RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/39
12 April 1999
(99-1451)
General Council
Special Session
24 March 1999
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 24 March 1999
Chairman:  Mr. J. Weekes (Canada)1
Subject discussed: Preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference
- Continuation of discussion of substantive issues arising from the
Ministerial Declaration of May 1998, including proposals by
Members, with the following suggested focus:  "Proposals on
paragraph 9(a) of the Ministerial Declaration".
1. The Chairman said it was clear that Members wanted this phase of the preparatory work to be
qualitatively different from the first and, in particular, that it should be driven primarily by proposals.
Proposals should therefore be the primary focus of the Special Sessions if Members were to move the
process forward.  Essentially, he saw the proposals that delegations would be submitting as the basic
building blocks of the Ministerial Declaration that would be drafted in the third phase of thepreparatory work. The proposals should be brief, perhaps no more than five or six lines, and be
specific and action-oriented rather than general statements of concerns.  They should also ideally be
presented in a form as near as possible to the recommendations that delegations making the proposals
would wish to see go forward to Ministers for decision.  In sum, Members should be aiming at brief,
action-oriented, recommendations on each issue of interest to them, accompanied by appropriatebackground and rationale, as necessary.  Clearly, it would also be helpful to the process if proposals
could be submitted to the Secretariat well in advance of the General Council meeting at which they
were to be tabled.  It was also worth keeping in mind that the result towards which one was working
in the preparatory process was recommendations to Ministers regarding the work programme referred
to in the Geneva Ministerial Declaration, and that this was not a phase for negotiations on theoutcome of that work programme.  Furthermore, since the formal meetings were geared primarily to
the tabling of proposals and related matters, it would be more productive not to embark on a detailed
discussion of proposals at these Special Sessions.  Instead, delegations should take the proposals
tabled at the Special Sessions, consider them, and co me back prepared to discuss them in the informal
meetings, which should involve an interactive process in which the proposals could be clarified,elaborated on, and discussed with a view to finding common ground.  He sought the cooperation of all
delegations in ensuring that work in this phase was focussed very specifically on elaborating concrete
recommendations to Ministers, and that meetings were not used to revisit issues and concerns of a
general nature that had been raised on previous occasions.  If delegations did not have specific,
                                                     
1 Mr. Weekes, former Chairman of the General Council, presided in place of the Chairman,
Mr. A. Mchumo (Tanzania).WT/GC/M/39
Page 2
action-oriented proposals to table at this or any other meeting, it would be useful to acknowledge this
fact and not continue a meeting beyond the time abso lutely necessary. All delegations were working
under severe time constraints and he urged all to help each other and the process by avoiding
repetition or declarations that were not related to specific proposals.  Finally, he proposed the
following changes to the indicative schedule of meetings:  one, that the special session scheduled for22-23 April be rescheduled for 3-4 May and, two, that the informal meeting scheduled for 3-4 May be
rescheduled for 10-11 May. Bearing in mind that Members had agreed on the need for flexibility in
the process, he trusted that these new dates would be acceptable.
2. The representative of Uruguay said that a prompt and effective solution to the problems
identified by Members in the area of implementation had to be found, as well as a procedure and
modality for conducting work on this issue.  At the intersessional General Council meeting in October
1998, his delegation had suggested a classification of the issues raised into three categories in order toassist further work and discussion.  In the ligh t of the support this suggestion had received, his
delegation had undertaken an initial classification on the basis of the checklists drawn up by the
Secretariat, and had consulted on its initiative with a number of other delegations, many of whom had
expressed support for this initiative.  His delegation was therefore circulating this text to all
delegations to hear their views on the basic idea behind this proposal, before any concrete suggestionsfor changes to the text were incorporated.
2  The issues contained in the Secretariat's checklists had
been classified into the following categories:  (i) issues that could be dealt with immediately in the
context of the current WTO bodies, and which required no negotiation, such as notifications, technical
assistance, and so on.  In these cases, the General Council should instruct the relevant bodies to deal
with these issues on a priority basis;  (ii) issues that could be dealt with within the existing agreements
as they now stood but which required some additional clarification on interpretation, such as the "best
endeavour" clauses in favour of developing countries and other S&D treatment provisions.  In these
cases, the General Council  should instruct the relevant bodies to deal with these issues on a priority
basis or, if necessary, take up some issues itself;  (iii) issues that could not be dealt with within the
current framework because they necessarily required an amendment or renegotiation of the text of therelevant agreement, such as changes proposed to de minimis margins.  These cases would have to be
introduced in new negotiations on the basis of specific proposals by Members.  He underlined that this
text had been prepared on the basis of the Secretariat's checklists and that in some cases therefore the
exact views of the Members concerned might not be fully reflected.  Uruguay was making this
contribution in the best possible spirit with a view to facilitating work and assisting in the search for a
concrete means of resolving the problems that had b een identified in regard to implementation.  The
classification suggested in the paper reflected Uruguay's approach and was not necessarily shared byall, and it was obviously subject to modification by Members.
3. The representative of Australia, referring to his Government's submission regarding the
mandated negotiations on agriculture (WT/GC/W/156), said that the commitment in Article 20 of the
Agriculture Agreement to resume negotiations by the end of 1999 to further liberalize trade in
agriculture was part of the balance of concessions and gains from the Uruguay Round.  It explicitlyrecognized that much remained to be done to libera lize agricultural trade.  It would be necessary for
Ministers at Seattle to agree on a detailed decision regarding these negotiations.  They would have to
agree on the following:  (i) The scope of a decision, building on the agreed long-term objective of a
fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system.  This should cover further, specific commitments
in market access, domestic support and export subsidies.  It might also need to address agriculturalissues that were not currently addressed in the Agreement, such as tariff quota administration.  Work
would also need to be done on special and differential treatment and the food security concerns of
least-developed and net food-importing developing countries in ways that complemented substantial
further agricultural liberalization;  (ii) The structure of the agriculture negotiations.  This would
require addressing how and in what bodies agricultural trade issues would be negotiated, and the
                                                     
2 The text was circulated as Job No. (99) 1799.WT/GC/M/39
Page 3
chairing of such bodies;  (iii) The time-frame of the negotiations.  It would be important to ensure that
the agriculture negotiations were completed expeditiously.  Some Members had noted the relevance
of the 2003 expiry date for the provisions of Article 13 of the Agreement on the "peace clause".
Deadlines within the overall time-frame should also  be specified.  It would also be important to
provide a mechanism for Members to review progress of the negotiations.  It was in this context thatAustralia had submitted the objectives agreed by  Cairns Group Ministers for the outcomes of the
agriculture negotiations -- the Cairns Group Vision Statement -- as a framework for the development
of specific proposals for the Seattle Declaration.  At the heart of this framework proposal was the
need to ensure that agriculture was placed on an equal footing with other areas of world trade.  It
would simply not be acceptable that the next agricu ltural negotiations be anything other than the last
stage in the full and equitable integration of agricu lture into the multilateral trading system so that
trade in agriculture was treated in the same way as trade in other goods.  Agriculture could not remaina poor cousin in the multilateral trading system.  All this would require a Ministerial decision in
Seattle that provided, inter alia , for (i) deep cuts to all tariffs, including mechanisms to address tariff
peaks and tariff escalation, major reductions to in-quota tariff rates, and substantial increases in tariff
rate quota volumes;  (ii) early and total elimination of export subsidies with clear rules to prevent all
forms of circumvention of export subsidy commitments during the period of transition to a completeprohibition of export subsidies;  (iii) further substantial reductions in levels of production- and trade-
distorting domestic support;  and (iv) improved disciplines on export restrictions, thereby enhancing
the contribution that the overall trade liberalization process could make to food security.  Members of
the Cairns Group expected to make further specific proposals over the following months on detailed
aspects of agriculture for the Seattle Ministerial Declaration.  The specific proposals that they wouldbe making should be seen in the context of the Cairns Group Vision Statement.
4. The representative of the Dominican Republic, speaking also on behalf of Cuba, Honduras
and Nicaragua, referring to Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement, which set out in detail the conditions
governing the use of so-called compulsory licences, said  that this Article should be considered in the
light of the Preamble and Part I of the Agreement.  The Preamble mentioned the need to "reducedistortions and impediments to international trade, and taking into account the need to promote
effective and adequate protection of intellectual property rights, and to ensure that measures and
procedures to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate
trade".  In the Preamble, Members also recognized that intellectual property rights were private rights,
as well as the underlying public policy objectives of national systems for the protection of intellectual
property, including developmental and technological objectives.  In addition, Article 7 on objectives
used concepts such as "mutual advantage", "social and economic welfare" and "balance of rights andobligations", which indicated that the recognitio n and enforcement of intellectual property rights
involved important social values.  Furthermore, Article 8 permitted Members to incorporate in their
national legislation such aspects as public health and nutrition.
5. In light of the above, it was their opinion that Article 31 did not limit the right of Members to
use compulsory licences in circumstances other than those described in that provision.  However, insome respects the provisions of this Article were not sufficiently flexible or specific and, when
applied, might be used in such a way as not to benefit, and possibly even to harm, their countries.
