WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/AG/GEN/21 
16 June 2006 
 (06-2932) 
Committee on Agriculture 
Special Session Original:   English 
 
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM ARMENIA, 
THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC AND THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 16 June 2006,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegations of Armenia, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Moldova. 
 
_______________ 
 
  At this stage of the negotiations towards agreeing on agricultural modalities, Armenia, the 
Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Moldova - recently acceded small low-income economies in 
transition - would like to reiterate  the concerns that had been expressed in their formal proposals, 
submitted to the Special Session of Committee on Agriculture (document TN/AG/GEN/10 and Corr.1, dated 29 June and 6 July 2005 and document TN/AG/GEN/16 dated 20 April 2006). 
 
 The concerns expressed in above-mentioned propo sal are vital, real and based on an objective 
analysis of both our nationals economic and social  situations and our pos itions in the multilateral 
trading system in terms of our market access co mmitments on agricultural products and rule-making 
obligations assumed by our countries upon accession.   In this context, we would like to re iterate its content and its basic arguments. 
 
 It is for us a question of survival - particularly in order to help our peoples and businesses adjust to a very rapid pace of trade liberalization - to have recourse to special flexibility provisions.
1  
Specifically, we request the following special flexibility provisions on market access and domestic 
support pillars as a transition and development-suppor ting measures to be provided during this Round: 
 
Market Access  
− In view of our substantially lower agricu ltural applied and bound tariffs, the small low-
income economies in transition shall be exempted from tariff reductions; 
− Access to all instruments that would be availa ble to other Members at the same level of 
economic development, including those designed to  protect vulnerable and subsistent farmers 
such as the special safeguard mechanism; 
 
Domestic support  
− In view of total AMS support being basically at de minimis level of 5 %, the small low-
income economies in transition shall be exempt ed from reductions in Total AMS levels and 
shall be granted a time-bound increase of de minimis limits up to 10%;  and 
                                                      
1 We would like to recall, in this context, that the Uruguay Round Agreements allowed such flexibility 
provisions for Members in the process of economic transition under Article 29 of the Subsidies Agreement and 
Article XII of GATS. TN/AG/GEN/21 
Page 2  
 
  − Exclusion of investment subsidies and input subsidies generally available to agriculture, 
interest subsidies to reduce the costs of financ ing as well as grants to cover debt repayment 
from calculation of their Current Total AMS. 
  Our proposals remain fully valid as our contri bution to the work on agriculture modalities.  
Some additional arguments and supporting information is reproduced below. 
 1. Armenia, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic  of Moldova are newly independent states, 
which acceded to the WTO in recent years (1998-2 003).  The Republic of Moldova was included in 
paragraph 9 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, which introduces two substantive criteria for RAMs: 
− Recognition by all Members of "the extensive market-access commitments already made by 
these countries on accession";  and 
− Acknowledgment by all Members that "these accessions will greatly strengthen the 
multilateral trading system". 
 2. The objective economic indicators clearly show that the level of development of our 
economies is very low.  Furthermore, these conc erns are based on objective analyses of national 
agriculture-dependent economy that is akin to that  of other low-income countries particularly LDCs 
(see the attached Table 1).  Furthermore, our sh are in the world trade is minuscule and does not 
exceed 0.017%. 
3. The paragraph 38 of the Doha Declaration, as well as the paragraph 1.d. and other sections of 
the General Council's Decision (1 August 2004) unde rline the difficulties faced by "small low-income 
economies in transition" in their efforts to implement economic and trade policy reforms. 
4. The concerns also arise from the audacious market access commitments and rule-making 
obligations that we face as the terms of accession to  the WTO.  As indicated in the Table 2, the bound 
level of tariffs of our countries is uniformly very low across all pr oducts, such that any tariff reduction 
will directly bites into the applied tariffs.  This will be a severe burden to Armenia, the 
Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Moldova whic h were not treated as developing countries during 
their accession processes.  Furthermore, the Graph in  the page 4 clearly show that the agricultural 
tariffs of our countries are bound at very low levels – about 3.4 times  lower compared to the 
Uruguay Round average final bound tariffs of  developing country Members and about 6 times  - 
compared to those or the LDCs. 
5. We firmly consider that our countries, whose tariffs are bound at such low rates, shall remain 
exempt from any kind of further reductions in the me dium-term, in view of the still high tariff levels 
of other Members, as well as international market distortions caused by agricultural export subsidies 
and domestic support measures exercised mo stly by developed country Members. 
6. Armenia, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Moldova have not had the right to invoke 
SSGs.  In addition, economies in transition have not been indicated as bene ficiaries of a future 
Special Safeguard Mechanism.  It is our position that any new Special Safeguard Mechanism should 
also benefit our countries and be used to counter su rges in imports, particularly in special products on 
which the low-income producers depend. 
7. We would like to assert that it is not our intention to create a new sub-category of 
countries among WTO Members, while the requ ested flexibilities above would apply only 
during the implementation period of the Doha Round .  This will allow our economies, in the 
medium-term, to benefit from some degree of flexib ility and, in fact, give a much needed breathing 
space to improve the quality of our integration in to the multilateral trading system and enhance 
diversification of our production and export bases.  TN/AG/GEN/21 
 Page 3 
 
