WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/124
1 March 2001
(01-1011)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FIFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
5-7 FEBRUARY 2001
Statements by Sri Lanka
G/AG/NG/W/90  (Proposal by the EC)1. My delegation would also like to join the others in thanking the delegation of the European
Communities, for submitting a comprehensive proposal which is important in that while contributing
to the proposals already submitted, it also highlights the fact that consequent to negotiations in theagriculture field, all members should fully benefit from the expansion of trade.
2. As regards the proposed S&D provision for deve loping countries, we agree that the EC is by
far the largest market for export of agricultural products from developing countries and in large part
as a result of preferences granted to developing countries.  We also agree that to ensure all Members,in particular the developing countries, to benefit fully from the expansion of world trade, the key is to
create opportunities for increased market access.  However, believe that recognition by the EC that
developing countries need to maintain protection in order to have adequate time for adaptation in
itself will not be sufficient to address specific concerns of many developing countries.  While
providing such long time frames should be an important element of S&D treatment, we believe that
concrete and operational special and differential treatment is needed, by developing effective
instruments to provide greater flexibility to achieve developmental objectives of developing countries.
3. On the issue concerning non-trade concerns, we share the view that each country has
specificities relevant to its agriculture.  However, we believe that non-trade concerns of developing
countries have distinct characteristics which include small scale subsistence farming, rural
development, rural employment, production and access to food, poverty alleviation etc. and that the
contribution of agriculture to GDP, foreign exchange earnings, and employment is far higher in
developing countries compared with that of developed countries.  Hence, developing countries' non
trade concerns are distinctly different to those of developed countries.  Therefore, developing
countries need greater flexibility to address their specific concerns.
In this context, the EC's suggestion that the present framework of rules and disciplines under
the AoA constitute the right framework and advocating its continuation is of concern since they are
inequitable and do not provide a level playing field for developing countries.  However, the EC's
proposal under S&D treatment that measures ai med at achieving developmental needs where
appropriate be exempt from reduction commitment and other ways are examined to provide flexibilityto developing countries to address these concerns such as food security concerns as a means of
poverty alleviation, notably through a revision of the de minimis  clause for developing countries are
indeed welcome.
As far as the review of the Green Box is concerned, it must be undertaken with the specific
objective of (a) limiting the misuse of some of these provisions by the developed countries and (b) to
provide additional flexibility to developing countries to achieve their non-trade concerns.  Suchreview of the Green Box and revision of de minimis and other measures to meet importantG/AG/NG/W/124
Page 2
developmental goals of developing countries could form the basis for creating a Development Box as
proposed by the Group of Eleven countries including Sri Lanka.
4. On the proposal on market access, that formula for tariff reduction should be a commitment to
overall average reduction of bound tariff, my delegation is of the view that such a proposed tariffcutting formula which aims to harmonise tariffs, should address high tariffs, tariff peaks and tariff
escalation and that such a tariff cutting formula should not apply to developing countries whose tariffs
are below an agreed lower threshold, since a number of developing countries already have bound their
tariffs at a lower level and they do not have flexibility to reduce further.  My delegation also believes
that the envisaged negotiations on liberalisation of agricultural tariffs be conducted on the basis of
parameters set forth in Article XXVIII bis, so that developing countries whose tariffs are bound at low
levels will not be required to undertake further reduction commitments in their tariff levels as theexisting bindings that are at low  levels can be recognised as a concession equivalent in value to the
reduction of high tariffs.  While we agree that granting significant tariff preference to needy
developing countries and making them stable and predictable are important positive proposals,  such
measures should be accompanied by addressing in a meaningful manner eliminating of tariff peaks,
tariff escalation and full liberalisation of tropical products.  We also believe trade preferences/accessopportunities could be rendered a stable and predictable by incorporating them into the EC's Schedule
of Commitments.
5. On the proposal on food aid we support the view that food aid to least-developed countries
and net food-importing developing countries should be in fully grant form and in ways which do  notdamage local food production and marketing capacities of developing countries.  In this context it is
equally important the Marrakech Decision on the possible negative effects of the reform programme
on LDCs and NFIDCs should be operationalised, by establishing a fund to provide technical and
financial assistance to implement projects to develop infrastructure and increased agricultural
productivity in these countries, as in the long term such measures would help developing countries tobe less dependent on food aid.
Furthermore, revision and strengthening of rules of the food aid in Article 10 of AoA should
be addressed in order to achieve the objectives of the Marrakech Decision on the possible negative
effect on LDCs and NFIDCs.  On the EC proposal that specific WTO rules and disciplines should
cover export credits, we believe that such rules and disciplines to be developed should provide special
and differential treatment to LDCs and NFIDCs as specifically stated in paragraph four of theDecision on Measures concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on LDCs
and NFIDCs.
