WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/119
16 February 2001
(01-0774)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FIFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
5-7 FEBRUARY 2001
Statement by Mauritius
G/AG/NG/W/90  (Proposal by EC)
We would like to welcome the negotiating propo sal from the EC and to offer the following
comments.
As correctly pointed out by the EC, these negotiations are based on Article 20 of the
Agreement on Agriculture and aim at a balance be tween trade and non-trade concerns.  To our mind,
these negotiations encompass at least five elements of negotiations – non-trade concerns; special and
differential treatment; export competition, domestic support and market access.  We also agree that all
Members including the smallest ones should fully benefit from the expansion of trade and more
importantly, we believe that the smallest ones should not be made worse-off in the process.
As we have had the opportunity of saying before, no country will participate in an
international trading system if it feels that the outcome would be that it would become a net loser.
Whilst some countries may be in a position to balance out losses in one area by achieving benefits in
another area, the inherent constraints faced by small island developing states strongly limits such a
perspective.  We fully agree with the EC, therefore, that the more fragile developing countries should
have adequate time for adaptation and that they, therefore, require protection as liberalizationprogresses.  We believe that this is particularly true of small island developing states.
And it is from this angle that we approach and support the objective contained in the EC
paper that the participation of developing countries and in particular the least developed countries in
the international trade system should be promoted.
On the more specific proposals put forward by the EC, we agree and indeed support:
• The idea that tariff reductions should be made on the same basis as was the case in the
Uruguay Round, that is overall average reduction of bound tariffs and minimum reduction per
tariff line.
• Secondly, we agree on the need for higher and effective levels of protection for agricultural
products and foodstuffs originating from particular geographical areas.
• Next, we believe that all forms of export subsidization should be treated on an equal footing
bearing in mind the need, in this context, to adopt concrete measures for LDCs and net food-
importing developing countries.
• In this perspective, we endorse the proposal that the provision of food aid to LDCs and
NFIDCs should be only in fully grant form.
• We believe that there is need to ensure the continued multifunctional role of agriculture
contributing, inter-alia , to the sustainable vitality of rural areas and poverty alleviation.  As aG/AG/NG/W/119
Page 2
small island state, we are equally attached to the need for environmental protection through
the use of our historical trade instruments.
• Food safety should, and I hope is, of concern to any food consumer.  Not only do we see this
as a component of food security, I must also add that this notion acquires special significancewhen one is a net food-importing developing country with limited means to screen the quality
of food being imported from foreign sources. We believe that beyond the precautionaryprinciple, there is also need to set down acceptable levels of safety through enabling active
participation of all countries and in particular, developing countries in relevant standard
setting bodies such as the Codex Committees and Commissions and international
Conventions and Protocols.
• We have always highlighted the importance of trade preferences, in particular for those of us
with highly limited trading capacity, often only capable of producing one or two agriculturalcommodities.  Without such preferences, without secure and predictable access, our
agriculture sector would not be worse-off, it w ould simply be wiped out.  We, therefore, fully
endorse the EC position on the importance of providing significant trade preferences and the
idea that an examination be undertaken on ways to ensure that these trade preferences are
rendered stable and predictable in order to create the appropriate conditions for further
investment in, and development of, the agricultural and agri-food sectors in developing
countries.
• We also support the proposal in paragraph 24 that, as part of its general policy to promote the
sustainable and economic development of countries, developed countries should intensify allforms of assistance to developing countries.  For our part, we believe that the main
component of such a policy should be to facilitate affordable access to technology that is not
readily available on the shelf.
• We believe that the Special Safeguard Clause should be maintained as long as the reform
process is on.
• We appreciate that there may be need for a set of rules and disciplines to increase the
transparency, reliability and security of the management of TRQs.  We fully endorse the ideathat the main objective should be to ensure that concessions already granted are fully realised
and indeed that existing TRQs should be further enhanced and not negatively impacted on.
• We can agree to a revisiting of the Green Box but wish to recall that this is of little use to us
since it requires budgetary outlays that we do not have.  It is clear, however, that our country
like others would wish to avail itself of the measures listed under the Green Box.  In the shortterm, therefore, we would need to find an alternative means to the Green Box to address our
particular concerns.  This does not mean to say, however, that we would not in future be able
to make use of the Green Box should benefits from liberalization be forthcoming.
• Finally, we believe that the maintenance of the Peace Clause is a stabilizing factor in the
pursuance of the objectives of the Agreement on Agriculture and should be continued as long
as the reform process is on.
