ࡱ> XZWq z.bjbjt+t+ )@AA.*K]8 ,4Fb22(ZZZ555EEEEEEE$GIF55555F{ZZ2{{{5ZZE5E{{MH=sEZ0kP^E>World Trade OrganizationG/AG/NG/W/71 30 November 2000(00-5188)Committee on Agriculture Special SessionOriginal: English FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 15-17 NOVEMBER 2000 Statement by Indonesia Non-Trade Concerns (G/AG/NG/W/36) My delegation would like to extend its appreciation to a number of countries which have submitted papers containing various issues on non-trade concerns. We believe that the paper will contribute positively to further discussions on these issues. As mentioned earlier by previous speakers, the Preamble and Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture specifically highlight the need for Members to take into account non-trade concerns, such as food security and rural development, in the negotiations for continuing reform process. We must respect our agreement on these matters. Food Security Like any other country in the world, the issue of food security will always be one of a non-trade concern for Indonesia and I would like to dwell on this issue for a while. Let me share with all of you Indonesia's concept of food security. In Indonesia's view, food security does not only mean accessibility and availability of supply of foodstuffs, but also ability to produce our own food needs. Some Members may argue that there is no need for a country to make an effort to produce its own food needs if it is cheaper just to import. They believe that food security could be achieved through trade liberalization by merely opening the market for imports. Although the theory may be applicable to other countries, it is simply not applicable to the condition and situation in my country. Indonesia does not believe that its food security objectives can be achieved through imports alone. In our view, imports of food items can contribute to food security through making up the difference between domestic production and consumption needs. Under ordinary circumstances many countries may be able to rely entirely on world markets for their food supplies because theoretically global food supplies are more than ample to meet everyone's needs. However, for various reasons, Indonesia cannot afford to be solely dependent on imports of basic food needs: First, being a country with more than 210 million people to feed, it is not sensible for Indonesia to rely solely on food supply from imports. Let me explain why. Indonesia's main staple food is rice. According to the data in 1998 the world traded rice was approximately 20billion metric tons, while Indonesia's domestic rice need in the same year was more than 30 billion metric tons. It is very clear that internationally traded rice was not enough to meet Indonesia's demand. Second, like many developing countries, Indonesia has limited foreign exchange reserve to import foodstuffs. In a situation where foreign exchange reserve is not enough, the supply of foodstuffs from imports may be disrupted. Third, what will happen if due to political crises such as war or trade embargoes, the exporting countries discontinue their exports to Indonesia? These are among the reasons why Indonesia must be self-reliant in foodstuffs, in particular rice. Having said this, I would like to state my delegation's position that although we remain committed to further trade liberalization for agricultural products, my delegation is of the position that policies adopted for legitimate food security purposes should not be restricted by the ϲʹ rules. Developing countries must be allowed to have greater flexibility for furthering food security. The flexibility should be reflected in any future negotiations and agreements in the area of market access, domestic support and export competition. Rural development and employment Another non-trade concern of importance to Indonesia is rural development and employment. As in many countries, the agricultural sector lies at the centre of Indonesia's economy and has made a number of major and interrelated contributions to the process of socio-economic development in our country. First, the sector contributes to the GDP and provides productive employment opportunities and income for the bulk of the population, especially the rural population. When the development process started in the late 1960's, two-thirds of the labour force in Indonesia worked in agriculture and the agricultural sector generated more than 40 per cent of the GDP. Between 1985 and 1992, the labour force absorbed by the agricultural sector has increased from 34 million workers in 1985 to 42million workers in 1992. In 1998, employment in the agricultural sector was more than 36 million people or about 46 per cent of the total labour force. During the economic crisis, a massive increase in unemployment was prevented, largely by the ability of the agricultural sector to absorb workers laid off from non-agricultural sectors. Second, since employment in agriculture has fallen much more slowly than in the non-agricultural sector, this sector merits even more intense attention to increase