WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/161
6 April 2001
(01-1758)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  Spanish
SIXTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
22-23 MARCH 2001
Statements by Colombia
G/AG/NG/W/101 (Proposal by Norway)
The first general comment on Norway's proposal is that world agricultural reform cannot be
subordinated to the interests of some of the rich countries in the name of the multifunctionality ofagriculture.  As we have said before, the developing countries are the ones that have borne the
consequences of world market distortions caused by the wealthy countries through high protection
and production subsidy policies, which must change as a result of these negotiations.
Market access
Consequently, Norway's approach to applying limited MFN tariff reductions to its key
agricultural products reveals little interest by th at developed country in moving ahead with the reform
in agriculture that the developing countries need.
Colombia ventures to point out that, as a result of these negotiations, the existing imbalances
in countries' Uruguay Round commitments and rights should be eliminated.  The developed countriesshould not continue to have the right to apply the special safeguard, because so far they have used it
only to provide still more protection for their domestic production, for which reason this mechanism
should be applicable only by the developing countries.
Domestic support
As for domestic support, Norway proposes that, on the basis of existing bound commitments,
the AMS should be divided into two categories:  one for domestic support to agricultural production
for the domestic market, for which there would be less stringent reduction commitments, and the other
for support to export-oriented production, which would be subject to further reductions.  In addition,
the AMS would not be product-specific, so as to allow for flexibility in allocating support to various
products.  It also proposes that the Blue and Green Boxes should be maintained as they are in the
AoA.
This proposal is surprising, because Norway seems to want a reform that would go back on
the one initiated with the Uruguay Round and would not move forwards.
We believe that in these negotiations we should be concerned to formulate disciplines for
speedy reduction and elimination of trade distortions created by domestic support programmes by the
developed countries.  Continuing many of the existing domestic sport measures undermines
confidence in the fairness of the world trading system and would therefore have an impact in failing
to secure more thoroughgoing liberalization.  Furthermore, we believe that establishing two AMSG/AG/NG/W/161
Page 2
categories would lead to lack of transparency and wo uld be harmful to trade in products of interest to
developing countries.
Export competition
Colombia shares Norway's interest in the n eed for rules and disciplines to encompass all
instruments relating to export subsidies.
We share the position that stricter disciplines need to be adopted and express the feeling
common among agricultural exporting countries about the need to arrive at a formula for prompt and
effective elimination of the use of these instruments in their entirety.
Special and differential treatment
As the Cairns Group said in its proposal concerning market access1, better market access
conditions, in a world without trade-distorting subsidies, is essential for the advancement of the
developing countries.  It is necessary to deal with the question of trade-distorting export subsidies anddomestic support if we want the developing countries to play a full and fair part in the process of
market access reform.
If the reform does not take this direction, special and differential treatment means
insignificant palliatives for the developing countries.
Peace Clause
Colombia does not support any move that involves maintaining the Peace Clause as an
integral part of the Agreement on Agriculture.
G/AG/NG/W/103  (Proposal by Poland)
Export subsidies
Colombia shares Poland's view that the UR export subsidies reduction commitments are
among the most important achievements in eliminating world agricultural trade distortions.  In ouropinion, these commitments are an appropriate starting point for securing the elimination of
agricultural trade distortions in these negotiations.
We consider that Poland's proposal for further commitments in this matter lacks scope, for
percentage reductions of the permitted levels will diminish only slightly, and over the long term, theuse of this measure, which has such a distorting effect on trade.  Colombia takes the view that the
purpose of the forthcoming agricultural negotiations on export subsidies is to achieve the elimination
of these instruments and avoid the distortions they cause in regard to world agricultural prices, which
is mentioned by Poland.
We agree that rules and disciplines have to be devised to cover all export subsidy instruments
so as to guarantee that they are used suitably and transparently, and thus arrive at distortion-free
market prices.
