RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/AG/R/14 
5 August 2004 
 (04-3346) 
Committee on Agriculture 
Special Session  
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE TWENTY-FOURTH MEETING  
OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE SPECIAL SESSION  
HELD ON 25 JUNE 2004 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
  
1. The Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, which was established by the 
General Council (WT/GC/M/53), is pursuing negotiations under paragr aphs 13, 14 and other relevant 
provisions of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  The twenty-fourth formal meeting was held on 
25 June 2004 under the chairmanship of Ambassador Tim Groser of New Zealand.   
2. The agenda as contained in WTO/AIR/2338 was adopted. 
I
TEM A (i):  STATEMENT BY CHAIR  
3. The statement by the Chairman was made in informal mode.2 
ITEM A (ii):  STATEMENTS BY PARTICIPANTS  
4. The representative of Oman, on behalf of six recently acceded countries (Albania, Croatia, 
Georgia, Jordan, Moldova and Oman), stated that lik e other Members, Oman welcomed the restart of  
the negotiations.  Oman observed that the negotia tions were maturing and reaching the framework 
stage.  As there was less  than one month left before the end-Ju ly deadline, Oman hoped that the draft 
text would be made available soon to allow time fo r the review of specific issues.  Oman was mostly 
concerned with the recognition of the extensiv e market access and domestic support commitments 
made on accession and requested real and meaningf ul flexibility provisions for recently acceded 
countries in line with their negotiating proposals (J OB(03)/170, refers).  Political ownership, by 
Members, of the results of the negotiations woul d depend on real and meaningful flexibility along 
with transparency and inclusiveness for all. 
 
5. In its intervention (attached in the Annex), Ar gentina concluded that its position was tied to 
substance and not to dates. 
6. The representative of China stated its support for Oman's request to include real and 
meaningful provisions for recently acceded Member s in the framework.  These Members had already 
made contributions to the multilateral trading sy stem during their accession.  Indeed, China had 
eliminated all export subsidies, had zero AMS a nd its applied rates were equal to its bound rates 
which were already much lower than those of ma ny developed Members.  China opposed any attempt 
to reduce or limit the options available to addr ess the particular concerns of recently acceded 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 Copies of the statement by the Chairman are av ailable to Members and Observer Governments upon 
request from the Secretariat. TN/AG/R/14 
Page 2  
 
 Members.  The representative of China thanked the Chairman for his efforts to make progress in the 
framework, China had a firm commitment to the DDA and would continue to participate 
constructively and actively in the negotiations on its individual capacity and as member of the G-20.  
Any means used to try and meet the mandate was welcomed.  China believed that the Doha mandate 
had to be carried out in a comprehensive and balanced manner, indeed, while some Members 
emphasized substantial improvement on market acce ss, China believed that equal emphasis had to be 
given to the balance between the three pillars.  Th erefore, China reiterated that S&D in market access 
had to be sufficient to offset the distortions faced  by developing countries in the export subsidies and 
domestic support pillars.  Adequate S&D provisions were also needed to meet the rural development 
and food security needs of developing country Members.   
 
7.  Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Gr oup, stressed the need to focus on issues of 
importance to the Group, some of which had not r eceived enough attention.  On process, the African 
Group understood the need to work in small groups bu t ownership required the participation of all and 
while it appreciated the inclusion of some African countries, the Group sought a stronger 
representation by Africa.  Finally, Nigeria stressed  that the issues of LDCs exemptions from reduction 
commitments and duty-free and quota-free market ac cess, NFIDCs, preferences, SPS, TBT and other 
barriers, the SP and SSM concepts, export compe tition and domestic suppor t effects on exports, as 
well as cotton had to be addressed and to f eature in any framework on agriculture. 
 8. Switzerland, speaking on behalf of the G-10, noted that although it appreciated the effort,  the 
slow progress among a small number of participants in  critical areas for the G-10 raised problems of 
transparency and of involvement by the large group of Members requiring flexibility.  Switzerland 
also emphasized the following points:  (i) the need for flexibility did not mean status quo, however, for the G-10, the Uruguay Round formula for tariff cuts ha d to remain the rule;  (ii) the perception that 
agriculture liberalisation had to be rapid was wr ong as most Members wanted some flexibility which 
should be reflected in the areas of market ac cess and domestic support;  (iii) the development 
dimension and non-trade concerns as well as other specific sensitivities had to be addressed and a 
Sensitivity Box could meet all those concerns;  (iv)  the G-10 would participate constructively in the 
negotiations and suggested that any framework-relate d papers be submitted at the latest on 5 July;  
and (v) a realistic approach was necessary to r each an agreeable framework  by the end of July. 
 
