Alþjóðaviðskiptastofnunin - WTO: Samningaviðræður um landbúnað.

Committee on Agriculture Special Session 24-28 February 2003

Statement by Iceland on Market Access

Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Iceland belongs to the large and growing number of Delegations in this room who are advocating the UR approach to these negotiations. We have emphasized that the principles of continuity and adaptation are crucial concerns of our in this process. Our relatively vulnerable agricultural sector must be afforded a realistic opportunity to adapt to the realities imposed by substantial reform and advancement of the long-term goals of the Agreement of Agriculture. That is the process we signed on to; that is the process we should stick with. We have also repeatedly stressed the importance of non-trade concerns and drawn attention to the different needs of individual Members in this respect. The UR approach provides the necessary flexibility for us to meet our diverse policy objectives within a framework of substantial reform and from this we do not wish to depart. Our proposal in terms of market access is an average tariff reduction of 36% with a minimum reduction of 10%.
Iceland cannot accept the application of a tariff harmonization formula for the simple reason that it in no way takes into consideration the challenges we face in maintaining a vibrant agricultural sector in our northern neck of the woods. Our production conditions are in many ways as difficult as they come and our relative economic uncompetitiveness is a pure dictate of nature.
Erosion of the flexibility we require to afford the necessary degree of tariff protection for the select few products that form the backbone of our agricultural sector could only have serious consequences, not only for our agriculture, but our society as a whole and a range of values that emanate directly or indirectly from our agricultural activities. We already import more than half our domestic food consumption in calorific terms. Contrary to what some may think, the Icelandic market is actually very open, not least to products of great significance to developing countries.
We can support many elements of the draft modalities in terms of S&D and we hope these will provide us with a sound basis for our further work. We are like many others, however, concerned about the erosion of preferences that may impact negatively on many vulnerable developing countries.
We have not envisaged or proposed the expansion of TRQs and fail to see the rationale behind this aspect of your proposal. We similarly fail to see the rationale behind the elimination of the SSG for developed countries. This should remain in place for the duration of the reform process, as stipulated by the Agreement on Agriculture. We do support clarification of the disciplines applicable to TRQ administration to increase transparency and the attainment of market access opportunities. What you have proposed here is a fair start, but further work is nevertheless required.
Finally, we'd like to flag our disappointment with the general approach of your proposal to leave some important aspects of our work for possible later resolution, after we may have agreed on the reduction targets. We see this as a package, to be agreed to in its entirety across all three pillars and suggest an approach that conforms to this view.