G/AG/NG/W/91  (Proposal by Japan)
We would like to thank Japan for its proposal and at the outset, we would like to welcome the
views of the people of Japan that the 21
st Century should see the various nations and regions of the
international society co-exist and mutually respect each country's values based on their specific
historical and cultural backgrounds.  We fully agree with Japan that the diversity and co-existence of
agriculture among various countries need to be preserved and that in this regard, it is important to
mutually recognise the necessity to overcome the differences in production conditions among thecountries.G/AG/NG/W/119
Page 3
We equally endorse the Japanese position that the outcome of negotiations should lead to the
continued co-existence of various types of agriculture and should not lead to a competitive race to the
bottom that would benefit only a few.  Indeed, as pointed out by Japan, while agricultural trade has
increased on the whole since the entry in to force of the Agreement of Agriculture, only a limited
number of countries have enjoyed the benefits of such expansion.
We have already had the opportunity whilst commenting on papers previously, to express our
views on several of the specific proposals contained in the Japanese paper so we would try and focus
on this occasion only on those elements of special concern.
Firstly, let me say that we share with Japan the objectives of achieving food security and
ensuring that agriculture is enabled to play its multifunctional role.
Secondly, like Japan, we do not favour sector-specific reductions in tariff levels including
zero for zero.
Thirdly, we are particularly sensitive to th e idea of income safety net programmes and
payments for relief from natural disasters.  This would not be surprising in view of the particular
vulnerability of small island states to natural disasters and our own location in the cyclonic belt.  We
therefore welcome the ideas but wish to recall however that our current impossibility to make use of
Annex 2 Measures requires some creative solution of possible alternative instruments for countriesfacing similar budgetary constraints.
Fourthly, we fully endorse the Japanese idea of  elaborating a possible framework for
international food stockholding as a complement to existing bilateral and multilateral food aid
schemes.  We believe that such a mechanism through, inter alia , enabling food loans on concessional
terms in case of temporary shortage, would enhance food security.  We equally support the idea of
enhancing food productivity in developing countries in the long term and the need to strengthen
bilateral and multilateral schemes of food aid in the short term.
G/AG/NG/W/92  (Proposal by Canada)
We would like to thank the Canadian delegation for their paper on domestic support and have
noted that the two main elements of their proposal  are meant to complement an earlier paper by the
CAIRNS Group.
This complementary proposal, as we understand it, suggests that the support measures
provided under Green, Blue and Amber boxes be continued with an overall limit on such support.
Secondly, we note that Canada proposes the permanent non-countervailability of Annex 2 criteria and
would like to make a brief comment on this particular proposal.
Firstly, we understand that Annex 2 criteria woul d be re-visited with a view to ensuring that
programmes in the green category do not cause material distortions in production and do not cause
material injury to producers in importing countries.  We note in this regard that Japan, in its paper
presented earlier, noted that there is not necessarily a consensus on the concept of non-trade
distortion, and it may therefore not be an easy exercise to determine what are the "non-trade
distorting" measures to be included under Annex 2.  There is also the fact that whilst certain measures
may not be seen as trade-distorting, for e.g. research, it cannot be said that this has no impact
whatsoever on trade.
Secondly, we have already indicated that we are not yet in a position to make use of Annex 2
Measures and that we would need thereto to find alternative support measures to address ourG/AG/NG/W/119
Page 4
concerns. We would therefore be following closely the discussions relating to measures that would be
made permanently non-countervailable on the understanding that this would not only benefit countries
which have the necessary financial resources to use such measures.
G/AG/NG/W/94  (Proposal by Switzerland)
We would like to thank Switzerland for its paper and wish to welcome several of the
proposals made therein and on which we share common views.
Firstly, we agree that Article 20 remains the basis for agriculture negotiations.
Secondly, we share the view of Switzerland that each Member has a sovereign right to fix its
political objectives on the basis of its history, geography and culture and may decide accordingly on
the quantity and quality of non-trade goods to be produced.  This being said, it is clear, that one would
need to devise appropriate instruments to achieve such policies and we agree that these instruments
should as far as possible be transparent, targeted and specific.  In this perspective, we agree withSwitzerland that non-trade concerns are not linked to particular stages of development and that this is
an issue of common concern to both developed and developing countries.  However, different
countries depending on their specific situations would require different instruments to tackle such
concerns.