9. Tanzania, speaking on behalf of the LDCs, underlined the need for bound duty- and quota-
free market access for exports from LDCs.  The repr esentative of Tanzania also emphasized the need:  
(i) to address non-tariff barriers through adequate technical assistance, and (ii) to offset the erosion of preferences with a compensatory mechanism to prom ote LDCs exports.  The LDCs also wanted the 
phasing out of the Amber and Blue Boxes and the capping of the Green Box.  While LDCs 
appreciated the convergence on the elimination of e xport subsidies this should not undermine food aid 
to meet emergency situations , and development and humanitari an objectives.  Finally, LDCs 
requested a faithful implementation of the Marrake sh Decision on LDCs and NFIDCs to address their 
specific vulnerabilities.  10. Bangladesh, echoing Tanzania, stated that food aid was important for nutritional needs and 
food aid operations carried out in LDCs had to be preserved in the agricultural framework.  As with 
other assistance programmes, the present non-emergenc y food aid operations were tailored to needs, 
including technical assistance and training for lasting benefits such as irrigation canals.  The representative of Bangladesh also noted that food ai d by Members was necessary to meet emergency 
situations, humanitarian and deve lopment objectives, and to address the chronic food deficit situations 
in LDCs and hence had to be preserved in the framework 
 11. The representative of Kenya supported the statement made by Nigeria on behalf of the 
African Group and underlined the need to move fo rward in a transparent and inclusive manner.  
Kenya noted the need for consultations on S&D as it was still not sure how the question was being  TN/AG/R/14 
 Page 3 
 
 
 addressed.  Kenya could envisage on the issue of S& D a repeat of the Harbinson proposals but no 
dilution thereof.  Kenya hoped that the framewor k approach would recognize the sensitivities and the 
special agricultural circumstances in developing c ountries and include for instance the recent initiative 
to allow weak and vulnerable economies to undertak e modest commitments.  In Kenya's view, the 
same level of specificity should be applied to S& D in the three pillars.  The representative of Kenya 
also stressed the importance of preferential access and the role of tariffs in some countries which 
would hence need a special package regarding mark et access.  Finally, Kenya noted that non-tariff 
barriers should be given the same treatment as tari ffs with regard to reduction commitments in the 
framework.  
12. The representative of Chile noted that results  showed that the negotiations were moving 
forward slowly and were still far fro m being concluded.  Regarding the issue of transparency in the 
negotiations, Chile was of the view that transpar ency could be obtained through groups and their 
co-ordinators and through the Chair.  However, t oo much transparency, at this stage, on sensitive 
issues would not work. 
 
13. The representative of Indonesia, after noting that  transparency and inclusiveness were critical 
for real progress, stated that as per the Doha mandate, S&D was an integral part of all elements of the 
negotiations.  The different level of developmen t, capacities and problems that existed between 
developed and developing countries ha d to be taken into account.  Whilst developing countries had to 
contribute in the negotiation, they had to do so in a proportional manner to ensure a fair and equitable 
outcome to the negotiations.  Regarding market  access, Indonesia noted that some developed 
countries had asked that their sensitivities be addressed .  This should, in no way, lead to providing 
S&D to developed countries or undermine the con cept of S&D for developing countries. Sensitive 
products for developed countries ha d to be differentiated from the  Special Products for developing 
countries, which were related to food security, rural development, and poverty alleviation in 
developing countries and any framework should suppor t effective language whic h would make the SP 
and SSM truly operational.  14. Sri Lanka supported the statement made by In donesia on behalf of the SP/SSM alliance.  
These two concepts were crucial for food and live lihood security and rural development and should be 
a stand-alone category.  Special Products should not be subject to tariff reduction, they should benefit 
from the SSM and should be self-elected by deve loping countries.  On non-emergency food aid and 
subsidised export credits, Sri Lanka, like Mongolia (see statement in the Annex), was of the view that 
while structured disciplines were n eeded, the appropriate organization to  deal with this work was not 
the WTO but rather the FAO and its CSSD, a work  which should be undertaken in accordance with 
the provisions of the Food Aid Convention.  Like previous speakers on the issue of food aid, Sri 
Lanka stressed that the disciplines should not leav e out the interests of the weak and vulnerable. 
 15. The representative of Guatemala st ressed the need for flexibility.  In addition, Guatemala was 
of the view that all three pillars of the Agreemen t on Agriculture had to be subject to reform with 
S&D being an integral part of each of the pillars .  Guatemala's main concerns were an adequate 
reference in the framework to tropical products and the full liberalisation of trade in tropical products. 
 
