WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/170
6 April 2001
(01-1780)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  Spanish
SIXTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
22-23 MARCH 2001
Statement by Venezuela
G/AG/NG/W/107 (Comprehensive proposal by Egypt)
We appreciate Egypt's contribution to the negotiating process conducted by this Committee,
and would like to make only a few comments in this respect.
To begin with, we consider the fundamentals which, according to the Egyptian proposal,
should serve as a guide for the entire negotiating process, to be extremely important.  Indeed, we must
not lose sight, in the technical discussions, of the ultimate aim of the negotiations.  Article 20 states
that the objective of the reform process is to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural tradingsystem.  To that end, as Egypt states, it is essential that due consideration should be made for the
goals, needs, and aspirations of developing and least-developed countries.  The result of the
negotiations must benefit all Members.
One of the objectives of the negotiations should be to operationalize the provisions of the
Agreement on Agriculture on special and differential treatment in order to ensure that they contribute
effectively to facilitating the adjustment of the countries concerned to the reform process and helpthem to  integrate on a competitive basis in international agricultural trade flows.  Experience with
implementation of the Agreement over the past few years has shown that it is not enough merely to
provide longer time-periods.  These countries need a certain amount of flexibility to support their
agricultural sectors and improve their long-term competitiveness, particularly when international
market conditions are severely distorted by the support and protection policies pursued by certainMembers.
As regards the traditional pillars of the Agr eement, we agree, in general, with Egypt's
proposals.  In the market access area, as already discussed in this Committee, the elimination of tariff
peaks and tariff escalation, the simplification of complex tariff structures, and other transparencymeasures in the developed country markets would considerably improve the export opportunities of
the developing countries.
In this respect, we would simply like to add that the elimination of the special safeguard for
developing countries could be unwise, in that the reform process is under way and internationalmarket distortions prevail.  This type of measure should be maintained as a form of special and
differential treatment for the developing countries.
With respect to domestic support, we share Egyp t's view that the increase in such support
since the Uruguay Round is contrary to the spirit of the Agreement on Agriculture.  We therefore
think that the reform process should address this anomaly and aim for greater transparency,G/AG/NG/W/170
Page 2
substantial reductions and limits to the domestic support granted, regardless of whether such support
is classified in the amber box, the blue box or the green box.
Concerning export subsidies, our delegation ta kes the view that they should be eliminated
during the reform process according to a scheme which considers the particular needs of thedeveloping countries.  Furthermore, our approach to this subject is comprehensive:  we are interested
in the implementation of Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and the negotiation and
agreement by this Committee of disciplines governing export credits, export credit guarantees and
insurance programmes.
Finally, we would like to highlight Egypt's proposals concerning the Marrakesh Decision on
Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developedand Net Food-Importing Developing C ountries.  Of particular importance is the technical assistance
that should be afforded to the countries in qu estion to improve their own production capacity.  We
think that this type of technical assistance would tackle the fundamental problems of these countries
such as access to appropriate technology and infrastructure, the lack of which has a negative impact,
inter alia , on the productivity of their agricultural sectors.
G/AG/NG/W/138 (Comprehensive proposal by Mexico)
We would like to thank Mexico for its comprehensive proposal for these negotiations and to
make a few remarks concerning specific areas of the negotiations.
With respect to export subsidies, we share the objective of eliminating them and agree with
the proposal to improve export competition disciplines until that objective is attained.
We also agree with Mexico on the need to implement immediately the mandate set forth in
Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture with respect to the negotiation and adoption of
disciplines governing the provision of export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance
programmes.
In the domestic support area, we generally share Mexico's views on the importance of
ensuring that these negotiations lead to substantial reductions in levels of support.
This delegation has already spoken in favour of proposals, such as that of Canada, to establish
a general limit or ceiling on all support, regardless of whether it is classified in the amber box, the
blue box or the green box.
We also think that it is necessary to review the Annex 2 criteria on the basis of the experience
acquired in implementing the Agreement, in order to ensure that only those measures which do not
distort trade or do so only minimally still fall into this category and are hence exempted from the
reduction commitments.
This review should lead to the inclusion of measures and programmes which take account of
the real institutional and financial capacity of the developing countries to support their agriculture.
With regard to the proposals on market access, we share Mexico's very reasonable position
that negotiations and possible commitments in this area cannot be delinked from the progress and
results achieved in the discussions on export competition and domestic support.
Finally, we attach particular importance to the provisions on special and differential
treatment.  In our view, these provisions should be horizontally incorporated in the different areas of
negotiation and should take account of the real capacity of the developing countries to provideG/AG/NG/W/170
Page 3
effective support for their agricultural sector, to foster rural development, to alleviate poverty and to
guarantee food security.
G/AG/NG/W/139 (Proposal by MERCOSUR, Bolivi a, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India and
Malaysia concerning export credits for agricultural products)
We would like to begin by expressing our appreciation to MERCOSUR and the other
countries for their proposal on export credits.  As we fully agree with its content, we shall limit
ourselves to highlighting the areas of agreement which seem most important to us.
Firstly, we fully agree with these countries that the development of disciplines governing the
provision of export credits is one of the issues that has remained outstanding since the UruguayRound and should therefore be dealt with immediately.
We would like to stress, moreover, that like the sponsors of the proposal, we think it is
essential that these disciplines should be negotiated and agreed within the WTO, thereby guaranteeing
the participation of all Members and fulfilling a specific mandate set forth in the Agreement onAgriculture.
On the subject of the specific elements of the proposal, suffice it to say for the moment that
we agree with an approach which, while considering the adoption of substantive disciplines in this
area, also addresses the issue of transparency through the adoption of a notification mechanismdesigned to assess compliance with the commitments acquired.
G/AG/NG/W/88 (Technical Submission by Argentina on Legitimate Non-Trade Concerns)
We welcome the document submitted by the delegation of Argentina under the symbol
G/AG/NG/W/88.  This subm ission is a valuable contribution in that it places non-trade concerns in
the agricultural trade reform process in its proper perspective in the framework of the negotiations on
agriculture.
In this connection, Argentina's observation concerning the context in which non-trade
concerns should be addressed during the negotiations is correct.  As we understand Argentina's
technical submission, this context is made up of three elements:
(i) Due consideration should be given, in addressing this subject, to the effects
of the reform process on the developing countries, in keeping both with Article 20(c)
of the Agreement on Agriculture and the Preamble to the Agreement.
(ii) Some of the most serious problems relating to non-trade concerns can be
resolved by correcting current distortions to agricultural trade.
(iii) Legitimate non-trade concerns are those which can be pursued by all WTO
Members consistently with the objective of establishing a fair and market-oriented
agricultural trading system.
Finally, we agree with Argentina's statement that rural poverty, unemployment and
environmental protection are legitimate non-trade concerns.  For Venezuela, food security is also a
fundamental concern.
We share Argentina's opinion on the existence of a causal relationship between the
aggravation of these problems and trade-distortive ag ricultural trade policies implemented by certainG/AG/NG/W/170
Page 4
WTO Members, including the granting of extensive agricultural subsidies and assistance, and tariff
escalation.
__________