Like Switzerland, we believe that the extension of the scope of products to be covered by
geographical indications, as already mandated under the TRIPS Agreements, is an important issue and
we would wish to see this seriously pursued.
Next, we equally share Switzerland's perception that the reform process should lead to
solutions or enhance conditions and situations which are at the same time favourable to the economy,
to social conditions and to the environment.  The agriculture-environment linkage is a key issue to us
as agriculture is increasingly called upon directly or indirectly to contribute to the reduction of global
warming, the first victims of which would include most Small Island Developing States.
Finally, we specially welcome Switzerland's thinking in respect of Special and Differential
Treatment, which, in their view, should be an  instrument that enables developing countries'
integration in the international trading system.  This can only be possible if Special and Differential
measures are linked to the specific needs of countries arising from their diverse situations.  Whilst as
stated by Switzerland this may require periodical re visions and adaptations in view of the evolution of
situations, it is also clear to us that certain S&D measures, if meant to address inherent constraints,
would need to be of a more permanent nature.
We fully agree with Switzerland that in the course of these negotiations, it would be
important for us to find more appropriate solutions to respond to the specific needs of developing
countries.  We see S&D as a set of instruments meant to assist the varying needs of developing
countries and not as one uniform instrument that would be expected to address all needs.  In thiscontext, we endorse the Swiss thinking which favours the development of instruments that could
assist small island states like ours, which are highly dependent on one or two commodities, face up to
the increasing levels of competition resulting from the erosion of preferential margins.
G/AG/NG/W/95  (Proposal by Swaziland)
We would like to welcome the paper by the delegation of Swaziland which characterizes in a
very able manner the plight of small developing countries that are highly dependent on one or two
agricultural commodities.  We have had the opportunity in the past to highlight the particularG/AG/NG/W/119
Page 5
vulnerability of small island states, which generally face inherent constraints related to size topology
and agro-climatic conditions and size rendering diversification an extremely difficult, if not an
impossible task.
The Swaziland paper brings to the fore many of these problems.  As pointed out by them, the
restricted scope for economies of scale in agricultural production due to small land surface area
implies that where trade is based on relative production costs, the small DC is not an advantage.
Further, even where a small country may have a relative cost advantage, it may be easily swamped in
trade through predatory pricing strategy against wh ich for a host of reasons, recourse is hardly
possible.
Another problem we share with Swaziland is th e long distances to foreign markets which add
considerably to transportation costs.  As underscored in the Swaziland paper, small island states
which are situated far from their major markets are specially confronted with such a situation.  It is in
this context that we have sought in our own negotiating proposal, a re-visiting of the provisions of
Article 9(14) of the Agreement on agriculture.
We agree with Swaziland on the particular importance of non-trade concerns and the critical
role played by agricultural exports in the case of single commodity exporters in providing positive
externalities that would otherwise be under-provided on a strictly market-oriented regime.  Tourism,
on which so many island states place focus, is intricately linked to the provision of such externalities.
The Swaziland paper raises the fundamental of th e future in international trade of those for
whom the level playing field could never be the same de par their inherent constraints.  In the case of
those able to produce only one or two commodities, it would seem to us that a creative solution needs
to be envisaged to make up for their loss of preferential access, the more so as they are generally
unable to compensate for such losses in benefits forthcoming in other sectors or products.
We support in this perspective, Swaziland's proposal that preferential market access
arrangements be secured for a sufficiently long time so as to enable adjustment and meaningful
development to occur that would offset these losses.
G/AG/NG/W/96  (Proposal by Mauritius - Introductory Statement by Mauritius)
The approach of Mauritius in these negotiations and as elaborated in its paper, has been
shaped by our situation as a small island developing state; a single commodity producer and a net
food-importer.
We remain committed to negotiations that seek to achieve a balance between trade and non-
trade concerns; one that favours the continuation of a reform process in Agriculture, and one that
acknowledges and provides for the diversity of agricultural systems and situations worldwide and in
particular the specificities of small island developing states.
Our inherent commitments as a small island state have in fact influenced our situation as a
single commodity producer and our status as a net food-importing developing country.  These
constraints faced by SIDS are of a structural and permanent nature such that the production must be
adapted to this.  We will never be able to achieve the economies of scale required for competitive
production or indeed develop commercially meaningful production in a variety of agricultural
products.  And this we assure you is not for want of effort on our part.
