WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/75
30 November 2000
(00-5162)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
15-17 NOVEMBER 2000
Statements by Mauritius
Non-Trade Concerns  (G/AG/NG/W/36)
This paper is presented from the broad perspective of a developing country with certain
references to the case of Small Island Developing States where the constraints of developing countries
are sometimes reflected in a more acute manner.
Let me recall that the negotiations which started in the Uruguay Round from a purely
economic angle were concluded with the due recognition that agriculture spanned both the trade andnon-trade domains.
Article 20 of the Agreement of Agriculture lays down the principles on which future
negotiations should be conducted.  It underscores the need for the reform process to be based on
progressive liberalization and for a number of issues to be addressed prior to any further commitmentsbeing envisaged.  Non-trade concerns feature prominently among these issues.
Article 20 does not stand alone, in fact it should be read in conjunction with other parts of the
Agreement on Agriculture, mindful of various inte rnational commitments.  In this context, the
following are particularly relevant: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRights which emphasises the importance of adequate food supply alongside the continuous
improvement of living conditions;  and the World Food Summit which highlights the multifunctional
role of agriculture and the concerns surrounding issues such as rural development and out-migration,
high and low potential areas and food security.  In this regard, Small Island Developing States are
mostly low potential area countries.
The role of agriculture in all countries is not limited to the production of food and fibre.  In
many cases, it underpins the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and often, that of countries
themselves.  In a number of developing countries, agriculture provides an instrumental link to the
development of eco-tourism, the means for the production of clean energy, thereby avoiding the use
of fossil fuels, the provision of social amen ities and in fostering research and technology
development.  Moreover, it has an important role in the protection and preservation of theenvironment and biodiversity.
Concerns surrounding non-trade issues cut across the divide of developed and developing
countries.  The latter countries comprise various interest groups, ranging from major commodity
exporters;  large countries which are almost food self-sufficient;  large and medium net food-importing countries; small island states;  and the least developed countries.  Net food-importing
developing countries are featured in several of these interest groups.  The approach of developing
countries to non-trade concerns and their responses to liberalization and food procurement are broadly
guided by their particular agricultural configurations.G/AG/NG/W/75
Page 2
We believe, as reflected in paragraph 53, that it is essential for both developed and developing
countries to ensure that non-trade concerns are adequately addressed.  This requires that the
complexity of the interactions between agricultur al systems and practices, economies, societies and
the environment are duly addressed.  While Annex II lists a certain number of policy measures thatmay be used for this purpose, Green Box provisions have been described as inadequate and/or
unaffordable by many developing countries.
Allow me now to draw attention of the Special Session to certain specific paragraphs of the
paper.
(i) Paragraphs 15, 16, 18, 20 and 21 which refer to the various international
commitments that all of us have to reckon with.
(ii) Paragraph 24 which highlights the diversity of interest both in the developed and the
developing world.
(iii) Paragraph 31 which underscores the difficult situation of sugar and banana producing
small island developing states and the imperative need for preferential trade
agreements.
(iv) Paragraph 39 which highlights the dangers of a world market only situation.(v) Paragraph 46 which explains the difficulties encountered by our countries to undergo
diversification in the goods and services sector.
(vi) Paragraphs 51 and 52 which point out to the contribution of the agricultural sector to
energy requirements in countries devoid of fossil fuel resources.  This aspect is of
particular relevance and importance to the Small Island Developing States.  On the
one hand, there is a real risk that they will be the first to bear the consequences of
climate change brought about by the greenhouse effect and on the other hand, they
are beset by the sharp increase in oil prices.  In this regard there are clear indications
that the prices of oil are going to stay at a fairly high level.  This role of agriculture in
the preservation of the environment is not sufficiently known and we intend to comeon it time and again so that we achieve a common understanding
Non-Trade Concerns  (G/AG/NG/W/36/Rev.1)
Mauritius would like to thank all participants for their interventions.
The debates on W/36 have been quite extensive and we must reckon that this is the first time
that a paper has aroused so much interest in the Special Session.  Nearly fifty countries have
intervened and the content and quality of the intervention demonstrate firstly, that non-trade concerns
are universal and secondly, that there is a wide diversity of agricultural systems worldwide.