labour productivity and income for further poverty alleviation and food security. The sector plays a crucial role in eradicating poverty through a structure and pattern of production that allow small farmers and landless agricultural workers to share in benefits of agricultural growth. The sector also contributes to the achievement of food security for the rural people because generation of rural income will increase the capacity of the rural population to access sufficient and appropriate food. Third, the sector plays an important role in improving balance of payment through increased foreign exchange earnings and saving, as well as reduced dependence on the economy on foreign sources. Against this background, it is important for Indonesia to adopt policies aimed at preserving the viability of rural employment and development in order to protect the livelihood of more than 125million farmers and their families from adverse affects of trade liberalization in agriculture. It is therefore, in our view, that the ϲʹ Agreement on Agriculture should contain specific provisions to allow measures applied by developing countries to encourage agricultural and rural development in order to eradicate poverty. Market Access (G/AG/NG/W/54) 1. Indonesia fully associates itself with the Negotiating Proposal on Market Access submitted by the Cairns Group. It also subscribes to the statement made by Malaysia on behalf of the ASEAN Members of the Cairns Group. However, I would like to supplement the statement concerning some issues. 2. Like in other ϲʹ Agreements, my delegation is of the position that S&D treatment in the Agreement on Agriculture should be preserved and if necessary be strengthened and adapted to the realities and development needs of developing countries, including the least developed and net food- importing countries. 3. It is pertinent to note that considering the present S&D provisions in the existing Agreement on Agriculture are far from satisfactory, the Cairns Group proposal includes modifications into a more effective and real S&D treatment. In Indonesia's view, the basic purpose of S&D provisions in the Agreement is not only to provide transitional period for developing countries. The S&D treatment shall also aim at addressing the fundamental problems of development and growth in these countries. The S&D provisions are also necessary to address the unlevelled playing field, as most farmers of the developing countries are economically weak compared to farmers of the developed countries. 4. For the sake of achieving even and equitable benefits of the Agreement on Agriculture, the situation of small-scale and subsistence farmers, which constitute the majority of the farmers in developing countries, should be fully taken into consideration in the coming market access negotiations. 5. The developing countries will need flexibility to ensure that their small farmers can continue to make a livelihood out of agriculture while adjusting to trade liberalization. In this regard, differential modalities of developing countries are needed, such as: (i) lower level of reduction commitments as well as more flexible implementation timetables; (ii) preservation of special safeguard mechanism for developing countries, whether or not they have taken recourse to tariffication during the Uruguay Round. With the removal of non-tariff barriers in the developing countries, small farmers are exposed to the risk of import surges, which could harm their production capacity. A normal safety course would have been through the safeguard mechanism of the GATT 1994, but injury may be technically difficult to be demonstrated in such dispersed production as agriculture. Hence this course may not be practical. Indonesia is therefore of the position that while the SSG for developed countries should be eliminated, it is necessary for developing countries at least to have the possibility of using special mechanism to safeguard their domestic production; (iii) measures for the protection of small and subsistence farmers as well as for the achievement of food security should be excluded from the discipline on market access of the Agreement on Agriculture. 6. If developing countries are to reap the potential gains from trade liberalization in agriculture they should be allowed to increase their agricultural exports. Although there have been some improvements in market access opportunities for developing countries which resulted in the previous agricultural market access negotiations, market access problems remain in many areas. For example, tariffication and the manner in which tariffs were reduced have resulted in high bound tariffs in the agricultural sectors of many developed countries. In addition, tariff escalation imposed by developed countries discourages processing industries in developing countries. Also, many developing countries' exporters are encountering additional difficulties in the SPS and TBT areas. Trade harassment through arbitrary use of such measures tends to be growing. 