Accordingly, their countries believed that, in th e review of the TRIPS Agreement provided for in
Article 71:1, certain aspects of this Article should be made more specific and flexible.  They therefore
proposed that Article 31(b) include other cases in which a patent might be used without theauthorization of the right holder, with the aim of making the provision more illustrative and clear,
without making it exhaustive.  It would be desirable to include terms such as public interest, including
public health and nutrition, as already mentioned in Article 8 of the Agreement, and the protection of
the environment, recalling that the adoption of compulsory licences was recommended by Agenda 21,
approved in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.  Furthermore,  Article 31(h) should include a footnote indicating
that there should be some flexibility in applying it and that in some cases it would not be obligatory toWT/GC/M/39
Page 4
remunerate the right holder.  This rule would apply in cases in which the compulsory licence was used
by the Government of a developing or least-developed country.
6. The representative of Cuba, speaking also on behalf of the Dominican Republic, Honduras
and Nicaragua, referring to Article 23 of the TRI PS Agreement, which provided additional protection
of geographical indications exclusively for wines and spirits, recalled that at various occasions in the
TRIPS Council, some of their delegations had expressed interest in having this protection extended to
cover other products of special importance to them such as agricultural and handicraft products.
Accordingly, in the review of the TRIPS Agreemen t provided for in Article 71:1, their countries
proposed that the text of Article 23 of the Agreement be amended to include agricultural and
handicraft products.
7. On another matter concerning the TRIPS Agreement, he said that intellectual property
protection constituted a temporary exception to free competition by granting exclusive rights to anatural or legal person to exploit specific creations of the human mind.  In general, intellectual
property rights did not provide the necessary protection of the traditional knowledge, innovations and
rights of indigenous people and local communities, with the possible exception of copyright
legislation which provided a certain degree of protection for documented or recorded traditional
knowledge.  Nonetheless, the fact remained th at it was quite expensive for the possessors of
traditional knowledge to make use of the rights to which they were entitled.  At the same time,
copyright protected only the expression and not the knowledge relating to that expression.  There was
an intensive ongoing debate as to whether traditional knowledge should not be protected by other
forms of intellectual property legislation, in partic ular patent legislation.  This had been prompted
mainly by the following factors:  (i) the revival of interest in traditional knowledge as a result of the
ever-increasing marketing of genetic resources;  (i i) the growth of enterprises, mainly in the
industrialized countries, devoted to exploration in the field of biodiversity, with the traditional
knowledge of the indigenous peoples increasingly emerging as the "technical vanguard";  (iii) a
greater awareness of and growing concern about the steady disappearance of plant and animal species,
together with the destruction of their habitats, leading to the extinction of indigenous peoples and
local communities and hence to the destruction of traditional knowledge of which industry was
increasingly in need;  and (iv) the fact that the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities
were poorly defined or more or less ignored in domestic and international law.  In this latter area,
some progress had been made as a result of the inclusion of some of these rights in the 1992
Convention on Biological Diversity and, in particular , its Articles 8, 10 and 15.  All of these factors
had prompted a keen debate in both national and international  fora, which had received fresh impetus
with the entry into force of the TRIPS Agreemen t.  With the signing of this instrument, many
developing countries had found themselves obliged automatically to adopt the accelerated pace of
technological development of developed countries and, consequently, to grant protection to new
emerging technologies without traditional knowledge being recognized or protected or the guardians
of that knowledge recompensed.  In this connection, their countries considered that the TRIPS
Agreement should include provisions, consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity,indicating:  (i) that the State exercises sovereignty and inalienable rights over the biological resources
within its national territory;  (ii) the need to pr otect cultural diversity and the knowledge, innovations
and practices of the indigenous peoples and local communities with respect to the conservation and
use of biological resources;  and (iii) the obligation upon States to regulate access to biological
resources, local knowledge and their own technologies.  Accordingly, their countries requested,within the context of the review of the TRIPS Agreement provided for in Article 71:1, that a new
Article specifying the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities be included in Part I
("General provisions and basic principles") of the Agreement.
8. Speaking on behalf of Cuba, he said that the intersessional meetings had shown the
importance of implementation issues for developing countries, who had undertaken major
commitments in the Uruguay Round and had submitted to an important process of liberalization underWT/GC/M/39
Page 5
its overall framework in the understanding that it would represent a step forward for their economic
and social progress.  However, these expectations had not been met owing, inter alia , to inadequate
implementation of S&D treatment provisions.  This had been reflected in the very low market access
for products of interest to developing countries, due sometimes to the establishment of various
standards and policies, and the need to carry out adjustments in certain existing obligations, includingin some time periods for implementation that had prov ed to be insufficient.  The current financial and
economic crisis and its social repercussions made it all the more urgent to resolve all the problems
relating to implementation as soon as possible.  Due priority should therefore be given to all proposals
relating to implementation that would be made at the present meeting and on subsequent occasions.
He hoped to have positive reactions from other Members and their understanding of the high
importance of these issues in order to make progress in the preparations for the third Ministerial
Conference.  He wondered what interest the major ity of the developing countries could have in the
third Ministerial Conference if their implementational problems were not resolved.  His delegation,
together with several others, was submitting several proposals at the present meeting on agriculture,
subsidies and TRIPS, and would be submitting further proposals in due course.
9. The representative of the United States said that Ministers had rightly decided in May 1998
that there could be no meaningful exchange on the upcoming negotiations and future initiatives
without an in-depth look at where one was in realizing the benefits of past WTO initiatives.  As a
demonstration of its interest in the issue of implementation, the United States had produced a
discussion paper for the intersessional meeting in October 1998 (WT/GC/W/107), from which it was
clear that the United States agreed with others that full and effective implementation of the Uruguay
Round Agreements should remain a top priority fo r the WTO as it prepared for the forward agenda
that Ministers would consider in November.  Her delegation wished to make several key points in this
regard.  First, one could identify areas where affirmative action was needed by national governments
to comply with existing agreements and decisions.   Second, some problems related to implementation
would require further clarification, including possi bly through negotiation.  Third, since transition
periods for most agreements would be ending by 2000, a more concerted effort by all partners wascalled for to ensure compliance on schedule.  That being said, if countries were faced with problems
in meeting these deadlines, the United States would be willing to look at each of these situations on a
case-by-case basis.  Fourth, further attention to technical assistance, in particular setting objectives
with recipients, was necessary if such assistance was to fulfil the desired results of facilitating
implementation.  The above points illustrated the need for ongoing attention, determination and
creativity in meeting existing obligations as one l ooked toward the WTO's future.  At the same time,
the challenges of implementation were certainly within the realm of the manageable and were not anobstacle to pursuing additional work and liberalization beyond that which was already mandated by
WTO Agreements if that was the consensus among Members.  Uruguay had made a valuable
contribution in regard to the implementation question from which all would benefit.  Uruguay's
classification of the issues was broadly in line w ith the United States' own views outlined in October,
and it would be a good idea to base future implementation discussions on the Uruguayan model.
10. The representative of El Salvador, speaking also on behalf of Cuba, the Dominican Republic,
Honduras and Nicaragua, said that there was a seri ous imbalance in the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures in that the subsidies commonly used by developing countries for their
industrialization and development were included in the actionable or prohibited category, while those
used by developed countries were in the non-actionable category.  It was important to emphasize thatthe subsidies presently used by developing countries were instruments that had commonly been used
in the development policies of the developed countries of today.  This demonstrated that these
incentives were indispensable for developing countries, especially those with small and vulnerable
economies, to strengthen their industrial sector and diversify exports.  These measures had had
extremely effective results in developing countries in creating new industries, attracting foreigninvestment, creating direct or indirect jobs, impr oving trade balances, as well as the development of
less advantaged areas.  All this had contributed towards social stability and to a greater participationWT/GC/M/39
Page 6
in international trade.  A revision of the provisions of the Subsidies Agreement was necessary so that
subsidies for national production and exportation, which contributed to the strengthening of economic
diversification programmes, industrialization and sustainable development of developing countries,
were placed in the non-actionable category and exempted from the obligation of elimination
established in Article 27:4.  Their countries proposed that, pursuant to Articles IV:1 and IX:1 of theWTO Agreement, Ministers at Seattle adopt a decision to reform Article 3:1(a) of the Subsidies
Agreement in order to correct the existing imbalan ce and to take into account the development needs
expressed above.