Consequently, the lessons that we should draw are that the "one size fits all" solution is totally
inappropriate and that "the three legged chair" approach floated in respect of our future work is
inadequate.  Indeed, the chair badly needs a fourth leg.
Whilst refraining from commenting on individual interventions, I cannot but commend the
comprehensive one made by Indonesia.  Our colleague has proved that while theoretical aspects areG/AG/NG/W/75
Page 3
quite appealing, real life is quite different; but more importantly, Indonesia has ably explained the role
that agriculture plays as a shock absorber or social safety net in countries which face numerous
constraints and are not endowed with many advantages, such as huge expanses of land.
The case of Small Island Developing Countri es - a category recognised by many UN bodies
such as the FAO, UNCTAD as well as the Commonwealth Secretariat - is exactly the same,
agriculture underpins the socio-economic fabric and should be dealt with in a cautious and pragmatic
manner.  We have, ever since our paper AIE/51 was tabled, been putting forward this fact which we
are happy to note is now understood by WTO Members.  The comments made yesterday and today by
several island states are further testimonies of the difficulties of islands.
Some comments have been made on the Preamble to the Agreement and Article 20, we would
like to submit the following:
(i) Equitable treatment can only mean that the specificities of all countries are taken into
account and not only of those who advocate the market only approach.
(ii) The quality of the interventions show that we should exhaust paragraphs (a), (b) and
(c) of Article 20 before proceeding to paragraph (d), the manner to consider these
three paragraphs should be similar to the one which took place on W/36.  Le us note
that this is the first time that so many countries have intervened and expressed their
views and highlighted the features of their agriculture.  It is only when we understandthe problems of all that we can move forward, otherwise we would only be theoretical
in our outlook.
(iii) The contention that the continuation of process is not subject to any of paragraphs (a)
to (d) is quite disturbing.  Accordingly, it is not considered as a positive way ofmoving ahead with the negotiations.
(iv) Some have gone to great lengths to try to prove that the term "taking into account" of
Article 20 is limitative; this leads us to think that the same quarters would mirror
elusive and unimplementable S&D measures to us and in due course raise numerous
legal objections to any action in our favour.
We would like to indicate that we would come up with concrete proposals to address our
legitimate non-trade concerns and in direct relation to our specificities and financial means.  And in
this regard, the straight-jacket recommendation that only non-trade distortive measures can be taken
would be detrimental to low potential countries and in particular to Small Island Developing States.
Finally, we fully support the CARICOM proposal for the Secretariat to undertake studies on
non-trade concerns.
Export Subsidies – Food Security or Food Dependency?   (G/AG/NG/W/38)
Mauritius has taken note of this interesting paper which raises quite a number of pertinent
issues which have to be debated.  Mauritius welcomes the recognition by these commodity exporting
countries, many of them being multi-commodity exporters, of the legitimate needs of food security innet food importing developing countries.
Our comments on this paper are meant to carry the process forward so that our interests are
duly taken care of.  We would be seeking clarifications, raising some questions and makingG/AG/NG/W/75
Page 4
contributions on an issue which is crucial to those countries referred to in Article 16 of the Agreement
on Agriculture and the Decision on Measures concerning the possible negative effects of the Reform
Programme on NFIDCs and LDCs.
We would like to underline the fact that our interest is not limited to export subsidies but that
it encompasses export credits as well.  Indeed, we had when intervening on W/34 indicated that we
"would invite a cautious and pragmatic approach in the negotiations leading to a review of export
credits and subsidies so that the already difficult situation of LDCs and NFIDCs is not further
exacerbated".
We may wish to remind ourselves that it was not an oversight that brought the negotiators of
the Uruguay Round to incorporate Article 16 in the body of the Agreement on Agriculture and toinclude paragraph 4 in the Marrakesh Decision on NFIDCs and LDCs.  Paragraph 4 states:
"Ministers further agree to ensure that any agreement relating to agricultural export credits
makes appropriate provision for differential treatment in favour of LDCs and NFIDCs".
A definition of food security is given in paragraph 6.  We consider that it is limitative, the
definition given in the Rome Summit i.e.
"Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for anactive and healthy life" .
In countries like Mauritius, and indeed many similar countries, all these considerations
including that of food preference are quite important.  Food security is not therefore only just a
monetary issue but is in fact one which goes to the heart of society.
