WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/188
26 September 2002
(02-5156)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  French
COMMON POSITION OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE WEST AFRICAN
ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION (WAEMU) IN THE MULTILATERAL
TRADE NEGOTIATIONS ON AGRICULTURE
The following communication has been received from the Delegation of Senegal on behalf of
the WAEMU member States.
_____________
The WAEMU is an organization for regional integration, which was founded on
10 January 1994.  It is made up of the following member States:  the Republic of Benin,
Burkina Faso, the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, the Republic of Guinea Bissau, the Republic of Mali, the
Republic of Niger, the Republic of Senegal and the Republic of Togo.  With the exception ofCôte d'Ivoire and Senegal (developing countries), these countries belong to the group of
least-developed countries (LDC) and are all eligible for relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries Initiative (HIPC).  All the WAEMU member States are, moreover, agricultural exporters
and net food-importing countries.
The WAEMU member States consider that the current multilateral trade negotiations on
agriculture should focus more on development policies than on customs tariffs.  The agriculturalsector is an essential component of the economies of the WAEMU member States in terms of
contribution to GDP, employment, international trade and food security.  Recognizing the importance
of agriculture, the Treaty establishing the WAEMU prescribes, in Chapter V of Additional Protocol
No. II relating to sectoral policies of the Union, the implementation of a common agricultural policy
geared towards the following objectives:
(a) Food security and an adequate level of self-sufficiency in the Union, having regard to
the complementarities between the member States and their respective comparative
advantages;
(b) sustainable increase in agricultural productivity, by mastering technological advances
and by promoting the development and rational management of research, production
and agricultural sectors, as well as optimal use of production factors such as labour
and inputs, in order to raise the standard of living in rural areas;
(c) better functioning of markets in agricultural, livestock and fisheries products for the
benefit of producers and consumers.
In establishing the guidelines for the common agricultural policy, due account was taken of:
(a) The special nature of agricultural activity, with its specific social features and the
structural and natural disparities between different agricultural regions;G/AG/NG/W/188
Page 2
(b) the need to make appropriate adjustments on a gradual basis;
(c) the close connection, in the member States, between agriculture and the other
economic sectors.
Noting that the implementation of the Agreement on Agriculture negotiated in the Uruguay
Round has not yielded the anticipated results in the agricultural sector and that it will be impossible to
achieve the objectives of the common agricultural policy under the existing rules, the WAEMU
member States hereby establish their common negotiating positions.
The challenge facing the WAEMU member States in the future agricultural negotiations is
twofold:
- To ensure that the developed countries effectively liberalize their agricultural
policies, in order to increase the internal and external competitiveness of agricultural
products of interest to the developing and the least-developed countries, andespecially high value-added products;
- to work towards strengthening and improving waivers in favour of the developing
and the least-developed countries.
I. Measures aimed at effective liberalization of the agricultural policies of developed
countries
These measures concern market access, domestic support and export subsidy policies.
I.1 Market access
The forthcoming negotiations on agriculture should lead to:
- A substantial reduction in tariff peaks by the developed countries and the newly
industrialized countries;  this will enable developing countries to benefit from lower
tariffs and will facilitate access to developed markets for their products;
- a major reduction in tariff escalation, in order to diversify the developing countries'
agricultural production through greater emphasis on high value-added products;
indeed, since customs duties on African exports entering the markets of developed
countries are proportional to the level of processing of the goods, African countriestend to continue exporting agricultural products that have received little or no
processing, which is not conductive to the creation of local added value;
- unrestricted access for agricultural products from the least-developed countries to
developed markets, instead of the average 43 per cent tariff reduction accorded so far;the offer by the European Union to grant total exemption for the least-developed
countries should be adopted by all the developed countries;
- preservation of the Special Safeguard Clause in a renegotiated Agreement on
Agriculture, and extension of these provisions, irrespective of the tarifficationprocess, to developing and least-developed countries that are currently excluded from
this mechanism;  this will enable the WAEMU member States to bring the short-term
import tax (TCI)  into conformity with the WTO rules;G/AG/NG/W/188
Page 3
- greater flexibility in the conditions for use of the Special Safeguard by developing
countries;  the trigger levels (quantities or prices) could thus be determined annually
by the countries concerned, on the basis of their domestic consumption and
production (quantities for the previous year) or their domestic production costs
(prices).