                                                     
1 Document G/AG/NG/W/54.G/AG/NG/W/161
Page 3
Domestic support
In the introductory part of the paper, Poland states that, on the basis of Article 20, account
should be taken in these negotiations of the experience and the effects of the implementation of the
AoA as well as the objectives of the reform set out in the AoA Preamble.  In this connection,Colombia would draw attention to the great imbalance and the inequities in world agricultural trade,
which is backed up by the AoA disciplines.  Hence we conclude that the present negotiations should
entail a thoroughgoing transformation of this situation through agreement on strict domestic support
disciplines.  Consequently, we do not agree with Poland's proposals for the AMS reduction formula to
be the same as the UR one and to allow the introduction of the "Blue Box" for countries that do not
have it.
Clearly, we the developing countries will only obtain benefits from these negotiations if the
measures with distorting effects on trade in agricultural products are completely done away with.
Accordingly, Colombia fully supports the Cairns Group proposal on domestic support to eliminate all
distorting forms of support, including the Blue Box, as an essential component of the process of
reform that we want for the agricultural sector.
We consider that, to achieve a fruitful process of negotiation, additional rules need to be
established for a substantial reduction in trade-distorting support, and in this connection we endorse
the Cairns Group proposals to use a formula that will make for a substantial reduction during the first
year of the period of implementation.  Obviously, the highest proportion of distorting support isgranted by the wealthiest countries and we are therefore endeavouring to eliminate the disparities so
that those who grant the most support will have to make the greatest efforts in their reductions.
For Colombia, it is important to strengthen the Green Box disciplines so that these measures
are freed of any distorting element and fulfill their true objective of strengthening agriculturaldevelopment.
Market access
In view of the reform objectives present in the AoA Preamble, the greatest opening up of
markets to products of interest to developing countries is indispensable.  Colombia shares Poland's
view about the importance to developing countries of substantially expanding tariff quotas.
Reductions in bound tariffs need to be substantial and to go beyond the Uruguay Round
formula, so as to redress the existing imbalance as a result of these last negotiations.  However,
Colombia considers that granting greater market ac cess is closely tied in with eliminating the support
and subsidies that distort agricultural trade and production, so that we have equity and fair trade.
Non-trade concerns
Colombia insists that non-trade concerns should be addressed with measures that do not
distort trade and production and cannot be used as a pretext for avoiding thorough world agriculturalreforms.
Special and differential treatment
Colombia considers that the developing countries stand in need of greater flexibility in
making commitments in all negotiating topics that will solve the problems of rural employment and
food security.  Also essential is some level of support for agriculture and programmes to raise the
standard of living of the rural population and, in the case of Colombia, to replace illegal crops.G/AG/NG/W/161
Page 4
G/AG/NG/W/105 (Proposal by Morocco)
We share Morocco's view on the specificity of the developing economies within the
framework of the current negotiations, and also endorse the need for concrete proposals on each
negotiating topic.
Market access
Colombia endorses the reference to the difficulties of making further tariff concessions as
long as the distorting effects of domestic support and export subsidies persist.
Domestic support
The great differences in countries' rights regarding the Aggregate Measure of Support, which,
as Morocco points out, affect both the production and the exports of the developing countries, should
be corrected at the present negotiations by a formula to eliminate existing inequalities.  In our view,
the new obligations should be in connection with bound rights and not the applied rate, so as to avoidpenalizing the developing countries still more.  The de minimis  threshold for developed countries
should be eliminated.  We endorse the proposal to eliminate the Blue Box and redefine the Green Box
in order to eliminate distortive measures.
Export subsidies
We agree with Morocco that the export subsidies used by wealthy countries prevent the
development and diversification of developing countries' exports, for which reason they should be
eliminated.
Non-trade concerns
We share Morocco's view that support for the mu ltifunctionality concept used by several
protectionist countries that use distortive measures would, for the developing countries, mean
agreeing to maintain or increase trade distortions, to their detriment.  Accordingly, Colombia
considers that non-trade problems should be resolved with measures that do not distort trade.  It also
endorses the reference to the specific non-trade concerns of developing countries, such as ruraldevelopment.