16. The representative of Costa Rica expressed the hope that delegations would get a draft 
framework text they could send back to capitals  for consideration and assured the Chair that 
Costa Rica would continue to participate and cont ribute to the negotiations.  Regarding market access, 
Costa Rica was of the view that fl exibility in a formula should not exclude any product entirely from 
reform as Members had to meet the objective set by the Doha mandate.  Special treatment for 
sensitive or special products had to be exceptional an d not an excuse for improvement of the results of 
the negotiations.  The representative of Costa-Rica fu rther noted that S&D seemed to be concentrating 
only on importers' defensive views while exports we re probably more important for development.  TN/AG/R/14 
Page 4  
 
 Hence, the framework should incl ude the interests of exporting developing countries, including the 
full liberalisation of trade in tropical products by developed countries.  17. The representative of Bolivia noted that nego tiations were at a critical stage and the 
preparation of a framework document required transp arency and the participation of all Members.  
Some developing country Members ha d spoken about offensive interests.  Bolivia wished to stress the 
need to ensure the full liberalisation of trade in tropical products.  Finally regarding market access, 
Bolivia stated that, in line with the Doha mandate , the DDA should result in substantial improvements 
in market access for developing countries preferably  in line with the proposals made by the G-20 in 
paragraph 5 of its document dated 28 May. 
 
18. The representative of Colombia stated that agriculture was a core issue for Colombia.  
Colombia had been undertaking a number of reform s in the area of market access and hoped that 
meaningful reform would also take place under th e domestic support and export subsidies pillars. 
Finally, Colombia wished to stress its strong in terest in a long-standing issue, namely the full 
liberalisation of trade in tropical products. 
 19. The representative of Turkey noted that nego tiations had reached a critical stage and that 
Members had to have a realistic, positive and flex ible approach in order to reach an acceptable 
outcome to the negotiations.  Transparency and inclusiveness were of high importance and Turkey 
expressed its full trust in the Chair to conduct the negotiation process in a transparent and inclusive 
manner.  Finally, Turkey stated its support for the statement by Indonesia on the SP and SSM 
concepts and on the issue of sensitive products.  20. The representative of Mauritius st ated Mauritius' support of the statements made by the G-10, 
the African Group and Indonesia.  Mauritius was of the view that S&D should include a number of 
elements including those in paragraph 2.10 of Annex A of the Derbez Text.  Although Mauritius 
believed that paragraph 2.10 already represented a delicately balanced text, Mauritius was ready and 
willing to engage in consu ltations on its content with the Member ship.  Finally, regarding the Doha 
mandate the representative of Mauritius pointed out  that "phasing out" only referred to the export 
subsidy pillar.  
21. The representatives of Argentina, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
Honduras, Mongolia, Nicaragua and Switzerland (on behalf of the G-10), requested that their 
statements made at the informal and/or formal Special  Session form an integral part of the record of 
the 24
th formal Special Session (see Annex).   
ITEM B:  OTHER BUSINESS  
Chairman's Report to the Trade Negotiations Committee 
22. The Chairman stated that, on his responsibility as Chairman, he would be reporting to the 
Trade Negotiations Committee on this meeting. 
Date of the next Special Session 
23. The Chairman informed the Committee that the next meeting of the Special Session would 
take place on 14-16 July 2004. 
 
