September 27, 2010
Intervention by the Indonesian Delegation on Behalf of the G-33 at the Open-Ended Meeting of the Committee on Agriculture
I am taking the floor to thank the delegation of Ukraine, Costa Rica and Cuba for introducing their documents.
Regarding the Costa Rican document, JOB/AG/13, I would suppose that the G-33 would provide its appropriate response in due course. I would foresee that more will be said tomorrow, as you call for an informal meeting on SSM.
On initial examination, it appears that the paper used data and trade cases which highlight high growth rate that result in frequent triggering of SSM.
The basic argument of the Costa Rican paper has been repeatedly addressed in the G33’s documents released in the early part of the year. Our analysis and findings have shown that the “trigger level” and “3-year rolling average” will always ensure trade to grow even during the period when an SSM is invoked.
Secondly, as experienced from the use of SSG by developing countries based on FAO studies, even if the trigger is breached, the safeguard mechanism is not invoked since developing countries including Costa Rica allow imports to take place, and hence, they use the SSG only when needed, not “trigger-happy” as some suggest. The same experience should be expected in SSM. Moreover, the G33 has been amenable to limiting the product coverage that can be invoked in a given year.
Finally, the G-33 wishes to see that discussions relating to SSM refocus on the Doha mandate, that is, to aim towards the objective of establishing a simple, effective and operable SSM that “enable(s) developing countries to effectively take account of their development needs, including food security, livelihood security and rural development.”
Thank you, Mr. Chairman