WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/180
12 April 2001
(01-1886)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
SIXTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
22-23 MARCH 2001
Statements by ASEAN
G/AG/NG/W/101  (Proposal by Norway)
I am speaking on behalf of the ASEAN Member countries of the WTO.
1. ASEAN would like to welcome the proposal of  Norway and its commitment to substantial
progressive reductions in support and protection in agricultural reform.
2. This proposal of Norway does contain some interesting elements particularly as regards
provisions relating to treatment of developing countries and we wish to thank Norway for
incorporating these elements.
3. However, this proposal contains several ideas on Non-Trade Concerns (NTCs) and on
multifunctionality.  I will not dwell on this subject as our position is quite well understood already.
Suffice to say that Norway which has already benefited immensely from free and non-subsidised trade
in other sectors namely industrial and services should not use the multifunctional character of
agriculture as an excuse for according protectionism to the sector.
4. There are some other elements in the Norwegian proposal with which we have serious
concerns.
These include:- in the area of export competition : the Norwegian proposal talks of equal treatment in all
forms of export competition. Whilst all these forms of export subsidies need to be addressed,they must be addressed in a comprehensive manner . We are of the understanding that the
term equal treatment infers linkages between the various forms; and we are concerned that a
stalemate in the reform of one element would result in a net stalemate in all forms. We urge
Members to revisit the Cairns Group proposa l on export competition, (G/AG/NG/W/11) dated
16 June 2000 on how in our view, these export subsidies shall be treated.
- in the area of market access : the proposal that suggests that "modalities on further market
access commitments must be designed to allow Members to make only limited MFN tariff
reductions on their key agricultural products ."
5. If this proposal were to be accepted, and each WTO Member were free to limit tariff
reductions on its key agricultural products, one  can only imagine what would happen to world
agricultural trade when a large number of agricultural products are exempted from the full effects of
liberalization.
6. Therefore, to us, as per the Cairns Group proposal, tariff reduction comments shall be based
on a comprehensive approach and each tariff line be subjected to reduction commitments .G/AG/NG/W/180
Page 2
7. In the area of domestic support: the proposal that the AMS should be divided into two
categories; and ensuing from this, that the domestic support to agricultural production destined for the
domestic market be subject to less stringent reduction commitments. This proposal is flawed on 3
aspects:
a) the proposal fails to recognise that the market access opportunities of other WTO
Members who have export interests in the form of competing products would have
been impaired as a result of the provision of more freely available domestic support
for such agricultural produce.
b) what guarantee is there that such produce would not find its way into the export
markets?
c) what constitutes a domestic market in the context of a customs Union or Free Trade
Area?
8. We oppose the maintenance of the Blue Box of domestic support measures.  Only a few
developed countries have utilized this Blue Box, which is trade–distorting.  It is best that this Blue
Box be eliminated.
9. The net effect of Norway's proposal as regards limiting products subjected to tariff reductions,
and domestic support reduction comments on products destined only for the domestic market; on " key
agricultural products ", would, going by Norway's proposal, be exempted from the reform process,
as it would have been exempted from the full effects of tariff reductions; as well as from reduction
commitments in domestic support.
10. Thus, once again, we wish to reiterate the importance of a comprehensive approach to
domestic support reform.  Only measures taken by developing countries for poverty alleviation, rural
development and diversification of agriculture should be exempted from any reduction commitments.
11. We wish to remind Norway that:
a) when the Peace Clause ends at the end of Year 2003 , agriculture will no longer be
exempted from the full provisions of the Subsidies and CVM Agreement.
b) as a matter of consistency and norm in this House, we do not believe that developing
countries should be classified into different levels by adding the "more developed of
developed countries" category, as in the Norwegian proposal. If you go along this
line, we may very well classify developed countries into different categories as well.This is a slippery slope, and we should avoid dwelling on this aspect. The agricultural
negotiations are already complicated. I am sure it is not the intention of Members to
further complicate the negotiations.
G/AG/NG/W/103  (Proposal by Poland)
ASEAN has read with interest the proposal made by Poland and wishes to offer the following
comments:
We take positive note of Poland's proposal that all forms of export subsidies should be dealt
with in the negotiations.  However, we believe the level of ambition behind this proposal is too
modest to implement effective reforms in trade in agriculture.  Moreover, while we support the call
for effective disciplines on other forms of support for exports, ASEAN wishes to remind that we
should not lose sight of the fact that urgent attention should be given to export subsidies, which isconsidered to be the most trade-distorting measure.G/AG/NG/W/180
Page 3
As Poland's submission has rightly pointed out, the objective of the reform process is to
achieve a fair and market-oriented agricultural tr ading system.  In our view, any proposal to exempt
from disciplines the Blue Box, which is trade-distorting, is not consistent with the objective of the
reform process.  As such, ASEAN has difficulties in subscribing to the proposal that would allow the
maintenance and introduction of the present Blue Box.
Poland observed in its proposal that after six years of implementation of the Agreement, the
exports of agricultural products remain in the hands of a limited number of countries.  ASEAN
believes this is due to the imbalances in the agreement in favour of those who are largely responsible
for the distortions in the world market for agriculture.  Thus, we deem it somewhat preposterous that
countries, which continue to enjoy trade-distorting measures, should be awarded minimum access,
especially in markets of non-trade-distorting producing countries. Moreover, the proposal to secureminimum access for least-developed and net-food-importing countries is empty if these countries'
production potentials are denied by the continued ap plication of trade-distorting measures by those
who can afford to maintain such policies.
