WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/62
30 November 2000
(00-5163)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
15-17 NOVEMBER 2000
Statement by Brazil
Non-Trade Concerns   (G/AG/NG/W/36)
- Policy objectives should not be questioned;  they are a sovereign right of a Government.
- The instruments to achieve those objectives are, however, the core issue of our deliberations.- Brazil will not question the policy objectives that are mentioned in some of the papers
compiled in background note 36.
- In fact, some are very much legitimate and - most among them - can be easily addressed
within the existing framework.
- It is important to bear in mind that one's right ends where the other's begins.  So, in order to
avoid that only the interests of the strongest and most powerful prevail, it is essential to
discipline the application of such policies.
- Background note 36 is clear as to the NTCs, but lacks clarity as to the instruments needed to
address these concerns.
- For that reason, our comments will focus the e xperience of Brazil when dealing with its own
NTCs.
- From the point of view of a developing  country with vast rural population, huge
environmental concerns, financial, technical and infrastructure constraints, Brazil has been
able to deal with all these non-trade concerns either through S&D measures or through theGreen Box.
- In background note 36, concerns were expressed with regard to "the right of countries to
pursue rural development policies in which agriculture plays a key role…".
- In Brazil, we do pursue this very objective and we do that in accordance with the Agreement
on Agriculture.
- For example, the Brazilian Government carries out policies aimed at improving rural
development, such as the construction of infrastructure in the area of electricity, water supply
facilities, dams and drainage schemes, among others.  All these policies are implemented
under the Green Box, more specifically under  paragraph 2 (General Services) letter "g".
- While Brazil does not feel constrained by the existing Green Box, we do take good note that
some changes might be needed to bring comfort to specific situations among developingcountries.G/AG/NG/W/62
Page 2
- In the field of environmental concerns, many farmers in Brazil resort to techniques such as
the rotation of crops to prevent the proliferation of diseases and the erosion of the soil.  Like
these, there are plenty of sustainable practices in agriculture, which are not perceived by
Brazilian farmers as an additional financial burden to their activities, but instruments that
contribute to reduce costs of production.
- Environmental concerns in agriculture are in general very much justifiable, but they have to
been seen with some dose of reality.  One has to weigh the legitimate objective of preserving
agriculturally viable land or soil from the objective of supporting agriculture under the
environmental pretext or excuse.
- Food security concerns were also highlighted and FAO's Plan of Action was referred to.
Three elements would stem from FAO's approach to solve food security related problems:
- (i) increased production (a lawful objective, but it has to be achieved in a sustainable and
competitive manner, not by force of support and subsidizing policies);  (ii) importation;  and
(iii) public stockholding.  The right combination of these three elements, and the participationin world trade, would lead to the solution to food security.
- We agree.  A good example of the application of these three elements can also be found in
Brazil.  We import agricultural products (we are the first importer of wheat); we form public
stockholding; and we try to increase production by investing in technology to become morecompetitive in the world trading system.
- Our experience shows that the combination of these three elements can be achieved without
the use of distorting measures.
- Brazil does not question the right of a Member to pursue the optimum combination of
domestic production, importation and public stockholding, but this has to be done within a
legal framework that allows for the free flow of food.
- A good example of inexistence of free flow of basic food can be found in the international
market for rice, a basic food of countries advocating for food security solutions.  According to
the background note 36, the amount of rice traded is only about 4.5 per cent of world
production.  This situation only arises because of the highly regulated and protected
international market for rice.  If liberalized, the trade of rice could contribute to solve food
security problems in many countries.
- When reading some of the papers on NTCs, we arrived at the perception that most of the
policies of interest to developing countries can be taken care of by S&D measures (existing or
new strengthened ones) and without the need to  weaken or compromise the reform process in
agriculture.
- We were also struck by the reasoning that attempts to present a contradiction between
"market approach" and "Article 20 approach".  In Brazil's view and by our experience, there
is no contradiction between a liberalized agricultural environment and the need to take NTCs
into account.  They are not incompatible as our experience and that of many countries in this
Organization show.
- Some developing countries are being misled to believe that they will only achieve their
developmental goals through non-trade concerns policies.  This is not true in our view.
- Non-trade concerns, particularly those in some developed countries, should not be identified
with the rightful exceptions needed by developing countries.  Solutions to these exceptionsG/AG/NG/W/62
Page 3
will be addressed in the negotiations through special and differential treatment.  Non-trade
concerns will be taken into account as Article 20 determines.
- As a developing country, Brazil will favour, be on the side of and advocate for those
developing countries whose expectations to address their own concerns will require adifferential treatment.
- Developing countries should bear in mind that a reform in agriculture that addresses, at the
same time and with the same level of commitment, the needs and specificities of small island
states, emerging economies, NFIDCs, economies in transition, least developed countries, one-
crop countries, rural development, maintenance of landscape, rural employment, the role of
women in agriculture etc. will most likely go nowhere.
- Rules will be fragmented, weak and no predictability will be possible.  With a scenario like
this only the strongest and the most powerful will prevail.
- We, developing countries, least-developed countries, net food-importing developing countries
and small island states will be subject to their wishes and their whims.
- Those developing countries, which think that  embarking in the "non-trade concerns wagon"
will bring them favourable results, are doomed to great surprises.
- If a liberal trade system where everyone has to obey and observe one set of rules is not good
enough to us, a fragmented and divisive multilateral trading system will be much worse.
__________