. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/165
6 April 2001
(01-1763)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
SEVENTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
26-28 MARCH 2001
Statement by Japan
First of all, I would like to commend our distinguished Chairman for his dedicated work over
the past year, thanks to which we have had a very useful first phase of the negotiations.  It is
especially encouraging to see a much larger number of negotiating proposals submitted and discussed
than in the negotiations at the Uruguay Round.  I w ould also like to thank the Secretariat for their
efforts in preparing a number of useful background papers, which provide valuable information on therealities of world agricultural trade since the Uruguay Round.
The 4
th Session of the WTO Ministerial Conference is scheduled for November.  Japan
sincerely hopes that a new Round will be launched this year, and that the agricultural negotiations will
become a part of the new Round so that every Member in this room can get a fair and convincingoutcome.
Discussions on the background papers prepared by the Secretariat have revealed that only a
limited number of the large exporting countries with favourable natural conditions have reaped the
benefits of the Uruguay Round agreements, while other Members, particularly the small developing
countries, have gained very little from trade liberalisation.  This point has also been raised in a
number of negotiating proposals from developing country Members.  Based on such experience, weshould endeavour to establish a set of trade rules fro m which all the Members, rather than just a small
number of competitive countries, can benefit.  Such trade rules should also allow the co-existence of
various types of agriculture.  Thus, any future negotiations and discussions should indeed refer back
to the experiences gained from implementing the Uruguay Round agreements.
I would now like to overview, in a very brief manner, the negotiating proposals tabled so far.
My general observation is that it has now become clear that a number of Members possess a
great interest in the multifunctionality of agriculture and non-trade concerns, including food security.
Such interest was clearly confirmed when we  had a six-hour-long discussion at the November
meeting with regard to the note on non-trade concerns submitted by 27 Members, among which was
Japan.  Nobody can deny the fact that agriculture has various other functions than the provision of
food in each country and society.  I believe that how to secure the multifunctionality of agriculture,
and what policy instruments we have to safeguard to that end, are the major issues of the current
negotiations, that will provide the direction of the agricultural policies in each country for the 21
st
century.
Let me pick up some of the points raised in the various negotiating proposals by the
Members.
First, I would like to point out that most of the negotiating proposals have set forth the idea of
strengthening the rules and disciplines on exports.  I think that this is a sufficient proof that there doesexist imbalance to be redressed in the current rule s and disciplines applied to exporting measures andG/AG/NG/W/165
Page 2
those applied to importing measures.  It is necessary to secure equity between the rules on exports
with those on imports.
Second, with regard to domestic support, we are encouraged by a fact that a number of
proposals call for continuing the reform process based on the current basic framework of the "green","blue" and "amber" boxes.  On the other hand, some Members have made unrealistic proposals that
would radically overthrow the current rules, ignor ing the process of agricultural reform now under
way in each country.  The current negotiations we are conducting are the continuation of the reform
process based on Article 20 of Agreement on Ag riculture, and we should proceed with the
negotiations taking full and equitable consideration of all the items listed in Article 20, towards the
long-term objective of substantial progressive reductions in support and protection.
Third, on market access, in view of continuing the reform process, some Members advocate a
progressive reduction of support leaving room for flexibility, while others call simply for substantial
reductions.  What we must remember here is that, as just mentioned, only a limited number of
exporting countries with highly competitive agricultural production owing to their favourable natural
conditions, have reaped the benefits of improved market access brought about through the UruguayRound agreements.  In addition, we must also fully consider the fact that a number of developing
countries are faced with the difficulties of diminished margins of preference, as pointed out in several
negotiating proposals by developing country Members.  Another point that we note is that a large
number of developing countries have made realistic proposals on their own tariff reductions.  I believe
that this is a very important point in order to ensure food security and agricultural development inthese countries.
Lastly but not least, we have seen a large number of proposals refer to the considerations for
developing countries.  Japan also proposed that certain levels of flexibility should be allowed for the
developing countries in each area, including domestic support, market access and export measures.However, we think that it is equally as important to consider a different approach to each country
according to its stage of development, since developing countries are by no means uniform in terms of
their capability in world economy.  We must bear in mind that it is quite inappropriate for a
multilateral trading rule to mechanically divide the Members into two groups, namely, developing
countries and developed countries, because that would ignore a wide diversity in geographical and
natural conditions among Members.
To conclude my remarks, I would just like to touch upon the next phase of discussions.  As
we are entering into a process for clarification and elaboration on Members’ negotiating proposals,
Japan would like to actively participate in this process and deepen our mutual understanding on each
other’s ideas.  I believe that conducting a thorough clarification process with sufficient transparency
will eventually be a shortcut for obtaining fruitful results from the negotiations.  In order to build agood house, we need to have a good and thorough groundwork.  Building a house without this good
groundwork would result in a fragile and dangerous house, even though it seems splendid to all
appearances.  And nobody would like to live in such a house.  Japan sincerely hopes that our second
phase of work will be a good groundwork for the agricultural trade rules for the 21
st century, which
will allow the co-existence of various types of agriculture.
__________