I.2 Domestic support
• Reduction in domestic support measures
Domestic support measures in the developed countries will have to be substantially reduced,
in order to eliminate the imbalance, in their use,  between the developed and the developing countries.
• Critical review of the use of Green Box and Blue Box measures by the
developed countries
• Green Box
Despite the reductions in domestic support in the developed countries, which is determined on
the basis of the AMS, overall levels of support have generally risen rather than fallen.  It appears thatmany developed countries, including the European Union and the United States, are channelling their
agricultural support away from the AMS, which is subject to reduction commitments, and into Green
Box programmes, thus avoiding the obligation to make reductions.
Moreover, decoupling support from production levels does not preclude effects on
production, for example by raising farmers’ incomes, which may increase the farmers' propensity to
invest in production.
Use of the Green Box may thus serve to disguise the support that the developed countries
continue to provide for their agriculture.  Provis ion should therefore be made in the new Agreement
for restricting abuse of Green Box measures by the developed countries.
• Blue Box
All support linked to production must be abolished.
• Increase in de minimis  levels
The de minimis percentage threshold for developing countries should be raised to at least
10 per cent.  This would give them greater scope for implementing support measures suited to their
agricultural sectors.
I.3 Export subsidies
It is necessary to abolish export subsidies and to establish a discipline on export credits.
It is often argued that the beneficiaries of export subsidies, which are granted mainly by
developed countries, are urban consumers in developing countries, who thus have access to low-cost
food products.G/AG/NG/W/188
Page 4
This generally proves to be no more than a short-term benefit, for it is often eroded by
balance-of-payment difficulties, so that the real beneficiaries are the producers in the developed
countries, whose income levels are maintained through subsidies.
Moreover, export subsidies are a factor in maintaining flows of artificially competitive
goods – a process that facilitates trade diversion, cuts back agriculture-related economic activity and
increases food dependency in the developing countries.
Abolishing such practices in the developed c ountries will provide a lasting solution to food
security problems in the developing countries.
The least-developed countries will have to be allowed greater flexibility in their use of export
subsidies, however, so as to boost their exports of agricultural products with strong export potential.
In other words, it is a matter of moving beyond these countries' Schedules and of extending the scope
of the waivers to other forms of export subsidies.
II. Strengthening of waivers in favour of the developing and the least-developed countries
II.1 Special and differential treatment
In most developing and least-developed coun tries, including the WAEMU member States,
significant progress in promoting economic grow th, combating poverty and improving food security
appears impossible to achieve without substantially developing the potential of the agricultural sector
and its contribution to global economic development.
Special and differential treatment is a means of reducing the inequalities that exist between
the developed and the developing countries in the economic, financial, technological and developmentfields.
Preservation of this principle should therefore not be called into question in the negotiations.
On the other hand, its application should be reflected in the relevant provisions, through the
strengthening of current waivers in favour of the developing and the least-developed countries and
with due regard for the specific situation of land-locked countries.
Hence the definition of criteria for commitments and timeframes should be based, inter alia ,
on objective and verifiable economic indicators and take greater account of development levels and
growth in the agricultural sector.
The developing and especially the least-developed countries should be given more flexibility
in implementing emergency measures to protect small-scale farmers against imports and unfair trade
practices, particularly those affecting basic food production for local consumption.
II.2 Creation of a "Development Box"
Considering the role of agriculture and its horizontal links with other sectors in the WAEMU
countries and the developing countries generally, the WAEMU countries request the creation of a
"Development Box", whose principal aim will be to provide greater flexibility in framing national
agricultural policies.
Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture stipulates that commitments under the reform
programme should be made, having regard to non-trade concerns, including food security and the
need to protect the environment.G/AG/NG/W/188
Page 5
The developing countries might need to provide targeted aid for their agricultural sectors in
the form of support for investment, research and the transfer of technology, input subsidies and
protection of natural resources, in order to move towards high value-added activities or to address
supply-side constraints with a view to fostering economic development.  Such support would be
discontinued as competitiveness and profitability increased.
"Development Box" instruments should contribute to the following objectives in particular:
- To increase domestic supply of food products, especially key staples;- to foster sustainable agricultural development;
- to increase food security and food accessibility;
- to promote employment for the rural poor, in order to raise their standard of living as
part of the effort to combat poverty;
- to protect local production from cheap imports;
- to allow the flexibility needed to support the development of production capacities
and competitiveness.
II.3 The Marrakesh Ministerial Decision
The Ministerial Decision on possible negative effects of the reform programme on least-
developed and net food-importing developing countries has not been translated into practice.
Operational mechanisms should be adopted in order to implement the support measures, in
particular technical and financial assistance, provided for in the Decision.  Implementation of the
Decision will have to be followed and evaluate d on a regular basis, in a formal institutional
framework.  The mechanism for introducing food aid into the local markets of developing countries
should be targeted so as to avoid any disruption in domestic production.
II.4 Other topics for negotiation
• Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
Quality and safety standards are set mainly by the developed countries, and developing
countries are rarely represented in decision-making bodies.
Such standards are difficult to meet for developing countries and may be used as disguised
protectionism by the developed countries.  Most developing countries, including the WAEMU
member States, have to contend, at the administrative  and technical levels, with a lack of institutions
and a shortage of skills needed to validate the quality of imports and exports.  This means that little
use is made in these countries of the risk management system, which is one of the cornerstones of theSPS Agreement.
Article 9 of the SPS Agreement stipulates that the WTO Members agree to facilitate the
provision of technical assistance to developing countries, either bilaterally or through the appropriate
international organizations.  The WAEMU countries therefore request that this provision, which isdesigned for mobilizing such assistance and other means, be effectively applied in order to ensure:
- The training of control staff in the developing countries;G/AG/NG/W/188
Page 6
- more effective and efficient participation by developing countries in the work of the
various committees;
- the creation or strengthening of capacities to conduct laboratory analyses and of
certification and control services;
- the development of control services' inspection capacities.
The WAEMU further proposes the negotiation of a provision whereby prohibition of
production, marketing and use of intermediates, inputs and other intermediate consumption items in
developed countries would also be extended to de veloping country Members.  In other words, a
"generalized precautionary provision" should be introduced to cover prohibitions on sanitary and
phytosanitary grounds.
• Compatibility between WTO-authorized and SAP/ASAP measures
Almost none of the WAEMU countries have been able to benefit from the exemptions and
other forms of special and differential treatment stemming from the Uruguay Round Agreements,
particularly in the agricultural sphere, because of  the conditionalities attached to the Structural
Adjustment Programmes (SAP) and/or Agriculture Sector Adjustment Programmes (ASAP) that these
countries have signed with the Bretton Woods institutions.  As a result, the level of liberalization and
market-opening far exceeds that prescribed by the commitments under the Agriculture Agreement,whereas support levels remain low and inadequate for promoting the forms of agricultural production
needed in the Union.
The WAEMU member States therefore wish to see the negotiation of a "provision of
minimum conformity" between WTO-authorized measures and the conditionalities attached to thereforms advocated by the Bretton Woods institutions, in order to enable the countries concerned to
take full advantage of the waivers for which they might be eligible.
This issue may be raised in the framework of the Inter-Agency Working Group (World Bank,
IMF, ITC, UNCTAD, WTO and UNDP), along with a request to broaden the latter's sphere ofcompetence and the group of countries concerned.
22 November 2001
__________