6. We also support the EC proposal that appropriate provisions be implemented to protect the
right to use geographical indications or designations of origin and to guarantee effective protectionagainst usurpation of names for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
7. On the EC proposal on Special Safeguard Clause for the continuation of a similar instrument
in the Agreement on Agriculture, my delegation is of the view that something similar to current SSG
provisions, or a separate instrument, should be made available to all developing countries under S&Dprovision in particular to address their food security concerns when cheap imports threaten domestic
production and developing countries should be able to invoke such SSG provisions based on low
prices or excess import volumes.  Furthermore, criteria could be developed, whereby developing
countries whose bound tariff is below an agreed thre shold should be able to automatically invoke the
SSG provisions.G/AG/NG/W/124
Page 3
G/AG/NG/W/96  (Proposal by Mauritius)
1. My delegation would also like to join the other delegations in thanking the delegation of
Mauritius for submitting a negotiating proposal thus making a valuable contribution to the negotiating
process.
2. While we agree as stated in the proposal that small island developing states have not
effectively benefited from the Uruguay Round, my delega tion shares the view that it is not only small
island developing countries but also most of the other developing countries as a whole have not been
able to benefit from the Uruguay Round and therefore all developing countries should be afforded
concrete operational and commercially meaningful measures in the context of the negotiations.
3. While we recognise that there are specific problems faced by small island developing
countries, my delegation holds the view that problems faced by SIDS are also similar to problems
being faced by "small developing countries" like Sri Lanka in terms of limited size of their domestic
market reducing the scope for exploitation of economies of scale, dependence on a limited range of
export crops, and narrow industrial base.  In this  context, my delegation would wish to refer to
paragraph 11 of the Communiqué of the World Bank Development and Finance Committee dated 17
April 2000, related to report of the Commonwealth Secretariat/World Bank Joint Task Force on Small
States where it states, I quote –
"Ministers welcomed the report to the Development Committee and its analysis of
the special characteristics of small states that make them particularly vulnerable,
while noting that a number of larger states shared some or all of the same
characteristics".
-Unquote-
4. They also noted the Report's recommendation that the circumstances of small states should be
taken into account in the policies and programmes of the multilateral trade, finance and development
organisations.  In this context, we believe that problems highlighted by SIDS have also been noted in
the World Bank Development and Finance Committee Communiqué as problem that are similar to
small developing economies.  Therefore, while we support SIDS in their proposals, we urge to take
into account concerns of small developing countries like Sri Lanka, as well, in the ongoing
negotiations in the sphere of agriculture.
5. As regards the issue concerning food security, we agree that food security can be best
achieved through a combination of measures as enumerated  in paragraph 2 (a) to (e) of the proposal,
in particular measures to ensure stable and export earnings to build up foreign exchange earnings for
the purchase of food on reasonable terms and conditions, allow for the establishment by donorcountries of an international reserve for food and also that they should have access to relevant
agricultural technology including new seeds and plant varieties.
6. On the Special and Differential treatment we share the view that to date S&D provisions have
been generally formulated so as to provide a longer time frame to developing countries to undertakereform as compared to developed countries and that while this aspect should remain an important
element on S&D provision, an effective instrument to address concerns of developing countries to
achieve high level of competitiveness should be evolved.  We also support, as proposed by Mauritius,
that there should be exemptions from reduction commitments for any measures aimed at poverty
alleviation and making available appropriate technology with a view to enhancing agriculturalcompetitiveness.
7. On Market Access, we share the view that certain sensitive products should be excluded from
the ambit of commitments in respect of market access, domestic support and export competition and
any commitments to be undertaken, should be on the basis of bound rates.  On the SSG provision, weG/AG/NG/W/124
Page 4
hold the view that the special safeguard mechanism should be available to all developing countries.
On the issue concerning export credits, we endorse the view that such disciplines to develop should be
provided for differential treatment in favour of LDC and NFIDCs.
8. My delegation also fully endorses the Mauritius statement that the negotiations on agriculture
would be incomplete if they were not accompanied by improvement in respect of geographical
indications as there is a need to extend the coverage of agricultural products and food stuffs that may
be protected by indication of their geographical origins.
