WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/176
11 April 2001
(01-1830)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
SIXTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
22-23 MARCH 2001
Statements by India
G/AG/NG/W/102  (Proposal by India – concluding statement) 1. On behalf of the Indian delegation, I would like to put on record its deep appreciation of the
constructive observations made by various national delegations on India's proposals.
2. It is instructive to recall that the Agreemen t on Agriculture had its origin in the problems
associated with market surpluses in a few developed countries while it is the spectre of food deficit
which dominated public policy-making in most of the developing countries.
3. The vulnerability of income entitlements of the majority of their population in our countries
stems from the uncertainties of their resource-starved agriculture sector.  Any attempt toward hurriedand unguarded integration of their economic structures with the segments of the global economy
having access to high levels of institutionalized support and subsidies, is feared to pose a serious
threat to the food security and livelihood of their farming communities.  We are indeed happy that
many delegations across the development divide have appreciated our concerns for food and
livelihood security and the need for flexibility in St ate interventions in the developing world to free
their peoples from dehumanising poverty and achieve their socio-economic priorities.  Fear has
gripped farmers in developing countries that unilateral liberalization may displace them from thedomestic market, thereby exacerbating poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition.  On the other hand
we find markets in developed countries closed to ou r exports if not from high tariff walls then from
still higher non-tariff walls.
4. In the light of comments made on our proposal, I would like to reiterate the importance in
principle, of maintaining self reliance in food production for countries with a large population such as
India.
5. A view has been expressed by some delegations that India's proposals are not specific enough
on reciprocity.  I wish there was a scope for reciprocity.  While enough has already been said aboutthe export subsidies, and domestic support in general and Blue Box in particular, which are
maintained only by developed countries, there are also finer elements of inequity in the Agreement
which I would like to refer to.  Under Article 7.2 of the Agreement, only the major subsidisers of
agriculture have the flexibility of targeting high domestic support to their sensitive products but those
whose AMS is below de minimis  levels can not enjoy such facilities and have to conform to de
minimis  levels for each product.  I wish to state that the credibility of the reform process, to a large
extent will depend on how far the developed countries will be able to reduce such imbalances and
inequities.  The mandated negotiations should be seen as redressing those imbalances rather than
seeking reciprocity from developing countries.
6. I would also like to react to many comments made on our proposal to link negotiations on
market access to domestic support and export competition.  I would unequivocally say that to view
market access in isolation is not acceptable to us.  Market access is a function of domestic support andG/AG/NG/W/176
Page 2
export competition policies pursued by various countries.  High levels of domestic support and export
subsidies adversely affects the ability of developing countries in exporting products to those countries
and also in the third country markets.  Similarly to protect our farmers from unfair competition, we
are not able to determine the levels of tariffs required to do so till we know very clearly what are the
commitments made by high subsidizers in respect of domestic support and export subsidies.
7. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the responses to our written submissions have
convinced my delegation that there is enough commonality in our collective perception of what needs
to be done to move forward in our quest for esta blishing a level playing field in the international
agricultural trade regime.
G/AG/NG/W/101  (Proposal by Norway)
We thank Norway for their comprehensive proposal specially for recognizing the challenges
faced by the developing countries and the need for adequate flexibility in their policy designs to foster
domestic agricultural production.  Norway's proposals on Special and Differential Treatment fordeveloping countries are quite realistic and we would once again thank them for their understanding.
Norway has made another attractive proposal that AMS should be divided into two
categories: one in which AMS would be for products destined for domestic markets and the second
would consist of support for export-oriented produ ction.  We look forward to working with Norway
on the methods of operationalizing this concept.
We also appreciate Norway's proposal on disciplining export competition measures.  Having
said that, I would like to point out that Norway's  proposals contain some strategies for maintaining
trade-distorting high domestic support within agricultural sectors.  For instance, the flexibilitiesproposed by Norway for pursuing their domestic support policies, including continuation of Blue Box
as also of the Peace Clause, are only indicative of their desire to continue and perpetuate the trade
distortions which exist in global agricultural trade.  We wish to point out that these distortions cause
more problems for developing countries than can be compensated through the special and differential
packages.
G/AG/NG/W/105  (Proposal by Morocco)
We thank Morocco for a very useful proposal that has succinctly brought out the special
characteristics of the agricultural sector in developing countries and the challenges faced by them.
We fully support the fundamental principles on which the proposals have been made.  The coreelements of the proposal are very similar to our proposal.  We therefore look forward to working very
closely with Morocco in the next phase of negotiations.
