RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/34
16 March 1999
(99-1054)
General Council
Special Session25 February 1999
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 25 February 1999
Chairman:  Mr. A. Mchumo (Tanzania)
Subject discussed: Preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference
(a) Report on work done since the September 1998 Special Session
(b) Further discussion of substantive issues arising from the Ministerial
Declaration of May 1998, including proposals by Members
(c) Organization of further work on these issues, including:
- Schedule of meetings of the General Council in pursuance of
the process decided by the Ministerial Declaration
- Arrangements for work between formal sessions of the
General Council, including for informal consultations
1. The Chairman said that, as he had indicated to delegations in a communication earlier that
week, he wished to propose that the General Council take up sub-items (a), (b) and (c) of the Agenda
together in order to help in the efficient conduct of  business at the present meeting.  He recalled that
in the Ministerial Declaration of May 1998, Ministers had decided that a process would be
established, under the direction of the General Council, to ensure full and faithful implementation of
existing agreements, and to prepare for the third Session of the Ministerial Conference.  The
Ministerial Declaration had also provided that, in  this regard, the General Council would meet in
Special Session in September 1998 and periodically thereafter to ensure full and timely completion ofits work.  At its Special Session in September, the General Council had established a schedule of
informal intersessional meetings, culminating in the present Special Session, to begin the substantive
preparations for the third Session of the Ministeria l Conference.  Those meetings had been chaired by
his predecessor, Mr. John Weekes.
2. With regard to the organization of future work in the preparatory process, he proposed, on the
basis of consultations that had been held, the following indicative schedule of formal and informal
meetings for the second phase, covering the period March to July:WT/GC/M/34
Page 2
24 and 26 March General Council Special Session:  Suggested focus –
Proposals on paragraph 9(a) of the Ministerial Declaration
12-13 April Informal meeting
22-23 April General Council Special Session:  Suggested focus –
Proposals on paragraphs 9(b)-9(d) of the Ministerial
Declaration
3-4 May Informal meeting20-21 May General Council Special Session:  Suggested focus – Further
discussion of proposals on paragraphs 9(a)-9(d) of the
Ministerial Declaration
7-8 June Informal meeting
21-22 June General Council Special Session:  Suggested focus –
Proposals on paragraph 10 of the Ministerial Declaration
6-7 July Informal meeting
9 July General Council Special Session:  Suggested focus – Further
discussion of proposals on paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
Ministerial Declaration
28-29 July General Council Special Session:  Suggested focus – Further
discussion of proposals on paragraph 9 and 10, and the
organization of future work
3. This indicative programme would establish a basic rhythm of regular monthly formal
meetings followed by informal intersessional m eetings, with an additional formal meeting foreseen
for early July.  The number of days devoted to each meeting, as well as the number of informal
meetings, were indicative and would clearly depend on the nature and extent of the issues taken up ateach meeting. The General Council needed a proce ss that was structured yet flexible, and this
proposal set out the basis for such a process.  Th e proposed monthly formal meetings would allow for
the discussion and tabling of specific proposals relating to all of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the May 1998
Ministerial Declaration, with a  specific focus proposed for each meeting, it being understood that
delegations would have the right to revert to any of these issues at any meeting.  Due attention wouldalso need to be given, at the appropriate time, to the question of evaluation of implementation of
individual agreements that Ministers were to  further pursue at the third Session, pursuant to
paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Declaration.  There was sufficient flexibility in the proposed structure
to allow the General Council to revert to the organization of the preparatory work, as well as to take
up at the appropriate time organizational matters relating to the Ministerial Conference.  Thisindicative programme might of course be reviewed, and if necessary modified, by the General
Council in the light of developments.  Every effort would be made in the future schedule to minimize
the burden on delegations, especially small delegations, and to avoid clashes with major meetings of
other international organizations to the extent possible.  However, as delegations would recognize,
some clashes with other meetings might become inevitable.
4. Mr. Weekes (Canada), outgoing Chairman of the General Council, reporting on the work
done since the September 1998 Special Session, recalled that as agreed by the General Council in
September, a series of monthly informal intersessi onal meetings of the General Council had been held
to begin the substantive preparations for the third Session.  At these meetings, held on 26-27 October,WT/GC/M/34
Page 3
23-24 November, and 14 and 16 December 1998, and on 27 January and 2 February 1999, Members
had pursued a discussion of the issues identified in paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration.  These
meetings, taken together, could be seen as constituting the first phase of the preparatory process,
which could be considered to conclude with the present meeting.  In the course of this phase, a large
number of issue papers had been submitted by delegations for circulation as working documents.  Inaddition, various informal papers, such as speaking notes, had been distributed by Members at the
intersessional meetings. Following each meeting, the Secretariat had prepared and circulated as
informal documents under its own responsibility check lists of issues raised by delegations pertaining
to the items discussed at the meeting in question.
1  During the course of the discussions, a number of
requests had been made by delegations for the Secretariat to undertake work of various kinds in
support of the preparatory process.  An initial list of these requests had been circulated on
3 December 1998 (Job No. 6680), and a compilation of the work already under way in relation tothese requests had been circulated to Members on 23 December 1998 (Job No. 7119). He understood
that the Secretariat was actively pursuing the updating and, where possible, extension of the work
outlined in that informal document, and the General Council should encourage it to do so.  Such work
could play an important part in helping to prep are for the review of implementation of individual
agreements which Ministers had agreed in paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Declaration.
5. As to the substance of the discussions, the Secretariat's checklists provided a useful picture of
the range of concerns and priorities that delegations had expressed during these meetings.  This had
essentially been a process of issue identification, as a basis for the more focused and specific work
that should follow.  He believed the General Council could judge this first phase to have been
successful.  Members now had a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of the issues thatneeded to be taken into account as they moved towards a draft text for the Ministerial Conference in
Seattle, and possible approaches for handling various issues had also been suggested.  He had been
impressed by the effort and commitment that Members had brought to the process.  The well-thought-
out, detailed and constructive contributions that had characterized it were a welcome sign for the
future. He wished to thank delegations for responding positively to his calls for coming forward withspecific issues, concerns and proposals, and for the respect and openness of mind that Members had
shown towards each others' points of view.  Both of  these elements would be even more important in
the phases ahead.  In the two previous informal intersessional meetings, delegations had begun to
discuss the organization of future work in the preparatory process, a subject which the present
Chairman had subsequently taken up.  In concluding, he wished to highlight two points which had
clearly arisen from the discussions:  first, that the next phase should be driven by proposals from
Members concerning possible recommendations to Ministers;  and second, that the process should beboth flexible and interactive.
6. The representative of New Zealand said that much useful information had come forward over
the past five months, and that the challenge now was to build on the good start and intensify work in
preparing for Seattle.  The programme of meetings proposed by the Chairman provided a good basis
for this, particularly the balance between formal and informal meetings. He wished to note the need to
retain some flexibility, so that Members could meet  more frequently in informal meetings if that
turned out to be necessary.  As many had underlined, the second phase should be proposal-driven,
including in relation to the important area of implementation, which needed to be fully and carefully
addressed.  Proposals should be concise and precise, and be expressed as negotiating objectives.  All
should have the opportunity throughout the second phase to explain proposals and have themexplained.  His delegation looked to the Chairman to take an active role in shaping, in particular, the
informal meetings so that this might be achieved.  He stressed the importance of all Members using
the second phase period to develop and elaborate negotiating proposals so that before the summer
break one had the fullest idea possible of the scope of the future work programme and had begun to
develop thoughts on the structure and time-frames for the negotiations.  New Zealand supported thesuggestion of a paper being prepared before the summer break on the state of preparations.  There was
                                                     
1 Circulated as the following Job No. documents:  6155, 7095, 7123, 434, 441, 920, 1023.WT/GC/M/34
Page 4
also value in the Secretariat, working with the Chairman, to maintain, perhaps from the May formal
General Council meeting forward, a type of "rolling compilation" of Members' proposals, so that
Members could assess on an ongoing basis where the preparatory process was at, particularly in
relation to the end goal.  It would be natural to have a cut-off date for the submission of new
proposals.  The appropriate date for such a cut-off would be shortly after the summer break, i.e. midto late September, so that all could have a chance to reflect on the totality of the proposals tabled
during the second phase.  Finally, on the content of the future work programme, New Zealand's
preliminary views on many of the issues would be clear from the statements it had made throughout
the first phase.  While New Zealand supported a broad-based negotiation, at the present meeting he
would simply reiterate the importance it attached to the mandated negotiations in agriculture and
services.  New Zealand also saw a strong need for negotiations on industrial tariffs, and noted the
positive contribution that the APEC Accelerated Tariff Liberalization initiative could make in thisregard.  He recalled that his delegation had recently circulated a communication on this
matter (WT/GC/W/138).
