Ladies and gentlemen,

I hope that you have had some inspiring and interesting days here with us in Norway. Your whole experience of Norway and the impulses you have gotten from other speakers may serve as a background for my intervention. I also see it as a special honour to share my views with so many updated journalists from all parts of the world.

I want to share with you some of my thoughts regarding my role as Minister of Agriculture and Food. My main objective is that we shall have vital rural communities based upon a modern and vigorous Norwegian agriculture. I will contribute actively to ensure that this becomes more than a dream for rural Norway. We shall be poorer, both as a nation and as individuals, if we give up on this vision.

A vital countryside is thus a main target in itself to me. In fact more so than food production in itself. And why? Well, agriculture has a particular role in both maintaining and developing this vital countryside. And this is where the future lies. Future trends include tourism, Green Care and bioenergy. The common denominator here is agriculture. Neither of these can exist, nor be developed further, without agriculture. In this way, agriculture represents a forward-looking way of developing the whole country and using it to its full potential.

Having said this, I wish to emphasize that we should not encourage a static agriculture which exists independently of technical and economic development and demands for rational and efficient production. I am happy to note that this is not the case in Norway today. Norwegian agriculture is going through a considerable modernisation. Yet, Norway is not, and will never be, like the American prairie or Tuscany in Italy. Norway is river deep - mountain high, steep valley sides and narrow fjords. Winter is long and summer is short. The level of costs in Norway is among the highest in the world. Consequently, Norwegian farmers must have different economic conditions compared with their fellow farmers living in more favourable climatic conditions.

Many of the goods we buy and the foods we eat depend upon foreign trade. Countries like Norway therefore need a rules-based, stable and predictable trading system which is provided by the WTO. Norway is a strong supporter of the multilateral trading system. A weakening of this system is not in our interest. Both developed and developing countries need predictable and updated rules to govern international trade. For me it is also important to support and underline the development dimension of the Doha round. It is important, however, that every country retains a certain national room of manoeuvring. Implicitly, that the multilateral system is not based on free trade principles alone.

The agreement in Hong Kong was important for the WTO system. Progress was modest, but we agreed on some important issues, and we avoided a breakdown in the negotiations. At the end of June this year, we tried to make further progress, but with little or no result. The talks and discussions that followed in July tried once again to bridge the different interests and find a compromise solution. As we all know, this did not bear fruit, and after the talks in the G-6 group the Doha round negotiations was suspended on the 24 ^th> of July.

The Doha Development Agenda is a “single undertaking”. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Nothing is concluded until 150 countries agree. A political understanding of the level of ambition between the main players, but also other developed and developing countries, is necessary in order to achieve a final package. At this point, the prospects for a speedy conclusion of the Doha round are far away.

Agriculture and the WTO negotiation
Agricultural products are unique and some of the most essential commodities in every society. They represent food and fibre. Yet, at the same time they contribute to the viability of rural areas, to food security, to the cultural landscape, to agro-biological diversity, to land conservation and to high standards of plant, animal and public health. These additional functions of multifunctional agriculture are often referred to as non trade concerns (NTCs) in WTO. Most NTCs are unique to agriculture and have public goods characteristics that may justify government intervention. Moreover, most of these public goods can not be disassociated from the agricultural production activity itself, as they are provided jointly with, and therefore depend on, ongoing agricultural production.

I would like to underline a few of the Non Trade Concerns and explain why the Norwegian government seeks to safeguard them in the WTO setting.

First, food security for all inhabitants in Norway now and in the future is an important objective for the government.

Secondly, continued viability of rural communities is offered high priority in Norway. Viable rural areas and maintenance of human settlement in sparsely populated areas represent important qualities in this country. It is an asset both for us and also for the people of the countries visiting us.

Thirdly, there are a number of environmental benefits relating to multifunctional agriculture. These are above all linked to the agricultural landscape and biodiversity.

So, as you see domestic production of key agricultural products is of vital importance to Norway as a means of safeguarding domestic NTCs. Accordingly, every country should be granted flexibility in national policy design to foster domestic agricultural production necessary to address domestic NTCs. This should be based on each country’s production conditions and potentials, policy objectives and historical and cultural background. Production conditions vary between and within countries. In order to be able to sustain domestic production required to properly address NTCs, countries with a comparative disadvantage need to be allowed to have recurrence to a policy measure combination that includes, to a large extent, the use of production-related policy measures.

The Doha Round - status and way forward
The Doha round is now suspended indefinitely. At this time it is not possible to say what the next steps will be. The Norwegian government is prepared to cooperate with likeminded countries in G10 to support the efforts to put the negotiations back on track again. When the negotiations resume, Norway’s needs and interests will be much as the same as today. From the Norwegian side we try as best as we can to reach a result, but it must also be a result we can live with.

Why, then, is it so difficult to get a result in these negotiations? As I see it, the main reason is that agriculture is so sensitive in many countries. Several billion people have their income, albeit a small one, from the agricultural sector. Importing countries therefore need a safety net which includes tariff, sensitive products, special products and different safeguards for their production. At the same time, exporting countries would like to reduce those measures for getting better market access. We need to strike the right balance between those two interests. Decision making in WTO is based upon by consensus. In that way, every member has veto power. That illustrates that we need to find solutions which all Members can live with.

The negotiation is organised in groups of countries with matching interests. Norway is part of G10. This group consists of for instance Japan, Switzerland, Korea, Taiwan, Iceland etc. Other Members are part of other groups such as G20, G33 and the Cairns group. All these groups coordinate their positions and are represented in smaller groups, like “green room” meetings.

G10 and Norwegian positions
The most important pillars for G10 and Norway are market access and domestic support.

In market access, all our key agricultural products have high tariffs. Based on the framework paper from July 2004, those products will be placed in the upper band. The high tariffs also reflect the cost of producing agricultural products under our climatic and topographic constraints. Consequently they will all be subject to the largest cuts. Under any scenario Norway will contribute significantly more than the major players.

In domestic support we need to have a certain amount of amber, blue and green box support simply in order to be able to continue with agriculture in all parts of our country. Food security, rural viability and the landscape are important for us. Domestic support is necessary for maintaining those Non Trade Concerns. I would also like to underline that almost all domestic support in Norway goes to the production of agricultural products for the home market.

Trade in agricultural products holds potential for some developing countries. Norway is one of the few countries that have fully opened their markets to all least developed countries (LDCs). However, imports from LDCs have not increased significantly since we did this in 2002. This clearly demonstrates the need for capacity building in LDCs if they are to benefit fully from trade preferences. In this context, I would also like to point out, as has been underlined by the ACP-countries themselves in the WTO negotiation, that continuing of long standing preferences is important for many developing countries.

Prospects ahead
In concluding, I hope we will be able to find solutions in the negotiation. In doing so, we will provide more stable conditions for the agricultural sector. Hopefully the farmers in my country and other countries in the world will look forward and continue farming, based on appropriate measures to produce:

• products of high standards for the consumers,
• food security for our inhabitants
• a vital countryside and a beautiful landscape
• and an environmentally sustainable agriculture.

Thank you.