In accordance with Article 20, ASEAN recognize the need for the negotiations to take into
account non-trade concerns, but would also stress that the same is expected with respect to the
objective of fair and market-oriented agricultural re form.  In light of this, ASEAN believes that non-
trade concerns should be addressed through non-distorting policy instruments.
G/AG/NG/W/105  (Proposal by Morocco)
The characteristic of ASEAN agriculture has much in common with the agricultural sector of
Morocco.  Both are predominantly small scale, labour intensive and largely dependent on rainfall.
Thus, it will not be surprising that we also encounter similar problems, as well as share commonviews on how to address them.
We agree that on market access the developed countries are to undertake a more substantial
and rapid tariff reduction commitments and that developing countries should be accorded transitional
period, a more marked asymmetry and greater flexibility in utilizing the safeguard clause.  For
instance, developing countries should be entitled to a special mechanism to protect their agricultural
sectors from sudden import surge and unfair competition from subsidized imports of agriculturalproducts.
We also share the view that developed countries should make further substantial AMS
reduction commitments; the Blue Box should be elim inated; and the Green Box should be revised to
include only non-trade-distorting measures and to take into account particular concerns of developingcountries.  Export subsidies should be eliminated and subsidies by product type limited.
The proposal on non-trade concerns is legitimate, positive and constructive in its attempts to
attain the policy objectives with non-trade-distorting measures.  It is disappointing that developed
country proponents of multi-functionality, which have abundant financial resources appear reluctantto address their own non-trade concerns in the same positive manner but rather, seems to seek
exemptions from reduction in support and protection.
G/AG/NG/W/106  (Proposal by Turkey)
ASEAN welcomes with much interest the propos al put forward by Turkey, which in our view
mirrors in many respects ASEAN's earlier submission.  Allow us to mention briefly what we view are
some main points of convergence between ASEAN's approach to this negotiations and the proposals
contained in Turkey's paper.G/AG/NG/W/180
Page 4
1. As with Turkey, ASEAN has on many occasions stressed that substantive commitments by
developed countries on domestic support and export subsidies necessary to correct the gross
imbalance in the agreement would be a pre-requisite to any commitments that may be expected from
developing countries in the area of market access.
2. Going into the three pillars, Turkey's proposal echoes our objective for these negotiations to
result in improved market access for developing countries through substantive reductions in tariffs,
and the elimination of tariff peaks and tariff escalation for products of interest to developing
countries.
3. On domestic support, we agree with Turkey's observation that the provision for de minimis
level of support has allowed many trade-distorting measures in developed countries to escape fromreduction disciplines.  In agreeing with Turkey, we take the opportunity to stress our proposal that this
additional flexibility should no longer be allowed for developed countries, considering especially that
they continue to enjoy high levels of AMS.
ASEAN also endorses Turkey's proposal that Article 6.2 of the Agreement should remain in
the reform process, as this is an indispensabl e tool in the agricultural development programs of
developing countries.
Moreover, ASEAN joins Turkey in its proposal to review the Green Box in order to ensure
that measures under this category comply with the fundamental criteria of non-trade-distorting, andthat the relevant policies of developing countries are sufficiently covered therein.
4. We share the view of Turkey that export subsidies of developed countries should be
eliminated;  we endorse the suggestion that food aid be given in grant form;  we further support the
call that disciplines on export credits be developed on an urgent basis within the WTO to fulfill themandate of Article 10.2 of the Agriculture Agreement.
5. Lastly, we believe that ASEAN's attitude on non-trade concerns resembles Turkey's approach
to this issue.  While we fully recognize the need  for the negotiations to take into account non-trade
concerns, ASEAN is of the firm view that non-trade concerns should not in any way be used to justify
exemptions from substantive commitments in support and subsidies, nor perpetuate trade-distorting
policies.
G/AG/NG/W/107  (Proposal by Egypt)
ASEAN welcomes the comprehensive proposal by the Arab Republic of Egypt and notes that
agriculture has a very important role in the Egyptian economy, as it is the case in many other
developing and least-developed countries.  Particularly, we support the call for developed countries to
substantially reduce domestic support on disaggregated product-by-product basis and phase out all
forms of export subsidization over an agreed period of time.
ASEAN shares a number of fundamentals and main objectives contained in its proposal.  Like
Egypt, ASEAN believes that S&D provisions in the AoA should not only be strengthened, expanded
and provided more flexibility, but should also be made concrete and operational.  ASEAN wishes to
underline that those specified provisions should enable the developing countries to further trade
reforms, promote fairness and be facilitative of development aspirations.
Furthermore, the idea that greater flexibility should be granted to developing countries to
increase their levels of domestic support within the framework of Green Box measures is in line with
the proposal of some developing country Members on "development box" or "food security box"
which would constitute an important means for developing countries to address their legitimateconcerns in order for them to meaningfully participate, contribute and benefit from furthering the
reform process.G/AG/NG/W/180
Page 5
ASEAN fully supports Egypt's view that all S&D provisions should be discussed within the
context of the three main pillars of trade liberalization, as  S&D is an integral component of the
reform process.
Lastly, ASEAN would also like to commend th e Egyptian initiative for positive and concrete
proposal to operationalize the Marrakesh Decision by, among others, creating an effective mechanism
to address the concerns of NFIDCs and LDCs on food import.  We sincerely hope that this initiative
will receive wide support from Members, especially those from the developed countries.
__________