7. The representative of Uruguay recalled that at earlier meetings, his delegation had suggested
that the implementation issues raised be classified  in some way in order to contribute to a more
productive and effective discussion on this subject.  Uruguay's objective had been to try and make aclear distinction between the issues relating to implementation of existing agreements and decisions,
under which Members already had rights and obligations, and other issues that might possibly require
amendments to texts and which could also be the subject of future negotiations.  His delegation had
suggested the following classification:  (i) issues which could be resolved immediately through
already existing WTO procedures and mechanisms;  (ii) issues which could be resolved through aninterpretation by the General Council;  and (iii) issues  which should be included in the future agenda,
including the negotiations due to start at the end of 1999 and the beginning of 2000.  His delegation
had already undertaken an exercise along these lines, which had resulted in a first draft outline of this
work, and had subsequently been consulting on this matter with a number of other delegations.  If the
results of these consultations, which were not over yet, indicated that there was a positive outlook onthe suggested methodology, his delegation would be prepared to present this document to the General
Council.  However, if Uruguay's suggested met hodology met resistance and objections from other
delegations, it would leave the matter pending and would not insist upon it.  His delegation's only
objective was to try to make progress on this matter, which it felt was of great importance.  As to the
organization of further work, Uruguay agreed with the Chairman's proposal, and considered that there
should be a degree of flexibility insofar as informal meetings were concerned.
8. The representative of Norway said that his delegation largely agreed with the Chairman's
proposal on the future organization of the preparatory process.  The next phase should indeed be
proposal-driven, and Members should be urged to pres ent concrete, succinct proposals for elements to
be included in recommendations to Ministers. His delegation also agreed to the idea of a target date
for submission of proposals, at the end of which the Secretariat should draw up a list of the proposals
presented.  However, there should be some flexibility in this respect. His delegation agreed with NewZealand that there should be a formal cut-off date set for late September.  He also wished to underline
the importance of the proposals being geared towards establishing a text for a Ministerial Declaration,
and not leading into a phase of pre-negotiation.  Norway attached importance to the ongoing work in
various subsidiary bodies, and expected  that reports on this work would be presented to the General
Council during the second phase, and that it would thus constitute part of the basis on which Memberswould make their recommendations.  His delegation believed that the Punta del Este formula had
worked well, and that it should be looked at before the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  It was of
crucial importance that the multilateral trading system prepare an agenda for the forthcoming
negotiations that was broad enough to balance the interests of all, and which took into account  the
need to respond to the challenges of a rapidl y changing international trading environment by
delivering results in a reasonably short period.  Increased transparency in multilateral trade policy
formulation and due consideration of qualitative aspects of trade were also necessary to enhance
legitimacy of the multilateral trading system.  It had also to be recognized that WTO Members were atWT/GC/M/34
Page 5
different levels of development, and were thus able to draw the full benefits from open markets to a
varying degree.  The multilateral trading system should take due account of this fact through the
elaboration and full implementation of relevant provisions for special and differential treatment, as
well as through improved market access for LDCs and the efficient provision of technical assistance
for both human resource development and capacity building at the domestic level.  Withoutaddressing this core challenge, the marginalization of LDCs in particular could not be countered and
the cohesiveness of the organization would be at stake.  In this context, Norway attached great
importance to the upcoming high-level symposium on trade and development.  The WTO's legitimacy
also depended on its taking into account the more qualitative aspects of trade, including issues such as
health, environment and consumer interests, rural development, and core labour standards.  These
issues were essential to public opinion as they affected everyday life.
9. In the next phase of the preparatory process, Members would continue the work with respect
to the built-in agenda, as well as other possible negotiating topics.  Through Article 20 of the
Agriculture Agreement, Members were committed to  initiating negotiations for continuing the
agricultural reform process with the long-term objective of substantial progressive reductions in
support and protection, taking into account all elements included in that Article.  In particular,
Norway was concerned that the special characteristics of its agricultural sector be understood andrespected, including non-trade concerns such as food security, viability of rural areas and
environmental considerations.  The multifunctional role of the agricultural sector was of crucial
importance to Norway and would, due to the diffic ult natural conditions in Norwegian agriculture,
imply a need for special treatment on a permanent basi s to be maintained. In this regard, he referred to
his delegation's statement on this issue at the informal intersessional meeting on 27 January and2 February.  In the services area, he underlined that negotiations on maritime transport should resume
from the commencement of the coming negotiations.  With regard to trade and environment, he said
that trade had environmental effects, while taking account of environmental concerns often also had
trade effects.  The challenge in the WTO was to ensure that the two policy areas were mutually
supportive and legally consistent in order to promote the objective of sustainable development.  It wasfundamental that in the context of the upcoming negotiations environmental concerns be taken into
account in all fields subject to negotiations.  He expected and trusted that the upcoming high-level
symposium on trade and environment would contribute to this end.  Norway had been engaged
domestically in a broad process of identification of its interests, including in areas outside the built-in
agenda, covering such issues as market access for goods, including fish and fish products, electronic
commerce, government procurement of goods and services, trade and environment, trade and
competition, and trade and investment.  Norway t ook a broad approach to the multilateral trade
agenda for the next millennium. It believed that a comprehensive round of negotiations would be a
way to achieve a balanced outcome to the benefit of all Members, and that the negotiations should
deliver results within a reasonable time.
10. The representative of the European Communitie s said that the Community remained deeply
committed to the launch of a comprehensive trade round the following year.  If a single conclusion
could be drawn from the informal intersessional meetings, it was that only a comprehensive approach
could satisfy the wide range of priorities and concerns expressed by delegations.  Many Members had
joined the Community in advocating a comprehensive round and, like the Community, regarded it as
the best possible way to deliver further trade liberalization to the benefit of all.  Many Members had
also called for a new round to be conducted as a single undertaking, which was indispensable for atruly multilateral approach.  It had been tested by time and was the only way to guarantee benefits to
all Members, as well as to improve the chances that the end result would be adopted by national
parliaments.  The Community had also detected growing support for new negotiations to be conducted
and concluded in about three years.
11. The need for an approach encompassing a wide variety of interests had also emerged in the
discussions on implementation as well as on the foll ow-up to the high-level meeting on LDCs.  These
discussions had highlighted the particular needs of developing countries in the WTO, which hadWT/GC/M/34
Page 6
clearly not yet been fulfilled.  Concerns had been expressed in the implementation debate about the
lack of administrative means to implement certain commitments, and the need for substantially more
assistance in building capacity or flexibility in transition periods.  Many developing countries had also
called for the provision of substantially better market-access opportunities.  Some had also suggested
that elements of the Uruguay Round package had proven to be imbalanced, and had called for re-balancing and a more operational form of special and differential treatment.  These concerns deserved
serious consideration.  The Community, for its part, had committed itself to offering tariff-free
treatment to essentially all products from LDCs, and had met that target with 99 per cent of LDC
imports entering the Community duty free.  The Community called on other developed countries to
commit themselves to providing similar tariff-fr ee treatment no later than the third Ministerial
Conference.  A decision at Seattle to do so would constitute a very important deliverable for many
Members.  A contribution by the more advanced developing countries would also be useful.  TheCommunity also suggested a specific, and qualitatively different, focus on capacity building,
particularly for LDCs.  Members should also develop ways to strengthen developing countries'
capacity to use the dispute settlement mechanism.  Interesting proposals had been made on a
mechanism to provide legal advice to developing countries on dispute settlement.  The Community
had proposed strengthening the resources within the WTO Secretariat to provide legal assistance.  Ithoped that agreement could be reached as soon as possible, and certainly no later than the end of the
year, on these proposals as a practical measure to assist developing countries' integration into the
system and to improve the opportunities of these countries to derive further benefits from it.