  TN/AG/R/14 
 Page 5 
 
 
 Annex 
 
Statements by Members at the Informal and Formal Special Sessions of the Committee on 
Agriculture  
Held on 23 and 25 June 2004 
 
Statement by Argentina  
   Allow me to express the Argentine delegation's gratitude for the efforts being made to move 
ahead with these negotiations.  Although we did not take the floor at previous meetings, on this 
occasion we would like to highlight the following:  1. The substance of the "framework" to be agreed must be consistent with the mandate.  It is 
thus necessary to improve on the disciplines and commi tments agreed in the Uruguay Round.  We can 
not run the risk of weakening them.  Neither can we  allow the definitions in the existing disciplines to 
be altered to include issues that are not within the mandate. 
2. Fulfilling the mandate taking the existing disciplines as a point of departure
 has the advantage 
that no member can question these di sciplines because all the ministers agreed to them.  The political 
decisions should respect the technical aspects approved in the Agreements. 
3. As regards compliance with the mandate in each of the three pillars: 
(a) Export subsidies:  without prejudice to existing WTO disciplines, commitments on 
phasing out export subsidies s hould be equally as stringent  as new and special 
additional disciplines in order to prevent their circumvention. 
 These disciplines must not allow any "step backwards" nor legitimize practices that, 
according to the current rules, constitute prohibited export subsidies because this 
would mean increasing such subsidies. 
We must ensure that all export subsidi es are phased out, but only those measures 
considered as such. 
(b) Domestic support:  the mandate states that a ll distorting support must be substantially 
reduced, but does not distinguish between "more" or "less" distortion.  This means that the overall reduction of the amber, de minimis  and Article 6.5 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture subsidies must comply with  the mandate.  Additional disciplines and 
commitments, for example, separate reducti ons by product, must be applied to each 
of the categories of distorting subsidies. 
(c) Regarding market access, we support the elements recently put forward by the G-20 
on an informal basis.  Although there are differences among members, negotiations 
on this pillar are on a clearer basis. 
4. In some of the few informal meetings in which we have participated, we have noted that there 
is still not sufficient convergence among some members.   In addition, Mr Chairman, not all the other 
members have had an opportunity to express their c oncerns so as to allow you to draw up a proposal 
without running the risk of eroding the mandate.  As we are not tied to any date, but to the substance
 
and despite the fact that the current situation is prej udicial to developing countries, we consider that 
any proposal will have a better chance of being accepted later on. TN/AG/R/14 
Page 6  
 
  To summarize, Mr Chairman, after four year s of negotiation there is no reason to be tied 
down to a fixed timetable because the objective is the substance and we should not cede to pressure 
imposed by a date.   TN/AG/R/14 
 Page 7 
 
 
 Statement by Cuba  
  
 First of all, my delegation would like to join  others in congratulating you on the work you 
have carried out in order to make progress in these negotiations. 
 
 In this connection, Cuba would like to e xpress its support for the statement made by the 
Ambassador of Tanzania as coordinator of the in formal group of developing countries and would also 
like to endorse the position of the G-20.  
 Mr Chairman, for Cuba, any commitment on agricultural trade must take account of 
compliance with the Doha mandate and, conseq uently, improve access to markets, including the 
elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers.  We onc e again underline the need to abolish restrictions 
on imports of food and agricultural pr oducts in general.  We cannot conceive of consensus on a new 
Agreement on Agriculture without the elimination of these restrictions and strengthening of the rules 
in Article 12.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
  It is also essential to agree on provisions on sp ecial and differential treatment that allow least 
developed countries to take a more active part in international trade.  Such commitments should not 
be used to exert pressure on least developed count ries to make greater tariff concessions.  In the 
particular case of special products, our interest is that  they should not be subject to reduction.  In this 
connection, it should be emphasized that this inst rument, together with the new safeguard mechanism 
for least developed countries, are essential in orde r to achieve the development objectives set in the 
agricultural chapter of the Doha Agenda.   Cuba also considers it essential to take full account of the interests of net food importing 
developing countries and the least developed countries , while at the same time the agreement reached 
in the Marrakech Declaration in favour of this gr oup of countries should be given effect as soon as 
possible.   Lastly, we support the statement made by Arge ntina to the effect that discussions during the 
negotiations should focus on the substance and no pr essure should be exerted because of the dates 
agreed or the timetables fixed. 
  Our delegation requests that this statement be included in the minutes of the formal meeting 
of this Committee.  TN/AG/R/14 
Page 8  
 
 Statement by Dominican Republic
 
   First of all, we should like to re-emphasize the Dominican Republic's position, namely that 
the agreement we are seeking in July should dete rmine as a priority and as special and differential 
treatment the right of developing countries to select a percentage of tariff lines as special products to 
be exempt from the commitments on tariff quotas an d tariff reduction.  These special products should 
be a separate category in the overall tariff reducti on formula and developing countries should not be 
obliged to compensate for this special and differential treatment for special products. 
 
