WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/156
11 April 2001
(01-1869)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English/
French
SIXTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
22-23 MARCH 2001
Statements by the Czech Republic
G/AG/NG/W/105 (Proposal by Morocco)
My delegation would like to thank the delegation of Morocco for its negotiating proposal
circulated as document G/AG/NG/W /105. This proposal made a strong impression on us, even if we
feel that certain ideas deserved to be further developed and clarified.  The Moroccan delegation will
undoubtedly have enough time during the future work of this Committee to do so.  In my statement, I
shall be focusing on the points set out below.
With respect to market access, my delegation is attracted to the idea of a simple tariff regime,
based exclusively on ad valorem  rates, since these are the only tariff rates used by the Czech Republic
itself.  At the same time, we know the limits and shortcomings of ad valorem rates compared to
specific rates.
We appreciate the specific needs of the developing countries reflected in the proposals on
special and differential treatment.  At the same time, other groups of countries, including the countries
in transition or the countries currently consolidat ing the results of their transition, are in unique
situations which definitely call for specific solutions.
With respect to support measures that are excluded from the reduction commitments, i.e. the
"green box" measures,  my delegation finds it difficult to accept the idea that such measures could
create trade distortions.  However, we are fully prepared to submit the "green box" criteria to a reviewso that they can better serve their purpose and are more adapted to the needs of all Members, as in fact
suggested in the proposal that we had the honour to co-sponsor.
We are also afraid that by imposing general limits on the "green box" measures, we might be
limiting the utility of this agricultural policy instrument.
We do not think that the time is ripe to speak of dates and to schedule the end of other forms
of support.
We stress the importance of non-trade concerns, as well, for the group of countries to which
we belong.
G/AG/NG/W/138   (Proposal by Mexico)
While welcoming the comprehensive negotiating proposal by Mexico, we would like to focus
our comments on the following elements.G/AG/NG/W/156
Page 2
With regard to subsidies, it is apparent th at the proposal to eliminate export subsidies goes
beyond parameters set in Article 20, which Mexico considers to be the mandate of the negotiations on
agriculture.  We would also feel somewhat uncomfortable to qualify, already at this stage, the
elimination of export subsidies as a final objective.  On the other hand, we concur with Mexico that
all forms of export subsidization have to be disciplined and we would add that they have to be treatedon an equal footing as well.
We believe that the peace clause should remain in force and does not require any  substantive
change.  We agree that "Green Box" measures have to be maintained.  From our perspective, we
would envisage that Green Box provisions will be revisited to better serve its purpose and the needs of
various countries.  On Amber Box, we believe that rules regarding non-trade concerns should be
discussed before modalities for further domestic support reductions.  As to market access, we canconsider the Uruguay Round approach to tariff reductions only as long as it takes account of
specificities of economies in transition as indicated in their proposal.  We differ with the view that
geographical indications do not fall within the existing mandate.  For us this is an integral part of the
objective of establishing a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system.  Finally on non-trade
concerns, we welcome the readiness of Mexico to look at them with a view to clarifying whatnon-trade concerns are and agreeing on possible instruments.
Proposal by Norway (G/AG/NG/W/101)
At the outset, we would also like to join the others in expressing our thanks to Norway for
submitting its comprehensive negotiating proposal which is grounded on some pertinent background
elements.
We concur with the delegation of Norway that Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture is
about the continuation of the reform process and not about its finalization during the ongoingnegotiations.  We also agree that any new commitments should be based on the experience gained
from implementing the existing reduction commitments, their effects on world trade in agriculture and
other factors as contained in the Agreement.
In our previous written and oral contributions, presented individually or collectively, we
shared with others a kind of experience of a country which has undergone the unprecedented
transformation of its agriculture sector.  We believe that this experience and the challenges associatedwith it will be properly taken into account when establishing the new modalities and commitments. In
this context, we would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to Norway for recognizing
these challenges in its submission.
There are a number of other elements in the proposal by Norway that we can endorse.  In
particular, we agree that a proper balance between trade and non-trade concerns should be struck and
that the latter constitutes an integral part of the mandate for negotiations for continuing the reform
process.  The need to secure the coexistence of various types of agriculture is another indispensable
element on the way to establishing a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system.
