ࡱ> jliq Mbjbjt+t+ )dAAuIK]8 < GbBB(jjjEEEFFFFFFF$kH_JFEEEEEFjjBEjjFEF.>Fj.p"TyF@World Trade OrganizationG/AG/NG/W/76 2 January 2001(01-0003)Committee on Agriculture Special SessionOriginal: English FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 15-17 NOVEMBER 2000 Statements by Namibia Non-Trade Concerns (G/AG/NG/W/36) Namibia would like to thank the group of countries that have produced the various documents on non-trade concerns. The documents argue that agriculture has a specific non trade and multi-functional character. Specifically, they attempt to use Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture to legitimize all forms of non- trade concerns, trade distorting and non-trade distorting, by classifying these characteristics as a land function based on cultural and natural values, a supply and demand function based on a country's ability to respond to market forces, characteristics that are external to normal economic measurement (i.e. "beauty"), and finally, that countries have a right to provide their own food requirements. Namibia has a relatively liberalized agricultural economy with virtually no domestic or international trade distortive measures. While the land use function of the Namibian countryside is likely to be very high, government's scope to intervene is limited by its low income and distorted income distribution resulting from historical factors such as colonialism and apartheid. Low and unpredictable rainfall, poor rural infrastructure, very low levels of capital accumulation and a history of under-investment in the rural sector means that our agriculture economy cannot respond quickly to price messages. Arguments based on positive externalities are noted with concern by Namibia especially taking into account that our farming conditions are extremely harsh. Moreover, we feel that food self sufficiency for strategic reasons runs contrary to the spirit of the current negotiations which aim towards greater freedom of trade. Rather, policies and trade positions which promote household and national food security are more in-line with our national policy. Furthermore, Namibia is also very concerned that the multi-functionality argument can be used to hide measures that distort agricultural trade. In conclusion, Namibia is reluctant to accept a broad definition of multi-functionality because it is not precisely defined, its scope is not known and therefor open to misuse. However, we recognise that there are some non-trade concerns that should be taken into account when renegotiating the Agreement on Agriculture. Indeed, Namibia has its own non-trade concerns relating to food security, rural poverty, unemployment and rural degradation. We acknowledge that provision for these concerns has been made under Article 20, albeit vaguely, as Mauritius pointed out in her presentation earlier, thereby rendering this particular provision open to abuse as opposed to the S&D provision which is specifically meant for developing countries. Yet, concerns for food security and for poverty alleviation cannot be accorded equal status with landscape beauty, which frankly, remains a luxury for the majority of food-insecure people in developing Member states as they simply cannot afford such luxuries. While Namibia may sympathize and have understanding for countries wishing to advance legitimate non-trade concerns during the negotiations, we would appreciate it if such countries would define such non-trade concerns precisely, indicate their scope and most importantly, provide a clearly motivated estimate of their value and implication thereof on world agricultural trade. This would avoid a situation where non-trade concerns of some become trade concerns of others as expressed by South Africa and India. MERCOSUR Proposal Export Subsidies - Food Security or Food Dependency? (G/AG/NG/W/38) Namibia would like to thank the MERCOSUR countries for having put together a very informative and detailed proposal on export subsidies and how they impact markets of countries such as the NFIDCs. The proposal calls for the total elimination of export subsidies to ensure that international trade in agricultural commodities is brought in line with general rules of the multilateral trading system. Namibia shares the above concern but we however wish to state that it should not be ignored that export subsidies have indeed benefitted consumers in some countries that are drought prone, NFIDCs and LDCs and countries through the provision of cheap commodities. However, we also recognise that the elimination of export subsidies would indeed be to the interest of drought prone, LDCs and NFIDCs in the medium to long term. The question that should be asked is how best can these two anomalies be reconciled? It would be desirable that whatever compromise that is reached also addresses countries that benefit from cheap subsidized products. Namibia would therefore suggest that a time-frame or transitional period be established for substantial reduction of export subsidies leading to their eventual elimination. The transitional period would allow countries benefitting from subsidized imports to adjust, as well as, put in place mechanisms that would address the eventual elimination of subsidized exports into their markets. Sometimes countries cannot compete or produce enough for their