WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/126
21 February 2001
(01-0868)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
FIFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
5-7 FEBRUARY 2001
Statements by Thailand
G/AG/NG/W/90 (Proposal by the EC)
Thailand welcomes the EC's comprehensive proposal, which is based on Article 20 of the
Agreement on Agriculture.  However we noted with disappointment that the proposal has not
recognized enough the long-term objective of substantial progressive reductions in support and
protection as the word "substantial" is often avoided in its reference to the Article.
Our experience from implementing the reduction commitments suggests that world
agricultural trade still remains highly protected and distorted.  In  1999 alone it is estimated that
OECD countries provided subsidies to their farmers amounting to US$ 361 billions, of which
US$ 114.5 billion is provided by the EC alone.  Further commitments are therefore necessary to
achieve the long-term objectives previously mentioned.
On export competition, we agree with the EC that officially supported export credits in
agriculture should be subjected to rules and disciplines to be negotiated in the WTO and that food aids
should be given in fully grant forms.  However, these should not be pre-conditions for negotiating
further reduction in export subsidies.  And we do believe that all forms of export subsidies should be
eliminated and prohibited at the end.
On domestic support, Blue Box measures ar e trade distorting but are exempted from
reduction commitments.  As a result, more and more subsidies have been circumvented to Blue Box
measures.  This is one of the reasons why the overall amount of trade distorting subsidies could not be
brought down as expected from reduction commitm ents.  While we agree that Green Box measures
should be reviewed to address non-trade concerns of developing countries, we are of the view thatanimal welfare should be dealt with outside the framework of the Agreement on Agriculture.
On market access, the proposal seems to ignore the need to reduce and to eliminate tariff
peaks and tariff escalation especially on tropical products, which are of interests to the developing
countries and are vital to the development of their food-processing sector.  We also have the viewsthat geographical indications and labeling should be more appropriately discussed under TRIPs and
TBT since they are not within the scope of the Agriculture Agreement.  The current special safeguard
should be preserved only for developing countries to assist their agricultural reform efforts and
countering subsidized competition.
On non-trade concerns, we think that the negotiations should proceed with the aim of
liberalizing agricultural trade.  Non-trade concerns are not exclusively linked to Agriculture and can
be addressed through specific and targeted policies, which are not trade-distortive.  Moreover, the
Green Box already gives ample room for countries to address their non-trade concerns, through
measures which have no, or at most minimal trade di storting effects.  And there are other agreements
like SPS that already address non-trade concerns on food safety.G/AG/NG/W/126
Page 2
On S&D, we support the proposal to exempt developing countries from reduction
commitments of their non-trade concerns on food security, rural development and poverty
alleviations through Green Box and to provide food aid in fully grant form.  The EC initiative on
"everything but arms" to the least developed countries is praiseworthy and should set a good example
for others to follow.  But we do not agree with the proposal of trying to divide the developingcountries into different classes not recognized by this organization.
On the peace clause, we do not believe it is beneficial to world agricultural trade to maintain
Article 13 of the Agriculture Agreement when world agricultural markets are still heavily subsidized
and highly protected as at present.
Finally, we very much hope that the EC as indicated in the proposal, as one of the largest
exporters in the world would one day become one of the largest and non-subsidized exporters in the
world through this reform process.
G/AG/NG/W/91  (Proposal by Japan)
Thailand shares the same sentiments as our colleagues in the Cairns Group in questioning
Japan's readiness to engage in agricultural negotiations mandated by Article 20 of the Agreement on
Agriculture.  Although Thailand is a supporter for a New Round, we strongly object to hold hostage
the mandated negotiations on agriculture to a New Round.
The mandated agriculture negotiations should proceed with the aim of liberalizing agricultural
trade and establishing a fair and market based system.  There is no justification for multifunctionality
to be used in maintaining subsidies and protection in agriculture.  It is not fair for the proposal not to
allow competitive exporting countries to benefit from the international agricultural market when
Japan has already reaped the benefits from the liberalization of the other sectors where Japan hascompetitiveness.  Agriculture is one of the few sectors in which developing countries have a
comparative advantage and have substantial interests.
Food security is an issue which is most talked about in connection with the multifunctionality
of agriculture.  In this context, the role of trade in achieving food security is recognized by world
leaders assembled at the World Food Summit (1996) in Rome, who stated in their Plan of Action that:
"Trade is a key element in achieving world food security.  Trade generates effective utilization ofresources and stimulates economic growth, which is critical to improving food security.  Trade allows
food consumption to exceed food production, helps to reduce production and consumption
fluctuations and relieves part of the burden of stocktaking.  It has a major bearing on access to food
through its positive effect on economic growth, income and employment".
Thailand welcomes the S&D parts of the proposal on the flexibility given to developing
countries with the objective to ensure their food security.  However, we noted with disappointment
that the proposal does not mention anywhere providing greater and effective market access to
agricultural products from developing countries to help them cushion the impact of the reform
process.
We appreciate the proposal on export subsidies even though it is less ambitious. We also
welcome the proposal on export restriction and export taxes.  However, rules and disciplines on
export restriction and export taxes must also take into account in parallel the reduction and
elimination of tariff peaks and tariff escalation that prevent developing countries establishing theirfood processing industry.
