WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/143
23 March 2001
(01-1467)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
WTO NEGOTIATIONS ON AGRICULTURE
Proposal by Namibia in the Areas of: (i)  Market Access, (ii)  Domestic Support,
(iii)  Export Competition, and (iv)  Non-Trade Concerns
1. Introduction
As part of the WTO group of nations, Namibia is committed to facilitating global trade and
recognizes that "the long term objective of substantial progressive reductions in support and
protection resulting in fundamental reform is  an on-going process" (Article 20, GATT).
The agricultural sector in Namibia is highly liberalized with low domestic trade distortive
measures.  Indeed the government since acceding to the WTO has undertaken to minimize domestic
support by privatizing support services such as tractor and seed provisions.  Furthermore, the
functions of Namibia's agricultural boards, which in the past were involved in price setting and
procurement of agricultural products, are now limited to market development, collection of statisticsand administrative functions.
Namibia finds itself in a unique situation as it s relatively high GDP pe r capita hides internal
distortions caused by Namibia’s history.  While Namibia is a  large country, the scarcity of arable
land, persistent drought and inherent inequalities particularly in the rural sector, remains a constant
challenge to assist and uplift the livelihoods of the rural poor.  Consequently, it is our contention that
the definition of "small developing" states must include large but poor countries like Namibia, which
exhibit many of the characteristics of Small Island Developing States (SIDs).
This paper gives an overview of the special circumstances that affect developing countries
such as Namibia and issues that Namibia would like to see considered during these rounds of
negotiations on the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).
2. Background
The rural sector is crucial to Namibia and provides a livelihood for about 70 per cent of the
population.  As is the case with several countries in Southern Africa, the nature of agricultural
production in Namibia is dualistic, a situation that was created by many years of colonialism and
apartheid.  One of the consequences of duality in the economy is the skewed income distribution
particularly between the two main sectors in agriculture, the commercial and communal sectors.
Inequality in incomes is extreme, as illustrated by Namibia’s Gini co-efficient of 0.7.
The Namibian Government thus must ensure it redresses the imbalances in the communal
agricultural sector while at the same time making certain that it accommodates the commercial sector
in many of its policies.  Exacerbating the situation are the sporadic and insufficient rainfall patterns in
the country and that the country is prone to drought.  In fact only once in every ten years is a normal
harvest recorded in Namibia.  Therefore, Namibia relies heavily on food imports to meet its nationalG/AG/NG/W/143
Page 2
requirements.   Given the limited opportunities in other areas of the economy, developing the rural
sector is one of the few options available to the government.
Namibia’s exports are few and are dominated by  livestock and livestock products.  Production
of agricultural commodities in the communal sector is mainly for subsistence, a pattern that the
government wants to change as it tries to create opportunities for this sector.
In view of the above, the government has embarked on a series of measures to enhance the
rural sector which include facilitating programmes for farmers to diversify their production base, as
well as, developing the processing sector and other value adding programmes.
3. Market Access
Namibia’s domestic market is small, hence, greater market access is important to,  inter alia ,
facilitate the diversification and value addition policies in both the agricultural production and
processing sectors.  Therefore, both market share and market entry are important to Namibia asforeign exchange earnings assist the country in meeting its food import requirements.
It should also be stressed that preferential market access, in beef products, has benefited the
economy.  Furthermore, Namibia has spent quite a considerable amount of resources to ensure that the
correct SPS requirements are in place in compliance with market requirements under the preferential
trading system.  Countries such as Namibia woul d benefit more if after investing so much in
upgrading SPS standards, other markets would be accessible.  However, the lack of uniform standards
in many countries is an impediment to such progress.  In addition, technical and financial assistance is
crucial if LDCs and developing countries such as Namibia are to meet SPS standards to  benefit from
trade.  The gap in SPS standards between developed and developing countries is increasing and is
worsened by consumer concerns over food safety and quality in developing countries.  Namibia isconcerned that SPS measures may make Namibian exports uncompetitive.
Further, Namibia is also concerned about the high level of bound tariffs in developed
countries particularly on temperate agricultural products, which are of export interest to many
developing countries.  Not only does this impede trade but coupled with tariff escalation and peaks,
makes it difficult for countries like Namibia to diversify and limits their export base leaving them toperpetually trade in primary products.