 There should also be a special safeguard m echanism for developing countries, which could 
also be used for special products.   In addition, regarding the question of food ai d, we should like to underline its importance for 
small net food importing developing countries such as the Dominican Republic, which mainly 
receives bilateral non-emergency food aid.  As a resu lt of this aid, the Government of the Dominican 
Republic has been able to implement social programmes and a school meals programme that feeds thousands of children from families with scarce resources.   It is important for this delegation that any ag reement reached in July allows the possibility of 
continuing bilateral non-emergency food aid programmes in countries such as the Dominican 
Republic and that their flexibility should not be r estricted.  It is our view that these programmes 
should not be considered as export subsidies b ecause their objective and purpose are completely 
different and at the same time they ensure that  thousands of impoverished people receive food. 
  Lastly, we request that this statement be record ed in the formal minutes of this meeting.   
  TN/AG/R/14 
 Page 9 
 
 
 Statement by Ecuador  
   My delegation acknowledges the strenuous efforts you have made as Chairman of this Special 
Session of the Committee on Agriculture in or der to achieve a framework agreement during 
July 2004.  In this connection, Ecuador wishes to re iterate its view that not only must the validation of 
this negotiating process be based on transparency but especially on the inclusion and participation of 
all interested delegations, whether through the spok espersons for the groups already set up or above 
all individually for those of us who do not particip ate in these groups.  Any indication of exclusion 
from participation in the process could affect th e achievement of the c onsensus needed for the 
adoption of the framework agreement being negotiated. 
  I should like to begin by reaffirming Ecuador's commitment to participation in the negotiating 
process on agriculture on the basis of what was agreed  and mandated at the Doha Ministerial Meeting. 
 
 My delegation would like once again to express its interest in seeing compliance with the 
provisions of paragraph 5 of the Preamble to th e Agreement on Agriculture as well as the fullest 
liberalization of trade in tropical products whether in primary or processed form, and for products of 
particular importance for the diversification of production from the growing of illicit narcotic crops. 
  This interest has already been expressed previ ously on a number of occasions and is shared by 
other Members of the WTO;  it has been recogni zed in several documents considered during these 
agricultural negotiations.   In addition, in accordance with the provisions  on special and differential treatment, Ecuador 
supports the principle that the framework nego tiating document should include special products 
because of their strategic importance for the economy  and trade, development, environment and rural 
society in developing countries.   During this meeting we have heard a number of speakers from recently-acceded countries.  As the Members gathered here know, Ecuador joined  the WTO after a process similar to that followed 
by those who have referred to this  matter.  Consequently , my delegation would li ke to know in greater 
detail what is meant and what should be understood by the concept of "recently acceded".  This is a 
question that concerns my delegation because of its implications and the treatment which this 
category of countries may seek.   Without prejudice to the views expressed above, I should like to reserve my delegation's right 
to refer to this and other matters in the agricu ltural negotiations on other occasions, but exclusively 
within this Committee.  I ask you therefore, to ensu re that the views expressed in this statement are 
recorded in the Minutes of this meeting of the Committee.   TN/AG/R/14 
Page 10  
 
 Statement by El Salvador
 
   I should like to thank you for your comments.  
 As the agricultural negotiations are at a crucia l stage and in view of the importance of this 
issue for El Salvador, we deem it essential to ta ke this opportunity to make some comments on our 
main interests and concerns in  relation to these negotiations. 
  First of all, I should like to make some brief comments on the negotiating process conducted 
since March this year.  Although we recognize th e positive aspects of this new methodology, which 
has led from a stage of defining positions to one durin g which we listen to and apprehend the interests 
of other Members, including a negotiating stage, we still have some concerns regarding transparency 
and involvement in the process, which are essentia l elements in order to reach an agreement 
acceptable to all Members. 
 
