Landbúnaðarnefnd WTO - Ræða ráðuneytisstjóra landbúanðarráðuneytisins Seventh Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture 26-28 March 2001 Statement by Iceland
Seventh Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture
26-28 March 2001
Statement by Iceland
Mr. Chairman.
Iceland welcomes this opportunity to take stock of where we stand in our ongoing negotiations on furthering the reform process in agriculture. A lot of work has been put into these negotiations to date and we would like to congratulate you and the Secretariat for your able guidance and handling of what is inherently a complex and sensitive process.
A large number of negotiating proposals, many of these markedly different in scope and substance, has been put forward by Members and the Secretariat has also produced very useful background documentation to shed light on the task at hand. While there is a clear need to clarify and consolidate the proposals on the table and set out the different options with respect to their practical operation, we feel that we have now advanced sufficiently to be able to chart the course ahead and move towards the actual negotiating table. In light of the fact that its interests have in all significant aspects been covered by proposals submitted by some other Members (the EC, Switzerland and Norway to name but a few) Iceland has elected not to submit its own comprehensive negotiating proposal. However, this should by no means be understood as indifference on our part.
In fact, in making a few brief observations with respect to where we currently stand I would like to begin by reiterating Iceland's firm commitment to the Agreement on Agriculture and in particular Article 20 on the continuation of the reform process. This article sets out the parameters for our ongoing negotiations in light of the objective of substantial progressive reductions in support and protection resulting in fundamental reform. Iceland subscribes to this objective and does not intend to shy away from its contractual obligations. What needs nevertheless to be emphasized - as this seems to have been lost in some of the proposals we have had under consideration - is that this objective is of a long-term nature and our ongoing negotiations are but a step in its direction. We will not make the progress we desire in one fell swoop and the Agreement on Agriculture does not envisage that this should be otherwise.
It needs to be kept in mind that Members' interests and sensitivities are as diverse as they are many and that the key to success lies in striking the right balance between these different interests. Contrary to what some have said, to seek that kind of compromise in no way constitutes lack of ambition. Our view is that a broad-based round of trade negotiations would provide us with the platform to attain the aspirations of all and we are willing to work constructively with other Members towards that end.
Looking at the different elements of Article 20 we can say that we are reasonably pleased with the experience of implementation so far, which we feel underscores that the framework and instruments established by the WTO Agreements are appropriate and functional. We should direct our efforts towards a fine-tuning of the existing framework and disciplines rather than rediscovery of the wheel. Much more needs to be done to assist LDCs to reap the benefits of trade liberalization and the right instruments have to be developed for this to materialize. Certainly NTCs and SDT should be addressed as horizontal issues integral to each of the Agriculture Agreement's three pillars. A sufficiently flexible approach is required to reflect the specific situation existing in each Member country.
The raison d'être of Icelandic agriculture remains to provide the population with a secure supply of safe, quality food, simultaneously with a range of public goods to which we attach great importance. The value of maintaining a vibrant agriculture sector even in the face of adverse production conditions is not least driven home by the crises experienced of late by some of our fellow Europeans. Iceland will continue to place emphasis on sound production methods, animal welfare and food security and safety in our ongoing negotiations and the need for us to retain the appropriate instruments for these issues to be addressed meaningfully, whether in terms of market access or domestic support.
On market access and tariff reductions, we would subscribe to a flexible formula approach in our negotiations. There is certainly scope to improve disciplines governing tariff quotas and transparency of their administration. On domestic support we feel we should take a realistic approach, taking into account the need to address NTCs as appropriate for each country in targeted, transparent and minimally trade-distorting ways. However, Iceland holds that production-linked support may be needed in some instances to achieve non-trade objectives and that green box measures may not in all cases suffice. In general we are of the view that the rules and disciplines applying to the green and blue boxes should be maintained if the AMS is to be reduced. Inflation adjustment of domestic support is an issue to which we attach great importance.
On export competition, we feel this should be addressed in rigorous and comprehensive fashion, not simply in terms of export subsidies. When it comes to such subsidies, and given the right set of circumstances, Iceland is perfectly willing to entertain the notion of their elimination.