We believe that a market-only approach would not be suitable in the case of Mauritius and I
am certain, this is equally the case for many others able to produce only one or two commodities,
hence our emphasis on non-trade concerns.G/AG/NG/W/119
Page 6
As pointed out in India's paper, the share of exports from developing countries remains
around 30 per cent of world trade in agriculture.  Of this, the 41 small island developing states
contributed 2.5 per cent of the world's total agricultural exports and this is on a declining trend.  We
are concerned about the agricultural future of small islands like Mauritius and therefore feel that the
outcome of the negotiations should include feasible solutions for the SIDS.  We recall that one out ofevery four countries in the world is a small island.
As a net food-importing developing country we are naturally concerned about our food
security, the more so, as this requires that we generate sufficient foreign exchange to be able to
purchase our food requirements.  We have made suggestions in our paper in this regard and would
welcome all constructive views on these and as well as on other proposals contained in the paper.
G/AG/NG/W/96  (Proposal by Mauritius - Concluding Statement by Mauritius)
I would like to thank all those delegations which took time to read the Mauritius paper and to
offer comments.  We often belabour under the impressi on that no one wants to listen to our concerns
so it is always re-assuring to find that people are in fact hearing.  And since this is the case, let me re-
state – Mauritius is a small island state, it will not grow in size over the years, on the contrary it will
lose territory through global warming.  It is a single commodity producer.  It hopes that technological
developments will one day allow it to produce, in a commercially meaningful manner, agricultural
products other than the single commodity it currently produces.  It hopes that one day technologicaldevelopments will enable it to convert its single  commodity to produce ethanol, perhaps with the
assistance of our Brazilian friends.
At such time, we would be delighted to sell more and better.  But that does not appear likely
in the short term.  For the same reasons and pending technological developments, we may have toimport our food requirements for a long time yet to come.  These are the realities that will not change
and that we can not move away from.  We see these negotiations, as a constructive exercise aiming at
addressing all concerns.  We have therefore listened attentively to the comments and suggestions
made by all delegations and will pursue the questions raised bilaterally and multilaterally.
Nonetheless, I would like to make one or two comments.
- The first is that we do not recognise non-trade concerns as being the prerogative of
any single country or group of countries.  Indeed, we are certain that if the issue of
non-trade concerns had not cut across the divide of developed and developing
countries, this issue might simply have been relegated to one side of the negotiations.
I wish to recall that Mauritius, in its in troductory statement, had already indicated that
a market-only approach was not suitable for a small island like Mauritius and thatnon-trade concerns were an important issue.  What is clear to us, however, is that the
kind of instruments to be used by devel oped, between developed, by developing and
between developing would not be the same.  Now, we have been told that developing
countries have Annex 2 measures to be able to address their non-trade concerns.  We
appreciate that certain countries may have the means to use Annex 2 measures, butwe have said time and again that we do not have such financial measures.  In these
negotiations, we have seen a proposal that these Annex 2 measures be made non-
countervailable.  Since we cannot use such measures, we would like to know what's
in this proposal for us.
- Equity and sameness do not mean the same thing.  To us an equitable solution would
mean that you devise not one instrument for developing countries but a set of
instruments that could address various specificities and concerns.  Bolivia spoke
about the concerns of the land-locked.  I am certain they will also appreciate the
situations of SIDS as sea-locked.G/AG/NG/W/119
Page 7
- Next, I wish to say in pursuance of a comment made, that we believe that agriculture
negotiations should address the issue of technological access similar to the way this is
reflected in Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.
- Finally, surprise was expressed about our cautious approach to export credits.  I
would like to point out that caution is already inscribed in Articles 10.2 (AoA) and
4.2 (Marrakesh Decision) where provision is made for special and differential
treatment for net food-importing developing countries.  We are not opposed to rules
and disciplines on export credits but this should bear in mind differential treatment
for NFIDCs.  The same applies to export subsidies.
We have said that we view these negotiations as a constructive exercise and we would be
quite willing to discuss further the comments made.  Before I end however, I wish to note that earlier
this afternoon, the Head of the Swiss delegati on was looking to developing countries on how to
address the diverse situations of developing countries on Special and Differential Treatment and we
hope that he has found at least a beginning of an answer.
G/AG/NG/W/97  (Proposal by the Small Island Developing States)
For some time now and already in the AIE proce ss, Mauritius has, along with others, brought
to the attention of Members, the specific case of small Island Developing States, their general overall
weakness and in particular, in the agriculture sector.  These weaknesses have been recognised by
various organizations including the UN, the World Bank and the Commonwealth Secretariat.
