WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/82
29 November 2000
(00-5139)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
15-17 NOVEMBER 2000
Statements by South Africa
Non-Trade Concerns   (G/AG/NG/W/36/Rev.1)
South Africa wishes to thank our neighbours Norway and the other Members for circulating
their note on non-trade concerns.  The collective note gives us a good view of what different Members
believe constitute non-trade concerns and helps us to better understand these issues and the reasons
for them.
On a lighter note we are pleased to note that the terminology used in presenting this group of
papers is now more understandable to those of us in this institution that refuse to admit or accept the
disputed and detestable m-word.
We will not comment on the content of the papers that were presented in Norway, interesting
as it may be, but rather on the status of these issues in the WTO.  To do this we would remind
Members that we are in a negotiating process that is circumscribed by Article 20 of the Agreement on
Agriculture.  The Preamble to the Agreement sets the table for Article 20 and is also linked to it
through back references.  I would ask Members to bear with us in highlighting a few relevant phrases
in both the Preamble and Article 20.
Members agreed that their long-term objective was to establish a fair and market-oriented
agricultural trading system, and to initiate a reform process through commitments on support and
protection subject to substantial progressive reductions sustained over an agreed period of time,
resulting in correcting and preventing restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets.  The
Preamble specifies that commitments would be made in each of the following three areas:  marketaccess;  domestic support;  and export competition.
Commitments under the reform programme should be made in an equitable way among all
Members,  having regard  to non-trade concerns
The Preamble is thus clear that we are dealing with a reform process, undertaken in the
Uruguay Round on the basis of commitments relating to the three areas of market access;  domestic
support; and export competition.  These are more commonly known as the three pillars or as a
colleague this morning referred to them as the tripod.   We thought this to be quite an apt description
as, of course, the objective of a tripod is to give one a more stable perspective of the surroundings.The fact that a tripod has only three legs contributes to its stability on uneven ground and can thus be
commended, perhaps also in how we will decide to deal with the issue of NTCs.
Article 20 is headed as the Continuation of the Reform Process in which  Members agreed that
negotiations for continuing the process would be initiated, taking into account various things
including non-trade concerns and, dare I add, the objective to establish a fair and market-oriented
agricultural trading system.G/AG/NG/W/82
Page 2
In our reading of the Preamble and Article 20, three things are evident:
• We are dealing with the continuation of an agreed upon reform process (In our view its progress
is not subject to progress on non-trade concerns or any of the issues in Article 20 a, b, or c);
• the Uruguay Round process is tied to commitments  in the tripodean areas of market access,
export competition and domestic support (and thus not in the area of non-trade concerns);  and
• that in the ongoing reform process we should take into account or have regard for  non-trade
concerns (According to Article 20 the reform process is conditioned by non-trade concerns, NTCs
per se are not the subject of the negotiations).
We accept this relationship that NTCs have with the ongoing reform process.  We do not
believe that NTCs are to be down played as the EU  warned in its intervention, for we recognise them
as being very important and the two NTCs listed in the Agreement on Agriculture, namely food
security and the protection of the environment, are key issues in my country.  If we have listened
carefully it is interesting to note that all who have spoken so far agree that NTCs are important.  If this
is not in dispute then what remains?  It is the relationship of NTCs to the reform process as defined by
Article 20 itself that we should recognise and the manner in which these concerns are addressed.  I amsure that few Members here would have grounds to complain if all NTCs are dealt with in targeted,
transparent and non-distorting ways.
We would also repeat our earlier concern that the non-trade concerns of others should not
become trade concerns for us.
Market Access Proposal by the Cairns Group   (G/AG/NG/W/54)
South Africa has pleasure in co-sponsoring this Cairns Group proposal and thanks Australia
for presenting it.
The South African agricultural sector was subjected to fundamental policy reforms during the
last few years.  In most instances we have gone considerably further than our WTO commitments
would have required.  In this respect, we can cite the latest calculation of the producer subsidy
equivalent that puts us in the 5 per cent category.  This is a considerable decrease from levels of above
30 per cent in the early 1990’s.
As a result of these reforms, the exposure of the South African agricultural sector to the
global market has substantially increased.  The value of imports has grown fourfold (from
approximately R 2 billion to over R 8 billion) during  the last decade.  While exports also increased it
was at a much slower rate.