12. The nature of some of the issues that the Community hoped to include in a new round might
also demand new approaches to development assistance, cooperation, and capacity building.  A morecoherent and comprehensive approach to these issues by the WTO was needed.  A new round should
focus on ways to improve market-access opportunities for all.  The industrialized countries should be
ready to approach the next phase of negotiations without excluding, a priori, any issues of justified
interest to developing countries.  Members had heard proposals from developing countries aimed at
improving market access, strengthening rules, or re-balancing agreements.  They had also heard callsto adjust the anti-dumping disciplines, for the reduction of tariff peaks in developed-country markets,
the simplification of origin rules, modification of certain provisions of the Subsidies Agreement, and
for a fresh look at special and differential treatment in, for example, the TBT and Customs Valuation
Agreements.  There were many more examples. However, simply stating the problems or objectives
in the abstract would achieve nothing.  A new round provided the best opportunity to address the
problems that had arisen, while the others that did not demand negotiation could be addressed in
parallel through, for example, the review processes.  It was up to Members who wanted to pursuethese issues to make concrete proposals.
13. With regard to the built-in agenda, the Commun ity shared the assessment of many that the
preparatory process on agriculture and services was basically on schedule.  It also noted that several
Members had called for the negotiations on agricultur e and services to be carried out, together with
the other subjects of a round, as part of a single undertaking.  The Community agreed with this view,
and believed it was the best way of maximizing the chances of an optimum outcome in these two
sectors.  As for the Singapore subjects, there had been considerable support for addressing these
issues in a new round.  Greater transparency and predictability of investment rules would attract badly
needed capital and improve the economic performance of the recipients.  Competition rules would
benefit consumers, small and medium sized comp anies, stimulate competition, and strengthen
Members' regulatory capacity.  On trade facilitation, simplified procedures would reduce the cost of
red tape for businesses, and help all Members, whether developed or developing, to improve access to
overseas markets, reduce bureaucratic waste and release resources for more worthwhile employment.
The Community had also noted support for pursuing the work on transparency in government
procurement, which in itself was an important contribution to good governance.  The Communitywished also to see further market opening at all levels of government, central, regional and local, and
the removal of discriminatory practices by all major trading partners.  The maintenance of antiquated
buy-national rules was hardly consistent with a modern advanced market economy.  As regards newWT/GC/M/34
Page 7
issues, the Community had proposed addressing the relationship between trade and the environment
in a new round in a manner that would lead to greater clarity surrounding the interpretation of existing
WTO rules, reinforce Members' common objective of sustainable development as set out in the
preamble to the WTO Agreement, and avoid action th at would allow protectionist action in ecological
disguise.  The forthcoming high-level symposia on trade and environment and trade and development
should provide an important opportunity for Members to exchange views among themselves and with
non-governmental organizations on the best means to foster both economic development and
environmental protection in an open world economy.  There had also been support from many
countries for negotiations on industrial tariffs.  Ma ny had shared the view that only a comprehensive
approach on industrial tariffs could bring market access benefits to all Members, and that a purely
sectoral approach could only serve the biggest trading countries.  A number of countries, both
developed and developing, had called for the elimination of peak tariffs in sectors of interest to them,such as textiles.  The Community called for the elimin ation of peak tariffs in all industrial sectors, and
believed that maintenance of peak tariffs, in particular by the most highly developed economies, had
lost all justification.
14. It would be disingenuous and incorrect to suggest that there was already a consensus on
negotiating such a wide array of issues in a new round.  While support was widespread, it was clearlyfar from universal.  Unreasonable or excessive ambitions had to be avoided by all.  The Community
was fully prepared to address concerns of partner countries in order to ensure that new market-access
commitments and rule-making were of mutual benefit and would be absorbed at an acceptable pace.
On the other hand, the world would not stand still.  Globalization was a fact, and it was in the interest
of all that it be conducted within the context of better multilateral rules, negotiated and concludedrapidly so that they did not become obsolete before they were even ratified.  The third Ministerial
Conference would also provide an opportunity for decisions other than those directly concerning
future negotiations, i.e. specific decisions that might immediately or rapidly be put into effect. Several
issues had been mentioned as being ripe for decision-making, including:  (i) adoption of results of the
rules of origin harmonization work programme;  (i i) adoption of any modifications to the DSU that
might be agreed following the results of the ongoing review;  (iii) confirmation of the continuation of
certain provisions of the Subsidies Agreement;  and (iv) pledges to improve market-access for LDCs,
as called for by the Community at the present meeting.  Members wishing to propose issues for
ministerial decision in Seattle should do so in g ood time, and certainly by the summer break.  Another
important issue on which Members should try to make progress rapidly, and certainly no later than the
Seattle Ministerial Conference, concerned the accession process of a number of countries.  The
Community believed it was in the interests of the WTO as a whole, and of the acceding governments,that the accession process be accelerated so as to ensure participation of new members in the next
phase of negotiations, as well as to ensure that during a new round the interests and status of countries
who had still to accede were kept firmly to the fore.  The Community's specific suggestions on this
matter had recently been submitted to the Secretariat for circulation to Members (WT/GC/W/153).
This issue was another important deliverable.  Finally, he noted that Members' discussions weretaking place against the backdrop of intense and growing interest in the WTO.  Support for the
multilateral system from different sections of society was conditional, and not assured.  Members
should therefore, as an organisation, substantially improve transparency towards civil society.  More
importantly, they needed to do more individually, both in respect to transparency, and to dialogue and
consultation, with their domestic constituencies.  On important and sensitive issues such as trade andcore labour standards, Members should continue to support the important conclusions adopted at the
Singapore Ministerial Conference and encourage continued and close cooperation between the ILO
and WTO Secretariats.  In the medium term, there was merit in taking a more systematic look at the
relationship between the WTO and all other relevant international organizations in order to improve
the functioning of the WTO system.
15. The aim of the next phase of the preparatory process should be to prepare for a Ministerial
declaration with the greatest degree of precision and clarity possible, through the development of an
outline, checklist, or wishlist of elements that could comprise the scope of the Ministerial agenda.WT/GC/M/34
Page 8
Many had supported the idea that such a checklist could be usefully completed, at least in draft form,
by the summer break.  To achieve this, the General Council's work should intensify.  This intensive
phase, in which Members should make concrete contributions, should continue until roughly the
summer break, with drafting work on a Ministerial declaration starting in the autumn.  An indicative
target date of the summer break should be set for the submission of proposals.  However, it would benecessary to retain some flexibility.  Clearly, however, late proposals would run the risk of being
subject to less careful scrutiny and positive attention.  The Community was comfortable with the
Chairman's proposed approach.  It also believed that the General Council should continue to drive the
process and ensure transparency.  The next phase should give adequate opportunity for all Members'
interests to be addressed.  Whether addressing the built-in agenda, Singapore issues, or new subjects,
the optimum outcome in terms of developing a broad-based agenda was one in which all issues
received equal and due consideration.  The Community therefore saw no obvious need to categorizeor repackage the issues that were before the General Council.  Members should continue with broadly
the same format as the previous phase, as proposed by the Chairman, and take up sequentially
different parts of paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration, with an opportunity at each meeting to
raise other issues as well.
16. The representative of Japan said that the primary task in the second phase was to arrive at a
common understanding on the scope, structure and time-frames for the next negotiations before the
summer break in order to allow the General Council to enter a drafting phase in September.  Ministers
had agreed to task the General Council to "submit recommendations regarding the WTO's work
programme, including further liberalization sufficiently broad-based to respond to the range of
interests and concerns of all Members".  In order to achieve this, the next negotiations should becomprehensive, and cover, in addition to the negotiations already mandated, tariff negotiations on
industrial goods, work set out as part of the built-in agenda, and rule-making, such as the
establishment of multilateral investment rules.  Only comprehensive negotiations reflecting the
interests of all participants could generate the n ecessary political support, and experience had shown
that a sectoral approach had limits as to what it could achieve. The next negotiations should also becompleted as a single undertaking, and within a relatively short period, i.e. approximately three years.
With these key principles in mind, Members should determine the specific and most effective method
for conducting the next negotiations.  The Seattle Ministerial Conference was not far away, and the
General Council 's work therefore needed to be accelerated, work with the aim of achieving
substantive results in the second phase. The process thus far had been helpful in deepening
understanding of Members' positions on the issues under paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration.
Japan had taken note of the points raised by developing countries on the issue of implementation.  Asmentioned in paragraph 8 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration, full and faithful implementation of
the WTO Agreement and Ministerial Decisions was imperative for the credibility of the multilateral
trading system.  Members had to evaluate accurately  the implementation of individual agreements and
the extent to which their objectives had been realized.  To this end, Japan believed that the
classification of issues as proposed by Uruguay w ould be useful in examining the different issues
raised regarding implementation.  Japan recognized that neither further trade liberalization nor rule-
making in a new agenda could be successfully pursued without the full participation of developing
countries.  The positive participation of these countries was essential in order also to advance their
own interests.  Japan would continue to listen carefu lly to the concerns of these countries, including in
the area of special and differential treatment.  It  believed also that capacity building was important for
developing countries to fully benefit from the WTO system, as well as to resolve difficulties
encountered in implementation, and would continue to support them in this area.  Japan regarded the
coming high-level symposium on trade and development as an important initiative in this respect.
