WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/129
16 February 2001
(01-0773)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  Spanish
FIFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
5-7 FEBRUARY 2001
Statements by the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Cuba and El Salvador
G/AG/NG/W/90 (Proposal by the European Union)
On behalf of the delegations of Honduras and the Dominican Republic, we would like to
thank the European Union for the presentation of its proposal, as well as to make the following
remarks in respect of that proposal:
In our view, the proposal in point 1 of the section on market access is not sufficient to achieve
real access for our products.  The formula proposed by the European Union will not eliminate the
tariff peaks which have constituted a problem for us in the five years of application of the Agreement.We believe that there should not be an identical ta riff reduction for all Members, but that a formula
should be agreed which provides for greater reductions by countries maintaining tariff peaks and
minimal reductions by countries which do not have high tariffs.  Thus, developing countries, which
have bound tariffs at very low rates should not be required to reduce their tariffs even more, which
would fail to eliminate existing trade distortions.
We also disagree with the European Union's proposal that reductions per specific tariff line
should be minimal;  on the contrary, reductions per specific tariff line should be as large and as
transparent as possible, in order that tariff peaks can be substantially reduced.
The European Union fails to take into account tariff escalation, which is becoming an
increasingly serious problem for developing countries, since trade is shifting rapidly towardsprocessed products.  Given existing tariff structures in the developed countries, the value added by
processing currently accrues to the developed countries to a large extent.
We agree that disciplines should be defined to simplify the administration of tariff quotas, so
that there is complete uniformity and transparency.  However, this is still not sufficient, and we haveproposed substantial reductions in in-quota and especially out-of-quota tariffs, as well as a periodic
increase in the tariff quota volumes administered by the developed countries.  We have also proposed
that tariff quotas should be based on specific products and not on aggregate groups of tariff lines.
We have proposed that the special safeguard should be reserved only for developing
countries;  the developed countries, which already maintain high levels of protection, should not be
entitled to use this instrument.
With regard to the section on export competition, one of the main objectives of these
negotiations should be the elimination of export subsidies because it is widely acknowledged that they
pose a serious threat to trade in agricultural  products originating in developing countries.G/AG/NG/W/129
Page 2
We also agree that, as Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture indicates, disciplines
should be drawn up to cover export credits, since these can have a seriously distorting effect on
agricultural trade.  However, we believe that these disciplines should be negotiated within the
framework of the WTO.
With regard to the section on domestic support, regrettably, we cannot agree with the
European Union that the present arrangements constitute the most appropriate framework for
addressing issues in this area.  On the contrary, we believe that this area should undergo extensive
reform during the current negotiations.  We have proposed to collapse all the domestic support
categories into one "general subsidies" box, which would help to bring rationality and structure to the
Agreement, as well as to ease the unnecessary administrative burden on developing country
delegations.  A set of criteria should be established to define which programmes would be legal withinthis single box.
We believe that the levels of "Aggregate Measure of Support" should be substantially reduced
by the developed countries.
With regard to non-trade concerns, in our view, the European Union confuses its own non-
trade concerns with those of the developing countries.  There is a considerable difference between the
two, and they cannot, therefore, be treated in the same way.  We believe that non-trade concerns are
legitimate concerns for all WTO Members, but that those indicated by developing countries can be
met by granting them the necessary flexibility,  within a development box, to apply measures to
promote rural development, alleviate poverty and guarantee food security.  We must make sure that
non-trade concerns are not used by the developed countries as a pretext for using trade-distorting
measures.
With regard to the section on special and differential treatment, we welcome the fact that the
European Union has taken into account special and differential treatment for developing countries,
since this is an integral part of the process of agricultural reform.  Nevertheless, in our view, its
proposal is too limited in scope to achieve improved developing country participation in international
agricultural trade.
In its proposal, the European Union concentrates on the granting of trade preferences.  In our
view, these preferences are beneficial for the developing and least-developed countries, but only thedeveloped countries should have to undertake to grant these preferences.  We also believe that the best
way of helping both developing and least-developed countries is to eliminate trade-distorting
measures, through significant tariff reductions and the abolition of subsidies, and by granting real
access to products of interest to the developing countries.
Furthermore, the European Union fails to take into account the additional flexibility needed
for developing countries, which we have proposed should be established in a development box.  This
flexibility is needed so that the developing countries can protect their agricultural sectors from
subsidized exports, and so that they can achieve their objectives with regard to rural development,
poverty reduction, enhancing food security and lastly, rehabilitating areas affected by naturaldisasters.