Blue Box measures are trade distorting but are exempted from reduction commitments.  And
they benefit only a few Member countries.  Therefore, we encourage Japan to review its position of
maintaining the Blue Box.G/AG/NG/W/126
Page 3
On a new safeguard mechanism for seasonal and perishable agricultural products, we are of
the view that the Agriculture Agreement has already provided special safeguard for sensitive
agricultural products under tariff quotas and other agricultural products can resort to normal safeguard
measure under Agreement on Safeguard.  Therefore, there is no reason to create an additional
mechanism specifically for those products.  In addition we are of opinion that the issues of food safetyand consumer concerns should be discussed under SPS and TBT agreements rather than under the
Agreement on Agriculture.
Thailand very much hopes that Japan would assume its leadership as an economic power to
show its willingness to engage in further liberaliz ation in agricultural trade and to provide greater
market access to developing countries whose competitiveness and substantial interests lay with
agriculture.
G/AG/NG/W/94  (Proposal by Switzerland)
Thailand would like to share the same disappointment with our previous colleagues on
Switzerland's proposal that it puts conditionality on making reduction commitments on support andprotection.  If all Member countries are to follow the same path, we cannot expect progress in the
negotiations.  The negotiations should proceed w ith the aim of liberalizing agricultural trade and
establishing a fair and market based system.
While Thailand recognized that non-trade concerns apply to all societies, we are of the view
that non-trade concerns of developed and developing countries are different.  To developing countries,
non-trade concerns involve the survival and subs istence living standard of poor farmers, but to
developed countries, non-trade concerns involve more  luxurious concerns like high standard of food
safety, landscaping, historical features, animal welfare, etc.  We believe that those developed
countries should attain those policy objectives at their own expense and not at the expense of poorfarmers in the developing countries.  Moreover, Annex 2 (Green Box) of the Agreement on
Agriculture already gives room for Members to address legitimate non-trade concerns by providing
for public stockholding for food security, domestic food aid, payment for relief from natural disaster
etc.  There is no justification for multifunctionality to be used in maintaining subsidies and protection
in agriculture
We totally agreed with Switzerland that non-trade concerns, unlike special and differential
treatment to developing countries, are neither transitional nor linked to stages of development.  In our
view, the described non-trade concerns are the perm anent special and differential treatment for the
developed countries.   With respect to reduction commitments on export subsidies, Switzerland has
emphasized the need for special and differential treatment of certain WTO members ;  we assume
that "certain WTO members" means only developing countries.
As regard to the negotiations on market access, we have a view in reversal to the Swiss
proposal that to achieve the long-term objective of substantial progressive reduction in agricultural
support and protection, it should firstly aim at substantially and progressively reducing tariffs by a
reduction formula across the board and then supplemented, if necessary, by a request/offer method.
In addition, we think that to develop a formula for turning tariff quotas to tariffs only may not
be necessary because commitments in the schedule could be modified according to the Article 28 of
GATT 1994.
Finally, we hope that Switzerland would continue to engage in the negotiation in constructive
ways to achieve the main objective as mandated by Article 20 of the Agreement.G/AG/NG/W/126
Page 4
G/AG/NG/W/102  (Proposal by India)
Thailand would like to welcome India's proposal on agriculture.  We appreciate and share the
views of India that agricultural practices in most developing countries are quite different from those of
the developed countries as they are labour intensive, small-scale, low productivity and theirgovernments cannot afford subsidies.  Those poor producers have to encounter and compete both in
the domestic and international markets with the OE CD producers who received subsidies from their
respective governments averaging US$11,000 per person.  The scenario does not seem to be much of
an even playing field for developing countries.
With respect to food security, we agree with India to continue the existing Annex 2, except
paragraph 5, 6 and 7, as the integral part of food se curity measures of developing countries.  However,
we think that to exempt developing countries from minimum market access would probably send a
wrong signal of the willingness of developing countries to take agricultural trade reforms as well.
And we also support the addition to Article 6.2 of the Agreement to exclude product-specific support
given to low income and resource poor farmers from AMS calculation.
We are very pleased that India shares the views of the Cairns Group on the down payment to
be made by the developed countries on both domestic support and export subsidies, which have the
most trade distorting effects in order to even th e playing field between the developed and developing
countries.  We also concur with India that rolling over of unused export subsidies should not be
allowed
Moreover, we have common views in retaining the Article 6.2 on investment subsidies and
agricultural input subsidies, and Article 9.4 on marketing and transportation cost as special and
differential treatment for developing countries.
However, we are of different views with the proposal that allows credit for negative product
specific support to allow for additional AMS.  Besides, we foresee it is necessary to maintain
de minimis  provision for developing countries to cushion their farmers against subsidized competition
and to attain the development of their agricultural sector.
In conclusion, we wish to commend the proposal of India that shows its willingness to
seriously engage in the continuation of the agricultural reform process in a very constructive manner.We very much hope for further discussions in detail to find more common grounds with India in
agriculture negotiations in the near future.
__________