11. The representative of Egypt said that Egyp t would in due course be presenting proposals
building on its earlier contributions in the areas of implementation, the built-in agenda and the
mandated negotiations.  As regards implementation, his delegation was awaiting the inputs that had
been requested from the Secretariat in order to assist in a comprehensive evaluation of the process ofimplementation, and hoped to receive an update on the Secretariat's activities in this regard.  Egypt's
proposals regarding implementation would address the following:  (i) Special and differential
treatment, in particular the cross-cutting issues rela ted to S&D provisions such as lack of information
in relation to their implementation, the need to clarify and examine how to effectively implement best
endeavours provisions, and linking S&D provisions to measurable development criteria;  (ii) Capacitybuilding, which would address shortcomings in, and ways of enhancing the effectiveness of, WTO
technical assistance;  (iii) Distribution of benefits  of the trading system, recalling that Ministers in
May 1998 had renewed their commitment to ensuring that the benefits of the trading system were
extended as widely as possible.  In this connection, in 1994, the Secretariat had estimated that the
Uruguay Round results on market access would add some US$755 billion to world exports annuallyby 2002, and that these figures should increase substantially when gains from increased trade in
services were taken into account.  Egypt believed that the Secretariat should revisit these estimates
and compare them with what had actually transpired.  It also requested the Secretariat to analyse the
distribution of benefits of the Uruguay Round Ag reements so that Members could address how to
achieve a more equitable distribution of these benefits, and believed that this would be a prerequisitefor the success of any future negotiations;  (iv) In tegration of developing countries in the trading
system, where Egypt would propose that the WTO start working on measurable criteria to allow
Members to continuously monitor the integration of developing countries in the trading system, and
would provide examples of criteria that could be used;  (v) the Ministerial Decision regarding net
food-importing developing countries, which would suggest ways to address shortcomings in the
implementation of the Decision, including in relation to food aid, export credits, financial imports and
agricultural productivity and infrastructure;  (vi) TBT and SPS Agreement and, in particular, themanner in which TBT and SPS measures relating to products of particular interest to developing
countries could be notified, the participation of developing countries in standards setting bodies, as
well as equivalence and investment requirements in the context of the SPS Agreement;  (vii) the Anti-
Dumping Agreement, where proposals would aim at preventing the abuse of anti-dumping measures
including through the introduction of competition principles in the Agreement;  (viii) the Agreementon Textiles and Clothing, where the proposal would address the limited liberalization effects of the
first and second integration phase, excessive use of safeguard actions, and the failure to address the
interests of cotton producing countries, small suppliers and LDCs;  and (ix) the TRIPS Agreement,
where Egypt would request consideration of the interrelation between the TRIPS Agreement and the
Convention on Biological Diversity in order to address the possible reconciliation of the twoAgreements in a manner that would ensure a fair a nd equitable sharing of benefits between owners of
resources and knowledge, and users.  It would also submit a proposal regarding the extension of
negotiations on increasing protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits to other
products, particularly those of interest to developing countries.
12. As regards the built-in agenda, his delegation would be submitting proposals on the following
issues:  (i) the Subsidies Agreement, which would recall that provisions relating to presumption of
serious prejudice and non-actionabl e subsidies would be reviewed in the middle of 1999 to determineWT/GC/M/39
Page 7
whether to extend their application as currently drafted or in a modified form.  Given the fact that the
financial capacity of developing countries to provide subsidies was limited and that their
development, particularly in the industrial sector, might require subsidies, such subsidies should be
categorized as non-actionable under Article 8. These subsidies might include measures such as
cheaper finance, financial support for advanced technology, and subsidies for diversification efforts ormarket development;  (ii) the TRIPS Agreement, where Egypt believed that while the status quo in
regard to the issues under Article 27:3(b) should not be altered at this stage, the TRIPS Council
should consider new developments in this area.  Egypt would also be proposing that the TRIPS
Council examine the scope and modalities for non-viol ation complaints with a view to considering an
extension of the period stated in Article 64:2 of the Agreement;  and (iii) the DSU review, where
Egypt would propose substantially strengthened technical assistance.  Furthermore, in the time bound
dispute settlement process, it was not clear how a number of S&D provisions would be implemented
in practice such as giving special attention to the particular problems and interests of developing
country Members during consultations.  Egypt would propose that clearer guidelines be devised to
clarify the scope of these provisions.  It hoped that these difficulties would be adequately addressed in
the context of the ongoing review of the DSU and the preparations for the third Ministerial
Conference.  As regards the mandated negotiations, Egypt believed that a prerequisite to successfulnegotiations was an effective evaluation of the implementation of both the Agriculture Agreement and
the GATS, with particular emphasis on the participation of developing countries in international trade
in these important sectors.  Egypt's proposals woul d touch on the following issues:  (i) the guidelines
and principles of the negotiations so that they could start in a constructive and forthcoming manner, a
number of which were already stipulated in the relevant Agreements;  (ii) the scope of the agriculturenegotiations in the areas of market access, domestic support and export subsidies, based on Egypt's
experience with implementation.  The proposal would address tariff escalation and tariff peaks, the
use of the special safeguard mechanism, the administration of tariff rate quotas, as well as special and
differential treatment;  (iii) the Services negotiations, where the sectors in which agreements had
recently been concluded, such as financial services and basic telecommunications, were capital,technology and knowledge intensive, and developing countries were constrained in increased
participation in trade in these sectors. While commitments made by a few developed countries
contained provisions for movement of natural persons with commercial presence, there had been no
meaningful liberalization in the movement of natural persons without commercial presence.  The
benefits accruing to developing countries as a result of these commitments were marginal, and Egypt
would be submitting a proposal in this regard.
13. In concluding, he said that any future negotiations should be initiated with the clear objective
that the outcome of the negotiations should be asymmetrical in favour of developing countries.
Without such an approach, it would become exceedingly difficult for the WTO to successfully
conclude any future negotiations.  Furthermore, if the implementation difficulties facing developing
countries were not addressed effectively, it would also become more difficult to reach future
agreements since many developing countries would be convinced that agreements were there to stayregardless of their balance, implications or even basic considerations of equity and fairness.
14. The representative of Honduras, speaking also on behalf of Cuba and the Dominican Republic
said that with the signing of the TRIPS Agreemen t, many developing countries had found themselves
obliged automatically to adopt the accelerated pace of technological development of developed
countries and, consequently, to grant protection to the new emerging technologies, when they werestill quite far from dealing with traditional innovations.  The TRIPS Agreement presupposed the need
to modernize domestic intellectual property systems, including legislation, which would make it
possible, in the very long term, for developing countries to benefit from more appropriate institutions,
in addition to attracting foreign direct investment of importance for their economic development.
Given the technological and financial gap between de veloping and developed countries, the challenge
faced by the developing countries in adapting themselves to the requirements of the Agreement was
apparent from the difficult and expensive tasks that lay ahead, including:  (i) modernizing theWT/GC/M/39
Page 8
administrative infrastructure;  (ii) modernizing and drafting new laws on the granting and protection
of intellectual rights, i.e. substantive laws on the various modalities of intellectual property; civil and
criminal codes for the protection of those rights; special laws for protecting plant varieties, layout-
designs of integrated circuits and software; antitrust and unfair competition law; regulations on
customs procedures, etc.;  (iii) strengthening institutions and creating a culture for the protection ofintellectual property ranging from the training of judges, lawyers, patent agents, customs brokers and
officials with responsibility in the field to the education of the public in general in the exercise of their
rights and the fulfilment of their obligations as right holders and consumers;  and (iv) creating an
appropriate framework for promoting research and development and taking other measures to ensure
that developing countries did not continue to be mere consumers of foreign technology.  Some of
these tasks were already being carried out by many developing countries.  Others remained to be
undertaken, and would only be possible if sufficient resources were available.  Despite these efforts,their countries noted with concern that the end of the transition period allowed under Article 65:2 of
the TRIPS Agreement was now approaching expiry.  Accordingly, within the context of the TRIPS
Agreement review process provided for in Article 71:1, their countries proposed a nine-year extension
of the transition period for developing countries.
15. The representative of India recalled that both before the Geneva Ministerial Conference, and
in the current preparatory process for the third Ministerial Conference, his delegation had repeatedly
highlighted its concerns regarding implementation issues.  India's concerns related, first, to
unanticipated problems encountered in the process of implementing some of the Agreements and,
second, to the non-realization of anticipated benefits from some of the Agreements because of the
manner of their implementation by developed countries, without regard to the object and purpose ofthe Agreements.  India had also stated on several occasions that these issues and concerns needed to
be addressed before the start of the next round of negotiations, and that it was not possible for a
country like India to go on accepting new commitments when existing imbalances, asymmetries and
inequities were not addressed meaningfully.  As his delegation had stated at the October 1998
intersessional meeting, there should be no expectation that developing countries seeking solutions fortheir legitimate concerns regarding implementation should pay a price for what was only a redressal
issue.  India had already circulated a number of papers relating to implementation, and was in the
process of preparing specific proposals.  These proposals would relate to the question of
operationalizing the provisions on special and differential treatment in the various Agreements, as
well as to specific issues in some Agreements, with a view to ensuring that developing countries were
able to derive the expected benefits from these Agreements and that the implementation problems
were resolved.  A part of India's preliminary proposals relating to the S&D provisions in some of theAgreements was being distributed to delegations at the present meeting, and a revised paper covering
S&D provisions relating to all the Agreements would be submitted shortly.  In concluding, he
reiterated India's position that most of the implementation issues and concerns had to be dealt with
either before the Seattle Ministerial Conference or through a decision at the Ministerial Conference,
and not as part of a Ministerial Declaration for further negotiations.  Unless such issues and concernswere addressed and dealt with seriously and in a meaningful and sympathetic manner before Seattle,
India's ability to be a part of any further liberalization process would be extremely limited.
16. The representative of Hungary, speaking also  on behalf of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, recalled that their countries had on earlier
occasions proposed that implementation issues be classified into separate categories so as to enable a
more streamlined discussion thereon.  In this regard, their countries fully supported Uruguay's
contribution, which would be an important tool in holding a more organized discussion on these
issues leading to the preparation of the future work programme and/or to a separate decision on this
matter at Seattle.