domestic market due to supply constraints. Elimination of export subsidies alone is not a panacea for ensuring food security. It is therefore imperative that during the transitional period, supply constraints such as infrastructure, access to credit (in some cases) be addressed. Otherwise the whole process of doing away with cheaper commodity imports for NFIDCs, LDCs and drought prone countries will not bear the desired fruits and would indeed make such countries worse off and food insecure in the short term. Cairns Group Proposal - Domestic Support (G/AG/NG/W/35) Namibia would like to comment on the proposal submitted by the Cairns group on domestic support, document reference number G/AG/NG/W/35. The Cairns group proposal stresses that the Uruguay Round's principles that sought to reduce trade and production distorting forms of support by allocation on the various boxes have not been successful. The results, the paper argues, is that trade disputes continue with the current provisions of the Uruguay Round favouring mostly developed countries. Consequently, as measures to address these disparities the Cairns group proposes a formula approach that would reduce over time, address and reduce trade and production distorting domestic support with the aim of total elimination over time. While Namibia appreciates and agrees that eventual elimination of all trade distorting domestic support as provided by developed countries will, in the medium and long term, be beneficial to the world agricultural trading environment and to the economies of developing countries in particular, Namibia wishes to point out that there are developing countries that benefit from these anomalies in the agricultural markets through higher commodity prices. In view of this, Namibia would suggest that mechanisms be established, that would enable developing countries, during the reduction phase, to cushion the impact of such reductions and to readjust before trade and production distorting support mechanisms are totally eliminated. One such mechanism would be to accord S&D provisions to developing countries in the form of retention of NTBs and tariffs until such a time that fairness or substantial reductions in trade and production distorting support is achieved. Namibia wishes to emphasise that it does not have the financial means to introduce programmes that would protect its producers from unfair competition. The best that a country like Namibia can do in such circumstances is to revert to institutional measures. Furthermore, international support to developing countries could include enhancement of food security programmes, as well as agricultural and rural development investment programmes that enhance the supply side during the reduction phase. In conclusion, Namibia notes that the formula approach being proposed by the Cairns Group will be reduced over time but wishes to caution that any such formula must not be overly complicated but rather simple in order to ease its implementation. Namibia stands ready to explore the modalities of such a formula together with all interested parties. Market Access Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Kenya, India, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Uganda and Zimbabwe (G/AG/NG/W/37) Namibia welcomes and supports the proposal on "Market Access" which addresses some of the problems and limitations encountered by many developing countries in accessing markets of developed nations. The proposal is specific on various NTBs that are imposed on exports from the developing countries into developed countries and emphasises the need for simplification of the tariff rate quota administration. On the issue of Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs), Namibia would like to see that these be simplified, made more transparent and increased for developing countries. Such a measure would complement efforts by countries such as Namibia whose efforts to diversify their production base into high value commodities through improved market access have thus far been frustrated by the current complicated and non-transparent TRQ administration procedures. Consequently, on the issue of tariff peaks, Namibia would also like to see speedy tariff reductions and reduction in tariff escalations in developed countries as this would effectively open markets and encourage value addition to the primary exports of developing countries. Namibia wishes to conclude by echoing the sentiments expressed on SPS provisions in the proposal and how they are used as barriers to trade. This issue is of importance to Namibia, particularly as it is engaged, as already stated, in a process of diversifying its production base into non-traditional commodities. However, such domestic efforts will remain futile if there are no uniformly agreed SPS standards. It is simply too costly for countries such as Namibia to pour substantial resources into conforming with standards of one country or region, and only to be told that these standards are unacceptable in another market. Market Access Canada (G/AG/NG/W/12 ) Namibia thanks Canada for its proposal on Market access. The proposal emphasizes simplifying tariffs in order to avoid them being used as a barrier to trade especially in the case of tariff escalation between unprocessed and processed products. It is important that