WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/74
28 November 2000
(00-5097)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
15-17 NOVEMBER 2000
Statements by the Republic of Korea
"Note on Non-Trade Concerns" (G/AG/NG/W/36/Rev.1)Introduction of Attachment 3 (Food Security and the Role of Domestic Agricultural Production)
Food security (FS) is an issue of concern to almost all countries.  In order to achieve FS, it is
essential to find the appropriate combination of three elements, namely domestic production,
importation from international market and stockholding.  As presented by Japan, the optimum
combination can be found with proper consideration of the uncertainties associated with each element
and the multifunctionality of domestic production that varies according to local situations of
individual Members.
This implies that FS cannot be attained neither by international trade nor by domestic
production alone.  Specific solutions for optimum combinations are different from country to country.
For example, the priority and meaning of domestic production as a tool for FS may not be different in
food-exporting countries compared to net food-importing countries.  However it is clear that each
government has a right and an obligation to pursue an optimal solution to guarantee FS for its own
people.
The role and importance of domestic production need to be understood in this framework.
This paper addresses, among other issues, the role of domestic production as an insurance against
uncertainties in world markets.  Korea wishes to make it clear that the arguments presented herein do
not aim at justifying self-sufficiency.  In case of Korea, although high priority has been given tomaintaining domestic production of grain for FS purpose, more than 70 per cent of total demand is
currently being met by import, and this percentage is increasing yearly.
We believe that reviewing the role of domestic production in terms of FS is particularly
important in case of net food-importing developing countries.  We hope this paper will make a usefulcontribution by sharing our view on this issue and by helping to develop realistic disciplines, at a later
stage, for optimal combination of policy measures.
Remarks for the Discussion on Food Security and the Role of Domestic Agricultural Production
We have listened to the views carefully and we are thankful to many delegations for their
strong interests in FS.  We also appreciate the wide  support and valuable comments on this issue.  My
delegation is pleased to confirm that almost all of us, particularly friends of developing countries, are
sharing the view that FS is an issue of high prio rity, although different views remain on how to best
assure it.  We noted with great interest the valuable comments made by Indonesia which emphasised
the importance of domestic production by drawing from its own experience during the Asian
economic crisis.  Korea had a similar experience during the financial crisis in 1997 and 1998.G/AG/NG/W/74
Page 2
Regarding the comments on the different levels of risk and concern on FS between
developing and developed countries, I would like to come back to the conceptual illustration on
page 26.  As the self-sufficiency rate decreases, concerns on FS related to potential import
interruption increases in both developing and developed countries.  However, as mentioned by
Colombia and some other delegations, the trade-related risks and concerns on FS are much moreserious in developing countries than in developed ones because, in developing countries, the Angel
index is higher and consumers spend a larger portion of their income on food.
Therefore, I may reply that the level of self-sufficiency needs to be maintained at a higher
level in developing countries than in developed ones if other conditions are identical.  As such, the
priority and the meaning of domestic production as a tool for FS is different from country to country.
It is clear, as already mentioned by so many delegations, that each of us has a right and an
obligation to pursue an optimal solution to ensure food security for its own people.  Now we are just
at the beginning of a meaningful process.  Based on today's discussion, I hope we will be able to
develop effective and workable solutions at a later stage.
Comment on the Proposal for "Market Access" (G/AG/NG/W/54)
First of all, we welcome the consideration on the issue of S&D for developing countries,
including the indication of the need to ensure that negotiations take fully into account the particular
needs and conditions of developing countries.  Unfortunately, however, we note that the proposals arelimited only to the needs and interests of exporting developing countries.  Given the various types of
farming environment, each developing country has maintained different types of agriculture, which
make them, inter alia , either net food-importers, least-developed importers, small island countries or
exporters.
Of course, we understand the needs and condit ions of exporting developing countries.
However it is also true that they are not necessarily identical to other developing countries.  We
believe it is now time to review the particular needs and conditions of various types of agriculture in
developing countries, including in net importing developing countries as well as exporting ones.
My second point is that many proposals in this paper seem to be inconsistent with Article 20.
We are mandated to pursue the long-term objective of substantial progressive reductions taking intoaccount various elements indicated in this Article.  Like other sectors, we believe reform in market
access should be made in a manner consistent with Article 20 and allow the coexistence of various
types of agriculture.
Comment on the Proposals for "Domestic Support-Additional Flexibility for Transition
Economies" (G/AG/NG/W/56) and "Market Access" (G/AG/NG/W/57)
As these papers were distributed quite recently, we have yet to peruse them thoroughly.
However, we note and fully understand the difficulties being experienced by the transition economies.
We also note that these papers clearly point to the existence of wide diversity in global agriculture andthe problems arising from a uniform approach.  We believe these proposals could be utilized as a
valuable basis for further discussion and enhancing the flexibility needed in the continuation of the
reform process.
Comment on the Proposal for "Tarif f Rate Quota Reform" (G/AG/NG/W/58)
My preliminary comment is very brief. Firstly I would like to indicate that high TRQ fill rate
is the result of faithful implementation of Members' commitments.  We believe these efforts should be
taken into account and credited appropriately in the future processes.  The second point I would like
to stress is that further development of the TRQ related system should be consistent with the spirit andG/AG/NG/W/74
Page 3
structure of the tariffication mechanism, and balanced so as to be acceptable to all of us.  It should not
represent an increased burden for importing countries.
Comments on the Background Papers from the Secretariat
Non-Trade Concerns  (G/AG/NG/S/17):
We are pleased to note that, through this paper, a number of Members recognize the
legitimacy of pursuing policies related to NTCs or multifunctionality.  However, this paper also
shows the differences in view on issues such as; (1) what are the traits of NTCs and
multifunctionality, (2) how can these objectives be achieved, (3) and whether the measures provided
in the Agreement are sufficient or not.
Briefly, I would like to stress some of our views on these issues.  Firstly, most elements of
NTCs or multifunctionality cannot be fully achieved by a market mechanism and has a public-good
aspect.  Secondly, they are joint products of farming activities in most cases.  Lastly, a one-size-fits-
all approach is not appropriate to meet the various types of social demands in different Membercountries.
Operation of Green Box (G/AG/NG/S/18):
This paper illustrates that a lot of Members are experiencing difficulties in applying the Green
Box supports, which suggests that the requirements in Annex 2 of the Agreement may not be
appropriate to accommodate different types of needs.  I hope we will be able to be realistic enough to
recognize the necessity for more flexibility allowing the coexistence of various types of agriculture.
Inflation and Exchange Rate Movements in the Context of Domestic Support Commitments
(G/AG/NG/S/19):   
This paper shows the reason why the real value of domestic support ceiling has to be smaller
in case of inflation, given that a lot of countries committed AMS reduction in their national currency.
The result of this analysis reflects the fact that  the current AMS reduction system is unfavourable to
DCs with unstable economy and high inflation.  Once again, we stress the need for an equitable
approach and hope to agree on a more reasonable solution at a later stage.
__________