Alþjóðaviðskiptastofnunin - WTO: Samningaviðræður um landbúnað. Committee on Agriculture - Informal Special Session - 23-25 September 2002 Statements by Iceland
Committee on Agriculture
Informal Special Session
23-25 September 2002
Statements by Iceland
Green Box
One should begin by pointing out the interlinkages between what may be done in the blue and amber boxes on the one hand and in the green box on the other. If blue and amber are to be subjected to the kinds of pressures some Delegations have been pushing for, a substantial widening of the Green Box would seem to be warranted.
But all things being equal, my Delegation favours the maintenance of the Green Box, which has proven itself to be a crucial instrument to the reform process. While it does not in and of itself suffice to meet all our policy objectives, including those relating to non-trade concerns, we generally favour the retention of the Green Box under the same principles and criteria laid down in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
Many of us no doubt feel that certain improvements could be made, but while there may be scope for some minor adjustments and clarifications, we would hold that the most practical way forward would be to stick with the basic structure and disciplines we have at present. We fear that any radical departure therefrom would run the risk of unbalancing the process underway among the membership and possibly serve to unsettle ongoing domestic processes.
Green Box measures are by their very definition non- or minimally trade distorting. We thus see no legitimate basis, need or even sense in placing a cap on Green Box schemes or subjecting them to reduction commitments. Concerns with respect to Green Box compliance and integrity can and should be addressed through other means.
My Delegation places great emphasis on ensuring sufficient flexibility in the framework we operate under for individual member governments to pursue legitimate policy objectives in favour of their agricultural sectors, producers and consumers and indeed populations as a whole, alongside the process of reform we are seeking to elaborate. Maintaining flexibility in the Green Box is of course a key concern in this respect.
Blue Box
Iceland is not a Blue Box user at present but is not unlikely to become one as we endeavour to elaborate future support programmes within the framework of continued reform.
Agriculture in Iceland will in our view always have to rely on production-related support to a certain extent, given in many ways the disadvantaged environment in which it takes place.
We see the Blue Box as part of a carefully negotiated and reasonably balanced whole, represented by the results of the Uruguay Round, which has to remain in context and equilibrium.
In our ongoing reform process, the Blue Box has given members the opportunity to move away from more trade-distorting policies, such as payments linked to output, to less distorting ones that may serve to limit production according to Blue Box criteria. We thus see the Blue Box as essential to continuation of the reform process and support its maintenance under present disciplines, without capping payments.
Amber Box
Specificity of futher commitments & base levels
My Delegation wishes to align itself with those who have spoken in favour of maintaining the total AMS as opposed to disaggregating it to a product-specific commitment level.
We have a carefully negotiated framework from the Uruguay Round from which to continue the reform process and we do not see much merit in departing from this structure. We would agree with those Delegations who have pointed out theat product-specific commitments could constitute and obstacle to the attainment of our policy objectives and the reform of our agricultural sectors. We have stressed throughout our discussions that agriculture in Iceland will in our view always have to rely on amber support to a certain degree. We thus wish to preserve the flexibility offered by the aggregate measurement so as to safeguard the viability of our agricultural sector throughout the reform process.
In our view, the base level from which to depart towards any further commitments should the the final UR bound levels of 1 January 2000.
Calculation methodology
Iceland is in favour of maintaining the current calculation method of he AMS and sees no merit in modifying this in any fundamental way. We have, however, seen our domestic support commitment being eroded by inflation and currency devaluation over the implementation period and this places us very much in an unfair situation. How we factor such developments into the AMS calculation is something we believe merits serious consideration in our negotiations.
Reduction method/target for further commitments
I wish to echo that there is a serious need for more realisic approaches than we have hitherto seen that take the interests of the full membership into account. In our view, a Uruguay Round formula is probably the best way to move forward. Again, we have a standard and a structure from which to depart; let's not change the rules of the game halfway through.