conditions be established that would induce developing countries to take opportunities of value-adding to their agricultural products. Namibia also wishes to state that while tariff quotas provide market access, problems with the administration of quotas exist. Tariff reduction can be beneficial if implemented in combination with reduced export subsidies, domestic support and Blue Box payments. If not, those countries that have already liberalized will continue to experience problems with distorted market prices and dumping. Namibia would also like to draw Canada's attention to differentiate between developed and developing countries, particularly regarding conditions that would serve the interests of these two groupings. Namibia believes that there is a clear need for further reduction of tariffs, improved quotas and improved S&D provisions for developing countries, LDCs and NFIDCs. Agreement on Agriculture: Green Box/ ANNEX 2 Subsidies & Special and Differential Treatment and a Development Box (G/AG/NG/W/14) Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Pakistan, Haiti, Nicaragua, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and El Salvador. The paper addresses the Green Box measures under the Agreement on Agriculture which are not subject to any reductions and argues that this has been misused by developed countries to hide subsidies and other support to their producers. Furthermore, despite these reductions, studies show that the level of support to producers by developed countries has increased since 1995. The lack of transparency of the Green Box is also cited as a major problem as is the "due restraint clause" which protects Green Box measures from any countervailing duties. The proposal recommends collapsing all domestic support into one general "subsidies box". This recommendation could provide a common level of support for all countries, with developing countries granted protection under the Due Restraint Clause of the Agreement on Agriculture. The subsidies box would also prevent the misuse of Green Box subsidies which are potentially more trade distorting than is acknowledged. The subsidies box would also bring in more transparency. However, will the formation of a general subsidies box lead to greater transparency? Certain subsidies such as export subsidies may increase as a result, which could disadvantage developing countries if no set disciplines are incorporated into this box. For Namibia, a "general subsidies box" would be desirable, although it remains that most developing countries cannot afford the proposed or most subsidies. Thus, such a box would again only be of use to countries that can subsidize. An alternative would be to set better and stricter disciplines and limits on the Green Box measures with the eventual aim of reducing overall trade distorting support levels. Special and Differential Treatment G/AG/NG/W/13 Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Pakistan, Haiti, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and El Salvador. Namibia would like to thank the group of eleven countries that submitted this proposal. The proposal stresses food security as not only being an economic issue but also considers its implications such as political independence, sovereignty and national security. The proposal further argues that the Agreement on Agriculture gives Special and Differential treatment (S&D) to developed rather than to developing countries as levels of subsidies have increased since the implementation of the Agreement on Agriculture. Namibia would like to provide two comments on the proposal. 1. Namibia agrees with the concept of creating a development box with policy instruments that would consider domestic production in staples, employment of the rural population to alleviate poverty, flexibility in providing support to small-holder farmers and the elimination of dumping subsidized products. However, Namibia would like to point out that limited resources in most developing countries may make such an initiative difficult to realise. 2. Namibia agrees with the proposal that developing countries would need improved S&D treatment in order to achieve some of their developmental goals. Developed countries have been able to channel subsidies into the Green Box which are not subject to any reduction or discipline, thus keeping existing subsidy levels from being reduced. The Blue Box & other Support Measures to Agriculture EU (G/AG/NG/W/17) The European Community's proposal G/AG/NG/W/17 on Blue Box focuses on the positive aspects of this feature, particularly that it has been an important instrument in the domestic agricultural reform process of the European Communities and therefore should be maintained. The EC's proposal also cites evidence from a study that was conducted by the OECD which supports the view that Blue Box support measures have less impact on the production, trade and welfare of other countries. Namibia would however wish to make the following observation. The Blue Box provision was a compromise to move the process in the URRA forward. Most of the provisions are limited to a few countries and its provisions remain vague and less transparent. It is precisely for these reasons that Namibia questions the prudence of maintaining the Blue Box in its current form. Is this "box" really necessary