17. As regards the organization of future work, the General Council should, in the second phase,
build upon the work already carried out in such areas as services and agriculture.  It should also startsubstantive work in other areas to determine the basis of the negotiations starting from the year 2000.
The Secretariat's checklists would be useful references in this regard.  The second phase should also
be proposal-driven, and the early submission of pr oposals was encouraged.  Although a rigid cut-offWT/GC/M/34
Page 9
date might be difficult to implement, Members should nevertheless ensure that the bulk of the
proposals was made before the summer break.  It was important too that all proposals be considered
and discussed, and that Members not be selective.  Discussions on what should be included in the
work programme to be agreed at the third Minist erial Conference would be conducted in the third
phase or even at the Ministerial Conference itself.  Japan could, in general, support the indicativeschedule of meetings proposed by the Chairman, and believed that striking the right balance between
formal and informal meetings was important.  In formal meetings should provide opportunities for
meaningful interaction among Members on different proposals.  Furthermore, in order for the General
Council to discuss the scope, structure and time-frames of the next negotiations before the summer
break, work needed to be conducted expeditiously so that all the issues in paragraph 9 of the
Ministerial Declaration could be covered adequately.
18. The representative of Bolivia said that her Government had made tremendous efforts to
undertake costly structural reform and trade liberalization in accordance with its WTO commitments.
A small and vulnerable developing economy, Bolivia had in fact become one of the most open
economies in the multilateral system.  It believed that in the process of preparing for the third
Ministerial Conference, Members should constantly bear in mind the spirit of Marrakesh.  The
implementation of the Marrakesh Agreements aimed at strengthening the world economy with agreater rate of growth in trade, investment, employ ment and revenue for all.  This was the cornerstone
on which all the agreements were based.  For Bolivia, it was essential that the negotiations already
mandated were initiated, particularly in the agricultural sector, in order to eliminate trade-distorting
practices. Such practices were prejudicial to the market possibilities of developing countries and
endangered not only their exporting potential but also their food security.  Bolivia was concerned bythe fact that protectionist practices were already emerging.  The technical requirements which certain
countries tried to impose in a global manner were not realistic, since the structure of the economies of
most developing countries would prevent compliance.  Bolivia believed that these new technical
requirements without appropriate transfer of technology were no more than non-tariff barriers.  As
regards the services negotiations, her delegation believed that they should not be carried out in asectoral manner, and should include all sectors and modes of supply to improve the possibilities for
the participation of developing countries, particularly small countries like Bolivia. It should be
possible in this way to avoid in future the difficulties that Members were currently undergoing in the
area of the implementation because of a lack of knowledge and information.  In the area of textiles, 50
months after the entry into force of the Agreement, no significant changes in market access for
products of importance to developing countries had yet taken place.  This situation frustrated the spirit
of Marrakesh and the potential for economic growth, and undermined the credibility of theorganization.
19. With regard to special and differential treatment, one could see that since this was a non-
binding mechanism, it had not given the hoped for results. Such treatment was limited to the provision
of longer transition periods for developing countries in certain sectors but which, without any
accompanying measures, had not made it possible to overcome the institutional weakness of thisapproach.  The aim should be to try and evolve a body of rules which would meet the needs of and
benefit all Members without having to resort to ad hoc mechanisms that were difficult to apply.
Bolivia believed that these deficiencies should be the object of corrective measures and not be subject
to negotiations that would lead developing countries to grant new concessions without actually having
enjoyed the anticipated benefits.  In the area of market access, developing countries could not acceptthat environmental, labour and human rights aspects be converted into factors that distorted trade and
strengthened protectionist tendencies in the sector s where they were most competitive.  The system
should provide trade and market access conditions that allowed for the transformation of developing
countries in a way that would lead to exports of goods with greater value added.  Only in this way
would economic growth bring about the elimin ation of inadequate environmental or labour
conditions.  Such considerations should not acquire punitive overtones that would polarize the system,
provoke mistrust and not lead to economic growth.  With regard to transparency, Bolivia believed that
only a full knowledge and understanding of the agreements, their repercussions and of the new issuesWT/GC/M/34
Page 10
that were sought to be introduced would allow for equitable negotiations in which the trade interests
of each Member could be defended on the basis of good faith.  Marginalization was a real danger,
particularly for small developing economies th at were struggling to comply with the WTO
Agreements despite their institutional weakness and lack of resources.  The system should provide for
greater integration of small economies and be attractive for all.  In this regard, in introducing newissues, Members should keep in mind the limitations of developing countries, which could not be
resolved simply through technical assistance.  It was only in this way that developing countries could
fully participate in new undertakings.  Clearly, only a multilateral system which had full participation
of all its members could be an efficient system.  Finally, in their desire to improve the credibility of
the WTO, Members should ensure that the dispute settlement mechanism was more accessible to all,
and that its complexity and cost did not discourage the recourse necessary in order to defend trade
interests, in particular of the smallest countries.  She wished to note that Bolivia was a member of theAndean Community, had signed the MERCOSUR Ec onomic Complementarity Agreement and was a
party to the negotiations for the establishment of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, in the
conviction that regional and subregional integration processes made greater trade liberalization
possible and thereby promoted development and sustained growth.  Bolivia believed that such
regional integration strengthened the multilateral trading system.  In conclusion, Bolivia believed thatthe mandate that the General Council submitted to Ministers in Seattle should be realistic and
balanced.
20. The representative of Guatemala, referring to the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, said
that progressive integration into WTO rules was a fundamental element of that Agreement.  For this
reason, Members should ensure that it was as efficient, fair and transparent as possible and that thedeadline for full implementation by 1 January 2005 was respected.  Guatemala supported the points
made by the Chairman of the International Textiles and Clothing Bureau to the effect that unjustified
resort to transitional safeguards in the Agreement as well as application of additional restrictive
measures, including cumbersome customs and administrative measures, certification requirements in
regard to products already integrated, and modifications of rules of origin adversely affecteddeveloping countries that had achieved competitivity in the area of textiles and clothing.  It was also
regrettable that through the application of high tariffs and non-tariff measures, some Members had not
improved access for textiles and clothing products to their markets as required under Article 7 of  the
Agreement.  Guatemala hoped that this access would soon be further facilitated.  Another important
issue for Guatemala concerned requests for the extension of transition periods established in some
WTO Agreements, in respect of which it believed that the financial, economic and development needs
of developing countries, particularly small economies, should be taken into consideration.  Smalldeveloping economies had much to do to be able to move ahead in the face of the challenges and
opportunities provided by more open trade, as a result of their macroeconomic vulnerability and other
limitations.
21. In the area of services, Guatemala wished to reiterate the importance of accelerating
negotiations for the creation of a system of emergency safeguard measures which would complete themandate contained in Article X of the GATS.  Regarding the TRIPS Agreement, Guatemala
supported other developing countries in calling for the extension to other products of the multilateral
system of notification and registration of geographical indications.  It further believed that the period
foreseen in Article 64.2 of the Agreement should be further extended by five years to allow modified
industrial property regimes to adapt naturally to the social situation in developing countries.  Asregards the DSU review, and particularly given the controversy that had arisen recently in the Dispute
Settlement Body, Guatemala believed it was necessary to further clarify the provisions of Article 21,
particularly paragraphs 3 and 5, with the aim of establishing reasonable periods of time which would
not interfere with the application of Article 22.  Guatemala believed that Article 22 itself should not
be modified since it was quite clear and its application should not be weakened.  Guatemala supportedthe review of the DSU currently under way, and urged all Members to find a consensus-based
proposal to be submitted to the next Ministerial Conference.  Guatemala also believed that greater
clarity could be introduced to the implementation of the Anti-Dumping Agreement so that smallWT/GC/M/34
Page 11
countries like itself did not find themselves unprotected when arbitrary interpretations of certain
provisions took place, weakening the spirit of the Agreement.  Finally, his delegation agreed with the
calendar of meetings proposed by the Chairman.