17. The representative of Nicaragua, speaking also on behalf of Cuba, the Dominican Republic
and Honduras, said that the TRIPS Agreement undoubt edly constituted a further advance within theWT/GC/M/39
Page 9
system of protection of international intellectual property rights, and reflected the search for minimum
common standards, at the level attained by the indu strialized countries, in the field of intellectual
property.  Although, in principle, the full implementation of the Agreement would permit the
satisfactory transfer of technology, in fact this was only really possible if there was genuine interest
and financial support on the part of the industrialized countries which produced and owned most ofthe protected innovations.  In themselves, the protection and enforcement of intellectual property
rights mentioned in Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement did not contribute to the transfer and
dissemination of technology.  A focused effort was required for this particular provision to lead to
concrete results, without the establishment of any conditions.  For this reason, their countries
requested that in the context of the review of the TRIPS Agreement provided for in Article 71:1, a
new Article be included in the Agreement that would provide for the possibility of incentives being
given to developed country enterprises and institutions to promote the transfer of technology todeveloping countries as envisaged for the least-developed countries in Article 66:2.  This proposed
amendment being proposed should in no sense, however, be detrimental to the rights enjoyed by the
least-developed countries under Article 66:2.
18. The representative of Japan thanked Uruguay for its useful contribution.  His delegation had
already communicated some comments on the paper to Uruguay, and was prepared to continue
discussions on this.  He indicated that Japan was in the process of preparing a number of specific
proposals on various issues, which it would be submitting in due course.  Japan's position with regard
to the future negotiations was that they should be comprehensive, a single undertaking, and concluded
in three years.  Japan believed that the following five goals should guide Members in the preparations
for the third Ministerial Conference and the negotiations beyond:  (i) restraining protectionism andunilateral measures, and contributing to the further strengthening of the multilateral trading system;
(ii) adapting the WTO to new situations arising from globalization;  (iii) making the WTO system
environment-friendly and in a way that contributes to sustainable development;  (iv) integrating
developing countries further into the multilateral trading system;  and (v) gaining public
understanding and support for WTO activities.  As regards agriculture, he said that, as confirmed atthe World Food Summit in 1996 and at the OECD Agricultural Ministerial Meeting in 1998, the
importance of non-trade concerns such as food security and the multifunctionality of agriculture was
recognized by many countries.  It was indispensable to establish trade rules through the next
negotiations that reflected non-trade concerns appropriately, improved the balance of rights and
obligations between exporting and importing countrie s, and addressed the situation of implementation
of the Agreement and the needs of developing countries.  Japan wished to extend these ideas also to
forestry and fishery products.  In negotiations on forestry and fishery products, it was important todiscuss the various issues in a balanced manner, taking up not only import tariffs but also the
sustainable use and conservation of natural resources, and the binding and reduction of export tariffs
and non-tariff measures such as export restrictions.
19. Regarding services, Japan believed that the next negotiations should cover all the services
sectors.  Although the liberalization of maritime transport services had been suspended, Japan wishedto see these negotiations concluded early by taking into account the enormous implications for the
future expansion of trade in goods.  As for the preparations for these negotiations, work currently
conducted under the Services Council, including the information exchange exercise, had been
productive.  It would be appropriate to avoid repe ating this discussion in the General Council, and
Japan would propose that the General Council encourage the Services Council to proceed with itswork concerning the assessment of trade, and on negotiating guidelines and procedures, and request it
to submit a report to the General Council before the summer break as a basis for future discussions in
the General Council.
20. Regarding regional trade agreements, the depth and extent of various such agreements far
exceeded what had originally been expected when Article XXIV of GATT 1994 had been formulated.The principle of non-discrimination should be properly maintained for the credibility of the WTOWT/GC/M/39
Page 10
system.  The Singapore Ministerial Declaration had clearly reaffirmed the primacy of the multilateral
trading system, and it was vital for the system to ensure that regional trade agreements were WTO-
consistent.  There was a need to clarify the interpretation of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and
Article V of the GATS, and to improve the examination of regional trade agreements.  The so-called
systemic issues should be addressed fully and properly, and a prudent examination of the scope of the"Enabling Clause" was also necessary.  Finally, regarding anti-dumping, the measures stipulated in
Article VI of GATT 1994 were exceptions to the basic principles of the WTO Agreements.  Anti-
dumping measures should therefore be imposed with utmost care.  However, resort to anti-dumping
measures had frequently led to their abuse.  Investigating authorities had extensive discretion in the
essential part of the investigations, such as determination of dumping, dumping margins and
identifying injury.  Anti-dumping issues should be discussed from the standpoint of improving clarity
and adopting more precise language in the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Japan supported the concernsraised by several developing countries regarding the abuse of anti-dumping measures and their calls
for the need to exclude ambiguity, and arbitrary application of such measures.  The abuse of anti-
dumping measures was not permissible, whet her by developed or developing countries.
21. The representative of Costa Rica reiterated his country's support for the launching of a new
round of negotiations aimed at higher levels of trade openness at a global level through an exchange
of concessions in all sectors and in a single package.  Regarding agriculture, Costa Rica had
highlighted on earlier occasions certain elements that should be part of any discussion on the
continuation of the agricultural reform process in the WTO:  (i) the Uruguay Round results in
agriculture constituted only a first step in the agricultural reform process, whose objective was the full
integration of this sector in international trade in goods;  (ii) Members had agreed in the UruguayRound to continue with the reform process in 1999 to  finally establish an equitable, market-oriented
agricultural trade system;  (iii) experience with implementation of the Agreement had shown that the
objectives of liberalization of the sector had come up against obstacles, including in the form of trade
policy instruments which, though not strictly in violation of commitments, had market-distorting
effects to eliminate protectionist trends;  (iv) the total and prompt elimination of subsidies wouldcontribute substantially to equitable, market-orien ted agricultural trade in which developing country
products would not be displaced from international markets;  (v) several Members had shown
leadership by foregoing export subsidies and high levels of domestic support measures, in recognition
of the serious market-distorting effects of such measures;  other Members, however, continued to
defend the use of these measures, including their use to protect production and export of products in
which they did not have any comparative advantage;  (vi) there were sound arguments to show that
agricultural subsidies had a negative effect on the environment, and their elimination would thereforefurther strengthen sustainable development policies;  (vii) a reduction in domestic support levels was
desirable in the interests of eliminating all forms of tr ade distortions;  (viii) it was in the interest of all
Members to bring about better market access conditions through reductions in tariff levels, and in
particular tariff peaks, effective and transparent systems of tariff-quota administration, and greater
volumes and lower tariff levels for such tariff quotas;  and (ix) new forms of protection should beeliminated.  Costa Rica believed that the negotiation should be broad-based and that no issue or area
should be excluded a priori.  The modalities for the negotiations should contain elements to allow for
the recognition of concrete, autonomous trade liberalization measures undertaken by Members.
22. The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation also intended to table several proposals
in the course of this phase.  Two proposals were being circulated at the present meeting, one relating
to the implementation of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing3, and the other relating to the
movement of natural persons4, which had been circulated in the Services Council.  Additional
proposals regarding agriculture and the Dispute Settlement Understanding would be circulated
                                                     
3 WT/GC/W/159.
4 WT/GC/W/160.WT/GC/M/39
Page 11
shortly.5  At the present stage of the discussions, talk of a new round of negotiations was somewhat
premature and perhaps even irrelevant.  As his delegation had stated on several previous occasions,
there were several levels of commitment involve d.  The highest level of commitment was to the
implementation of existing agreements, and these issues had to be dealt with on a priority basis and
with a sense of urgency.  If the WTO and its membership was not able to deal with the fulfilment ofexisting commitments or the problems relating thereto, it would be difficult for all Members to reach
the stage where they felt that new negotiations for further liberalization should be launched as a
matter of priority.  The second level of commitm ent was the built-in agenda, i.e. the mandated
negotiations in agriculture and services and the mandated reviews.  Members were committed to these
mandated tasks, which should be started on time and without any linkages.  The third level were the
new issues, and the level of commitment here was th e lowest.  Whether all these issues, including the
Singapore issues, would be part of a new round or no t was inappropriate to judge at the present stage.
As India had stated, implementation issues had to be dealt with as a matter of priority, before Seattle,
and he hoped that that would be the case.  Finall y, his delegation welcomed Uruguay's paper, which
could be a useful tool in the future discussion of implementation.
23. The representative of Argentina said that the framework proposal on agriculture submitted by
Australia on behalf of the Cairns Group established clearly their expectations from the reform of
agricultural trade provided for in Article 20 of the Agriculture Agreement, i.e. definitive and full
integration of trade in agriculture into the rules governing trade in other goods.  This was entirely
compatible with what was provided in the Preambl e to the Agriculture Agreement.  Argentina, like
other Cairns Group members, wished to submit proposals complementary to those presented by
Australia.  First,  the Seattle mandate must clearly specify that out of the negotiating process a datemust emerge as from which trade in agriculture would be governed by the same rules as those
covering trade in other goods.  Members must take the final steps in the coming negotiations to
complete the agricultural reform process and definitively incorporate agricultural trade under
multilateral rules for other goods.  Second, special and differential treatment must be translated into
concrete commitments that were easily verifiable.  This special consideration in favour of developingcountries was justified not only for reasons of justice and equity but also for purely trade reasons.  The
costs of adjustment towards trade liberalization had to be softened in the developing countries.  Third,
Members should immediately, and permanently, eliminate agricultural export subsidies as part of the
convergence of agricultural trade towards the rules governing other goods.  This was not a problem
that concerned only efficient producer countries, but rather one affecting all developing countries,
including those that did not have a comparative advantage in agriculture.  No developing country had
the necessary resources to protect its rural produc ers from such unfair competition.  The main non-
trade concern of developing countries in this area was to combat rural property.  Argentina would be
submitting further proposals on agriculture as well as other sectors.