 As regards the substantive issues in the negotiati ons, El Salvador considers that there must be 
a balance among the three pillars of the agricultu ral negotiations.  Specifically, as regards market 
access, we echo the words of the ministers in the Do ha Ministerial Declaration concerning the aim of 
"substantial improvements in market access" and, for th is purpose, we agree that a tariff formula that 
meets this mandate should be app lied.  Nevertheless, as part of special and differential treatment  in 
this pillar of the negotiations, for El  Salvador it is essential to have a number of special products in 
order to safeguard our concerns and also to ha ve a special safeguard mechanism for developing 
countries.   Regarding the domestic support and export subsidies pillars, we consider that further efforts 
should be made to reach an agreement beneficial to  all.  We acknowledge the measures taken by some 
Members which apply this type of di stortion in order to achieve this goal, mainly in the form of high-
level political declarations, and we hope that these will be put into effect along the lines set out in the declaration.   In addition, I should like to add that, in recent years, El Salvador has benefited from food aid 
programmes, which are a valuable tool for combating malnutrition and poverty in rural areas.  In this 
respect, we understand that the main concern of so me Members in this regard is to prevent trade 
distortions, nevertheless we believe it is importa nt to maintain the flexibility needed – both for 
receiving and donor countries – in order to me et the humanitarian purpose of this activity. 
 
 Lastly, I should like to reemphasize our w illingness to work intensively during the time 
remaining in order to achieve significant progress in these negotiations and be able to meet our objective set for this summer.   TN/AG/R/14 
 Page 11 
 
 
 Statement by Honduras  
   As we have stated on several occasions, for my country the agricultural negotiations are of the 
utmost importance.  Consequently, in view of the fact that we were not invited to the series of 
consultations recently held, I should like to take this opportunity to re-emphasize my Government's 
position regarding these negotiations.   We consider that the future framework agreem ent to be approved should include in the three 
pillars of negotiation special and di fferential treatment in the form of practical decisions so that 
developing countries can achieve a maximum  level of development in the agricultural sector, as well 
as competitiveness and access for their pr oducts to the international market. 
  In this respect, in the case of market acces s, the inclusion of the new special safeguard 
mechanism and special products should not serve as a pretext for requesting developing countries to 
grant any type of compensation or commitm ent to make substantial tariff reductions. 
  It is our position that the framework agreement should include a separate category for special products, which should not be subject to tariff re duction commitments, and ea ch developing country 
could itself decide which are its special products.  The new special safeguard  mechanism should also 
apply to these special products. 
 
 As provided in the Agreement on Agriculture, developed countries s hould take into account 
the needs and special situation of developing countr ies and give them more and better opportunities in 
terms of market access for their agricultural products .  In this connection, because many of the crops 
in my country are tropical products, we consider th at the future framework agreement should include 
language that commits developed countries to granting developing countries access free of tariffs and 
quotas for their tropical products in primary and pr ocessed form, and binding of these commitments 
on an MFN basis.   Lastly, my delegation supports the reduction of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies.  Nevertheless, it wishes to empha size that, when laying down parameters for the 
negotiation of disciplines on other forms of export support such as food aid, the needs of developing 
countries must be taken fully into account, especially the aid given to some members in order to deal 
with situations that are not emergencies but are rather part of programmes to combat and reduce 
poverty. It should be ensured that this type of programme is not eliminated because they have a 
humanitarian objective and are intended to remedy f ood deficits in small countries such as my own, 
included under the category of net food importing developing countries. 
 TN/AG/R/14 
Page 12  
 
 Statement by Mongolia
 
   As establishing the framework on agricultu ral negotiations reaches the deadline, the 
Delegation of Mongolia wishes to make a few comme nts some issues of vital importance to this 
country. 
  First of all, I commend Ambassador Tim Groser for his professional and dedicated handling of the current negotiations that are now entering th e most critical moment.  You have the full support 
of Mongolia for your endeavours. 
 