Coming to the points made at paragraph 6, we would like to point out the following:(i) Food is made available either through domestic production or through imports; in
cases where a country can only cultivate one or two products on a commercial scale
on account of constraints or specificities imports becomes the sole recourse to food.
(ii) Food preferences restrict the choice of suppliers.
(iii) Economic access to food entails that the purchasing country has the means to do so.(iv) The maintenance of those trading arrangements that ensure stable and predictable
earnings is crucial.
(v) Stable earnings can ensure stability of supply.(vi) Small Island Developing States which rely heavily on preferential trade have specific
requirements as outlined in paragraph 28 of Commitment Three of the Rome summit,
namely:
"Small Island Developing States face the threat of land loss and erosion due to
climate changes and sea level rises and have particular needs for their overall
sustainable development.  Improvements  in trade, transportation, communication,
human resources, stabilisation of income and higher export earnings will increase
food security in these countries".G/AG/NG/W/75
Page 5
(vii) domestic food production requires a host of protective measures such as those listed
in W/13.
Regarding the arguments made in the pape r we would like to submit the following:
(i) There is no single solution which applies to all countries; on the contrary, measures
have to reckon with the wide diversity and specificity of agricultural systems
worldwide.
(ii) Can one attribute the depression of international prices to export subsidies only?  Was
the recent drop in commodity prices brought by export subsidies or by a major crisis
in importing countries or by the action of one or more major exporters puttingsignificant quantities of a given commodity on the market?
(iii) Food import bills of NFIDCs and LDCs did not fall to the same extent as the fall in
agricultural prices in 1997 and 1998 owing, inter alia,  to a fall in the available level
of food aid and to a decrease in price concessions  and discounts  LDCs and NFIDCs
used to receive from developed countries.
(iv) The concerns of many NFIDCs are that they maintain and strengthen their market
access, mainly in respect of cash crops, and have the means to procure staple food.  It
does not appear that they intend to produce staples to compete on the world market.
(v) Nearly six years after the entry into force of the Uruguay Round, no concrete measure
has been taken in favour of LDCs and NFIDCs in the context of Article 16;  we are
therefore wary of proposals which once again refer to the implementation of the
provisions of Article 16 and its accompanying decisions.
(vi) Countries which have severe inherent constraints would have tremendous difficulties
to compete with those countries endowed with natural advantages; the concept of
"equitable participation in world trade" in the context of "competitive terms" is in fact
a myth.
(vii) The food security issue requires a global and comprehensive approach and not one
that just refers solely to trade liberalization and elimination of export subsidies, which
are in fact the primary concerns of multi-commodity exporters and not those of
NFIDCs.
CAIRNS Group Negotiating Proposal on Market Access   (G/AG/NG/W/54)
Mauritius has taken note of the proposal on market access.  We would be submitting a certain
number of comments thereon but as stated earlier in respect of W/35, the points made by us are
without prejudice to our repeated stance that the Special Session should exhaust the consideration ofparagraphs (a) to (c) of Article 20 before embarking on the examination of issues that fall within the
ambit of paragraph (d) of this Article.
Our comments will address the three parts of the paper.  In the second paragraph of the
introduction, we note that the Cairns Group states that:
"A comprehensive, practical and ambitious approa ch is required in order to provide tangible
improvements in access and fulfil the objective  of substantial progressive  reduction inG/AG/NG/W/75
Page 6
agricultural support and protection, resulting in corrective and preventing distortions in
world agricultural markets" .
As in W/35 when we welcomed the approach of the Cairns Group which recognised the need
to address the agricultural and development needs of developing and least developing countries, wehave also today to note the statement which refers to the objective of substantial progressive
reductions.
Article 20 refers to the long-term objective of substantial progressive reductions.  Mauritius
has always claimed that the negotiations are about reductions of forms of support in the long term,
after having due regard to several factors and not elimination.
In the chapeau of part two, the Cairns Group enunciates certain key concepts, namely that
there should be commercially viable and non-discriminatory access on conditions no worse than those
applying to other goods and that such access should not undermine existing access conditions .  The
mechanism to attain the objective of the Cairns Group comprises a general approach coupled with
S&D provisions.