G/AG/NG/W/93 (Cairns Group proposal)
On behalf of the delegations of Honduras, th e Dominican Republic, Cuba and El Salvador, we
thank the Cairns Group for the presentation of  its document G/AG/NG/W/93, concerning export
restrictions and taxes.  As we have indicated in our document concerning market access, we fully
agree with the need to eliminate tariff escalation, which is becoming an increasingly serious problem,
since trade is shifting rapidly towards processed products.  It also seriously hinders the efforts ofG/AG/NG/W/129
Page 3
developing countries to transform the raw-material production export cycle and to halt the steady
reduction in income resulting from the deteriorating conditions of trade in raw materials.  To achieve
these objectives, the elimination of tariff peaks is essential and a harmonization formula needs to be
defined with a view to reducing tariff escalation, including the developed countries' concession of
complete liberalization for processed forms of tropical goods.
If a decision is reached to develop improved disciplines on export restrictions and taxes, as
the proposal indicates, Article 12.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture should be preserved and
additional special and differential treatment provisions provided for developing countries, including
the least-developed and net food-importing countries.
G/AG/NG/W/91 (Proposal by Japan)
On behalf of the delegations of Honduras and the Dominican Republic we would like to thank
the delegation of Japan for the presentation of its document G/AG/NG/W/91.  First of all, we, like the
delegation of Pakistan, cannot accept any link between these negotiations and the possible launch of a
new round of negotiations.  The process of agricultural reform is a commitment made by all Membersduring the Uruguay Round, and it should be fulfille d unreservedly, without linking it in any way to
the launch of a new round, on which there is no consensus within this Organization.
We support the idea that one of the important elements to be taken into consideration during
these negotiations is food security, for it is a legitimate concern of all governments to guarantee asufficient and stable supply of food to their people.  However, we believe that the developed countries
should not use food security as a pretext for appl ying measures which distort agricultural trade.
In most developing countries, the agricultural sector remains largely underdeveloped, in terms
of production for the domestic market as well as for exports.  At the same time, in most of thesecountries, the agricultural sector lies at the centre of the economy, since it accounts for a large share
of GDP, employs a considerable proportion of the workforce, represents a major source of foreign
currency, supplies the bulk of basic food, and provides subsistence and income for large rural
populations.  Consequently, food security is a vital and crucial concern of developing countries, and
they should be provided with assistance to increase domestic food production.  However, it is
important to draw a distinction between the type of flexibility essential for developing countries, and
the provision of supports by exporting developed countries in order to gain markets abroad.
With regard to market access, Japan's proposal does not resolve the problem of the existence
of tariff peaks, which negatively affect market access for goods from developing countries.  It was
hoped that the main beneficiaries of implementation of the Agreement on Agriculture would be the
developing countries, by gaining improved access to the markets of developed countries and a greatervolume of exports to those countries;  regrettably, in the five years of application of the Agreement
this has not been the case, since the existence of tariff peaks and high levels of export subsidies in the
OECD countries has been largely responsible for pr eventing real access for products originating in
developing countries.  Consequently, one of the major achievements of these negotiations must be the
elimination of export subsidies.
Japan argues that the special safeguard mechanism should be maintained in its present form.
We cannot accept this proposal because, as we indicated previously, the special safeguard should be
reserved solely for use by developing countries, which currently suffer most from the application of
trade-distorting measures by the developed countries.
Japan also proposes that the present domestic support arrangements should be maintained,
which we likewise find unacceptable since, as we indicated previously, we believe that these areG/AG/NG/W/129
Page 4
among the provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture which most require reform during the current
negotiations, since they represent a serious distortion that is detrimental to the developing countries.
With regard to the section on rules and disciplines on exports, if a decision is taken to develop
improved disciplines on export restrictions and taxes, we reiterate that Article 12.2 of the Agreementon special and differential treatment for the developing countries must be preserved.
We welcome the fact that the delegation of Japan, in Section VI of its proposal, concerning
special treatment for developing countries, takes into account many of the elements which we
included in our proposal for the establishment of a development box.  The element of flexibility,
concerning both border measures and domestic support, is vital in order to enable the developing
countries to resolve existing problems in the agricultural sector.  Special and differential treatment iscrucial for the developing countries, and we welcome the fact that the delegation of Japan has taken
this into account in its proposal.
G/AG/NG/W/92 (Proposal of Canada)
On behalf of the delegations of Honduras, C uba, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic, we
would like to thank the delegation of Canada for the presentation of its document G/AG/NG/W/92.
We welcome the fact that it proposes to limit the amount of support for agriculture, although we
believe that it is necessary to alter the existing structure of the Agreement and, as we indicate in
document G/AG/NG/W/14, to establish a single general subsidies box, as well as disciplines to definewhich programmes would be legal within this box, because at the moment the green box responds to
the trade and other concerns of the developed countries but not those of developing countries.  The
flexibility needed for developing countries must always be taken into account.
__________