Allow me to stress as is indicated in the document that those structural weaknesses will make
it extremely difficult for SIDS to be able to achieve higher levels of competitivity.  It is clear that in
some 50 years now, a Small Island Developing State will still be a SID with its specific characteristics
– smallness, remoteness, vulnerability to natural disast ers, scarcity of resources.  It is against these
constraints that concepts such as "comparative advantage" has to be viewed.
It is for these very reasons that SIDS believe that a "one-size-fits-all approach" is not
acceptable and that due recognition be given to the SIDs.  In our view, it is of utmost importance thatthey should be provided with security of access for the one or two commodities which they are able to
produce on a commercial basis.  Stable and predic table export earnings will allow us to build up
critical foreign exchange reserves for the purchase of food on reasonable terms and conditions and
furthermore will allow domestic investments in other sectors.  Let me use this opportunity to recall
how in foreign investment deficit most SIDS are.
We believe that SIDS should be allowed to ensure that agriculture plays its multifunctional
role as far as rural development and importantly environmental preservation are concerned.  In this
context, I want to refer to the UNEP report whic h was issued last week and which amongst other
things indicates that global warming would bring significant losses due to more frequent tropicalcyclones, loss of land, damage to fishing stock, agriculture and water supplies.  In the case of Small
Island Developing States, the losses could exceed 10 per cent of their national wealth.
G/AG/NG/W/98  (Proposal by Korea)
Mauritius welcomes this very interesting proposal submitted by the Republic of Korea and we
do share most of the specific suggestions contained therein.G/AG/NG/W/119
Page 8
We agree with Korea that the Uruguay Round was not successful in reflecting in a balanced
manner the interests of all Members and that the only way to ensure that our negotiations reach a
successful conclusion is for us to adopt a flexible and gradual approach, which takes into account the
individual situation of agriculture in each country.  Indeed, as Korea rightly suggests, in order to carry
out a sustainable reform where diverse forms of agriculture co-exist, the varying interests andconcerns of Member countries should be reflected in an equitable way.
Like Korea, we believe that support for public goods generated in the process of agricultural
production including food security, environmental protection, rural viability and cultural heritage is of
utmost importance.
As for domestic support, we also, like Korea, believe that reduction commitments should be
worked out as an aggregated basis.  As regards exceptions , we fully support the proposal for an
extension of the scope for income safety net programmes and enhancement of the flexibility of their
criteria to reduce income risks increased by, inter-alia , market liberalization, weather anomalies and
price fluctuations.  This proposal is of direct relevance to SIDS often beset by natural calamities and
which are dependent on the export of one or two commodities for their sustainable development.
Finally, as regards export competition, we have also proposed the expansion of export
subsidies be exempted from reduction commitments for SIDS.
G/AG/NG/W/102  (Proposal by India)
Allow us to express to the delegation of India our sympathy at the tragic circumstances that
the Indian Government and its people are facing af ter the recent earthquake in Gujrat.  We hope that
the situation will soon improve.
With respect to the proposals put forward by India, we will, as we have done throughout this
session, focus only on those issues on which we share common ideas.  The situation of India, we
think, depicts well the diversity of agricultural situations worldwide and further demonstrates the need
to move away from the one-size-fits-all approach.  Indeed, one only needs to place Mauritius next to
India on a map to understand the disparities which prevail.  We agree therefore with the statement in
paragraph 9 of India's paper that the diverse conditions and varying stages of agricultural developmentin developing countries point towards the need for them to pursue policies aimed at increasing
agricultural production and productivity.  This would particularly be the case for food deficit
developing countries.
And since we share with India concerns over  food security, we would certainly agree that
those countries in a position to achieve food self-sufficiency and to keep their rural population
employed in the agricultural sector should be enabled to pursue this direction.  Of course few are
those who are in a position to achieve such self-sufficiency.  Further, we also need to acknowledge
that not all of us would be in a position to use Annex 2 measures or provide subsidies for keeping our
rural population in employment.  An alternative solution should therefore be envisaged for countrieswhich do not have such capacity.
Finally, as India rightly points out at paragraph 3 of its proposal on market access, the process
of trade liberalization has marginalized small producers and there is need therefore to maintain an
appropriate mechanism to safeguard the livelihood of the people engaged in agriculture.  It is for thesevery reasons that Small Island Developing States have proposed that they be provided with secured
access on their historical markets.  The removal or erosion of trade preferences would not only
marginalize small producers like the Small Islands, it would simply wipe them out.
__________