G/AG/NG/W/97 (Proposal by Small Island Developing States) and G/AG/NG/W/100
(Proposal by CARICOM)
1. My delegation would like to thank the delegation of Grenada for presenting the negotiating
proposal on behalf of CARICOM and also to the delegation of St. Lucia  for presenting a proposal
earlier, on behalf of Small Island Developing States.  While we welcome the two proposals, we would
wish to state that these two proposals not only address concerns and problems faced by SIDS and
CARICOM small developing countries, but also problems and concerns of many small developing
countries.
2. We also observe that the SIDS proposal is submitted on behalf of seven small island states
and that the CARICOM proposal, on behalf of elev en small developing economies in which a number
of SIDS are included.  It is also noted that problems that have been identified and special
characteristics referred to of the small island developing states, are also common to most of the small
developing economies of the CARICOM.  In this regard, we recognise as stated in the proposal that
small island developing states as well as small developing economies have not sufficiently benefitedfrom the Uruguay Round.  However, we wish to add th at my delegation shares the view that it is not
only small island developing countries and the small developing economies of CARICOM who were
not benefited from the Uruguay Round, but it is also true for most of the developing countries.
While we recognise that there are specific characteristics of SIDS, which are also similar to a
large number of small developing countries as stated in the CARICOM proposal, my delegation
wishes to state that those problems faced by small developing economies of CARICOM are also
similar to the problems being faced by small developing countries like Sri Lanka in terms of limited
size of their domestic market reducing the scope for exploitation of economies of scale, dependence
on a limited range of export crops and narrow industrial base.
In this context, my delegation wishes, as it did yesterday on the Mauritius proposal, once
again to refer to paragraph 11 of the communiqué of the World Bank Development and Finance
Committee dated 17 April 2000 related to report of the Commonwealth Secretariat/World Bank Joint
Task Force on Small States where it states I quote -
"Ministers welcomed the report to the Development Committee and its
analysis of the special characteristics of small states that make them
particularly vulnerable, while noting that a number of larger states shared
some or all the same characteristics".
Unquote
3. In this context, while we welcome any measures that could be extended to SIDS and smaller
developing economies to provide greater market access and  support the proposals contained in the
submissions of SIDS and CARICOM, we urge to take into account concerns of small developing
countries like Sri Lanka, as well, in the ongoing negotiations in the sphere of agriculture.  Sri Lanka
too is a smaller developing economy which has undertaken extensive autonomous liberalisation and a
country heavily dependent on external trade.G/AG/NG/W/124
Page 5
4. On specific proposals by SIDS my delegation supports the proposal on market access, that
non reciprocal preferential tariff rates provided to developing countries in the agricultural sector
should be improved and bound under the framework of the AoA, and  agree with the view on food
security that the relief expected from the implementation of the Marrakech Decision has not occurred.My delegation also endorses the proposals under food security that small farmers in LDCs and
NFIDCs and other developing countries need to be protected against import surges, and that
Marrakech Decision on possible negative effect of the reform programme on least-developed and net
food-importing developing countries should be provided with separate mechanisms for
operationalising provisions of financial and technical assistance.
5. My delegation shares the view that as submitted in the proposal by SIDS that under AoA
structural adjustment programmes for developing countries should be allowed to receive a higher de
minimis level on domestic support measures.
6. My delegation also endorses the proposals co ntained in the CARICOM submission as most of
these proposals are also contained in the proposals submitted by many developing countries includingSri Lanka.  We in particular endorse:
- that substantial cut in bound tariffs of developed countries particularly for products of
export interest using a formula approach that discount higher tariffs and tariff peaks
relatively more than lower tariffs and eliminates tariff escalation.
- However a mechanism similar to that contained in Article 5 of the AoA should be
available to facilitate adjustment of small developing countries; we believe it shouldbe available to all developing countries to be protected against import surges,
particularly when the latter effect production of key/sensitive products which are
critical to domestic food production and consequently to food security, rural
development and poverty alleviation.
We also support that appropriate provision should be developed with respect to products of
interest to developing countries for inclusion in the disciplines in the area of geographical indications.
7. My delegation welcomes the two proposals submitted by SIDS and the CARICOM and
believes that these proposals will take forward the negotiation proposals already submitted by manydeveloping countries to address their concerns and to bring greater market access opportunities and
tangible benefits to the small developing economies consequent to reform process in the agriculture.
G/AG/NG/W/102  (Proposal by India)
1. My delegation wishes to join the other delegations  in thanking the delegation of India, for the
significant contribution made by presenting a comprehensive proposal that is indeed important since
they also reflect concerns and problems, which are very much relevant to most of the developing
countries.  We believe, these proposals will take forward the proposals already submitted by the
Group of Eleven Developing Countries, including Sri Lanka for creation of a Development Box under
S&D provisions and also on market access.