22. The representative of Korea said that the monthl y intersessional meetings held thus far in the
preparatory process had been useful, and had enabled Members to gain valuable insights as to the
WTO's future work programme.  Clearly, there was a wide range of issues that Members wished to
see addressed in the context of a new round. The extent of the issues indicated the need for a new
round to be comprehensive in its scope going beyond the built-in agenda.  He recalled that Korea had
expressed support for a comprehensive round of negotiations throughout the first phase, and was
encouraged by recent signs of increasing support for such a round.  There was also increasing
recognition of the need to address the problems faced by developing countries in the implementation
of existing agreements.  While the future work programme should cover other important areas,addressing the concerns of developing countries shoul d be an integral part of it.  The scope, structure
and time-frames to be decided on should be built upon the convergence of these and other
observations shared by Members.  As regards the scope of a new round, Korea had suggested the
inclusion of several areas other than the built-in agenda, including market-access for industrial
products, trade and investment, trade and competition policy, and WTO provisions relating to regionaltrade agreements and anti-dumping measures.  It was also ready to consider other areas in which other
Members had expressed interest.  Korea shared the view that a new round should be completed in a
relatively short time, and noted that three years had been suggested by many.  Furthermore, a new
round should proceed as a single undertaking in order to ensure a balanced outcome for all.
Considering the emerging consensus on the need to complete a new round in a relatively short period,Members should not necessarily link the idea of a single undertaking to a lengthy negotiation.  Korea
welcomed the fact that a consensus had been reached on the organization of future work.  Given the
limited time until the Seattle Ministerial Conference, he hoped that Members would be able to
produce an initial outline of the work programme before the summer break.  The Chairman's proposal
for the calendar of meetings offered an excellent chance of accomplishing that goal.  Clearly, whetherthis format would achieve its goal was entirely in the hands of Members.  In order to engage in
substantive discussion without delay, Members needed to be encouraged to submit proposals as early
as possible. Proposals should be specific in terms of the objectives and scope of the negotiations to
allow Members to engage in active interaction.
23. The representative of Hungary, speaking also  on behalf of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, recalled that these countries had stated
repeatedly that a new round of negotiations had to be started to preserve the results of multilateral
trade negotiations and to move the trade liberalization process forward.  They had also stated that in
order to ensure the success of a new round, it had to be truly comprehensive.  Members should
therefore elaborate a package that was broad enough to embrace the interests of the developed as well
as developing and transition countries, and bold enough to reflect the dynamic changes in their
economies.  Only such a comprehensive agenda, forming a single undertaking, would allow for thenecessary cross-sectoral trade-offs that would enable all countries to find an appropriate balance of
commitments at the end.  The first phase of the preparatory process had gone broadly in accordance
with expectations, and suggested that the process was basically on the right track.  He welcomed the
signs of a growing consensus that the agenda of  a new round should go well beyond the mandated
negotiations on services and agriculture, and include industrial tariffs, investment, competition,transparency in government procurement, trade faci litation, electronic commerce, among other issues.
The present meeting would set the course for the second phase, when the preparatory process would
have to be effectively intensified.  Like others, their countries believed that the second phase should
be proposal-driven, and aimed at defining, to the extent possible, the maximum scope of the future
negotiating agenda. During the latter part of this phase, the General Council should start to deal withparagraph 10 of the Ministerial Declaration by discussing how best the work programme could be
managed and by setting out the organisational details, including the scope, structure and time-frames
of future negotiations, elaborating the outline of the results to be expected from the third MinisterialWT/GC/M/34
Page 12
Conference.  To move the preparations forward, Members should be invited to table precise and
concrete proposals in the next stage, the substantial discussion of which would form the backbone of
the second phase.  The proposals should preferably be concise, and clearly define the objectives and
the intended scope of the issues to be negotiated.  Establishing an indicative cut-off date for
submission of proposals was advisable in order that Members could focus discussions in the thirdphase on the issues already tabled in the earlier phase.  Their delegations supported the Chairman's
proposal of holding monthly formal meetings, followed by informal meetings, as necessary.  The first
forum would provide the opportunity to present proposals while the second would enable Members to
discuss them in detail.  The informal meetings should be open-ended and aim at the clarification and
better understanding of concrete proposals.  Furthermore, the preparatory process should be carried
out within the framework of the General Council.   Subsidiary bodies could be entrusted to perform
tasks only exceptionally and on an ad hoc basis, primarily to clarify technical aspects of certain issues.Their delegations believed that the second phase should be concluded before the summer recess, and
that a stocktaking exercise at the end of July would be useful.
24. The representative of El Salvador, speaking also on behalf of Cuba, the Dominican Republic,
Honduras and Nicaragua, said that the highest importance should be given to the problems relating to
the implementation of existing agreements and decisions that developing countries had been facing
since the WTO's establishment.  Their delegations wished to reiterate their respective statements in
the various informal intersessional meetings, in particular those relating to special and differential
treatment.  In this context, they  wished to recall that in paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Declaration,
there was specific recognition that implementation problems constituted an important element in the
evaluation of implementation to be undertaken. There were two aspects to the problems encounteredin implementation:  the lack of precision in the provisions regarding special and differential treatment
in the various WTO Agreements, and the difficulties encountered by developing countries in their
efforts to comply with the commitm ents undertaken at Marrakesh.  In order to achieve a fair balance
between countries at different levels of development, special attention should be given to the
contributions and suggestions made by developing countries since the beginning of the preparatoryprocess.  In particular, he noted that their delegations had referred to the Agreements on Subsidies and
TRIPS, and wished also to associate themselves with the contributions made by Egypt, India and
Pakistan. Furthermore, with regard to the nego tiations already mandated, in particular those in
agriculture, they had called for an improvement in access to developed country markets for the main
export products originating in countries with small and vulnerable economies.  Developed countries
should take concrete steps to reduce the high tariffs on products of particular importance to their
countries and also undertake better practical implementation of preference systems.  It was alsoimportant that the specific needs of net food-importing countries be met.  Regarding the services
sector, their countries had indicated that the negotiating process should contribute to the full
implementation of the objectives of GATS, particularly the provisions of Article IV regarding
increased participation of developing countries in trade in services, and the provisions of Article XIX
regarding progressive liberalization, in particular paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 thereof, which referred toseeking a balance of rights and obligations, to the respect for national policy objectives, and to the
levels of development of the various Members.  These provisions also referred to the need for an
assessment of trade in services in overall terms and on a sectoral basis with a view to establishing
negotiating guidelines and procedures.
25. Regarding the work programme established in Singapore, the educational process on these
issues should continue, and the development dimension maintained as a fundamental part of future
work.  With regard to possible new issues, the WTO work programme should not be overburdened,
nor should further obligations for developing countries be created, and priority attention should
remain on matters relating to implementation problems.   Account should also be taken of the need to
avoid duplication of work, particularly when there were other specialized organizations that couldfocus on issues within their competence.  With a view to moving the preparatory process forward,
their delegations believed that the checklists of issues prepared by the Secretariat should be
maintained as non-exhaustive documents which could continue to be supplemented with newWT/GC/M/34
Page 13
contributions.  They also urged the Secretariat to undertake the studies proposed by several
developing countries in order that they might have sufficient information for the second, interactive
phase of work.  Proposals to be submitted by Members in this phase should provide the objectives,
reasons and scope of the proposals, which should be grouped according to the division of issues in
paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration.  A deadline for the submission of proposals should be setfor the end of July. Finally, their delegations wished to stress that their countries had undertaken
considerable commitments in adopting the WTO Agreements and legal texts, and had agreed to an
important and deep liberalization process in the understanding that this would undeniably lead to
economic progress and the social advancement of their peoples.  However, these expectations had not
been met, and Members should work to ensure that  the new process culminated in making effective
the demands of developing countries and in meeting their expectations, and contribute to sustained
economic growth and the improvement of the standard of living of their peoples.
26. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, said that, in the
preparatory process thus far, numerous proposals, including with regard to implementation of existing
agreements and decisions, had been made both in writing and orally.  While the ASEAN Members
considered implementation issues and the built-in agenda, including the mandated negotiations on
agriculture and services, as requiring intensive work, they were willing to keep an open mind asregards proposals under paragraph 9(d) of the Ministerial Declaration, which they understood covered
issues not otherwise covered by paragraphs 9(a), 9(b) and 9(c).  In assessing the issues that might be
raised under this sub-paragraph, the ASEAN Members would apply, inter alia , the criteria of whether
the issue was (i) trade-related;  (ii) within the competence of the WTO and not duplicative of work
undertaken in other organizations;  (iii) of common concern, collective interest and mutuallybeneficial to all Members; and (iv) whether it commanded consensus amongst Members to address
and deal with it in the context of the multilateral trading system.  While some Members had raised
issues such as labour standards and trade and environment in this context, their countries' position in
respect of these issues was well known and based upon the criteria outlined above.  They remained
committed to the relevant provisions of the Singapore Ministerial Declaration in this regard, andwould apply the same criteria to any other issues that might be proposed.  New issues raised in the
context of paragraph 9(d) should find balance in themselves, and should not be used as a trade-off to
meet the legitimate expectations of Members that existing imbalances in the WTO Agreement be
redressed.
27. The ASEAN Members believed that work in the second phase should be more intensive and
proposal-driven, provide for greater interaction than in the first phase, as well as maximum flexibility
to Members for the tabling and discussion of proposals.  It should be aimed at defining the full scope,in more definitive terms, of the issues that Memb ers were likely to focus on in the third phase.  In
view of these parameters, work in this phase should last from March to July, with one formal meeting
planned for the months of March, April, May and June, and two in July.  The formal meetings would
be geared essentially to providing Members an oppor tunity to table proposals and express their views
on the operative paragraphs of the Ministerial Declaration for the record.  It would be important,however, to consider ways in which the General Council could organize these formal meetings so as
to maximize the time available to complete any work that had to be done in the formal mode.
Delegations needed to adopt a flexible approach to the informal meetings to be held.  The number of
such meetings each month would depend on the number of proposals tabled and the likely intensity of
the discussions.  The ASEAN Members were agreeable to the Chairman's proposal of one informalmeeting each month following the formal sessions in March, April, May and June, and to the dates
proposed for both the informal and formal meetings.  Sufficient time should be provided in between
meetings for delegations to consult their capitals, and parallel meetings avoided.  In terms of issues to
be taken up at each meeting, their countries favoured a sequential approach as followed in the first
phase, with the meeting in March focusing on paragraphs 9(a)(i) and 8 of the Ministerial Declaration.Paragraph 8 of the Declaration was important to  the ASEAN Members, and it would be useful to
consider mechanisms by which the collective evaluation that was to be conducted would be taken up.
The April Special Session could take up paragraphs 9(a)(ii) and 9(a)(iii), with the May and JuneWT/GC/M/34
Page 14
meetings addressing paragraph 9(c) as well as paragraphs 9(b) and 9(d).  In July, the first formal
meeting could deal with paragraph 10 while the second meeting would aim at taking stock and
considering the way forward in the third phase.  It would be understood that delegations would be
able to revert to any of these issues at any meeting.
28. The representative of Costa Rica said that the work in the first had provided a good basis on
which to build in the second phase of the preparatory process.  The second phase should allow for a
broad-ranging and deep dialogue on all the elements and proposals that could form part of broad
negotiations, which Costa Rica hoped would be launched by Ministers at Seattle.  Costa Rica
supported a global round of negotiations that would include not only issues on which there was
already a negotiating mandate but also other areas such as the development of multilateral rules on
investment.  Costa Rica supported the Chairman's proposal on the organization of future work, and the
idea of a mix of informal and formal meetings on a monthly basis.  It wished to reiterate theimportance of distinguishing between the objectives to be met in the formal meetings and those to be
met in an informal context.  Formal meetings should be devoted to presentation of concrete and
specific proposals, and informal meetings for a fr ank and deep exchange of views among delegations
on the content of the proposals.  Costa Rica also supported the idea of holding as many informal
meetings as necessary, and of setting an indicative date for the submission of proposals.  Like otherdelegations, Costa Rica believed that towards the end of July one should have an outline, or a
compilation of proposals as suggested by New Zeala nd, regarding the structure, calendar and content
of the future negotiations.  This would give time for delegations to consult with their capitals, so that
upon resumption of work after the summer break, it would be possible for rapid progress to be made
towards the consensus necessary for a draft Ministerial declaration.
29. The representative of Australia said that Australia's interest in a new round of negotiations
would focus on the market access dimension.  The first phase of work had been a worthwhile process.
Of all the substantive issues raised in this phase, three had come through very clearly:  first, the
growing support for negotiations to produce balanced  outcomes serving the interests of all Members;
second, the beginnings of debate over the elements that could be included in new negotiations,including issues arising from implementation of current commitments, the built-in-agenda and other
issues; and, finally, the calls by many Members to begin concrete work on recommendations for the
Seattle Ministerial Conference as a matter of urgency.  Australia was satisfied with the process
proposed by the Chairman for the second phase.  It was important that the process be flexible,
intensive and interactive.  Given that Members w ould have only two months in the third phase to
finalize everything for the Ministerial Conference, they could not afford to let the second phase drift.
Members should have a clear idea of the results they expected from this phase.  In Australia's view, bythe end of the second phase Members should have a good idea of the full scope of proposals that
would form the basis for negotiations leading up to the Seattle Ministerial Declaration.  This meant
that all delegations should submit as soon as possible clear and specific proposals on issues of interest
to them.  Delegations should also be able to submit proposals on any issue at any time during the
second phase.  Like others, Australia was keen to avoid any late surprises that might disrupt work inthe third phase.  Members should therefore work  towards a clear cut-off date for receiving new
proposals, if possible.  While mid-to-late September, as suggested by some, might be a little late, his
delegation could see the benefits of having a period after the end of the second phase for reflection.
The agenda for the second phase was well defined by the three key paragraphs of the Ministerial
Declaration, namely paragraphs 8, 9 and 10.  The issues set out in paragraph 9 should be considered inturn, as the Chairman had proposed, and the Ministerial Declaration had made quite clear the
distinctions between these issues.  Delegations should therefore not waste time debating whether a
hierarchy of issues existed.  It was likely that all delegations would have interests in each of these
areas.  The agenda of the second phase should also cover the scope, structure and time-frames of the
WTO work programme, in pursuance of the requirement in paragraph 10, since it made no sense toexamine proposals on elements of the work programme without also looking at proposals on the
framework.  Members should not waste time, as they did in the Uruguay Round following the Punta
del Este meeting, in establishing structures and negotiating plans after Seattle;  rather, they should beWT/GC/M/34
Page 15
in a position to start the process very quickly thereafter.  Members should also begin work on the
evaluation of implementation of individual agreements provided for in paragraph 8.  For this
important work, Members should use the resources of the Secretariat where possible, seek
contributions from other relevant international organizations and, above all, discuss these issues
thoroughly in the relevant WTO bodies.  An evaluation of implementation was something that onlyMembers could do, and work on this should begin quickly.  Australia fully agreed on the need for all
developing countries to be able to fully participate in and benefit from the trading system, and that
capacity building was an important element in this regard.  However, the best means to assist many
developing countries would be to provide fair access to agricultural markets and to remove harmful
subsidies.  The idea of permanent exceptions for agriculture and continued special treatment for rich
countries, which discriminated against the key interests of agricultural exporters, including developing
countries, was patently not the way to proceed, and would run against both the letter and spirit ofArticle 20 of the Agriculture Agreement.  Australia was determined to see that this would not be the
result of the next round of agriculture negotiations.
30. The representative of Egypt said he wished to highlight some points from the Joint
Communiqué of the Ninth Summit meeting of the G-15 countries held in Jamaica from
10-12 February 1999 relating to the work of the WTO and to the preparatory process for the thirdMinisterial Conference.