24. The representative of the European Communities said that the nature of the comprehensive
approach that the Community was pursuing for a new round of negotiations to be launched at the end
of the year was well known.  The Community woul d be coming forward with specific contributions
from about mid-May onwards which would cover a number of the wide range of issues to which it
had drawn attention in earlier statements.  In th is regard, the Community had noted the Chairman's
recommended format for the presentation of specific proposals.  Regarding implementation, the
Community's objective, as for a number of other Members, was to ensure full and timely
implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements.  The Community remained  willing to help in
dealing with genuine problems encountered by c ountries in implementing their obligations, whether
by technical assistance or otherwise.  In connection with the implementation debate, the Community
was looking seriously at Uruguay's paper as a possible approach to this issue, and saw merit in the
categorization set out therein.  In this regard, the Community believed that the existing Committees
and Councils should assume their responsibilities and, as part of their work, examine the
                                                     
5 Subsequently circulated as WT/GC/W/161 and WT/GC/W/162.WT/GC/M/39
Page 12
categorization put forward by Uruguay with a view to identifying and agreeing, as precisely as
possible, areas where progress could be made in the three broad categories.  He believed that
Members could, and should, aim to make considerable progress in the area of implementation
between then and the meeting in Seattle.  Clearly, it would not be possible to deal with all the
implementation problems by the time of the Ministerial Conference.  Indeed, it was only fair to recallthat paragraph 8 of the 1998 Ministerial Declaration did provide for Ministers to pursue their
evaluation of the implementation of individual agreements and the realization of their objectives at the
next Ministerial Conference.
25. The representative of Venezuela indicated his delegation's intention to submit several written
contributions in the area of services and TRIMs, among others.  He recalled that at the intersessional
meeting in November 1998, his delegation had stressed the fact that WTO agendas referred with
increasing frequency to two main issues simultaneously:  on the one hand, liberalization of trade per
se leading to the growth of trade flows to the benefi t of all countries and, on the other hand, what his
delegation had referred to as a "policy space", i.e. the margin for action that each country had to apply
developmental policies that would lead to improvements in technology, competitiveness and value
added in exports, and to increase the benefits it received from international trade.  It was ever more
clear for developing countries that this deepening of  liberalization should not be incompatible with the
maintenance of some of the margins he had mentioned above.  Maintaining this "policy space" was
more important for developing countries insofar as there were clear market failures that impeded the
achievement of their objectives, and which coul d only be overcome through the application of
productive development policies.  Improvements in the multilateral trading system could thus only
lead to growing benefits for developing countries if, in this process, one did not aim at eliminatingcountries' capacity to apply policies, such as those he had mentioned, that were harmonious with the
market or sought to overcome market failures.  Unfortunately, this concrete expression of the
principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries in the trading system was not
efficient, and was reduced more and more to grace periods for implementation of agreements or the
promotion of technical cooperation programmes.  This did not address the root of the problem, andthe issue of flexibility in the application of policies should therefore be included as a guiding principle
distinct from special and differential treatment, or as a principle clearly and explicitly incorporated in
a broader concept of special and differential treatment and which would be concretely reflected for the
purposes of the third Ministerial Conference as well as in any review or negotiations of agreements
that Ministers might decide.  Venezuela proposed that one of the general principles that should guide
the reviews or negotiations of agreements be that of preserving in these agreements sufficient
flexibility so that developing countries would be able to use policies aimed at improving theirproductive capacity and value-added in their exports that were in harmony with the market and
intended to overcome market failures.
26. The representative of Mauritius recalled that at the Special Session on 25 February, his
delegation had raised the concerns and problems of small economies, and had indicated that in due
course this issue would be brought before the Committee on Trade and Development.  At themeetings of the Committee on 2 November and 7 December 1998, his delegation had had the
opportunity of presenting a joint paper on the concerns of small economies and a country paper
setting out the case of Mauritius.  Other Members had also expressed their concerns and experience of
vulnerability at these meetings.  The Committee had noted the encouraging statements made by many
Members who had requested that they be provided with concrete proposals as to how these concerns
could be addressed.  In this connection, he noted that the WTO was already collaborating with the
Commonwealth and the World Bank as part of a joint task force, and that several other Members were
already working on their own formulations and proposals.  The Marrakesh Agreement, in its
preamble, emphasized that the integration of all countries constituted the central philosophy of the
WTO Agreements by manifestly ensuring that "their relations in the field of trade and economicendeavour should be conducted with a view to raising standards of living, ensuring full employment
and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand, and expanding theWT/GC/M/39
Page 13
production of and trade in goods and services, while  allowing for the optimal use of the world's
resources in accordance with the objective of sust ainable development, seeking both to protect and
preserve the environment and to enhance the means for doing so in a manner consistent with their
respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic development".  Members had ensured that
the WTO Agreements contained provisions for special  and differential treatment, recognizing thereby
that the playing field was not even and that s upportive S&D measures needed to be applied where
necessary.  However, the application of these measur es remained the subject of utmost dissatisfaction,
and this had been consistently deplored by Member s, whether at the Geneva Ministerial Conference, at
the various intersessional meetings of the General Council, at the High-Level Meeting in 1997 or at the
high-level symposia held the previous week, and in almost all meetings held in WTO or in other fora.
The invariable view had been that the existence of the S&D provisions in the Agreements had been
more nominal than real.  At every possible opport unity, Members had complained that S&D measures
were often unenforceable, and, furthermore, that net food-importing countries were still awaiting
positive action in their favour.  It was clear that Me mbers must all strive to render the S&D provisions
operational, and even enhance them, bearing in mind the needs and concerns of countries at different
levels of development. One way of doing this was to introduce greater flexibility in the application of
rules and regulations without, at the same time, disrupting the multilateral trading system.  Several
authoritative voices had been heard in this respect at  the recent high-level symposia including that of the
UNCTAD Secretary-General.  Members needed to a pply their collective wisdom and effort to bring
about a solution wherever problems emerged in the multilateral trading system. The multilateral trading
system was based on certain principles which ma de it unique and which guided the work at WTO.
Therefore, in the interests of these very few prin ciples, i.e. consensus, transparency, equity and
solidarity, it was incumbent upon all Members to addre ss all the important concerns affecting some of
them or else run the risk of letting the situation become more explosive in due course. He expressed
satisfaction that several Members had pledged support for addressing the genuine concerns of the small
economies.
27. The representative of New Zealand said that New Zealand attached value to all the elements of
paragraph 9(a) of the Ministerial Declaration of May 1998, and at the present meeting wished to
highlight two elements of that paragraph, i.e. the mandated negotiations on agriculture and services.  On
agriculture, New Zealand's views were well reflecte d in the framework proposal containing the Cairns
Group's objectives for the negotiations, which Au stralia had tabled in document WT/GC/W/156.  As
Australia and Argentina had indica ted, Cairns Group members were working on specific elaborations of
elements of the framework proposal, and some of these would be tabled shortly. He emphasized that
New Zealand attached importance to the agriculture  negotiations being well-prepared, beginning on time
and delivering the fundamental reform required to put  trade in agricultural products on the same basis as
trade in other products.  The framework proposal a nd subsequent specific proposals were the beginning
of the Cairns Group's contribution to this.  On serv ices, New Zealand's views had been outlined in the
first phase of the preparatory process.  It saw the forthcoming negotiations as being about securing the
benefits of meaningful liberalization in trade in se rvices by completing the framework developed in the
Uruguay Round, and by substantially expanding coverage and improving the quality of specific
commitments across a broad range of sectors.  New Zealand, along with others, was giving thought to
how to develop its views into sp ecific proposals for consideration in the second phase, and would revert
to this issue at a subsequent meeting.  Finally, on implementation-related issues, New Zealand believed,
like others, that Uruguay had put forward a constr uctive set of ideas on how these issues might be
approached, and looked forward to studying this further.
28. The representative of the Dominican Republic, speaking also on behalf of Cuba, El Salvador,
Honduras, Nicaragua and Pakistan, presenting a proposal concerning agricultural market access, said
that after signing the WTO Agreements, developing countries had not experienced improved access
for their agricultural exports in developed country markets. The reasons for this were, among others,the continued existence of tariff peaks, selective dismantling of tariffs, tariff escalation, shortcomings
in provisions on minimum access, and sanitary and phytosanitary standards.  In order to redress theseWT/GC/M/39
Page 14
imbalances and ensure real and effective market access for developing countries, the following
elements should be borne in mind in the future negotiations. There should be a considerable
improvement in market access for the principal export products of developing countries through a
genuine cut in tariff peaks, progressive increases in the tariff-quota volumes, reductions in in-quota
tariffs, increase in the transparency of tariff quota administration, and elimination of non-tariffbarriers. Also, special safeguard provisions should not apply to products of interest to developing
countries. As regards domestic support, greater flexibility should be granted to developing countries
to enable the use of domestic support in their agricultural sectors, when this was aimed at the
marketing, transport, and diversification of agricultural production, and also when it was to ensure
compliance with sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Particular attention should be paid to the needs
of net food-importing countries.  Market access for products from these countries should be improved
to ensure an increase in their export revenues to  allow them to meet increases in food import costs.