As to the market access, we believe that once we have been able to clarify the principles to be
applied with respect to the non-trade concerns we shall be better disposed to look at the proposal to
allow members to make only limited tariff reductions on their key agricultural products.  Apparently
this proposal is worth considering and we would like to reflect on how it may be complementary to
the flexibility provisions claimed by the Czech Republic and other transitional economies.  The sameI just mentioned goes for the sensitivities regarding further increases in minimum access quotas.  On
tariff quotas, we believe that the existing rules have to be clarified to ensure objectives outlined by
Norway. We do not have to comment on the special sa feguard clause which should be continued in a
clarified and improved manner.G/AG/NG/W/156
Page 3
With regard to domestic support, we should need more time to study the proposal to divide
AMS into two categories - to what extent this approach would be feasible and manageable and what
would be its implications.  The "Green Box" shoul d be maintained and adjusted to allow to take
account of specific situations of various countries.  WTO members should have the right to maintainor introduce the "Blue Box" measures.  We are grateful to Norway for its view according to which
monetary domestic support commitments should be subject to annual inflation adjustment.
A very last comment is about export competition where we agree that, in the continuation of
the reform process, all forms of export competition should receive the same treatment.
G/AG/NG/W/103   (Proposal by Poland)
My delegation welcomes the proposal tabled by Poland which covers all major pillars of
continuation of the reform process in agriculture.  This proposal, as we see it, is specific in a sense
that it belongs to those which reflect the uniq ue experience of a country that underwent the
unprecedented transformation process from a centrally planned to a market economy.
The opinions of the Czech Republic and Poland on a number of elements contained in the
Polish proposal concur.  To start with the introducto ry part, we agree with the view expressed therein
that a careful and thorough analysis of the current situation in the agricultural trade is necessary.  In
this process, account has to be taken of the experience from the implementing of the existingcommitments, the extent to which these commitm ents have influenced the current trade and
contributed to effective market opening and other factors, such as inflation for example, that have a
bearing on the process of establishing modalities for further reductions in protection and support.
On the part dealing with export subsidies, we support the idea of broadening the scope of
negotiations to cover all factors influencing export competition, including officially supported export
credits, state trading activities and food aid.  We wish to further reflect on concrete steps to be taken
to reduce the existing levels of export subsidies.  As to those that are not specified in Article 9 of the
Agreement on Agriculture, it is quite unlikely that we would give our positive consideration to any
formula-based approach.
With regard to domestic support, we agree with the concept of flexibility.  From our
perspective, this flexibility is also needed to allow economies in transition to adopt measures that are
necessary to re-establish the viability of their agricultural sectors.
Our position concerning market access issues is well known.  We are ready to consider a
formula approach, depending on the extent to which it suits the need to provide sufficient flexibility toeconomies in transition as claimed  in the proposal put forward by a group of countries, including the
Czech Republic.  We share the view that SSG should be maintained.  However, we seem to differ on
whether Article 5 should or not be renegotiated.  We are of the view that some changes will have to be
made on the basis of the experience to date.
To conclude with non-trade concerns, I believe that it is clear from our previous interventions
that we have a very similar approach towards this issue and we will be more than pleased to work
with the Polish delegation as well as with others in pursuing it in the course of further negotiations.G/AG/NG/W/156
Page 4
G/AG/NG/W/106   (Proposal by Turkey)
We would like to thank Turkey for its negotiating proposal which touches upon important
questions relating to the role of the agricultural sector in economies of developing countries.  While
appreciating those questions, we wish to point out that many of the aspects raised by Turkey,including those dealing with the importance of  the agricultural policy and long-term stability for rural
development, are relevant to all WTO members.
We agree with Turkey that there are non-tariff measures which have the potential to nullify or
impair  the benefits arising from reduced tariffs and through their effects provide additional protection
to domestic industries.  However,  the list of such measures is much longer than the one contained in
the submission and it also include other practices which make import regimes of many countriesextremely complex.  On that score, the Czech Repub lic, jointly with other countries, proposed that
also non-tariff measures be addressed in the course of the ongoing negotiations.
Consequently, regarding the idea to convert all tariff commitments into ad valorem , we
believe there is no need to repeat what was said by us a couple of minutes ago when we commentedon the observations made on the same issue by Morocco.  We differ from Turkey on the view that the
Special Safeguard Mechanism be eliminated.  However, we are interested in its improvements and
adjustments.  Here, our interest is motivated by the experience gained to date.  We are also ready to
look at the possibility of providing the access to this instrument to all WTO Members.
On the issues on domestic support and export competition, we would like to welcome that
part of the proposal which reminds us of the effects of high inflation on the effectiveness of domestic
support policies.  Proposal calling for the elimination of export subsidies goes apparently beyond
parameters of Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture and is for this and many reasons not
acceptable.  On the other hand, we endorse the view that all measures that distort export competitionshould be disciplined and treated in the same way.
__________