7. Another problem encountered by exports from developing countries is the frequent use of specific rates or other non-ad valorem rates by certain developed countries. Non-ad valorem rates pose certain problems to the transparency of degree of protection, because the use of non-ad valorem rates conceals the actual prohibitiveness of such rates in terms of ad valorem equivalent. Generally, the degree of protection of such rates depends on the size of a unit import price. Hence, a specific rate poses a higher barrier to cheaper imports, which undermines the competitiveness of exports from developing countries. __________ G/AG/NG/W/71 Page  PAGE 2 G/AG/NG/W/71 Page  PAGE 3 ,?IMv_n/5-,7,c,m,,,-'-@.A.G.H.I.J.b.c.i.j.k.l.z.mH jU6CJ5:CJ,>* 5:CJ,0 ,=>?IJ 0~ $$l0+p#$$l4+p# $$l4+p# $d$$$l4+p#`$$$dh$ ,=>?IJKLMfv^_no  !!""Z([(++!.,.-... g  g   g   g   g   g   g   g   g  g   KJKLMfv^ ` & Fg `$ $$l+p# $ !@$$l`+p#$$^_no  $ ` & Fg ` `!!""Z([(++!.,.-...K.L.M.N.m.n.o.p.q.r.  !B# !@$ ` `..H.I.K.L.M.j.m.n.o.p.q.t.u.v.w.x.y.z.  r.s.t.u.v.w.x.y.z. `$' 0&P . A!"#$%K [4@4Normal $ CJmH N"N Heading 1#$ & F_0@& 5;L2L Heading 2#$ & F_0@& :<B< Heading 3$@& 5HRH Heading 4#$ & F_0@& H2H Heading 5  & F_0@& 6.. Heading 6 @&.. Heading 7 @&.. Heading 8 @&. . Heading 9 @&<A@<Default Paragraph Font.@.Header$ !, @,Footer  !&)@& Page Number4T"4 Block Text:B2: Body Text & F_ 6PB6 Body Text 2  & F_:QR: Body Text 3 & F_pHbH Body Text 4 & F_p0 7p6r6 Body Text 5  & FMTM1TBody Text First Indent & F <C<Body Text Indent HNHBody Text First Indent 2FRFBody Text Indent 2dDSDBody Text Indent 3 CJ0+0 Endnote TextCJ8&@8Footnote ReferenceH*66 Footnote TextCJ* *Index 1 #.!. Index Heading!$/"$List "0(22(List 2 #0(3B(List 3 $(4R(List 4 %p0(5b(List 5 &20r2 List Bullet ' & FRD6D List Bullet 2( & FS0 H7H List Bullet 3) & FT @H8H List Bullet 4* & FUp0 H9H List Bullet 5+ & FV 6D6 List Continue ,>E>List Continue 2-:F:List Continue 3 .>G>List Continue 4/>H>List Continue 50p0818 List Number1 & FW hD:"D List Number 22 & FX0 D;2D List Number 33 & FY D<BD List Number 44 & FZp0 D=RD List Number 55 & F[ 4Zb4 Plain Text6 CJOJQJ*Jr*Subtitle7$@&<,<Table of Authorities8<#<Table of Figures 9 .>.Title:$@& 5;KH**Title 2;$>***Title 3<$666 Title Country=$;... TOA Heading>5DDTOC 1!?$0<< p# 5;BBTOC 2!@$0<< p# :00TOC 3A$ 5>>TOC 4!B$0<< p# >>TOC 5!C$0<< p# >>TOC 6D$o<< p# CJ::TOC 7E$L<< p# CJ::TOC 8F$)<< p# CJ::TOC 9G$<< p# CJJJParagr. Num. - WTOH & F\ h\$\Envelope AddressI&@ /+D CJOJQJ**Level 1 J0z*@ BDFHJMz.J^r.z...z.4;=M!!8@0(  B S  ?@HMVWY##0(7(f(m(((() )').*@*J*b*l*x*{*@BCGe#e#~&&-*.*@*J*L*M*M*N*b*l*n*o*o*p*x*{*PowellSDC:\TEMP\autorecover\AutoRecovery save of W71-Statement-Indonesia.asdPowellSW\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\November 2000 mtg\W71-Statement-Indonesia.docPowellSW\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\November 2000 mtg\W71-Statement-Indonesia.docPowellSDC:\TEMP\autorecover\AutoRecovery save of W71-Statement-Indonesia.asdPowellSW\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\November 2000 mtg\W71-Statement-Indonesia.docPowellSW\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\November 2000 mtg\W71-Statement-Indonesia.docPowellSW\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\November 2000 mtg\W71-Statement-Indonesia.docBerna.\\Hudson5a\DMS\dmssys\division\AGCD\78020A.DOCBardin.\\Hudson5a\DMS\dmssys\work\2000\7\78\7802d.doc UngphakornuC:\Users\ungphakorn\ALL_WORK\WTO ISSUES\MY COMMITTEES\Agriculture\NEGOTIATIONS\countries_papers\ngw71_indonesia_e.doc|F5}^uU4~$3>s2_+̱E* `v)l(P&,wN47 ~{4:VF<'zߠNH]<*`1Z l >%Fb'&'+p2dO?>xkbnAVCM$ fX)lh0o'9wr>32zCƥ~7h2.... OJQJo( OJQJo( OJQJo( OJQJo(hh. hhOJQJo(*0.0.0.0()h.0()p0p()()p@ ()808^8`0o(()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.ho(0o(()p0po(()p0po(-0o(()0o(()0o(-p0po(()@ 0@ o(().h()()h(a)h.h-0-0()ho(.)?)^)`?o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L. 0OJQJo(-...()().0()0()7i7-.h.h.h))h.0)0)8h8-...()().0()0()7i7-hh^h`o(.H\H^H`\()\^`\\^`\.4\4^4`\() \ ^ `\| \| ^| `\. \ ^ `\()\^`\808^8`0o(()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.808^8`0o(()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.808^8`0o(()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.)?)^)`?o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.808^8`0o(()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.i222247 22222 >%~~}}||'z222247 2222 >%<~}|'z222247 2222 >%<~}|'zO?222247 2222 >%<~}|'z&'+&'+&'+LTHCMo'9w)lh~:VbnA fXZ 32zXTH`H@ 0OJQJo($@ z*@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3& Arial?5 Courier NewkWP TypographicSymbolsCourier New#1h*LF*LFB L"J; @ !0d*DK1@7C:\program files\microsoft office\templates\WTODoce.dotRESTRICTEDCodePowellS UngphakornOh+'0x   ( 4 @ LX`hpRESTRICTEDCodeESTPowellSowe ϲʹDoce.dot Ungphakorn2gpMicrosoft Word 8.0@F#@Lyl[@8P^@8P^"՜.+,D՜.+,< hp|  ϲʹJ*1 RESTRICTEDCode Title(NV _PID_GUIDSymbol1AN{711360E7-97E8-11D1-BD86-000629B04860} G/AG/NG/W/711  "#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFHIJKLMNPQRSTUVYRoot Entry F_P^ӅP^[1Table!`JWordDocument)@SummaryInformation(GDocumentSummaryInformation8OCompObjjObjectPoolӅP^ӅP^   FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q