WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/W/52
10 October 2000
(00-4139)
Committee on Agriculture
Special SessionOriginal:  English
THIRD SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
28-29 SEPTEMBER 2000
Statement by Mauritius
European Communities proposal on Food Quality –
Improvement of market access opportunities (G/AG/NG/W/18)
Mauritius welcomes the paper on food quality submitted by the EC as it constitutes a useful
contribution in respect of issues which are quite pertinent to our negotiations.  As there are fairlycomplex and far reaching issues, Mauritius would limit itself to preliminary comments and would
revert thereon at subsequent meetings.
Not all countries have the same agricultural potential and this fact was recognised by the FAO
World Food Summit which refers to high and low potential areas.  Moreover, some countries can onaccount of huge land expanses benefit from economies of scale with consequential low production
costs.  Other countries, most of the developing  countries, the LDCs and the SIDS are not endowed
with such natural advantages.
In such circumstances, the low potential countries have to rely on preferential trade and niche
market strategies.  For the latter to be effective, transparent, and predictable food quality provisions as
well as an adequate system of recognition of geographical indications are essential.
It is from this perspective that we view the issues raised in the paper.
Cairns Group negotiating proposal on domestic support (G/AG/NG/W/35)
Mauritius has taken note of the proposal of the Cairns Group on domestic support.  We are
tendering a certain number of comments thereon but at the very outset we would like to point out that
such comments are without prejudice to our repeated stance to the effect that we should exhaust the
consideration of paragraphs (a) to (c) of Article 20 before proceeding with the examination of issuesthat fall within the ambit of paragraph (d) of this Article.
When intervening on Cairns Group Paper G/AG/NG/W/11, Mauritius explained that this
paper had only made token reference to S&D treatment for developing countries.  This time in
G/AG/NG/W/35, the Cairns  Group recognises the need for enhanced S&D treatment provisions to
address the agricultural and rural development needs of developing and least developed countries and
increase the living standards of their populations.
We welcome the wording used as we have always advocated that agriculture is not only
restricted to the economic sphere but that it should be called upon to fulfil the role devolved upon it
by, inter alia , the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights of 1966 and the
1996 FAO World Food summit.  Reference to the need to address agricultural and rural developmentG/AG/NG/W/52
Page 2
concerns and increase the living standards of populations implicitly acknowledges the concepts of
diversity in agricultural systems and the existence of high and low potential areas.
Harmonious agricultural and rural development however cannot be achieved by S&D
measures only but require other instruments.  This point is not expanded in the context of this paper asit will be presented by Mauritius in other papers and other meetings.
Regarding the various proposals of the paper, we would like to make certain observations:(i) In G/AG/NG/W/14, several developing countries made a case for a due restraint
clause as an S&D measure for developing countries.  Mauritius had pleaded for the
maintenance of such a clause so as to provide a predictable and legal framework forall countries but with a broader scope so as to cater for the needs of the developing
countries.  My country would not be able to make any further commitments if there is
no due restraint clause.  The Cairns Group in the first paragraph devoted to proposals
avers that the protection currently afforded to certain measures by the Due Restraint
Clause will no longer apply.
(ii) While many developing countries advocate that certain products of a very sensitive
nature should not be disciplined under the Agreement on Agriculture, the Cairns
Group in its fourth proposal refers to reductions for all agricultural products
seemingly ruling out the possibility of developing countries excluding certainsensitive products from domestic support commitments.  We would at a later stage
comment on the diseggregated approach.
(iii) Many developing countries have requested higher levels in respect of de minimis
support, the Cairns Group on its part refers to " preserving the minimis provisions ".  Is
it the principle and the level or is it the principle with however modifications in
respect of the level.
On those three issues, the proposals of the Cairns Group appear to be in contradiction with the
intent it expresses on S&D measures and fall shor t of the expectations and requirements of the
developing countries.  Maybe the presenter of the paper could enlighten us on these three issues.
The point made by the Cairns Group to the effect that there should be enhanced Green Box
provisions to address concerns regarding food security, rural development and eradication of poverty
is welcomed.  However, certain factors limit the use of the Green Box by most developing countries
and in particular the small and vulnerable ones, the main constraint being the unavailability of
financial resources as the use of the Green Box measures imply significant budgetary outlays.  Wenotice a consensus on the need to implement those measures incorporated in Annex II.  For developed
countries, budgetary resources are available, for SIDS export earnings are vital.  Allow me in this
regard Mr Chairman to quote paragraph 28 of Commitment Three of the FAO Rome Summit
"SIDS face the threat of land loss and erosion due to climate changes and sea level rises and
have particular needs for their overall sustai nable development, improvements in trade,
transportation, communication, human resources, stabilization of income and higher export
earnings will increase food security in these countries ."
