the importance of
pursuing reform in ways that are beneficial to all Members, including countries such as Swaziland.
We endorse the view that the reform process should proceed in ways that support the development
needs of developing countries and the integration of developing countries in the world economy.  It is
important to bear in mind the diversity of situatio ns that exist in the developing world.  While the
developing countries are almost universal in their request for better market access in agriculture, some
developing Members have production handicaps relating to natural, social, cultural, economic and
institutional constraints and emphasize their need for keeping adequate flexibility in national policy
design.  Norway endorses the need to address the different concerns of developing countries in the
continuation of the reform process.  Furthermore, we support the proposal to extend to all developing
countries the right to have recourse to the Spec ial Safeguard mechanism.  We are looking forward to
further discussions of this and other proposals to address the special needs of developing countries.
G/AG/NG/W/96 and G/AG/NG/W/97  (Proposals by Mauritius and SIDS)
We would like to thank Mauritius for its comprehensive proposal, and we would also like to
take this opportunity to commend the Mauritius delegation for the active role it has played in the AIE
process and so far in the negotiations.  Its interventions have clearly demonstrated the concept of
diversity, which definitely is a key feature of the 140 Members of this Organisation.  The special
situation characterising agriculture and trade of Mauritius and other small island developing states is
also eloquently elaborated in the proposal G/AG/NG/W/97 submitted by Dominica, Jamaica,Mauritius, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago.
Our comments also relate to this proposal.  As noted in their proposal, the general weakness of
agriculture in SIDS is a direct consequence of diseconomies of scale and scope and high unit costs of
input factors and transport, relating to inherent SIDS characteristics such as smallness, remoteness,
geographical dispersion, vulnerability to natural disasters and scarcity of necessary productionresources.
On non-trade concerns we appreciate the Mauritius view that SIDS should within a rules
based framework be allowed to use appropriate means to ensure that agriculture plays its
multifunctional role.  In its proposal Mauritius states that particular attention should be paid to tradeG/AG/NG/W/120
Page 4
arrangements that procure SIDS with the means to pursue their agricultural policy objectives.  Due
consideration should be given to this aspect.  We also believe the proposals on food security and S&D
should be appropriately taken into account in the negotiations.  On the issues of market access we
need to pay special attention to the fact that most SIDS depend on only one or two agricultural
commodities for export.  While diversification efforts should be intensified, we should simultaneouslyensure market access for their traditional key commodities is not eroded.  Regarding domestic
support, sufficient flexibility should, within mutual ly agreed rules, be ensured in order to allow
Mauritius and the other SIDS economies to design appropriate policy combinations adapted to their
special needs and production conditions.  Finally, we fully endorse the proposal to maintain the peace
clause in order to provide legal security to the multilaterally negotiation result in agriculture.
G/AG/NG/W/98  (Proposal by Korea)
We would like to welcome the Korean proposal.  Like Korea we underline the need to
carefully analyse the experiences and effects of the existing Agreement, as foreseen in Article 20, a)
and b).  Furthermore, the Korean submission contains a number of possible guidelines for thenegotiations, accompanied by concrete proposals in each of the areas for negotiation.  We agree with
Korea that tariff reductions should be based on the final bound rates of the Uruguay Round
commitments and that the special safeguard should be  maintained.  We also agree that the framework
of amber, blue and green box support should be kept and have put forward a specific proposal in this
respect.  Like Korea we favour addressing direct export subsidies, export credits and state tradingenterprises to create a level playing field.  We also endorse the need for further developing specific
measures of special and differential treatment for developing countries in the areas of market access,
domestic support and export competition.  Last, but not  least we concur with Korea when it refers to
the need to take into account the safeguarding of the multifunctionality of agriculture and the
provision of public goods such as food security, environmental protection and rural development.
G/AG/NG/W/100  (Proposal by Caricom)
Norway would like to thank the Caricom count ries for having presented their submission,
which we believe points to a number of issues that we need to look very carefully at in the
negotiations.  The Caricom submission emphasizes the need to balance the trade and non-tradeconcerns, reminding us that there are important non-trade objectives that are of critical importance to
Members, including many small developing countries such as the Members of Caricom.  The
proposals from the Caricom group, SIDS, Mauritius and Swaziland demonstrate the diversity of
country situations.  In the negotiations our challenge will be to arrive at conclusions which will be of
benefit to all participants.
The proposal underlines the importance of market access and trade preferences.  Norway
recognises that improved, stable and predictable market access for agricultural products is of vital
importance to many developing countries as a ve hicle for economic growth and poverty alleviation.
The Caricom proposal on market access stresses the significance of technical and financial
assistance as a means to enable developing countries to take advantage of opportunities offered by the
multilateral reform programme.  As the proposal is rightly pointing to, many small developing
economies are at present suffering from various supply side constraints of technical, institutional or
infrastructural nature.  It seems that capacity building in these areas would be crucial in order toovercome such constraints and prevent small developing countries from being marginalised in the
global world economy.  As underlined in our proposal Norway believes trade-related technical
assistance to developing countries should be increased considerably.  I would also like to stress that
Norway has been advocating including technical assistance on the regular WTO budget.  Furthermore,
The Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the ReformG/AG/NG/W/120
Page 5
Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries should be reviewed
in order to ensure its effective implementation.
G/AG/NG/W/102  (Proposal by India)
Norway would like to welcome India’s pr oposal, which touches upon important questions
relating to food security, poverty alleviation and development.  We believe India rightfully points to a
number of issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.  We understand and appreciate the key
role that agriculture plays in most agrarian developing countries, and share the view that the sector
can be essential in order to overcome poverty and food insecurity.  We also agree that agriculture in
developing countries is most often of a subsistence nature that does not distort global markets.Further, we understand the call for multilateral trade reform to better take account of the development
needs of developing countries;  both in terms of improved market access and adequate flexibility in
national policy design.  All in all India’s proposal underlines the specificity of the agricultural sector
and that market forces alone cannot address non-trade concerns and ensure the achievement of vital
national policy objectives.
Having said this, we would like to point out  that even though agriculture in developed
countries does not contribute substantially to GDP or to employment at aggregate national levels, it
does help to secure the viability of rural communities,  often in remote areas.  Agriculture in developed
countries may also contribute to for instance protecting the environment and to obtaining long termfood security.  Not being measurable by GDP does not imply that non-economic, or non-trade
concerns are not important.  In fact, non-trade concerns are explicitly referred to and recognised in our
reform mandate, as relevant to all Members.
Due to unfavourable production conditions countries may not be able to safeguard their non-
trade concerns without considerable government intervention.  To which extent different policy
measures may have negative spillover effects on other countries is an important question that needs to
be addressed in our negotiations.  The challenge ahead of us consists of refining the agreement on
agriculture in a way that is acceptable to all of us.
For instance, Norway recognises that improved market access for agricultural products is of
vital importance to many developing countries as a vehicle for economic growth and povertyalleviation.  We will, inter alia in order to address the concerns raised by India and many other
Members, pay special attention to products of particular interest to developing countries when
considering further MFN tariff reductions.  Furthermore, we acknowledge the need for stricter
disciplines in particular on export competition measures and AMS support to export-oriented
production.  However, every Member, developing as well as developed countries, should be grantedflexibility in national policy design to foster production necessary to address domestic NTCs.
We are looking forward to discussing these issues further with India as well as other partners
in order to increase mutual understanding, take account of the needs of all Members and bring us
closer to reaching the long-term objectives of the reform process.
__________