Against this we find that global markets remain highly distorted.Our experience with reforms display the relationships between trade and production distorting
domestic support and export subsidies on the one side and market access on the other.  Progress inreduction of trade and production distorting domestic support and export subsidies will be an essential
consideration in our quest for further liberalization in the field of market access.  We note with
appreciation that this view is shared with many developing countries in our region and elsewhere.
We fully endorse the Cairns Group proposal in seeking a stimulus to the growth perspectives
of developing countries.  Providing this stimulus is within reach of the Members of this organization
and we would like to call on Members to go beyond narrow local perspectives in making the current
negotiations truly developmental in nature.G/AG/NG/W/82
Page 3
Special and Differential Treatment   (G/AG/NG/W/55)
South Africa would like to thank the ASEAN countries for the contribution that they have
made by this submission.  As the delegate of Switzerland stated, it provides an opportunity for frank
discussion and this very notion has tempted me to venture in to the dangerous territory of departingfrom my previously prepared notes.
There is a large measure of concurrence between South Africa's own development objectives
and those presented by the ASEAN Group in their paper and we would endorse the notion that S&D
is and should be an integral part of the reform process. South Africa cosponsored the three Cairns
Group proposals submitted on export competition, domes tic support and market access.  In all these
proposals, we fully supported the provisions for special and differential treatment in which similaraspects addressed by the ASEAN paper were presented.
As we have stated before in this meeting, an outcome in favour of development is a key
expectation of my delegation for these negotiations.  What we would like to dwell upon though, is
whether this is sufficient or, dare I say, even the most important vehicle for delivering on ourexpectations.
Agriculture is the backbone of the economies in Africa in even providing two thirds of the
employment and GDP in many of the SSA countries.  While the economy in South Africa is
somewhat different, we have a huge development imperative that we have alluded to in previousinterventions.  While it is not our role to speak on behalf of African countries, my President is
committed to an African revival, which will, given the high importance of agriculture, in many
respects have to deliver on raising rural incomes from agricultural production.  These negotiations are
therefore most important to South Africa from a development perspective.
I would like to approach only two aspects of the ASEAN paper and end with a question.
The first point we would like to raise was also addressed very ably by Argentina just before
the lunch.  The ASEAN paper presents a very interesting perspective on the un-level playing field in
domestic support, juxtaposing the 10 per cent de minimis  ceiling available to developing countries,
with the retention by developed countries of 80 per cent of their pre Uruguay Round trade distorting
support.  However you wish to look at it, we would argue that this can be legitimately construed asinequitable and should be addressed.  However, is there any measure of flexibility or exemption from
the general rule that will be able to address this inequity?  Longer time frames?  Lesser cuts?  Even if
they were available, it would hardly scratch the surface of the apparent inequity.  This is probably not
an imbalance that can be corrected by greater flexibility to developing countries, resource constraints
of developing countries are evident.  What will tip the balance is greater liberalization and structuraladjustments by those that are using these remaining high levels of support, the 80 per cent that
ASEAN mentions.
Second point I would like to make has to do w ith the market out there.  As mentioned
yesterday, we have the impression that tariffs are the primary effective policy instrument used bydeveloping countries who have liberalized and often have neither the institutional capacity nor the
financial resources to support their agriculture.  Where this protection is often used to protect against
export and other subsidies and what governments may regard as unfair competition, it raises barriers
also against those with comparative advantages.  Let me be frank, we don't only have an interest in
fair access to developed markets - a large part of our export market is in developing countries.  Onaverage we face tariffs in developing countries that are four times that of developed countries.  This
can be addressed if some of the reasons leading to this higher level of protection are removed or
lessened and secondly if developing countries also participate in the reform process, albeit while
taking into account their special and differential needs.   This should be designed to lead to their fuller
sharing in the fruits of the liberalization process.G/AG/NG/W/82
Page 4
While moving forward with the improvements of S&D provisions in more concrete terms we
believe it would be wise in the long run to allow the reform process, by all Members, the centre stage.
Given the imbalances pointed out in the ASEAN paper, our question is:  What balance should
there be between improved and more concrete S&D on the one hand and better market access,
attempts to eliminate export subsidies and substantially lower domestic supports for products of
interest to developing countries i.e. structural adjustments and taking hard political decisions in the
developed world, on the other?  We believe they both deserve earnest attention.
__________