The commitment of financial and technical assistance by developed countries would enable
developing countries to diversify and increase their productivity in the agricultural sector, and meet
the increased food import costs. With regard to the non-trade concerns of developing countries,
particularly those with small and vulnerable economies, an overall package of measures should be
drawn up, aimed at improving the national food secur ity situation, maintaining the standard of living
of rural populations, and preserving the environment.  Such measures should also be exempted from
reduction commitments. It should be understood that these domestic support measures would not be
linked in any way to export subsidies. In applying provisions in the area of agriculture, greater
flexibility should be granted to countries which have suffered natural catastrophes, by allowing
temporary application of support measures aimed at reactivating national production.
29. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that, like others, her delegation was in the
process of preparing specific proposals which it would submit to the General Council as soon as
possible.  Her delegation wished to thank Uruguay for its contribution, which supplemented the
Secretariat's checklists by categorizing implementation issues and proposals on the basis of the type of
action required.  However, in view of the complexity of the issues involved and the general lack ofspecificity in the statements made by Members in the first phase of the preparatory process, her
delegation was not sure if it was always feasible to slot the issues as they were into the three
categories used in Uruguay's paper.  In some cases, a durable and effective solution to non-
compliance might lie in rewriting the WTO rules, which could only be achieved through amendments
or renegotiations, as for the issues in the third category.  There was also the possibility that an
otherwise integrated proposal had to be broken up into different parts in order to fit into the
categorization.  More importantly, the second phase of the preparatory process was to be "proposal-driven", and Members who had made general statem ents in the first phase would have to present
specific proposals for consideration by the General Council in this phase.  Thus, while Uruguay's
paper could serve as a reference document insofar as implementation issues were concerned,
discussions in the second phase, and the preparation of recommendations in the third phase, should be
based on the specific proposals submitted by Members.
30. The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation was also in the process of preparing
proposals which it would present at a subsequent meeting.  Outlining the principles of a proposal that
his delegation had submitted earlier that week to the Council for Trade in Services reflecting its views
on the modalities and scope of the services negotiations, he said that Switzerland supported the
continuation of the liberalization process in trade in services, which should be based on a balance ofinterests of Members. It believed that such a balance was possible, since all Members had interests, in
varying degrees, in the area of services. Switzerland further believed that no sector should be
excluded, a priori, from the negotiations. It had proposed that a certain number of formulae should be
developed to facilitate the negotiations on specific commitments relating to market access and
national treatment. These formulae could include the standard commitment applicable to each sector,and different formats could be envisaged to make commitments more transparent and to improve the
homogeneous nature of such commitments. It should also be ensured that the scope of commitmentsWT/GC/M/39
Page 15
taken should not be limited by authorization procedures or national regulations inconsistent with the
criteria of transparency or proportionality.  These were issues under GATS Article VI. Finally, future
services negotiations should not be limited simply  to strengthening specific commitments, but should
also enable certain gaps in the GATS itself to be filled, in particular as regards rules in the areas of
subsidies, safeguards and government procurement.
31. Regarding agriculture, Switzerland believed that Article 20 of the Agriculture Agreement
constituted the starting-point for the formulation of the recommendations which the General Council
would make to the Ministerial Conference. In conformity with the provisions of Article 20,
Switzerland was prepared to continue the agricultural reform process in the long term, and had
already taken important measures in this regard at the national level. It believed that the reform
process implied further cuts in export subsidies and domestic support, as well as reductions in border
protection. For Switzerland, the modalities of this progressive liberalization should take intoconsideration, as provided for in Article 20, four important elements:  the experience acquired thus
far, the effect of commitments taken during the Uruguay Round, non-economic considerations, which
played an important role in agriculture given its multifunctional nature, and the different levels of
development of Members. In concluding, he said  his delegation had noted Uruguay's communication
regarding implementation, and would return  to the matter at the appropriate time.
32. The representative of Norway said that im plementation of the WTO Agreements, including
special and differential provisions, was a priority issue. Consequently, the evaluation of these
provisions by developing and least-developed countries was of particular importance. Several
proposals aimed at addressing inequalities in existing provisions had already been put forward, and
Norway was ready and willing to go through existing agreements and provisions to identifyrefinements that might be implemented right away, and set priorities for proposals on possible further
improvements. Like others, his delegation found Uruguay's paper useful, and would examine it
closely. Norway had, on numerous occasions, advoca ted capacity building and technical assistance as
the necessary means to safeguard implementation of WTO agreements and provisions by all
Members. To secure predictable and stable financing, technical assistance activities should be anintegrated part of WTO activities and financed through the regular budget. In addition, outsourcing of
some of the technical assistance activities now carried out by WTO should be sought. Another priority
was the need to ensure that all Members, includin g LDCs, gained real access to the dispute settlement
mechanism, and his delegation therefore supported Colombia's proposal for the establishment of an
independent legal advisory centre.  Norway had earmarked US$1 million for the establishment of the
centre and was looking for agreement, without undue delay, on a system to provide the appropriate
kind of judicial help needed to give a fair hearing to, and protect the trading rights of, all Members.
33. Norway was preparing proposals in several areas, including agriculture and services. On
agriculture, Norway had noted the communication circulated by some major food-exporting countries
regarding their objectives for the upcoming negotiations, which seemed to be based on the assumption
that the agriculture sector was confined to the role of being supplier of food and fibre only. There was,
however, an emerging consensus that agriculture also  played an important role in regard to non-trade
concerns such as food security, viability of rura l societies, maintenance of landscapes, and the
preservation of the environment in general. These multifunctional aspects of agriculture were of
crucial importance to Norway. The relative importance of the different roles of agriculture would, of
course, vary between countries and regions. However, non-trade concerns in agriculture represented
legitimate concerns and should therefore be fully recognized and respected.  Furthermore, thesemultifunctionalities were closely interlinked with production activities, but their value was not fully
reflected and internalized in the market.  The average production cost for most agricultural products in
Norway exceeded the world market price and, as costs were closely related to natural conditions, it
seemed clear that this would also be so in the future. This had an effect on the choice of policy
measures. Due to the degree of connection that existed between agricultural production and theprovision of certain public goods, a combination of policy measures would be called for, including aWT/GC/M/39
Page 16
certain degree of production-linked support.  The major challenge in the upcoming negotiations was
therefore how to make the other concerns in Article 20, including non-trade concerns, an integral part
of the future Agriculture Agreement.  These aspects would be reflected in Norway's proposal.
34. Regarding services, Norway understood that there was agreement among Members on broad
coverage, i.e. that no sector or mode of supply should be excluded from the negotiations.  A certainamount of work remained to be done on issues remaining from the Uruguay Round, such as rules,
government procurement, subsidies, emergency safeguards and issues related to domestic regulations,
and also on those related to the scope of the agreement, such as confirming that social security was
outside the scope. These issues should clearly be pa rt of the new negotiations, and be covered by the
Ministerial mandate. It was in the interest of Members to agree on sensible procedures for the
negotiations, building on the organization of work on services thus far.  Norway believed that
qualitative aspects of trade, such as environmental considerations and consumer protection and health,should be duly taken into account during the negotiations.  This would be reflected in Norway's
proposal on services.
35. The representative of Sri Lanka said that while his delegation did not have specific proposals
to present at this meeting, it wished to associate itself with the proposal made by the Dominican
Republic on behalf also of Cuba, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Pakistan, with regard toissues related to market access for agricultural products.  Despite substantial tariff reductions and
other obligations undertaken by developing countries under the Uruguay Round in the area of
agriculture, Sri Lanka had not received any tangible benefits in access to developed country markets
for products of interest to it. The paper circulated by the above-mentioned countries clearly identified
the shortcomings in this area, and Sri Lanka fully associated itself with their conclusions forredressing such imbalances in future negotiations.
36. The representative of Canada said that Canada , like other members of the Cairns Group, was
seeking a comprehensive framework for the agricultural negotiations that would address all areas
affecting agricultural trade.  Domestically, his Government continued to be engaged in a broad
process of consultation with stakeholders, including the agri-food sector and the provinces, on theissues and Canada's interests.  While Canada's initial negotiating position, to be articulated by the fall,
would reflect this domestic consultative process, some key issues in the negotiations were
nevertheless readily apparent.  Clearly, the negotiations would focus on further substantial,
progressive reductions in support and protection, although the speed and depth of those reductions
would be determined by the negotiations themselves.  Canada's long term objective continued to be
substantial progressive reductions in support and protection;  this objective was shared with all
Members, as it was set out in Article 20 of the Agriculture Agreement itself.  While progress towardsthis goal had been made in the Uruguay Round, much more remained to be done.  Support and
spending on agriculture by some Members had continued at very high levels, which distorted
production and trade and disadvantaged competitive producers in other countries.  This disparity in
support was a concern not only for countries like Canada, which had reduced support to the
agricultural sector, but also for many developing countries which had never been able to match thetreasuries of some developed countries.  Canada had sought the elimination of export subsidies during
the Uruguay Round, and this remained a key policy objective that had the support of Canada's entire
agri-food sector.  The continuing low prices in world markets for a number of important traded
agricultural products should not be used to justify or  trigger a slide back into export subsidies, or high
levels of trade distorting domestic support.  In this context, it was particularly important that Memberscontinued to seek reductions in trade distorting domestic support, and to ensure that there was a clear
distinction between trade-distorting and non-trad e-distorting domestic support.  Any expansion of
access opportunities should take into account the disparities in the size of access commitments for
different Members that existed at present.  Wh ile lowering support and protection was clearly an
important part of continuing the reform process, it was also essential that clearer and more certainrules applied to agricultural trade.  At the in tersessional General Council meeting in November,WT/GC/M/39
Page 17
Canada had suggested a number of examples where it believed clearer rules were needed in
agricultural trade, including minimum access commitments, special safeguard provisions, the use of
reference prices or gate price systems in tariff administration, definitions of trade-distorting and non-
trade-distorting domestic support, use of food aid, export credits and export market development
programs in ways that could circumvent export subsidy commitments, export restrictions and taxes,and regulatory approval systems that affected trade in biotechnology products.  Canada would refine
these ideas further as preparations for the Ministerial Conference moved forward.