We are awaiting in the long-term development of an undistorted trading system.  The waiting
time seems unduly long and at times frustrating.  To tide over this seemingly unending phase,Morocco has clearly enunciated the need for identifying specific tools for use by developing countries
to compensate for dumping currently faced by th em.  We fully share this view and would like to
contribute extensively on this specific proposal in the next phase.
G/AG/NG/W/106  (Proposal by Turkey)
We thank Turkey for a comprehensive proposal.  It points out that the credibility of the
reform process will depend on how far the developed countries are prepared to reduce the imbalances
and inequities in their agriculture sector.G/AG/NG/W/176
Page 3
Turkey's proposal on Market Access is that for some key agricultural products, developing
countries should be exempted from reduction commitments.  This idea is similar to India's proposal
on food security box.
We share Turkey's views that for developed countries the de minimis  clause is meaningless, in
the context of already high domestic support and can therefore be eliminated.
We also support Turkey's proposals that for developing countries, de minimis  should be
applied on an aggregate basis and not on a product-specific basis.
On non-trade concerns, we share their view that though multifunctionality in agriculture is
important, it should not be used as an escape clause by developed countries to avoid furtherliberalization in export subsidies, domestic supports and market access.
In short, we can support the Turkish Proposals in toto.
G/AG/NG/W/107  (Proposal by Egypt)
Indian delegation wishes to compliment Egypt for presenting such a constructive proposal for
accelerating the negotiating process.  The proposal is also very comprehensive focusing on all aspects
of AoA.
We are in full agreement with Egypt's call for substantial reduction in tariff and other barriers
like specific duties, reference prices, minimum entry prices, variable levies etc., in developed
countries.  We also support their position with regard to greater flexibility for developing countries to
re-evaluate and adjust their tariff scheduling to overcome negative effects of cheap subsidisedagricultural imports.
We welcome their proposal for substantial reduction by developed countries in their domestic
support as also for review of Annex 2 measures.
India supports Egypt's call for improving the S&D treatment for developing countries
including providing greater flexibility to them to subsidize their agricultural exports consistent with
Article 27 and Annex 7 of the Agreement on Subsid ies and Countervailing Measures.  We also look
forward to working with Egypt in strengthening S&D provisions in the context of the three main
pillars of trade liberalization for fuller integration of agriculture into the multilateral trading system.
G/AG/NG/W/130  (Proposal by Nigeria)
The Indian delegation wishes to compliment Nigeria for presenting such a comprehensive
proposal for taking the reform process further to improve the balance and effectiveness of AoA.
We are happy to note a great degree of commonality in the Nigerian and the Indian proposals
and look forward to working together in removing  the inequalities and inadequacies from the existing
provisions of AoA.
We find the Nigerian proposals in regard to evolving disciplines on international market
structures and competition in agriculture to ensure food security in developing countries very
interesting.  They have also made several positive proposals for bringing in greater transparency and
exchange of information regarding market operations and for building up data banks on major players
in the world food system.G/AG/NG/W/176
Page 4
India shares Nigeria's concerns on maintenance of food security in developing countries and
fully supports its concrete suggestions for action in the new negotiations.
G/AG/NG/W/136  (Proposal by Kenya)
India welcomes the proposal tabled by the distinguished delegation from Kenya.  It is
gratifying to note the similarities in the analysis of the experience of implementation of  WTO/AoA
with Indian experience as brought out in our two pr oposals.  The conclusions drawn by Kenya that the
results of implementation of AoA have been disappointing - neither helping agriculture nor food
security in developing world - are regretfully true.  We also share their optimism that the new
negotiations will take account of these concerns and restore symmetry, equity and fairness in theagricultural trade under the provisions of AoA.
India supports Kenya's proposal for the establishment of a development box which is
analogous to India's proposal on 'Food Security Box'.  We also join their call for complete elimination
of all trade-distorting subsidies by the developed countries as also for abolition of 'Peace Clause'.  Wealso look forward to discussing means of substantial improvements in market access of products of
interest to developing countries as also for f undamental re-conceptualization of the composition of
S&D provisions for achieving crucial developmental objectives in the process of trade liberalization.
G/AG/NG/W/142  (Proposal by WTO African Group)
We thank the African Group for their proposal.  We fully empathize with the analysis of their
situation as well as the remedies suggested by them to reduce distortions in the agricultural trading
system.
For the sake of brevity, suffice it to say that we can support most of their analysis and look
forward to working with them  for pursuing these objectives in the negotiating process.
__________