2  The Heads of State and Government of the G-15 countries had reaffirmed
the importance of a transparent, fair and equitable rules-based multilateral trading system under the
WTO, effectively integrating all countries and leading to the realization of the objectives of raising
standards of living, ensuring full employment and steadily growing volume of real income and
effective demand, and expanding trade in goods and services.  To this end, they had reiterated againthat unilateral measures with extraterritorial effe cts were incompatible with the multilateral trading
system, and threatened to undermine it.  They had agreed to continue their participation in the WTO
in the implementation of its current work programme and the ongoing discussions and consultations
leading up to the third Ministerial Conference later in the year, when they would join in deciding on
its future work programme, including further liberalization sufficiently broad-based to respond to theconcerns and interests of developing countries.  They  would consult with their trading partners in the
WTO as the preparatory process unfolded keeping, inter alia , the following principles in mind:  the
legitimacy of the development objectives of developing countries and, consequently, the need to
preserve economic spaces within the multilateral trading system to implement market-oriented
development policies, as well as the need for the full implementation of the special and differential
provisions provided for in the Agreements, as deliberated at the recent G-15 symposium on special
and differential treatment for developing countries;  the importance of redressing the difficulties facedby developing countries in the implementation of the WTO Agreements to enable them to participate
more effectively in the trading system;  and the lack of implementation or non-fulfilment of
obligations of the Uruguay Round Agreements by developed countries, which could not be used by
them as bargaining instruments for obtaining further concessions from developing countries.  They
had noted the negotiations on accession to the WTO, and the agreement to review progress. In thelight of their commitment to the early accession of developing countries, they had agreed that the
terms of accession of these countries should be in accordance with the WTO Agreements, including
the special and differential provisions.  They had urged full implementation of the measures agreed at
the High-Level Meeting on LDCs, and the work programme being elaborated to integrate small
economies into the multilateral trading system.  Increased cooperation between the WTO andUNCTAD to strengthen the institutional capacities of  developing countries thereby enabling them to
participate more effectively in negotiations an d maximize benefits from the multilateral trading
system had been encouraged.  The Heads of State an d Government had stated that  labour standards
should continue to be set and dealt with in the ILO, and had reaffirmed their opposition to its
inclusion in the WTO work programme.  They had also stated that the label "trade-related" should notbe used as a pretext for the establishment of sta ndards in one institution and their enforcement in the
WTO or any other institutional framework.   Noting that the relationship between trade and
                                                     
2 See WT/L/295.WT/GC/M/34
Page 16
environment was an important and complex issue that required further analysis, they had expressed
support for the ongoing analytical work on clarifyi ng the relationship between trade and environment
in several institutions, which should be continued.  They had also opposed the use of trade measures
for achieving environmental objectives and vice versa, and disguised protectionist measures by
developed countries on the grounds of multifunctionality in trade sectors.
31. Turning to the preparatory process, his delegation wished to underline the importance of not
neglecting paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Declaration, which should be the main focus of at least one
of the forthcoming meetings in the second phase.  Since Ministers had stated that when meeting at the
third Session, they would further pursue the ev aluation of the implementation of individual
agreements and the realization of their objectives, the General Council could not leave this until the
last moment in Seattle.  Such an evaluation at a General Council meeting should not merely be a talk
shop or a reading class, as had happened at the end of the Uruguay Round negotiations.  On thatoccasion, each delegation had read its statement on the evaluation of the outcome of the new
negotiations and nothing had in the end been reflecte d in the Agreements.  In the current process, that
experience should not be repeated because it had led to the marginalization of most developing
countries in the multilateral trading system.  Those who were advocating a new round of
comprehensive negotiations would overburden developing countries with new issues while they werealready facing difficulties in implementation of existing agreements, thus leading to their further
marginalization.  To enable these countries to be integrated fully into the system, Members should
first address their difficulties, redress imbalances and then examine how far these countries could
accept any new issues.  If there was no acceptance, no consensus on any new issues, these should not
be pursued.  Members should not force developing countries to accept something they could not.  Thismatter should therefore be crystal clear in the minds of those who had repeatedly called for a new
round of comprehensive trade negotiations as a single undertaking;  they had to consider whether
developing countries were partners in this system or whether the system was run by them and them
alone.  If there was no agreement on any issue, including labour standards, environment, and so forth,
it should be deleted from the agenda.  The majority of WTO Members being developing countries,and the organization being Member-driven, all countries should be driving it, including developing
countries, and not just a few.
32. While Members were committed to negotiating further liberalization under the built-in agenda
in agriculture and in services, they had to see what kind of unfinished business remained to be
completed. Members had to look carefully at the market access difficulties of developing countries.
There were also provisions of the WTO Agreements that were still being used or mis-used in order to
hinder developing-country access to developed-country markets.  These practices should be stopped.Furthermore, developing countries were encountering difficulties in using fully the dispute settlement
mechanism, which all considered to be one of the main benefits of the Uruguay Round.  Members had
to assist developing countries in making use of this system, or only some would be using it and others
not.   Members also had to examine, during the review of the dispute settlement mechanism, how to
compensate those who had been subjected to measures, illegal as far as the WTO Agreements wereconcerned,  and where in the final analysis a ruling of a panel or the Appellate Body had been in
favour of that party, but where that party had in fact lost because it had not been in a position to be
compensated.  The current system did not provide for this, and this issue had to be kept in mind
during the review.  The Secretariat should help all developing countries in benefiting from the dispute
settlement system, and necessary provisions should be made in order for the Secretariat to give fulllegal assistance to these countries.  As regards th e issues referred to in paragraph 9(b) of the
Ministerial Declaration, Egypt believed that none of the four issues were ripe for inclusion in the
agenda for further negotiations, and recalled that Members had agreed in Singapore that future
negotiations, if any, in these areas would take place only after explicit consensus among Members.
As regards new issues under paragraph 9(d), he recalled that a number of such issues had beenreflected in a statement made by the Chairman of the Marrakesh Ministerial meeting.  His delegation
was providing advance notice that it would raise these as new issues, and that they were all trade-
related, unlike labour standards or some other issues.  He wished to reiterate, in this connection, whatWT/GC/M/34
Page 17
the Heads of State and Government of the G-15 c ountries had stated at their Ninth Summit meeting
regarding labour standards, to which he had referred earlier.  This implied that there was no consensus
on the question of addressing the labour standards issue in the WTO work programme.  This question
had been discussed at length at the Singapore Ministerial Conference, and a paragraph relating thereto
had subsequently been included in the Ministerial Declaration on the understanding that the Chairmanof the Ministerial Conference would make a statement that this issue would not be inscribed on the
agenda of the WTO.  That statement had been made by the Chairman in his concluding remarks to the
Ministerial Conference, and was an integral part of that Conference.
33. The representative of Argentina said that the first phase had been useful and important, and
had provided a clearer picture of where one stood and how better to proceed in the future.  His
delegation believed that Uruguay's proposal to classify the implementation issues and concerns that
had been raised into several broad categories to assist in future work was interesting and should befollowed up by the General Council.  The second ph ase should be characterized by concrete, concise
and clear proposals, which should be presented at formal meetings and explained and analyzed in
informal meetings, in accordance with the programme suggested by the Chairman.  The proposed mix
of formal and informal meetings would enable delegations to shed the formalism that had
characterised the first phase and to engage in a frank exchange of views without compromisingpositions.  This was not a time for negotiation but rather a time to understand the proposals on the
table. Argentina believed also that the end of the second phase should be the deadline for the
submission of proposals, although it would be willing to accept the first week of September so as to
provide time for capitals to evaluate the proposal s made and make new s ubmissions immediately
before the third phase began.  While a certain degree of flexibility was necessary, there should clearlybe a time-limit starting from which there would be no more surprises.  This would not in any way
imply that proposals could not be made over the third phase. Logically, as Members sought
consensus, the original proposals would undergo changes and be elaborated on.  However, one should
always be referring back to the proposals made in the second phase.  The third phase should be the
time for negotiation, with the clear objective of submitting a text for consideration by Ministers inSeattle.  This should be a consensus text with the least possible amount of square-bracketed text. It
would be useful for negotiations in Geneva to be  concluded by the end October to provide time for
consultations, evaluation and reflection before the Seattle meeting.  His delegation supported the
Chairman's proposed work programme, which could be modified in the light of circumstances.
34. Finally, he recalled that some delegations, within the context of support for the work in the
coming months, had referred to limitations or preconditions that would guide their actions, including
in sectors in which there was already a mandate from the Uruguay Round.  Straitjackets andpreconditions would not, however, be of any help to the development of future negotiations.  Like
others, Argentina too had sectors that were of particular interest to it.  In some cases it was a
demandeur and in other cases not.  However, Argentina was not closing the door on any sector. It was
not saying that it would proceed in defense of its particular interests in any one sector, nor that it
would use all its imagination to defend non-competitive sectors.  Argentina believed in the advantagesof trade liberalization, and favoured broad–based negotiations.  It also supported the initiation of a
new round of negotiations with a broad base of sectors as a single undertaking.  However, it was not
willing to pay twice for the same product. Negotiations would be successful and fruitful only if they
resulted in benefits for all participants.  Indeed, the only precondition that Argentina would be willing
to accept was that these negotiations should lead to a fair and balanced result for all participants.