Regarding international cooperation, there is a saying Mr Chairman to the effect that "once
bitten twice shy" .   Having faced the non-response of other international institutions in the context of
the implementation of the Marrakesh Decision on LDCs and NFIDCs, we are rather weary of the term
"promotion of international cooperation" .G/AG/NG/W/52
Page 3
Let me also say that agricultural and rural development and food security concerns are not to
our mind a " technical assistance " issue.  Yes, we always appreciate technical assistance, agricultural
and rural development and food security however are primarily linked to the maintenance of those
accompanying measures that ensure the continued existence of the essential agricultural sector in low
potential countries which rely only on one or two commodities on account of a host of reasons whichwe have described to the Committee on many occasions in the past.  We in fact need the maintenance
of meaningful instruments and the introduction of adequate ones and not a theoretical approach that
obeys to the "one size fits all" view.
As in G/AG/NG/W/11, the Cair ns Group advocates the elimination of a given form of
support.  We would like to point out, as other countries have done, that such a contention is not in
conformity with the letter and spirit of Article 20.
Our comments on this paper do not stand alone but have to be read in conjunction with those
made in respect of G/AG/NG/W/13, 14, 15 and 16.
European Communities proposal on export competition (G/AG/NG/W/34)
Mauritius would like to commend the EU for the comprehensive paper submitted.
The intervention of Mauritius is made from the perspective of a Small Island Developing
State which is also a net food-importing developing country.  Our remarks of today are preliminary
and we would revert to this paper in future sessions.
In earlier meetings of the Special Session we have made the point that export subsidies and
export credits facilitate the food procurement capacity of net food importing developing countries andLDCs.
In this regard we would like to bring to th e attention of the Special Session the following
comment from a background note by the UNCTAD Secretariat (document TD/B/COM.1/EM.11/2 on
the Impact of the reform process in agriculture on LDCs and net food importing developing countries
and ways to address their concerns in multilateral trade negotiations of 20 June 2000) where at
paragraph 25 it is stated that:
"Despite a massive fall in agricultural pr ices between 1997 and 1998, food import bills did
not fall to the same extent, owing partly to an increase in export volume, partly to a fall in the
available level of food aid, and partly to a decrease in price concessions and discounts
 LDCs
and NFIDCs used to receive from developed countries" .
The concessions and discounts being export subsidies and export credits.
Various reports of the FAO, quoted by Mauritius and other countries in the Special Session,
have also referred to the negative impact on LDCs and NFIDCs of declining levels of food aid andexport subsidies.
Against this background of declining support to LDCs and NFIDCs we have to express our
concern to the effect that there has been no progress regarding the Decision on measures concerning
the possible negative effects of the reform programme on LDCs and NFIDCs despite concrete proofof the negative impact of the Reform Programme.
We would therefore on the basis of the above invite a cautious and pragmatic approach in the
negotiations leading to a review of export credits and subsidies so that the already difficult situation of
LDCs and NFIDCs is not further exacerbated.  Regard ing the disciplining of export credits, we fullyG/AG/NG/W/52
Page 4
support the proposal of Trinidad and Tobago and Brazil that an agreement on the credits has to be
negotiated in the WTO framework as oppos ed to an OECD driven agreement.
In our intervention on W/15 we asked the question as to whether the STE issue should be
dealt with under the Agreement on Agriculture or by the Committee on STEs.  We would be gratefulif the Chair or the Secretariat could enlighten us.
Be it as it may, we would nevertheless like to point out the following:
(i) While STEs have to act according to national legislations and are subject to national and
multilateral transparency criteria, there are no such rules in respect of other concerns
which trade in commodities.
(ii) STEs whether as single desk buyers or sellers can be very important in the case of SIDS
and LDCs where they enable these countries to mitigate the negative impact of the
numerous inherent constraints which beset these countries.
Regarding food aid, the various points made have been noted, however, it would be
appropriate for concrete proposals to be made so that the LDCs and NFIDCs can analyse them and
submit their views.  As in the case of export credits,  we would prefer that negotiations be held in the
framework of the WTO rather than in the framework of the Food Aid Convention.
_________