WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/59
29 November 2000
(00-5140)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
15-17 NOVEMBER 2000
Statement by Australia
Non-Trade Concerns (G/AG/NG/W/36/Rev.1)
Australia has listened with interest to the comments by Members on the paper submitted on
non-trade concerns.  The discussion of non-trade concerns seems to be a non-issue.  This is not to say
that non-trade concerns are unimportant, but the fact is that everyone seems to be on the same side -
that governments need to, and do in fact, pursue a range of policy objectives in agriculture.
Let me start by setting out two basic principles on which I think we can all agree and which
point to a way forward on these non-trade concerns.
First, it is simply a fact that all WTO Members have important non-trade objectives in
relation to agriculture.
In Australia's case - as a dry, continent-sized country - we face intense challenges in
preserving our soils and watercourses and in sustaini ng biological diversity.  And as an increasingly
urbanised society we also face the challenge of preserving the viability of regional, rural and remote
communities.
These are our non-trade concerns.
We accept completely that all Members here have their own non-trade concerns that relate to
their own particular situation.
The second basic principle on which we can all agree is that in the WTO all governments are
free to pursue whatever policy objectives they wish.  The WTO deals with the "how" not with the
"what".
Let me emphasise this second point.We do not question the right of any country to pursue their non-trade concerns.By recognising that all countries have non-trade objectives and that these objectives are
legitimate the issue we need to address in these negotiations is the "how".  That is, the question of themeasures or specific policy instruments Members should be allowed to use in pursuit of their non-
trade objectives.
This is the issue.  We want non-trade objectives to be pursued with policies and measures
which do not distort production or trade.  Some rich country proponents of non-trade concerns say
that they must use measures which distort pr oduction and trade.  But the question is why?G/AG/NG/W/59
Page 2
It is not only possible  to pursue non-trade concerns with measure which do not distort trade
and production - it is also the most efficient  way of pursuing these non-trade objectives.  What is
required is not that Members abandon their non-trade concerns, but simply that they choose better
instruments for achieving these objectives.
And there is a simple reason why we seek this outcome.  To promote the non-trade concerns
of one Member through trade-distorting measures is to ensure that other Members are denied the
opportunity to promote their  non-trade and trade concerns.  Given that most of the leading countries
promoting the importance of non-trade concerns are rich, exporting such a burden to poorer countries
violates a basic concept of fairness and is alien to the goals of the multilateral trading system.  It is a
classic case of "beggar thy neighbour".
Again let me stress that no one is asking that any WTO Member abandon or scale back their
non-trade objectives.  All we ask is that non-trade concerns be addressed in ways that achieve the best
outcome for all Members.  And the best way of achieving the non-trade objectives is by using simple
policies, transparently administered, targeted to the objective, and decoupled from production.  If you
pay a farmer to maintain a landscape - whether this be hedgerows, stonewalls or biodiversity - then heor she is likely to do so.  It makes less sense to support the price of the crop in the hope that - as a by-
product of those farming activities - the farmer will maintain the landscape.  Of course, broad acre
agriculture sustained by subsidies in many parts of Europe has reduced biodiversity.
An additional observation I would make relates to the mandate of these negotiations.
Article 20 includes reference to non-trade concerns being "taken into account" in the negotiations.
And we must do so.  But we have to take non-trade concerns into account in the context of a
negotiation, the focus of which is substantial progressive reductions in support and protection under
the three pillars.
This is an area where we are still waiting for the proponents of non-trade concerns to come
forward and tell us what they want in relation to non-trade concerns.
What specific policies do they want to employ to meet their objectives?And, as is normal in the WTO, everyone is entitled to ask, are these policies the least
production and trade distorting policies to achieve the desired objectives?
In summary, these papers, while drawing together a lot of information are beside the point:
they are irrelevant to the negotiations.  They are irrelevant because the right of Governments to pursue
non-trade concerns is not in question.  And they are irrelevant because there is no attempt to explore
in these papers a way of thinking about non-trade objectives which could help us to move ahead onthis issue.  We invite those who are serious about taking into account non-trade concerns in the
negotiations to start discussing the specific policy instruments that they propose to use.
The Cairns Group has put forward ambitious proposals under each of the three pillars,
addressing the core issues of the negotiations.  In order to advance these negotiations and ensure non-trade concerns can be taken into account, the proponents of such concerns need to come forward with
proposals which detail the instruments for achieving their objectives.
Once this happens, I am sure we can engage productively on how to fit non-trade objectives
within a framework for meaningful agricultural liberalization.
Finally, I would note, for all those developing countries that have expressed an interest in
non-trade concerns (especially food security and rural development) that in each of the Cairns Group
proposals tabled, and in the market access proposal to be tabled, the Cairns Group has dealt
specifically and in concrete terms with these non-tr ade concerns.  I would suggest that if they readG/AG/NG/W/59
Page 3
what is there, they will find much with which they can agree.  The Cairns Group's proposals are
addressing the non-trade concerns of developing countries.
__________