37. The representative of Korea said that Korea, like many others, was not in a position to submit
concrete proposals at the present meeting, but was preparing four proposals relating to the mandated
negotiations on agriculture and services and the WTO rules on regional trade agreements and anti-
dumping measures that it hoped to circulate soon.  Korea's proposals on agriculture and services
contained a few important principles that should provide guidance during the negotiations in bothareas.  On agriculture, Korea suggested the following on the basis of its experience in implementing
its commitments as a net food-importing country:  (i) the basic framework and key elements of the
Agreement should be maintained so that the reform process might continue in a consistent manner;
(ii) in carrying out reforms, a flexible and gradual approach should be taken in consideration of
Members' different conditions for agriculture;  and (iii) in order to ensure a balance of interestsbetween exporting and importing countries and between developed and developing countries,
provisions on non-trade concerns and special and differential treatment for developing countries
should be strengthened.  On services, Korea suggested the following:  (i) the next negotiations should
cover all service sectors and no sector should be excluded a priori;  (ii) the scope of MFN exemptions
should be progressively reduced;  and (iii) the work currently under way on rule making in the areasof safeguard measures, domestic regulations, subsidies and government procurement should be
completed promptly, at the latest before the conclusion of the next negotiations.  Korea's paper on
regional trade agreements would suggest that Members examine the WTO provisions concerning such
agreements in order to have a clearer, updated set of rules.  Current WTO rules suffered from a
conspicuous lack of clarity.  Given the increasing importance of regional trade agreements ininternational trade, it was imperative that Members address the ambiguities in the relevant WTO
rules.  With regard to anti-dumping measures, Korea would suggest that Members examine the
provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in order to clarify, improve and, if necessary expand
them.  The Anti-Dumping Agreement had significantly improved through the Uruguay Round
negotiations.  However, considering the increasing incidence of anti-dumping actions in recent
months and the fact that a number of WTO dispute settlement cases had involved the implementation
and interpretation of the Agreement, Korea believed there was much room for further improvement.Korea wished to see far clearer and less ambiguous provisions with regard to some important aspects
of anti-dumping actions so that the door was not left open for abuse and unnecessary obstacles to
trade.
38. The representative of Brazil said that Brazil, like many others, was also in the process of
evaluating and preparing certain specific proposals.  He wished to thank Uruguay for its contribution
that would help delegations better understand and comprehend the immense task of implementation.
Brazil was considering the many proposals which had been tabled, and would shortly offer its
reactions. Regarding agriculture, Brazil welcomed Australia's statement and, as a member of the
Cairns Group, fully shared the ambitions of the Group for the future negotiations.  Brazil's ultimate
objective, as a member of the Group, was to bring agriculture into the realm of fair trade. Distortionscaused by abusive use of export subsidies, insurmountable tariff barriers, and high levels of trade-
distorting support should be eliminated progressively but steadily. Brazil also welcomed
New Zealand's statement to the effect that the Ca irns Group would shortly be presenting proposals
developing the ideas contained in the vision statement. Brazil hoped to be in a position to contribute
to specific proposals on tariff reductions in general, and the elimination of tariff peaks and escalationin particular.WT/GC/M/39
Page 18
39. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN Members , said that their
countries would be circulating several proposals in early April regarding paragraph 9(a) issues, and
wished to highlight elements of some of these pr oposals at the present meeting.  Regarding special
and differential treatment, he said that although a number of developing countries had become more
integrated into the multilateral trading system and had become significant exporters of industrial andagricultural products, many had still not been effectively integrated.  Many developing countries had
not been able to utilize trade expansion opportuni ties offered by the Uruguay Round Agreements due
to various factors including the lack of human and institutional capacities.  Differing levels of
development and capacities existed among WTO Members.  Developing countries were also
deepening and broadening their commitments.  In this context, S&D treatment for developing and
least-developed countries assumed an even greater role and hence the need for improved provisions in
this regard.  In the ASEAN Members' view, certain S&D provisions needed to be operationalized.Regarding the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t, he said that it continued to contain weaknesses that, unless
rectified, provided opportunities for abuse.  These weaknesses included, but were not limited to, the
concept of dumping determination that, in some circumstances, still allowed for a weighted average-
to-transaction price comparison which went beyond the fair comparison basis, and the standard of
review clause.  While it was generally accepted that the procedures in the DSU applied to all WTOAgreements, the Anti-Dumping Agreement was the only agreement with an exception under the
standard of review clause.  The clause limited the ability of both panels and the Appellate Body to
deliberate and to interpret the actions of the authorities against the rules and procedures stipulated in
the Agreement.  Other technical aspects of the Agreement also deserved close attention.  Examples of
these included making mandatory both the use of the lesser duty rule and the issue of a public interestclause in making final determinations of anti-dumping duties.  As regards to the TRIMs Agreement,
Article 5:3 provided for the possible extension of the transition periods for developing country
Members.  However, in the absence of specific criteria and modalities for taking into account "the
individual development, financial and trade needs of the Member in question" such extension might
not be practically feasible.  The review mandated under Article 9 was a timely opportunity to establishsuch specific criteria and modalities.  However, above and beyond transition periods, it was even
more important to re-assess fundamental assumptions.  An equitable multilateral framework for trade
could not be oblivious to the divergence of the respective capacities of Members to assume
obligations with that framework.  Indeed, this was tacit in the various agreements, including the
TRIMs Agreement.  However, by and large, the approach thus far had been merely to provide for
transition periods for developing countries.  Equally tacit in this approach was the assumption that by
the end of such transition periods, developing countries would necessarily have attained the samecapacity as developed country Members.  It was well known that the passage of time alone did not
guarantee this.  The TRIMs Agreement, as it currently stood, was effectively no more than just a call
for the elimination of TRIMs, including those which could be of crucial importance to developing
countries, without regard to the levels of development of these countries.
40. Regarding the Subsidies Agreement, he recalled that pursuant to Article 31 of the Agreement,
Articles 6:1, 8 and 9 would not be applicable after the end of 1999, unless there was a decision to
extend their application for a further period, either as presently drafted or in a modified form.  There
were different views on the extension, and it might indeed be premature to presume that Article 31
would be part of the deliberations at the third Ministerial Conference.  The ASEAN Members were
nevertheless of the view that green-box subsidies primarily catered, by and large, to the interests ofdeveloped countries.  At the same time, however, if each Member were to be indifferent to a matter
simply because it was not of primary interest to it, the WTO could not foster mutuality of interests.  In
this regard, therefore, one could consider a possible extension of Articles 6:1, 8 and 9, either in their
present or modified form, depending on the degree of sensitivity manifested in concrete terms by
other Members towards the concerns of developing countries in general, and of the ASEAN Membersin particular.  Regarding the responsibility of Members under the WTO Agreement, he noted that
Article XVI:4 of the Agreement established the basic obligation of each Member to ensure the
conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its WTO obligations.WT/GC/M/39
Page 19
However, under Article 22:9 of the DSU, it would seem that the obligation of a Member in respect of
measures taken by regional or local governments or authorities within its territory was confined to
taking "such reasonable measures as may be available to it".  Unless otherwise specifically provided,
this was therefore applicable to all of the agr eements forming part of the WTO Agreement.  The
obligation to take reasonable measures was not the same as the obligation to ensure conformity.  TheASEAN Members were aware that Article 22:9 of the DSU further provided that the relevant
provisions on compensation and suspension of concessions and other obligations were applicable in
cases where it had not been possible to secure such observance.  However, compensation was
voluntary, and suspension of concessions or other obligations was not necessarily a feasible remedy
for many Members, particularly developing count ry Members.  The ASEAN Members' concern was
compliance with the obligation to ensure conformity .  With regard to the "Enabling Clause" of the
GATT 1994, he noted that non-discrimination was a core WTO obligation.  The "Enabling Clause"
allowed preferential treatment as an exception, but subject to certain conditions including that such
preferential treatment should be generalized, non-discriminatory and non-reciprocal.  Notwithstanding
these conditions, there were preferential treatment schemes being implemented at the present time in
disregard of those conditions.  The ASEAN Members believed that adherence to a core WTO
obligation deserved the closest monitoring.
