. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/183
25 April 2001
(01-2082)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
SEVENTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
26-28 MARCH 2001
Statement by Norway
We would like to thank you for your efficient handling of the process, and your positive
contribution to the progress made in phase 1.
This meeting provides us with an excellent opportunity to review the progress we have made
so far in the negotiations and take stock before we proceed.  In our view, the current state of thenegotiations can be summarised as follows.
First, all Members have proceeded in good faith and expressed their genuine readiness to
negotiate based on the mandate laid down in Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  This is an
important observation.  We are not lagging behind, but progressing according to the time table agreedlast year.
Second, we are very encouraged by the large number of proposals on the table, and the active
participation in the negotiations by an increasing number of Members, in particular by developing
country Members.  We now have proposals dealing w ith all issues covered by our mandate, and in the
next phases we have to address market access, domestic support and export competition, as well as
other issues raised by Members.  Cross-cutting issues such as S&D and non-trade concerns need to beaddressed on a horizontal basis as an integral part of the negotiations.
Third, a successful outcome of the negotiations will only be reached if we acknowledge that
all Members have legitimate interests that need to be taken duly into account in the negotiations.  No
Member should be ignored.  This implies that the interests of exporting countries are no moreimportant than the interests of importing countries, and vice versa.  We are all equal partners, and the
challenge ahead of us lies in designing compromises that are sufficiently balanced to attract the
support of all of us.
My fourth comment, relates to the dynamic  character of the agricultural policy reform
process.  In addition to the  negotiation mandate laid down in Article 20, we are all guided by and
reporting back to our governments at home which in  turn are accountable to their electorates.  The
agricultural policy reform is therefore not unaffected by for instance changes in consumer preferences
and various events characterising international agricultural trade, such as for instance the recent crises
relating to BSE and Foot and Mouth Disease.  Fortun ately, Article 20 is sufficiently flexible to take
account of such recent developments, as it contains a specific reference to experiences gained during
the implementation of the existing Agreement.  What specific lessons could be drawn?  In our view
these crises clearly demonstrate that agriculture is not like any other sector.  Agricultural products
play a unique role in every society, and the consequences of not taking sufficient precaution, in
production as well as trade, are just too big to be ignored. In our view, recent developments in
agricultural trade underline the limitations of a pure market approach in agriculture.  The specificity
of the agricultural sector, as a producer of food and public goods within a complex and site-specificbiological production system, need to be recognis ed and future trade rules designed accordingly.G/AG/NG/W/183
Page 2
Fifth, the initial stage of the negotiations has clearly evidenced that non-trade concerns
associated with the multifunctional character of agri culture are of vital importance to a large number
of countries.  These issues are on the table as an integral part of the negotiations.  Obviously, we may
not all be interested to the same extent in the same concerns.  One Member may have a special focus
on rural development while others focus their attention on food security, biodiversity, culturalheritage, land conservation or the maintenance of agricultural landscapes.  We may have different
priorities and different needs. What unites us is a genuine interest in the safeguarding of  NTCs and
the need for flexibility in the mu ltilateral trading system to sustain domestic agriculture required to
address these concerns.
The need for flexibility brings me to my sixth observation.  World agriculture is above all
characterised by its diversity .  The Least-Developed Countries are in a special situation, which calls
for particular attention.  Also a number of other delegations have in their interventions underlined the
difficult and unfavourable production conditions that their agriculture is subject to.  For instance, the
Small Island Developing States have pointed to the general weakness and vulnerability of agriculture
in the SIDS countries. Landlocked developing countries are also facing various constraints.  The
special situation of transition economies needs to be fully recognised. Some developed countries arefacing extremely difficult production conditions, often as a result of climate and natural conditions.
All these examples portray the differences among Members and the multitude of challenges.
However, what unites us is a common recognition of the principle of coexistence through which every
country has the right, according to mutually agr eed rules, to promote its domestic agriculture
necessary to address non-trade concerns.  Furthermore, these countries acknowledge that a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for the safeguarding of non-trade concerns.
My seventh comment relates to the actual policy measures needed to safeguard NTCs.  It
seems to us that the First Phase of the negotiations has clearly evidenced that a broad number of
Members believe Green Box measures would not be sufficient to address such concerns.  The difficult
task for all of us in the next phases of the negotiations consists of agreeing on instruments that, on one
hand, adequately safeguard NTCs, also in low-potential areas, and, on the other hand, are least-trade-
distorting.  The issue of spill-over effects must be approached bearing in mind the balance of interests.
After all, in a global trading system we are all affecting each other and the challenge consists of
finding solutions that are sufficiently balanced to be acceptable to all Members.
Finally, considering the overall framework for the negotiations, Norway believes a
comprehensive round of negotiations that should include a number of issues in addition to the built-in
agenda through a single undertaking would be the best way of achieving a balanced outcome of the
negotiations to the benefit of all Members.  Having said this, in the preparations for the next
Ministerial, Norway believes it would be counter-p roductive to our agricultural reform efforts to make
any changes in the agricultural negotiation mandate.
Norway is ready to participate actively in the second phase based on the mandate set out in
Article 20.
__________