2. The proposal on food security clearly identifies that non-trade concerns of developing
countries are distinctly different from non-trade concerns of developed countries.  This fact has been
highlighted by many developing countries including Sri Lanka, since agriculture is not just another
sector in developing countries and it is a way of life;  it contributes to rural development, povertyG/AG/NG/W/124
Page 6
alleviation, providing stable income to subsistence small farmers, whereas in developed countries it
supports high income farmers which consists only a small percentage of the population.
Furthermore, the proposal also highlights with which we agree that developing countries are
not responsible for the current distortion in the international market as most of these countries do not
provide subsidies and their participation in international trade too is marginal and that cheap orsubsidised imports could have negative effects on food production and income levels of rural
subsistence farmers, in a liberalised trade policy framework.  Therefore, developing countries need
flexibility.
3. Regarding India's proposal on "Food Security Box", we believe the proposals submitted by
Group of Eleven Developing Countries including Sri Lanka, for creation of a Development Box and
Food Security Box proposed by India are conceptu ally the same as both aim to achieve the same
objective.  We share the view that developing countries should have flexible instrument and measures
to increase agriculture production and productivity.  We, ourselves, have stated earlier that most of the
existing Green Box measures are not tailored to the needs of developing countries as they were based
on conditions prevailing in developed countries.  Therefore, we endorse India's proposal that the
Green Box should have a provision for the ge neral development of agriculture including its
diversification in developing countries and that measures such as input subsidies given to crops by
developing countries wherein productivity levels are below the world average to be covered under the
Green Box.  It has been also proposed that under the food security box all measures taken by
developing countries for developmental needs such as poverty alleviation, rural development, rural
employment, diversification of agriculture should be exempted from reduction commitment.
India has proposed the continuation of all prov isions of Annex 2 of AoA except paragraphs 5,
6 & 7 as an integral part of food security measures and that in addition to the provisions contained in
Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, relating to agriculture investment and input subsidies,
product-specific support given to low income and resource poor farmers should also be excluded from
AMS calculations.  All these proposed measures to be included in the Food Security Box are indeedthe measures that could be included either in  the Food Security Box or the Development Box.
Therefore, the Food Security Box and the Developm ent Box aims to achieve the same developmental
objectives of many developing countries.
4. The Group of Eleven Developing Countries have proposed that de minimis level be increased
from 10 - 20% for developing countries, enabling them to provide domestic support to achieve food
security concerns and to increase agriculture production and productivity, as well as measures takenfor developmental needs.  The Indian proposal also envisages to achieve the same objective by
proposing exemptions for such domestic support measures.  Therefore, my delegation believes that
the proposals by India and the Group of Eleven Developing Countries including Sri Lanka aim to
achieve broadly the same objectives.
5. On the proposal on SSG provision, while we would support creating a separate safeguard
mechanism on the line of specific safeguard provision under Article 5 of AoA including provision for
the imposition of quantitative restrictions under specific circumstances, my delegation believes that
either a separate safeguard mechanism should be made available or the current safeguard mechanism
should be extended to all developing countries.
6. On the proposal on tariffs, Sri Lanka supports an appropriate formula with a cap on tariff
binding should be evolved to effect substantial reduction in all tariffs including tariff peaks and tariff
escalation in developed countries.  We also endorse the view that developed countries should make a
down payment by way of bringing down tariff bindings as on 1.1.2001 by 50% by the end of the year
2001, and that as a special and differential measure, developing country Members should be allowed
to maintain appropriate levels of tariff bindings keeping in mind their developmental needs and highdistortions prevalent in the international markets.G/AG/NG/W/124
Page 7
7. My delegation also supports the abolition of the Peace Clause under Article 13 of AoA in
respect of developed countries and as a special and differential provision, measures taken by
developing countries under the Annex II of Gr een Box or the proposed Development Box, domestic
support measures conforming to Article 6 of AoA should be exempt for a period of ten years from
imposition of countervailing duties under the SCM Agreement and Article XI of GATT 1994.
8. On the proposal for revision of the Article 10.4 of the AoA, on international food aid, my
delegation firmly believes that such a review should take into account the objectives of the Marrakech
decision on NFIDCs and such revision should lead to achieve the objectives of that decision.
9. Finally, my delegation wishes to state that we support the proposal that product coverage of
the Agreement on AoA requires rationalisation by including primary agriculture commodities such as
rubber, primary forest produce, jute, coir, sizzle etc ., which are much more agricultural than hides and
skins which are already covered under the AoA.
_________