41. Turning to services, he noted that Article XI X of the GATS required Members to establish
negotiating guidelines and procedures before each mandated round of services negotiations.  It also
provided certain key procedural and substantive parameters for these negotiations.  The
recommendations on services that Members would submit to the Ministerial Conference should meet
this requirement for negotiating guidelines and procedures, and be in full accordance with theparameters laid out in Article XIX.  There were five core elements of the mandated negotiations
which should all be addressed in the negotiating guidelines and procedures.  First, on framework
issues, the experience that Members had had with implementing the GATS clearly pointed to several
grey areas.  It would be important to address these in the negotiations so as to bring greater legal
certainty to the operation of the Agreement.  For example, the ongoing work in the Services Counciland the Committee on Specific Commitments had highlighted various definitional or classification
problems.  These had led and could still lead to conflicting interpretations of the commitments made,
such as on the issue of grandfathering.  Work on professional services had shown the need for greater
clarity in respect of various GATS provisions.  For example, the dividing lines between Articles VI,
XVI and XVII of GATS remained unclear, as did th e definition of what an economic needs test was.
Moreover, changes in business practices and advances in technology had also raised various market
access and legal issues.  Second, there was increasing recognition of the impact that domesticregulations such as licensing, qualifications and technical standards could have on services trade.  In
fact, Article VI:4 of the GATS did require the Services Council, through appropriate bodies it might
establish, to develop disciplines to ensure that domestic regulations did not constitute unnecessary
barriers to services trade.  Members had dealt with  several Article VI:4 issu es in the context of the
negotiations on accountancy services.  There was, however, a need for broader horizontal discussionsand, if appropriate, disciplines.  The negotiations should provide an impetus for progress in this area.
Third, in addition to taking up Article VI:4 issues, the negotiations should also pursue other mandated
work under the GATS.  These would include, inter alia , the review of Article II exemptions, the
negotiations on maritime transport services, and the requirement under Article VII to establish and
adopt, where appropriate, common international standards for the practice of relevant services tradesand professions.  The mandated work on GATS rules, and in particular safeguards, was of great
importance to the ASEAN Members, and they urged Members to meet the deadline of the renewed
mandate on safeguards that was fast approaching.  Progress on safeguards might exert an influence on
the commitments undertaken in the new negotiations.  On the other hand, the GATS mandate on
subsidies and government procurement did not stipulate a deadline and, given the limited progress inthe discussions on both these issues, they were likely to be rolled over into the upcoming negotiations.
Fourth, on the question of developing country concerns, the negotiations should seek to operationalize
and make effective the GATS provisions relating to developing countries.  Article IV was ofWT/GC/M/39
Page 20
particular concern to the ASEAN Members.  The negotiations should seek to strengthen both the
domestic services capacity of developing countries and their access to distribution channels and
information networks.  Fifth, in the area of market access, the negotiations should aim to achieve a
fair and balanced package for the entire Membership.  They should cover all issues and services
sectors with no a priori exclusions, and in particular the sectors of interest to developing countries.Such an approach had clear advantages.  It ensured that the interests of all Members were taken into
account and, more importantly, that each Member had a stake in the success of the negotiations.  The
negotiations should also establish modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalization measures
undertaken by Members.  Finally, the guidelines and procedures should also stipulate a time-frame
within which the negotiations were to be concluded.  The ASEAN Members were in favour of a short
time-frame of three to four years.  The ASEAN Members would be taking up these and other
priorities in the Services Council and its subsidiary bodies and, where appropriate, in the GeneralCouncil process itself.
42. The representative of Australia, commenting on the reference by Norway to an "emerging
consensus" on multifunctionality in agriculture, said that multifunctionality was a new name for an
old, rich-country argument that high levels of pr oduction and trade-distorting support were necessary
to maintain rural standards of living, protect the environment, and enhance food security.  AsAustralia had stated on other occasions, as far as its own analyses showed, high levels of production-
and trade-distorting support entrenched rural poverty world-wide, led to poor practices in intensive
agriculture, such as the overuse of fertilizers th at degraded the environment, and diminished food
security world-wide by discouraging a large number of countries, particularly developing countries,
from pursuing agricultural export opportunities.  There was therefore no emerging consensus in thisregard.
43. The representative of India expressed concern at the Community's reference to increased
technical assistance programmes as a means of addressing implementation issues, and at its
suggestion that relevant WTO committees and councils might be requested to take up these issues.
While India recognized the role and importance of technical assistance, he recalled his delegation'sstatement at the intersessional meeting in October 1998 that implementation issues and concerns
needed to be handled with political sensitivity.  Some Members were trying to downplay these issues
and concerns by arguing that they could be resolved through increased technical assistance.  India
wished to state clearly that the implementation issues and concerns that had been raised were serious
and it would be unrealistic to imagine that these problems could be solved and the concerns met
through technical assistance alone.  If some developing countries faced a major problem in
implementing the TRIPS or TRIMs Agreements, or if  their trading partners were implementing the
Anti-Dumping, Subsidies and Textiles Agreements in ways that impeded market access, the problems
could not be solved through technical assistance.   Developing countries had found that while
implementing the TRIMs Agreement, for example, they were virtually forced to give up some
developmental aspirations and strategies.  For this reason, India had always maintained that
implementation issues and concerns had to be view ed and handled in a political framework and not on
the basis of enhanced technical assistance. As regards requesting subsidiary bodies to look into all
implementation issues highlighted in the Genera l Council, he recalled that this issue had been
discussed when the Geneva Ministerial Declaration was in the process of being drafted, and that his
delegation had made clear at that time that implem entation issues should be handled in the General
Council, which should be completely in charge of th e process, and that if in respect of any subject,
item or proposal the General Council considered it appropriate to obtain the opinion, advice or
recommendation of a subsidiary body, it should take a conscious decision to do so. At the present
meeting, he had heard the European Communities suggest sending everything to the subsidiary
bodies, and this would be totally unacceptable to his delegation.
44. The representative of Pakistan associated his delegation fully with India's statement
concerning technical assistance and the use of subsidiary bodies.WT/GC/M/39
Page 21
45. The representative of the European Communities, cl arifying his earlier statement, said that the
Community was willing to help in dealing with genuine problems of implementation, whether by
technical assistance or otherwise.  As regards the role of subsidiary committees and councils, he said
that it was possible for the General Council to make progress before the Ministerial Conference on a
significant number of items identified as problem areas in the implementation of the Uruguay RoundAgreements, and that one way of making progress was to use the committee structure, although
perhaps not for each and every item identified in the various checklists.  The committees did exist and
could help on this matter. He also wished to note that the General Council could not complete the
evaluation implied in paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Declaration, which in fact provided for the
evaluation to be pursued in the context of the third Ministerial Conference.
46. The representative of the Dominican Republic associated his delegation fully with India's
statement.  The issue of implementation was not one concerning simply technical assistance and
should be resolved before the consideration of any Ministerial Declaration in the context of the Seattle
Ministerial Conference. Furthermore, the ultimate responsibility in the preparatory process lay with
the General Council, and any participation in this process by subsidiary bodies was subject to what
was decided in the Council.
47. The representative of Cuba also associated his delegation fully with India's statement.  The
issue of implementation required important political decisions, and it was very simplistic to think that
technical assistance alone would resolve the policy problems being faced.
48. The Chairman said that Members had had a valuable discussion regarding both the
substantive issues to be addressed at the Seattle Ministerial Conference, and the preparatory process.
A number of proposals had been made in the course of the discussion, and many delegations hadindicated that proposals would be forthcoming and had given some sense of the content of those
proposals.  He suggested that delegations circulate their proposals as soon as they were ready, and that
they not wait until the next formal meeting to table proposals.  If proposals were tabled in the
following days, they could be considered at the informal intersessional meeting scheduled for 12-
13 April.  The process was not intended to oblige delegations to wait for formal special sessions inorder to table proposals.  Despite his opening remarks in this regard, he noted that some delegations
had seen the need to make general statements in the course of the meeting.  Bearing in mind the need
to try and minimize the demands that were going to be put on all delegations, and particularly the
small ones, during the course of the year, delegations might wish to consider circulating in writing
any general statements of view which they believed needed to be registered in the process.  With
regard to the point raised by India, and supported by some other delegations, concerning the
importance of having some results or decisions on implementation issues by or at the SeattleMinisterial Conference, he believed that this was an important issue.  As mentioned by the European
Communities, it was also relevant to the undertaking Ministers had under paragraph 8 of the
Ministerial Declaration to further pursue their evaluation of the implementation of individual
agreements and the realization of their objectives at Seattle, which was important in terms of the
number of comments made by Members in the course of the discussion.  He suggested that whilethere was certainly a role for the subsidiary bodies in assisting the General Council with its task, the
task clearly remained one for the General Council, and one which should be managed by the General
Council.  There was some indication that one could perhaps be looking for deliverables at Seattle, and
certainly in the area of dispute settlement, a number of delegations had made it clear that they would
expect to see some substantial progress in clarifying some of the provisions in the DSU that had led toa certain degree of uncertainty.  As regards the status of preparation of papers by the Secretariat
designed to support the General Council's work in th e preparatory process, he had been informed that
the Secretariat would shortly circulate an up-dated document explaining the situation in respect of
each request for contributions from the Secretariat, and he suggested that the General Council revert
to this matter after this document had been circulated.WT/GC/M/39
Page 22
49. He proposed that the General Council agree to the changes to the indicative programme for
the organization of future work that he had presented at the beginning of the meeting, bearing in mind
that delegations had agreed on the need for flexibility in the preparatory process.
50. The General Council took note of the statements and so agreed .
__________