 Mongolia's interests in agriculture negotia tions are taken care of by our like-minded 
colleagues, such as the G-33 and others.  We are forced to exploit the capacity of our friends as 
Mongolia lacks the necessary manpower.  
 Nevertheless, I wish to highlight one or tw o important issues on which we feel we cannot 
offer our support if Mongolia's unique stand is not taken into account at the agricultural negotiations.  
I mean, strongly speaking, Mongolia would reserve its right to reopen any issues where she did not 
take part due to our limited capacity unless we are sa tisfied with the thrust and the language of the 
issue I am now going to explain to you.  
 Mongolia's agriculture is dominantly animal husbandry.  Mongolia produces no rice, no sugar 
and no crops except a small amount of wheat and ve getable.  The land is arid, mostly desert and 
semi-desert, therefore, in general not suitable to cr op farming.  In addition, Mongolia has had natural 
disasters every year in row.  Climate change takes ov er to the worse.  In ot her words, she is largely 
dependent on humanitarian and emer gency food aid each and every year.  The chronic shortage of the 
most staple food, except meat and milk products, endangers the nutritional n eeds and health of the 
population.   The food aid we have been receiving since the early 1990s has played, I would say, a triple role.  
 First, the food aid has helped  reduce the severe shortage and saved the endangered livelihood 
of the poor, especially the herdsmen.  The nomadic people always risk losing their stocks when a 
severe winter or dry summer hits th eir animals which, without food aid, the only source of living. 
  Second, it has produced a vitally important by-p roduct.  Here we can see the significant role 
of the food aid for development, especially for establishing modern sector of industry.  The 
Government of Mongolia earmarked and lent on concessional terms the proceedings from the US 
food aid in the early 1990s to local entrepreneurs as a start-up capital for pioneering and establishing the IT sector.  If we are proud of our today's achieveme nt in the ICT penetration in the country (one in 
ten is an Internet user, one in eight is a mobile phone  subscriber), we owe it to food aid and to the US.  
We appreciate this and other food aid from donor s like Japan for enabling to support national 
entrepreneurship rather than beco ming dependent on foreign operators. 
  Thirdly, the food aid-generated funds, when well managed and wisely spent, facilitate trade 
expansion.  In the case of Mongolia, the newly-de veloped ICT sector has since been the engine for 
two-digit growth rates each year in terms of impor t and sales of IT products, unseen in other sectors.  
Siemens, Sony, Compaq-HP, Samsung, Alcatel, Acer and many other corpora tions should thank food 
aid for their products being popular in Mongolia.   You may be unaware that there are a few sma ll developing countries who are not a LDC like 
Mongolia and Sri Lanka, for example (Mongolia is not  even a NFIDC).  These non-club, if I may say  TN/AG/R/14 
 Page 13 
 
 
 so, developing countries are often left outside group- to-group negotiations.  In addition, Mongolia is 
the only Member who does not have any FTA.  If ne gotiations do leave a single country or a small 
number of weak and vulnerable Members outside its em brace, it will definitely fail again.  Therefore, 
I present my views here so that the Co mmittee on Agriculture Members take note. 
 
 The standing proposals in our negotiations in their current language threaten to discontinue 
non-emergency food assistance programmes that promote food security, economic growth and trade facilitation as was illustrated above in the case of M ongolia.  It is critical, therefore, that the 
negotiators protect against any deviation from the Uruguay text of Article 10.4 of the Agriculture Agreement that could place existing food assistance programmes in jeopardy and result in a loss of 
flexibility in providing aid to the poorest and the weakest. 
  The Derbez Text states under Annex A, Sec tion 3.5, that "Additional disciplines shall be 
agreed in order to prevent commercial displace ment through food aid operations".  As the WTO 
Agricultural Negotiations Backgrounder (20 Apr il 2004), for which I commend the Secretariat, 
further explains:  "The Derbez draft proposes that an end date for phasing out all forms of export 
subsidies (i.e. including subsidized export credit and some forms of food aid) should be negotiated".  
This approach is not acceptable to my Delegation.  Any text to a similar effect would jeopardize the 
willingness of Mongolia to join a consensus.   We agree that a wisely structured disciplining is required.  But this shoul d be dealt with not in 
the WTO.  It is the prerogative of the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and its 
Consultative Subcommittee on Surplus Disposal (C SSD) and should be established in line with the 
provisions of the Food Aid Convention (FAC).   With this, Mr. Chairman, I leave you here.  I fo rmally ask you and the Secretariat to circulate 
my statement as an official document for the Formal  Special Session scheduled on Friday and to place 
it on record. TN/AG/R/14 
Page 14  
 