Mauritius while disagreeing with the contention that agriculture should be aligned on other
goods, nevertheless supports the idea that further access should not undermine existing access
conditions, the more so when such access is preferential and under commercially and economically
viable conditions and is vital in the case of Small Island Developing States, NFIDCs and LDCs tofacilitate rural development and poverty elimination.  We also take good note of the point made at the
sixth bullet point, namely that tariff quota administration should not diminish the size and value of the
market access opportunities provided by such tariff quotas.
However, at this stage we feel that certain of the proposals under the heading general
approach could be contrary to the intent of not undermining existing access conditions.  For instance,
substantial increases in tariff quota volumes could through over supply be quite detrimental to all
developing countries.  In this regard, we feel that the Canadian proposal on two-stage tariffs and tariff
quotas appears, at this juncture, to be a more effective instrument to achieve the intended purpose.  Of
course, these are preliminary views and a clear picture can only be obtained at the opportune time.
Mauritius welcomes the commitment of the Cairns Group on the need of market access,
described in part two as commercially viable, fo r LDCs and NFIDCs which the Group reckons is a
stimulus for economic growth.
In its intervention on W/11 by the Cairns Group, Mauritius had indicated that S&D is not a
mere modality but rather an on-going instrument to enable DCs to, inter alia , raise standards of living
and ensuring full employment as envisioned in the Preamble to the WTO Agreement.  We noted in
W/35 that the Cairns Group had moved towards ou r position.  In W/54, the Group acknowledges that
"the WTO negotiations take fully into account the particular needs and conditions of developing
countries with regard to access to markets".
This is a laudable intent, which recognises the diversity of needs and conditions prevailing in
DCs and upholds our contention that the "one size fits all" approach is inappropriate.  We believe that
the concerns of DCs in general and Small Island Developing States, in particular, are such that they
have to be addressed by measures which go be yond the S&D approach, however important this one
may be.  Our comments on the various proposals made on S&D are therefore made from thisperspective.G/AG/NG/W/75
Page 7
(i) Reference should have been made to the importance of maintaining existing market
access conditions in favour of the most vulnerable DCs i.e. Small Island Developing
States and LDCs.
(ii) The concepts of products either "produced in, and exported from" or "produced in
and exported by" is supported.   The clear definition of the origin of products and the
requirement that they come from DCs have been key issues for Mauritius.
Accordingly, Mauritius, along with other Small Island Developing States, made a
strong case at the Seattle Ministerial Conference for the recognition of the concept of
"originating in".  There is an agreement on the concept, we need now to find the exact
wording.
(iii) It is noted in the second paragraph that the provisions of the fourth paragraph of the
Preamble of the Agreement on Agriculture are being referred to.  In this context, it
would be opportune to give due attention to the fifth paragraph of Preamble which,
inter alia , refers to the "need to protect the environment".  The protection of the
environment is a matter of life and death for Small Island Developing States , asindeed recognized in all relevant fora, and agriculture is called upon to play a vital
role in this endeavour.  There is therefore the need to make provision for measures to
ensure that the agriculture of the Small Island Developing States, largely if not solely
dependent on preferential trade, remains viable and is not threatened.
(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, rather propose
that DCs which did not have the opportunity to do so in the Uruguay Round be now
allowed to use all the provisions of the Special Safeguard Clause.
(v) Market access seems to have been viewed from an export perspective.  From an
import perspective, numerous difficulties could be encountered with the down-
payment mechanism proposed in part two.
(vi) No reference is made to the request by DCs to exclude certain products of a very
sensitive nature from the disciplines of the Agreement on Agriculture.
(vii) The most important guarantee for the DCs to the effect that the numerous exceptions
and exclusions in their favour are not challenged still remains a Due Restraint Clause,
no reference is made thereto.  The absence of such a clause could render all measures
in favour of DCs null and void.  Moreover, DCs are ill-equipped to face continuousdisputes.
Given the shift in approach by the Cairns Group, Mauritius would like to know whether this
shift applies also to export competition and domestic support.
Domestic Support   (G/AG/NG/W/56)
We only received the paper two days ago and we would therefore be making preliminary
comments only.
We fully support the points made earlier on by Switzerland.G/AG/NG/W/75
Page 8
The paper once more proves the point that the diversity of systems call for a diversity of
solutions and that all concerns should be accommodated.
In this vein, Mauritius fully endorses the proposal for collaboration with this group of twelve
countries.