Finally, Namibia recognizes that some developing countries have, either due to Structural
Adjustment Programmes or other measures, substantially lower tariffs than developed countries,
hence developing countries should be given flexibility in not committing to further reductions .
Namibia would therefore propose:
(i) Reduction and gradual elimination of tariff escalation and tariff peaks over an agreed time
period;
(ii) Uniform internationally accepted SPS rules coupled with financial and technical assistance to
developing countries;
(iii) Countries that benefit from trade preferences be accorded a period of time to adjust and make
the required structural changes;  and,
(iv) Countries with low bound tariff rates be exempted from making further reductions until such
a time that other countries catch up.G/AG/NG/W/143
Page 3
4. Domestic Support
Like many developing countries, Namibia has made little use of the domestic support
provision under the WTO, simply because it cannot afford to provide such measures to its farmers.
Furthermore, if one looks at the base of total AMS reported, it is obvious that the majority of
developing countries, Namibia included, have reported zero AMS or negative de minimis  levels.  In
Namibia’s case, the base years used to determine AMS levels did not apply as Namibia was not yet
independent and was regarded as part of South Africa at the time.  Similarly,  many developing
countries have undertaken structural adjustment programmes, which have removed many forms of
domestic support.  This in essence means that any attempts to increase de minimis  levels would have
no impact on the majority of African countries without revision of the AMS base rates.
Regarding Green Box measures, some provis ions have obviously benefited developing
countries.  It should be emphasized that in many cases this is the only recourse available todeveloping countries to assist in their agricultural sectors.  However, what is most disconcerting is the
misuse thereof and lack of transparency and precision.  A long-term view of these measures should be
taken to facilitate structural changes in the agricultural sectors where supply responses are limited.
While Namibia supports the view that all forms of trade distorting domestic support should be
time bound and eliminated, it also realizes that this must be done in an orderly manner to avert socialdiscord.
Namibia, therefore, proposes that:
(i) De minimis  levels and the AMS provisions be revised to consider countries whose rates are
negative or zero;
(ii) A time bound, formula approach that will lead to the gradual elimination of all forms of trade
distorting domestic support;
(iii) Green Box measures should be quantified and disciplined;  and,
(iv) Blue Box measures should be quantified, capped and using a formula be eliminated over a
period of time.
5. Export Competition
Like many small developing countries, Namibia cannot afford to subsidize exports.  Export
subsidization distorts trade and discriminates against small developing countries such as Namibia.
How can small developing countries compete when developed countries provide export subsidization
to commodities that compete in markets of export interest to developing countries?  The consequences
of these measures is that all the efforts made by countries such as Namibia are futile and hinder the
very policies aimed at alleviating poverty and improving the livelihoods of the rural population.
Namibia has directly experienced the consequences of export subsidies causing trade deviation andwishes to eliminate this from trade in agricultural commodities for good.
Namibia welcomes the debate on food aid and supports the view that it should not cause
distortions in the market and replace domestic production.
Namibia would therefore propose that:
(i) All forms of export support be subject to the same provisions accorded to export subsidies;G/AG/NG/W/143
Page 4
(ii) Food aid be in fully grant form only, with a set of provisions that promote purchasing food
from developing countries.
6. Non-Trade Concerns (NTC’s)
Namibia is reluctant to accept a broad definition of  NTC's, as lack of precision and scope can
make it open for misuse.  However, Namibia realizes that there are some non-trade concerns whichshould be considered and has its own which relate to food security, rural poverty, and unemployment.
Over 50 per cent of the population lives in poverty, with a third of these in severe poverty and mainly
in the rural sector.  Furthermore, the national unemployment rate is estimated at 35 per cent and is
worse in the rural areas where subsistence farming is the main source of livelihood.  The situation is
worsened by long internal lines of communication, which provide tremendous challenges in moving
food from one area of the country to another, particularly given that Namibia is food insecure at a
household level.  The AIDS pandemic threatens to exacerbate the rural household food securitysituation in Namibia and may require interventions in the future.
Namibia makes the following proposals:
(i) The principle of transparency should be applied to NTC's.  Countries should only be allowed
to negotiate where legitimate, measurable and quantified values are attached to NTC's.
Developing countries will require assistance in developing domestic capacity to undertakethis task.
(ii) Provisions to enhance the household food security of the rural poor should be flexible .
7. Conclusion
The Namibian Government is committed to participate in the liberalization of world trade and
wants to see a situation where small developing countries gain out of the process.
__________