 Statement by Nicaragua
 
   First of all, I would like to thank you for th e efforts you have made this week intended at 
finding solutions to the problems that are well known to  us all.  I will be brief in this case and request 
that my statement be placed on the record.  Regard ing the formula, Nicaragua is in favour of a tariff 
reduction formula which is ambitious and harmonizes tariff structures and which is also able to 
substantially reduce tariff peaks by means of a maxi mum authorized tariff level.  Any exception to the 
formula will have to take into account access fo r developing countries. Th e development of our 
countries requires a real market access for the whole production chain of our exports, especially 
differential treatment must ensure that products  of export interest to developing countries are 
promoted and therefore we need to make operati onal the full liberalization for tropical products. 
  On special and differential treatment, we think that  this should be an integral part of any tariff 
reduction formula.  Although Nicaragua recognizes th e existence of sensitivities that all Members 
have, we think that such sensitivities must be ta ken into account within the general formula.  
However, developing countries still have specific situ ations that need to be met by means of special 
provisions and we have supported therefore the G-33 statements regarding strategic products and  the 
SSM for developing countries.   With regard to food aid, Mr. Chairman, we think that a certain amount of flexibility is 
required.  We must find a balance between satis fying basic needs and emergencies or even for 
development programmes and situa tions which cause commercial displacements or interfere with 
production and the marketing of domestic production.  TN/AG/R/14 
 Page 15 
 
 
 Statement by Switzerland (on behalf of the G-10)  
   Thank your for report and signal of alert.  Ind eed, there isn't much time left.  There are two 
possibilities to push this process forw ard.  Either we have a multilate ral process, and that should be 
where the focus is, or we will have a text coming ou t from heaven or hell, and that would be a signal 
for failure.  The G-10 certainly doesn't intend to pres ent such a text.  We share your concerns and in 
our view the points of convergence are very preliminary.   The G-10 looks forward to cooperating closely with you and all other Members to work out 
mutually acceptable solutions.  In this regard, we  would like to recall that the result of the ongoing 
process will need political ownership.  It is th erefore important to ensure transparency and 
inclusiveness through a combination of open-e nded meetings, consultati ons involving individual 
Members or groups of Members and discussions between groups.   
 For the G-10, there are three overarching prin ciples that should shape the Framework for the 
negotiations on agriculture :   
• First, the three pillars are to be treated with  a similar level of specificity.  If one of the 
pillar – market access for instance – has to be  dealt with in general terms or at the 
level of principles, this should also be th e case for the two other pillars.  This means 
as well that the level of clarity on both amb ition and flexibility should be comparable. 
• Second, it is of central importance to the G 10 that the reform principles established in 
the Uruguay Round are being respected.  Th e Agreement on Agriculture reads that 
commitments under the reform programme sha ll be made in an equitable way among 
all Members.  This means that the bala nce of results for each Member should be 
assessed in light of the results achieved on all three pillars.   
• Third, special attention must be paid to  Members from whom the biggest efforts are 
expected.  So far, this has been achieved trough your excellent consultations process.  
The G-10 is not a deal taker and needs to be part of the discussions concerning a 
possible draft text. 
  As regards the three pillars, our position is well known and I will only repeat three points.  
• It is true that Market Access is our main focus.  Capping, in particular, will not 
support but block our reform process.  Also , it is not necessarily the highest tariffs 
which alone have the potential to prevent trade. 
• But it does not mean that we don't have probl ems in the other pillars.  As a matter of 
fact, we also need flexibility in the blue  and, especially, the Green Box, and we are 
against capping support to individual products.  We therefore need flexibility and safeguards in all three pillars. 
• On export competition, the framework shoul d signal where we go, in what stages, 
with or without exceptions, etc.  Here , like elsewhere, practicalities are more 
important than dogmas.  In any case, there should be a balance at the end of the 
negotiation.  
  Our position on S&D, special products and on NTCs is equally well known, and here as well 
we are ready to engage in more technical work. 
 
__________