Special and Differential Treatment   (G/AG/NG/W/55)
We would like to commend ASEAN for this interesting paper which deals with key aspects of
the Agreement on Agriculture.
We agree with the averment that S&D is an integral part of the reform process.  Indeed S&D
is not limited to modalities, for instance, longer time frames.  As stated by the ASEAN, the nature,
depth and substance of commitments should be different.  Indeed, we should at all times remind
ourselves that trade liberalization is not an end in itself, our mandate is to fulfil the objectives laid
down in the first para of the Preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement.  Accordingly, the objectiveshould define the means and not the reverse.  The paper also considers that agriculture is different in
DCs and in developed countries.  Even in these two broad categories, there are numerous nuances
which have been described by Mauritius in the paper annexed to W/36.  In this regard, we are happy
to note that India and Paraguay have just indicated their awareness of the problems of Small Island
Developing States.
We shall now come to the specific areas covered by the paper either commenting on the
proposals or making our own suggestions so as to move the debate forward.
I. Export Subsidies
(a) Mauritius has taken note of the proposal in respect of Article 9(4).  We support this
proposal and would suggest that the scope of this paragraph of Article 9 be extended
beyond the provisions of sub-paragraph (d) and (e) of paragraph (1) of Article 9.
(b) Export credits and related schemes should be disciplined before the end of the
implementation period of the Uruguay Round but in the framework of the WTO.
(c) Reform to export subsidies and export credits should take into account the importance
they have for food procurement capabilities of LDCs and NFIDCs which have, on
account of inherent constraints, to rely on food imports.
These comments have to be read alongside those made on paper W/38.
II. Domestic Support
(a) We support the points made in the Chapeau to part B on domestic support, namely
that domestic support will continue to be important for DCs and that unfortunately,
resource constraints prevent DCs from realising fully the advantages offered by the
present S&D Schemes.  The shortage of resources is more critical for Small Island
Developing Stat es and LDCs.
(b) The scope of the Green Box should be widened to take on board a series of new
concerns, for instance, development needs and protection and preservation of the
environment.G/AG/NG/W/75
Page 9
(c) The Chapeau of Annex II should accordingly be reviewed to account for the
broadened scope.
(d) We can support the idea of higher levels of de minimis .
(e) The three measures just mentioned whilst being necessary are only applicable to
certain DCs but not to the majority of DCs which are either constrained by limited
budgetary resources or are undergoing structural adjustments.
(f) We cannot agree with the proposal of reduction commitments made on a
disaggregated level as such an action would be damaging to key and sensitive sectors.
(g) Mauritius supports the proposals referred to in paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of part B on
domestic support devoted to developing countries.  We also believe that the following
additional issues should be considered:
(a) That DCs which did not indicate support measures in the Uruguay Round in 
certain areas, owing mainly to their inability to have a full grasp of the 
situation at the time, be entitled to do so now without having to provide for 
compensatory measures;
(b) That measures pertaining to food security also cover the agro-industry, in 
particular those involved in processing staple foods;
(c) That key products be excluded from liberalization; and(d) The possibility to re-evaluate and adjust tariff levels;
III. Market Access
(i) Our comments on this paper have to be read alongside those made on W/54.(ii) We have to regret  that the paper makes no reference to the maintenance of existing
market access and of the terms and conditions attached thereto.
(iii) Regarding deep cuts in tariffs we invite caution and fully share the comments made
by Switzerland in the context of W/54.
(iv) Regarding the disciplines on the operations of STEs, we have to call for a cautious
and pragmatic approach as the STEs are important for Small Island Developing States
in particular those acting as single desk sellers of commodities.
(v) We find the suggestion of Switzerland to the effect that there should be a self restraint
by powerful exporters to be attractive and we think that this could be one of the mostmeaningful and effective S&D measure in respect of market access.
(vi) Regarding the administration of Tariff Quotas, we should bear in mind that some
methods of quota administration are highly detrimental to small suppliers.
IV. Conclusion
The ASEAN in the conclusion refers to the development aspirations and the legitimate
concerns of DCs and to the necessity for the DCs to “meaningfully participate, contribute and benefitG/AG/NG/W/75
Page 10
from furthering the reform process”.   Finally, we wish to indicate in respect of the reform process that
no country would further a process if the outcome is that it would be a net loser.
__________