WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/64
28 November 2000
(00-5104)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  Spanish
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
15-17 NOVEMBER 2000
Statement by Colombia
Export Subsidies – Food Security or Food Dependency? (G/AG/NG/W/38)
This interesting discussion paper very aptly describes export subsidies for agricultural
products as a vicious circle.  Obviously, countries that do not have sufficient resources to support their
agriculture by means of production or export subsidies will never be in a position to compete in highly
distorted markets.  Hence believing that export subsidies for agricultural products in developedcountries will resolve the issue of food security in developing countries is a debatable assumption.
Indeed, as this document rightly states, the higher the level of support for agriculture in rich countries,
the greater the difficulty for poorer countries to de velop competitive agriculture – to such an extent
that it becomes impossible for them to produce enough food to meet the needs of their domestic
population, let alone seek openings in international markets.
This vicious circle ultimately raises the developing countries' bill for food imports, putting
pressure on their balance-of-payments situation.  Inability to develop competitive production on the
domestic market ends up ruling out all opportunities for export and hence the ability to finance the
purchase of food.  The problem is further aggravated when food dependency sets in and subsidies in
developed countries are coupled with other protection measures that finally prevent all access to their
markets.  The document presented by MERCOSUR, Chile, Bolivia and Costa Rica offers a goodinsight into the perverse effects of export subsidies and the imperative need for the current
negotiations to do away with such subsidies.
Note on Non-Trade Concerns (G/AG/NG/W/36)
An initial comment needs to be made about non-trade concerns relating to the problem of
food security, as set out in the documents submitted by Korea and Japan.  Food security is an issue
that includes both a political and an economic component.  As regards the latter, food security should
give developed countries no cause for non-trade concern, because their populations spend less than
20 per cent of their income on food, possess totally convertible currencies enabling them to handleany problem in their balance-of-payments situation and have no difficulty in financing food imports.
The reverse is true of developing countries.  Their currencies are not convertible, meaning
that they are always at risk of an exchange crisis;  they are exporters of primary goods, which renders
them vulnerable to instability in world prices a nd to abrupt climatic changes that destroy their
harvests;  both domestic production designed to feed their populations and exports aimed at financing
the food deficit are affected by these factors, further exacerbating their food security problems.
As a developing country Colombia also has its non-trade concerns.  We have one of the
highest rates of unemployment in the developing world, standing at 20.5 per cent, while 54 per cent ofG/AG/NG/W/64
Page 2
all households in rural areas lie below the poverty line and 29 per cent below the indigence line;  per
capita income has fallen by about 10 per cent over the past year;  and the poverty belts around major
urban centres are overcrowded with farmers who have had to abandon their plots on account of the
specific and difficult conditions prevailing in the countryside.  In view of all the above, Colombia is
seeking to develop its agriculture as a genuine means of alternative development aimed at eradicatingpoverty, improving social conditions, drawing the displaced back to the land and attracting
investment.
We therefore place high hopes in these negotiations and do not wish to see them adversely
affected by the manner in which certain developed countries are seeking to deal with their non-trade
concerns.  For us it is clear that the current Agreement on Agriculture provides a means of addressing
such concerns through the Green Box mechanism.  It would be inappropriate to resort to differentmechanisms, because then the non-trade concerns of developed countries would turn into trade
concerns for developing countries, entailing greater protection, greater distortions and greater
inequalities.
Market Access, Cairns Group (G/AG/NG/W/54)
In a move towards constructive objectives aimed at the liberalization of world agricultural
trade, including the elimination of export subsidies and distorting domestic support, the Cairns Group
is today putting forward its proposal regarding market access.  Colombia fully endorses this proposal,
because we believe that it will enable us to gain access to markets that are highly protected bycomplex tariff systems lacking in transparency, including, inter alia , tariff peaks and tariff escalation,
specific tariffs, combined tariffs and tariff quotas whose administration restricts opportunities for
market access.
The Cairns Group proposal, which is both ambitious in its goals and balanced in content, will
enable unjustified agricultural protection to be reduced to levels allowing expansion of world trade in
agricultural products.  If that objective is reached, developing countries will be the primary
beneficiaries, in view of the considerable weight of agricultural products in their basket of exports.
As the Cairns proposal clearly reveals, however, tariff reduction is not sufficient;  what needs to be
done is to put an end to tariff escalation, as this has become a means of impeding the export of highest
added-value products, limiting developing countries' export opportunities to unprocessed products
that are subject to fluctuations in world prices.
The Cairns Group proposes special and differential treatment for developing countries and
ways of gaining speedier access to markets.  Moreover, allowing application of the special
agricultural safeguard will soften the impact of the reform process on developing countries' domestic
markets, considering the risk that large stocks of subsidized products from developed countries mayend up in developing countries as a result of lower protection levels in their markets.
Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries, ASEAN (G/AG/NG/W/55)
Colombia fully endorses the proposals regarding special and differential treatment set out in
the ASEAN document.  Special and differential treatment must be applied and must allow developing
countries to reap the benefits promised as a result of the Uruguay Round.  In the Agreement on
Agriculture, as indeed in all the WTO Agreements, the provisions for special and differential
treatment have not proved sufficient for developi ng countries to form an integral part of the
multilateral trading system.  We believe that special and differential treatment is a matter not only ofproviding more flexible disciplines for developing  countries, but also of eliminating privileges in
developed countries, such as Blue Box support.  That is why ASEAN's proposal, which in our view
suitably complements the Cairns Group's proposal regarding special and differential treatmentG/AG/NG/W/64
Page 3
applicable to the three pillars of the Agreement, meets the requirements and objectives of developing
countries in these negotiations.
__________