given that it only benefits a few countries? While we understand that it would not be possible to completely do away with the provisions of the Blue Box, Namibia suggests that the Blue Box be quantified to allow greater transparency, capped and then be subject to an eventual phase-down commitment. Food Quality: Improvement of Market Access EC (G/AG/NG/W/18) The EC proposal on food quality touches on concerns of consumers to know what is contained in the product and the regulations that should govern food quality. Namibia recognizes the importance of the preservation of food quality specificity, consumer choice and increased market access to producers. Yet, Namibia also recognizes that consumer perceptions in one country may not be in the interest of another. This is especially true when exports are met with resistance in a market that has a strong consumer lobby. Namibia would like to make the following three observations to the proposal by the EC. - Protection against the usurpation of names, unfair competition and predatory actions of some multinationals in the food industry is strongly supported by Namibia, however, we are concerned about the limited control that developing countries have over this process. Consequently, it is our suggestion that mechanisms be put in place to ensure that developing countries play an active role in this process. - The lack of harmonization of regulations among the various members of the EU to food and beverages imports is equally of concern to Namibia and it is our hope that the EC will work towards harmonising these instruments for the benefit of all concerned. - Finally, Namibia wishes to caution that the quest for products of high reputation due to their regional specificity or traditional origin should not result in unfair discrimination of products from non-traditional origins. Animal Welfare and Trade in Agriculture EC (G/AG/NG/W19) Namibia wishes to briefly comment on the paper proposed by the EC on animal welfare. As pointed out by other delegations before us, animal welfare, in the absence of internationally agreed standards is highly subjective depending on the cultural, ethical attitudes and perspectives towards animals and animal production practices in a particular country or area. Namibia is concerned that attempts to compensate producers for high standards could lead to more subsidies and would also effectively rule out certain production systems where standards are not applicable or known. Namibia welcomes the debate on animal welfare standards but would suggest that this be discussed at a different forum than the ϲʹ, particularly as there are no set standards available. __________ G/AG/NG/W/76 Page  PAGE 6 G/AG/NG/W/76 Page  PAGE 5 ,=GKt#(%%,,`1X289>H?C4DJ]JJJMMMMMMMMMMMMMmH jU5CJCJ5:CJ,>* 5:CJ,0 ,;<=GH x0~ $$l0+p#$$l4+p# $$l4+p# $d$$$l4+p#`$$$dh$ ,;<=GHIJKdt "# ""##&%'%(%7%8%%%y&z&K'L') )* *,,,,,Z.[.//^1_1`1  aHIJKdt $ $$l+p# $ !@$$l`+p#$$ "# """##&%'%(%7%8%%%y&z&K'L') )* *,,,,,Z.[.//^1_1_1`111X2Y244^6_6a7b78-9.999;;;;==>>>G?H?+A,A`111X2Y244^6_6a7b78-9.999;;;;==>>>G?H?+A,ACCC4D5DDDBFCFFF7H8H8I9IJJJ\J]JJJKKLLfMgMhMsMtMuMMMMMMMMMMMMM H,ACCC4D5DDDBFCFFF7H8H8I9IJJJ\J]JJJKKLLfMgM`gMhMsMtMuMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM$  !B# !@ `$ `' 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 J0I d BDFHJMM(H "_1,AgMM)+,-.01`1M*/4;=M!!8@0(  B S  ?>FKTUWLRHNU-[-tIuIIIIIII,:>@DE'(*+67MXj# $ { e k IR?Iq((-*9***,--W...11)22222.5588r9u9::? @*A+AmFxFtIuIIIIIIIPowellSU\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\November 2000 mtg\W76-Statement-Namibia.docPowellS!C:\TEMP\W76-Statement-Namibia.doc Ben BennettBC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of W76-Statement-Namibia (2).asd Ben Bennett A:\W76-Statement-Namibia (2).docPowellSd\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\Ngw-St'ment, subs, proposal\W76-Statement-Namibia (2)1.docPowellSd\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\Ngw-St'ment, subs, proposal\W76-Statement-Namibia (2)1.docBerna+\\Hudson5a\DMS\dmssys\division\AGCD\51A.DOCBardin+\\Hudson5a\DMS\dmssys\work\2001\5\50\5d.docRege Anu"\\Drake3\DFSEnglish\G\AG\NGW76.doc UngphakornsC:\Users\ungphakorn\ALL_WORK\WTO ISSUES\MY COMMITTEES\Agriculture\NEGOTIATIONS\countries_papers\ngw75_namibia_e.doc|F5}^uU4~$3>s2_+̱E* `v)l(P&,wNc Ʊ47 ~{4:VF<'zߠNH]<*`1Z l >%Fb'&'+p2dO?>xkbnAVCM$ fX)lh0o'9wr>32zCƥ~7h2.... OJQJo( OJQJo( OJQJo( OJQJo(hh. hhOJQJo(*hho(-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.j222247 22222 >%~~}}||'z222247 2222 >%<~}|'z222247 2222 >%<~}|'zO?222247 2222 >%<~}|'z&'+&'+&'+pzCMo'9w)lh~:VbnA fXZ 32zc |z`H@ 0OJQJo($@ iI@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3& Arial?5 Courier NewkWP TypographicSymbolsCourier New#1hBQ&BQ&Qf < 9_!0dbJ1@7C:\program files\microsoft office\templates\WTODoce.dotRESTRICTEDCodePowellS UngphakornOh+'0x   ( 4 @ LX`hpRESTRICTEDCodeESTPowellSowe ϲʹDoce.dot Ungphakorn2gpMicrosoft Word 8.0@@aqu@Ty@Ty <՜.+,D՜.+,< hp|  ϲʹbJ1 RESTRICTEDCode Title(NV _PID_GUIDSymbol1AN{711360E7-97E8-11D1-BD86-000629B04860} G/AG/NG/W/766  !"#$%&'()*+,-./012456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZ[\]^_`bcdefghkRoot EntrySM~  F_"Ty>"Tym 1Table 35KWordDocumentNLZ )dSummaryInformation@@( H YDocumentSummaryInformation8a CompObjNmjObjectPool>"Ty>"Ty HH.doc   FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q