G/AG/NG/W/106 (Proposal by Turkey)
We agree with Turkey in many of its views about reform on the three basic topics of
negotiation.  We endorse its opinion that the credibility of the reform process will depend to a large
extent on how far the developed countries will be able to reduce the imbalances and the inequalities,
for which reason we in the developing countries  should propose formulas to eliminate them.
Market access
We share Turkey's position that the developing countries should make the granting of
improved access opportunities conditional on the elimination of export subsidies and distorting
domestic support, a requirement to achieve fair agricultural trade.  We also agree the proposal to
establish different tariff commitments for the developing countries.G/AG/NG/W/161
Page 5
Domestic support
Colombia agrees with Turkey's analysis of the consequences for the developing countries of
the distorting policies used by the developed countries, which still grant substantial resources to
agriculture, even in those measures subject to commitments.
In view of these considerations, Colombia does not join in the proposal simply to reduce or
eliminate support above the de minimis  level, as retaining it will mean accepting distortive forms of
domestic support.  We believe that the de minimis  should only be applied by developing countries, as
part of special and differential treatment.  Nor do we endorse the proposal to raise that level for
developing countries, since it has been demonstrated that the majority of those countries, especially
the smallest, have not reached the 10 per cent permitted by the present AoA and certainly very fewcountries would be able to benefit from a higher level.
Colombia shares Turkey's proposal to continue to exempt from reduction commitments the
measures stipulated in Article 6.2 for developing countries.  We consider that these countries need to
maintain some kinds of support to enable them to carry out programmes to foster agricultural andrural development, an essential matter for improvin g the standard of living of the rural population,
solving the problems of rural employment and food security, and in the case of Colombia, replacing
illegal crops.
We also endorse the proposal to establish clear and transparent disciplines for measures in the
Green Box, so as to make sure that this type of support does not distort trade in any way.
Export subsidies
Colombia shares Turkey's views on export subs idies and their harmful impact on trade.  We
therefore support its proposal for the elimination of the developed countries' export subsidies.
Similarly, we support its proposal for disciplines on agricultural export credits to be agreed on in the
WTO.
Special and differential treatment
Colombia agrees with the view expressed by Turkey that special and differential treatment for
the developing countries must be among all of the topics of negotiation.
Non-trade concerns
We concur with Turkey about addressing the topic of non-trade concerns from a standpoint
that will prevent the maintenance of measures by some countries in order to avoid further
liberalization of agricultural trade and that will meet the non-trade concerns of the developing
countries.
G/AG/NG/W/107 (Proposal by Egypt)
We share Egypt's ideas on the matters that should govern these negotiations, namely benefit
for all Members, due consideration for developing and least-developed countries, trade as a source of
growth, fair competition and the achievement of co mpetitive advantages for all Members.  We would
also emphasize that, for Colombia, a level playing field for fairer competition is one of the mainobjectives of these negotiations.
We find many points on which Egypt's proposal agrees with the proposals previously
submitted by the Cairns Group on the basic topics of negotiations.  We also broadly agree with itsG/AG/NG/W/161
Page 6
propositions regarding special and differential trea tment for developing countries.  Accordingly, we
shall simply refer to some specific aspects of the Egyptian proposal.
Market access
Making the applied tariff rates the basis for tariff commitments could only be accepted by the
developed countries, as otherwise all those developing countries which believed in trade liberalization
and unilaterally opened up their markets would be penalized.  Hence, we endorse the proposal about
special and differential treatment in this topic.
Net food-importing countries
In our opinion, the Egyptian proposal to create an international fund so that countries wishing
to buy food could do so is very important and it should be studied in detail in these negotiations.
Special and differential treatment
We also agree with Egypt that the special and differential treatment granted to the developing
countries should be strengthened and expanded, in each of the areas of negotiation.
G/AG/NG/W/130 (Proposal by Nigeria)
As Nigeria says, what was done in the Urugua y Round in connection with agricultural trade
will give us the necessary basis for these negotiations, so that we will be able to achieve the aims set
out in the Preamble and in Article 20 of the AoA, namely fair and market-oriented trade, eliminating
trade distortions and the existing imbalance in agricultural trade, taking account of the concerns of the
developing countries.
