WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/172
9 April 2001
(01-1790)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
SIXTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
22-23 MARCH 2001
Statements by Turkey
G/AG/NG/W/106  (Proposal by Turkey)
Considering the time limit, I will be briefly stressing on some core points of Turkey's
proposal on agriculture negotiations.
First of all, I would like to emphasize on some points in regard with export competition:
We believe that the extensive use of export subsidies by developed countries, with an aim to
increase international competitiveness, has negatively affected the market prices and has led to unfair
competition.  However, developing countries have been unable to do so due to the budgetaryconstraints.
Therefore, a desirable competitive trade environment calls for an elimination or substantial
reductions in the export subsidies.
With regard to food aid, we think every Member should consider the provisions of
Article 10.4 of the Agreement and any aid should be implemented in grant form.
The export credits is another issue that needs to be emphasized.  Since the impact of export
credits is similar to that of the export subsidies,  Member countries should take some concrete steps
towards the development of internationally agreed disciplines that will constitute the provisions of
export credits, export guarantees and insurance programmes.
Turkey's approach with regard to domestic support can be summarized as follows:The Agreement on Agriculture envisaged the reduction of amber box supports above " de
minimis " level.  The countries having abundant financial resources have intensively provided those
supports, which in turn have negatively affected the international market conditions.
In this respect, we propose the reduction or elimination of domestic supports above " de
minimis " level for all countries while also suggesting an increase of this level for the developing ones.
We are also looking for a flexibility to apply " de minimis " level on aggregate basis rather than
on product basis.
Regarding the Green Box measures we support the proposal of some other Members who
previously presented their positions that Green Box measures should continue within the framework
of Annex II by introducing clear definitions and set of rules in compliance with the spirit and the letter
of the Agreement.G/AG/NG/W/172
Page 2
Let me now dwell on market access.
For Turkey, further tariff reductions can be considered when export subsidies and domestic
support measures are substantially reduced or eliminated. Tariff reductions can be undertaken
provided that special and differential treatment for developing countries is respected and strengthened.
 Uruguay Round approach can be adopted in the negotiations which has allowed reductions in
each tariff line from the bound rates.
On tariff quotas, Turkey shares the views expressed by many Members which have pointed
out the necessity of introducing a discipline in tariff quota administration with a view to achieving
transparent, predictable and non-discriminatory quota allocation.  We also support the elimination oftariff quotas through the expansion of quota volumes and reduction in "in-quota" and "out-quota"
tariffs over an agreed time frame.
Another point regarding market access is the special safeguard clause.  That mechanism
which has been a transitional instrument for the countries that converted non-tariff barriers to tariffequivalents in the Uruguay Round, needs to be eliminated.
The other item is the special and differential treatment granted for the developing countries.
We consider this issue as an integral part of the ongoing negotiations and believe that special and
differential treatment should continue and be stre ngthened for every developing country without any
new sub-country definitions.
The other topic I would like to elaborate on is the Peace Clause.  In conformity with the
objectives of the reform process we think that th ere is no essential need to continue with the
provisions brought by the Peace Clause.
Finally, non-trade concerns.  It has become an important item for our discussions in this
platform.  We have heard different arguments in line with the needs of the various Member countries
and we respect them all.
However, considering some aspects of the multi-functionality concept and some arguments
reviewed under this topic, we have some concerns.  Our concerns mainly originate in the probabilityof introducing some new measures, which might hinder further liberalization in the commitments of
the countries highlighting this issue.
Nonetheless, we know the significance of the agricultural sector in each country's economy
and fully understand the concerns.  We expect that this argument by no means creates new barriers totrade but be analyzed realistically with its all aspects.
G/AG/NG/W/102  (Proposal of India)
We welcome the comprehensive and very well debated proposal of India.  Since the problems
of developing countries in agricultural trade after the Uruguay Round are similar to each other,
Turkey observes the correct indications of India's concerns in this proposal.
In this context, there are so many common points between Turkey's and India's proposals.
We believe that those points should be taken into consideration during the negotiations in order to
assure an equitable and balanced reform process.
Turkey is pleased to note that, this proposal is totally in favour of strengthening of special and
differential treatment provisions for developing countries.  We understand the rationale behind theG/AG/NG/W/172
Page 3
concept of "food security box" and consider its elements in the context of reinforcing those
provisions.
As it is also stated in India's proposal, Green Box measures have been widely used by WTO
Members.  In that sense, Turkey believes that the introduction of clear definitions and set of rules inline with the objectives of Annex II is needed.  Therefore, Green Box measures deserve detailed
assessment to determine their impact on trade and production without any prejudice to the content of
that Annex.
As a conclusion, India's proposal correctly reveal s the expectations of developing countries in
terms of establishing fair worldwide competition and achieving a balance between the developed and
developing countries.
G/AG/NG/W/101  (Proposal of Norway)
We welcome Norway's constructive proposal.  We will comment on some issues that are of
particular interest to our delegation.
Firstly, in line with the Article 20, Turkey considers the negotiations as an opportunity to
discuss and analyze non-trade concerns in depth, aimi ng at identifying main elements and instruments
to the benefit of the agricultural sector.  From this point of view, Norway's paper contributes to theongoing discussions.  However, we would like to recall once more that non-trade concerns should not
impede the reform process and the commitments of Members in this respect.
Reform process includes the elimination of all trade-distorting measures at the end.  Norway,
by dividing the domestic support measures into two categories depending on the final market,undermines the fact that trade is a two way route where the domestic market of a Member country is
an export market of another.  In addition to that, this type of division would produce monitoring
problems in practice for most of the Members.
On the other hand, the concerns on inflation adjustment of domestic support commitments
and the needs of developing countries in the area of domestic support are shared by Turkey.
G/AG/NG/W/107  (Proposal of Egypt)
We thank Egypt for their constructive proposal. This proposal correctly highlights the
problems of developing countries.
Turkey shares the view that the market access of agricultural exports of developing countries
should be improved in line with the development and growth goals of them.
Elimination of specific duties, reference prices, minimum entry prices and determining all
tariffs in ad-valorem basis are among the essential issues that Turkey attaches importance.  Turkey
supports not only the establishment of a new discipline on tariff quota administration mechanism but
also the elimination of all tariff quotas in a specific period of time.
Turkey is also in the view of the elimination of special safeguard provisions.Regarding export subsidies and domestic support issues, Turkey shares the basic principle
that fair market conditions should be established among Member countries.G/AG/NG/W/172
Page 4
G/AG/NG/W/105  (Proposal of Morocco)
We thank Morocco for the comprehensive proposal they prepared.  This proposal indicates
the main problems that developing countries have  been facing within the implementation period.
Turkey shares the view that, because of the distorting effects of domestic support and export
subsidies it would be difficult for the developing countries to continue with further tariff concessions.
Also in terms of the tariff structures, Turkey is in favour of ad-valorem tariff rates which are
simple and predictable.
Regarding the domestic support measures, there exists a common ground between the two
proposals.
Morocco suggests a progressive reduction of AMS with a view to eliminating them finally,
whereas Turkey underlines the need for substantial reduction or elimination of domestic support over
de minimis level.
As for Green Box measures, Turkey agrees to the idea of introducing clear definitions and
also proposes a new set of rules for that.
We are also glad to see that Turkey and Morocco evaluate export subsidies in the same way
and look for the elimination of them.
__________