 
  8. Finally, we would like therefore to convey to  you our high expectations that the above 
proposals will be considered finally in a positive manner by other Members, and its substantive 
elements will be included in the negotiating modalitie s, so that our countries could really benefit from 
WTO membership, as stated in paragraph 49 of the D oha Ministerial Declaration.  Furthermore, this 
will also contribute to an important systemic policy objective – making market access commitments 
among WTO Members more mutually balanced and coherent. TN/AG/GEN/21 
Page 4  
 
  ATTACHMENT
 
 
Table 1:  Indicators of Economic Development 
 
    GDP/capita 
(constant 2000 
US$) Agriculture 
value added 
(% of GDP) Employment in 
agriculture (% of 
total employment) Share in world 
trade (%) 
 2003 Low income 429 25 ..  
  Lower-middle 
income 1442 12 43  
        
  Armenia 886 24 44 0.017 
  Kyrgyz Republic 306 37 53 0.011 
  Moldova 371 22 51 0.015 
        
 2002 Low income 409 25 ..  
  Lower-middle 
income 1374 12 42  
        
  Armenia 775 26 43 0.013 
  Kyrgyz 289 38 52 0.010 
  Moldova 347 24 49 0.013 
        
 2001 Low income 401 27 ..  
  Lower-middle 
income 1310 13 43  
        
  Armenia 683 28 43 … 
  Kyrgyz 291 37 49 … 
  Moldova 321 26 .. 0.012 
Source:  World Development database, World Bank, WTO, doc.TN/MA/S/18 
 
Table 2:  Agricultural Tariffs of Selected Countries 
 
Reporter Name Tariff 
Year Maximum Rate   
(%) Bound  
Simple Average 
(%) Applied  
Simple Average 
(%) Bound-Applied 
(4-5) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
Tanzania 2005 120.0 120.0 19.3 100.7 
India 2005 300.0 113.3 37.6 75.7 
Uganda 2005 80.0 77.9 19.3 58.6 
Brazil 2005 55.0 35.4 10.3 25.2 
Philippines 2003 80.0 34.6 7.9 26.7 
Honduras 2005 60.0 32.2 9.9 22.3 
Senegal 2004 30.0 29.9 14.3 15.6 
Oman 2002 200.0 28.0 11.3 16.7 
Jordan 2003 200.0 23.6 19.6 4.1 
China 2004 65.0 15.7 16.5 -0.8 
Croatia 2004 55.0 9.4 8.7 0.6 
Armenia 2001 15.0 14.7 7.0 7.7 
Moldova 2001 25.0 12.2 10.2 2.0 
Kyrgyz Republic 2003 30.0 12.2 7.0 5.2 
Source:  WITS/TRAINS Database, UNCTAD   
  Graph:  Agricultural Tariffs of Selected Countries (Source:  WITS/TRAINS Database, UNCTAD)  
 
 
__________ TN/AG/GEN/21
Page 50 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 
Tanzania India Uganda  Brazil Philippines Honduras Senegal Oman  Jordan China Armenia Moldova Kyrgyz
RepublicCroatiaTariff rates  Maximum rate  
Bound  
Applied  
LDC average
(78%) Developing country 
Average 
(43%)