Colombia, as a member of the Cairns Group, agre es with many of Nigeria's statements in its
proposal.  Worth emphasizing is Nigeria's refere nce to exemption from the implementation of the
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures for all those measures permitted for developing
countries.  Otherwise, it would be pointless to advocate special and differential treatment.
G/AG/NG/W/135 (Proposal by the Congo)
Colombia shares many of the views expressed by the Congo on each of the agricultural
negotiations topics and especially those relating to the very special conditions of the developing
countries, all of which aim at liberalization of agricultural trade.  In the negotiations on the various
topics, we shall be making more specific comments on them.
G/AG/NG/W/136  (Proposal by Kenya)
We agree with Kenya that one of the basic objectives of these negotiations must be
substantially improved market access for products of special interest to the developing countries, asset out in the Preamble to the Agreement on Agriculture, which we hope will turn out to be a reality in
these negotiations.  Products of interest to the developing countries should mean not merely current
export products but also those potential products which it has not been possible to develop but show
high growth in demand in the developed countries, which run into tariff escalation or peaks.
We agree with Kenya that greater market access commitments should be conditional upon the
elimination of subsidies that distort agricultural trade and production.  In any event, the Peace Clause
should be eliminated in order to cope with distorting subsidies by applying countervailing duties. TheG/AG/NG/W/161
Page 7
Green Box undoubtedly needs to be strengthened by measures permitted for the development of the
developing countries.
In these negotiations we should arrive at specific commitments in regard to food aid for net
food-importing countries and mechanisms to ensure technical assistance for developing countries,which are set out in the AoA and still need to be developed.
G/AG/NG/W/138  (Proposal by Mexico)
We share Mexico's analysis in the sense that the distortions in international agricultural
markets are the result of the enormous domestic and export subsidies granted by the developed
countries.  It is clear, as Mexico mentions, that the financial capacity of the most highly developedcountries makes the existing inequities in trade flow s still worse.  For this reason, the need to reform
agriculture is more compelling, as the developing countries will never be able to compete with the
treasuries of the richest economies.
As for specific topics, we share Mexico's view about the need to eliminate export subsidies.
The Cairns Group has always pressed for this and made it clear in our first proposal for these
negotiations.  Our expectation is that subsidies will be eliminated by a formula that includes a
substantial down payment by the developed countries and not under the Uruguay Round modalities,
which did not help to reduce inequalities and still less the distortions in world agricultural trade.
We agree that the developing countries have less demanding reduction or elimination
commitments or modalities than the developed countries.  For their part, state trading enterprises
should be disciplined so that their practices do not perpetuate the circumvention of export subsidy
commitments.  We are therefore cosponsoring a proposal on this matter with MERCOSUR, Chile and
Bolivia.
It seems to us unclear from Mexico's proposal in which forum export credit disciplines should
be negotiated.  In any event, Colombia prefers it to be done in this Organization.
Mexico's Peace Clause proposal is interesting and should be looked at in greater detail, but in
principle Colombia prefers the clause not to extend beyond 2003.
As to domestic support, we support the overall intention behind the Mexican proposal, but
would like to state that Amber and Blue Box support should be completely eliminated.  The Green
Box, for its part, should be reviewed.
The special and differential treatment elements suggested by Mexico are attractive.  Colombia
considers that this treatment, in addition to covering AMS reduction modalities, should incorporate
maintenance of the de minimis levels and improved Green Box measures in order to address food
security, rural development and poverty elimination issues.
In regard to market access, we consider that markets are already sufficiently distorted in order
to think about tariff reductions on a case-by-case basis.  We believe that we should be more direct and
make developing country and market access commitments conditional on the elimination of or
substantial reductions in the trade and production distorting subsidies given by the developed
countries.  Lastly, we wish to emphasize that quota administration should be as transparent as
possible, so as not to discriminate between suppliers and affect market access opportunities, especiallyfor the developing countries.
__________