35. The representative of India associated his delegation with Egypt's remarks on the recently
held G-15 meeting.  At the four intersessional meetings held since the September Special Session, his
delegation had detailed its position and submitted specific proposals for consideration in a number of
statements and communications circulated to Members.3  While the meetings held thus far had
                                                     
3 The statements and papers were circulated as follows:  Concerns regarding implementation of S&D
provisions - WT/GC/W/108;  Unilateral trade measures by States - WT/GC/W/123;  Implementation of theWT/GC/M/34
Page 18
provided Members an opportunity to place on the table their views, concerns and suggestions
regarding the various elements of the work programme in paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration,
this phase had only been a preliminary phase.  It was important now to move into a more interactive
and proposal-driven phase.  The second phase would be extremely crucial, and provide the
opportunity to table specific proposals and enable others to have an idea of each Member'sexpectations regarding the outcome of the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  It would be important for
the proposals to be unambiguous and clearly spell out their intentions and objectives.  To ensure that
there were no last minute surprises, India supported the idea of an indicative deadline for the
submission of proposals.  Members should also, as  far as possible, submit proposals before the
summer break.  Smaller delegations with limited resources would not be able to respond appropriately
if proposals continued to be made until the end.  As to the structure and focus of future work, his
delegation believed that the mix of formal and informal meetings in the first phase of work had beenconducive to generating proposals and stimulating discussion on the various issues, and favoured a
continuation of this approach.  It also wished to see continued the current practice of statements and
proposals made during informal meetings being circulated as official documents at the request of the
concerned delegations. Regarding the schedule of meetings proposed by the Chairman, delegations
such as his would find it difficult to devote four days each month to this work, particularly since thework of other WTO bodies was expected to continue as usual.  As his delegation had stated in
informal consultations, while it was not averse to the scheduling of one formal and one informal
meeting each month, it wished these meetings to be restricted to a total of two working days each
month.  If at some stage in the second phase Members felt, on the basis of the number of proposals
put forward, that additional time was needed, his delegation would be willing to consider increasingthe pace of work.   At least in the initial part of this phase of work, therefore, the formal and informal
meetings should be restricted to one day each.
36. His delegation agreed that further work should be structured around paragraph 9 of the
Ministerial Declaration, and joined Egypt and others in stressing the importance of separately
devoting time also to paragraph 8.  In India's view, paragraph 9 had a built-in hierarchy andprioritization of issues.  Ministers had clearly recognized the need of addressing implementation
issues a priori, and for this reason the first subparagraph of paragraph 9 had been devoted to
recommendations relating to implementation of existing agreements and decisions.  His delegation
strongly believed that implementation concerns in the S&D area should be taken up on a stand-alone
basis, and addressed across the board to cover all agreements.  He recalled that prior to the 1998
Ministerial Conference, during the Conference itself, and subsequently in the current preparatory
process, his delegation had repeatedly highlighted the implementation concerns and problems ofcountries like India so that one might be able to create an image of the WTO as an organization that
not merely negotiated commitments in more and more areas but was also sensitive to developing
country concerns regarding implementation of existing commitments.  As his delegation had stated on
earlier occasions, implementation concerns and problems could be divided into two broad categories:
those actually being experienced in implementing some of the agreements, and which were notforeseen in negotiating and signing the concerned agreements, and those arising out of the non-
realization by developing countries by and large of the benefits expected to accrue from some of the
Agreements.  Regrettably, in spite of repeated explanations as to these concerns, some delegations had
chosen to ignore these explanations and in some cases had even tried to misrepresent them.  Some
trading  partners, while seeming to agree with the importance of looking at implementation issues, had
tended to argue that the only subject for consider ation was whether all the agreements were being
implemented fully, and had hinted that even in those cases where developing countries had transition
periods to implement some of the agreements, they should explain to their developed country partners
the steps taken to implement their commitments on the due date.  This was not what India meant by
implementation concerns and problems.  Some other trading partners were trying to suggest that byhighlighting implementation issues and concerns India was trying to unravel the agreements and
                                                                                                                                                                    
Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994 - WT/GC/W/124;  Proposals on IPR issues -
WT/GC/W/147;  statements at meetings - WT/GC/W/114, 141, 150, 151 and 152.WT/GC/M/34
Page 19
thereby upset the balance of rights and obligations in the Uruguay Round.  India had repeatedly
pointed out that it was merely seeking the removal of asymmetries and distortions in the agreements
by providing meaning and content to the S&D provisions and achieving the objectives set out in the
Preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement.  It was inadequate to dismiss implementation issues and
concerns as matters for technical assistance.   The concerns raised by developing countries could notbe resolved by simply organizing seminars and training classes.  There were some who seemed to
argue that "implementation" and "development" were  sought to be made synonymous by developing
countries. However, if the WTO agreements did not contribute to the development of the less
fortunate Members, these agreements were irrelevant for them. There were subtle attempts also to link
implementation to issues such as the policy en vironment and good governance.  However, these
attempts could not succeed in masking the real issues.  The WTO was a highly visible organization
and almost all the governments were run by elected  representatives. His country's system would not
be able to appreciate the argument being given by some trading partners that it was almost a
blasphemy if, in terms of the 1998 Ministerial Declaration, his delegation placed its concerns on
implementation before the General Council in an ab solutely transparent fashion, seeking a consensus
based solution, while on the other hand it was a holy act on the part of a developed country Member
to impose a 1000 per cent tariff on the import of an agricultural product on the ground that this actiondid not violate any provision of any agreement.
37. Similarly, when developed countries continued to provide domestic support to certain sectors
much above the de-minimus value prescribed for develo ping countries, the latter were told that it was
entirely legal and within the four corners of the concerned agreements.  On the other hand, when
developing countries complained that there were certain asymmetries and imbalances in some of theagreements, for instance in TRIMs, the provisions of which had not permitted developing countries to
take steps to foster domestic industrial growth, or  the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, which had
not led to the expected transfer of technology, they were told that they were trying to unravel already
negotiated agreements.  This was unfortunate. He wished to state candidly that if implementation
issues were not addressed, developing countries would feel extremely apprehensive and reluctant intaking on new commitments.  Members had often stated that the Uruguay Round provided a correct
balance of rights and obligations and that any endeavour to change certain provisions of the
agreements, whether to address implementation concerns or otherwise, would disturb the internal
balance of these rights and obligations.  His delegation believed that the negotiations already
mandated within the Agreements, were also very much a part of this internal balance of rights and
obligations.  It was therefore surprising and unacceptable when certain delegations stated that in order
for them to constructively engage in negotiations relating to liberalization of the agricultural sector, amandated area of negotiations, they should get satisfaction or a quid pro quo accrual of benefits in
new areas such as industrial tariffs or investment.  Negotiations in agriculture and services were
already mandated, and  part of the overall balance.  There was therefore no justification whatsoever in
asking Members to accept new areas for negotiations in order to enable those with strong agricultural
protectionist policies to engage themselves in the mandated negotiations in agriculture.
38. He recalled that some developing countries, including India, had shown enormous flexibility
in agreeing at Singapore to launch a study programme on certain issues such as trade and investment,
trade and competition policy, trade facilitation and transparency in government procurement.  The
Singapore Ministerial Declaration had clearly indicated the contours and the understanding on the
basis of which this work was to be undertaken.  India had been participating constructively instudying these issues, and believed that efforts to prematurely bring these issues to the negotiating
mode without enabling developing countries to fu lly understand all the implications involved would
be tantamount to going back on a commitment given through a Ministerial Declaration.  India
believed that the only agreed agenda items as far as the next Ministerial Conference was concerned
were  those included in paragraphs 9(a) and 9(c) of the Ministerial Declaration.  All other issues hadto be considered by Members and their inclusion in  the next round of negotiations would depend on
whether consensus developed on them.WT/GC/M/34
Page 20
39. Concern had been expressed by some Members about the ability of developing countries to
participate effectively in the dispute settlement system.  Almost all developing countries had been
mostly at the receiving end.  India believed that prevention was better than cure, and suggested that
developing countries be helped in the following ways to avoid, by and large, disputes being raised
against them:  first, developing countries should not be coerced or seduced into acceptingcommitments which they could obviously not fulfil in their current state of development and, second,
when Agreements were negotiated and drafted, developed countries should not hide their real
intentions by resorting to constructive ambiguity.  If the agreements were written in clear and simple
language, the scope for disputes would be significantly reduced.  Finally, he noted that many
delegations had referred to a comprehensive round of negotiations.  One of the reasons invariably
adduced for a comprehensive round was that the more the issues and sectors that could be put into this
basket, the better would be the balance of rights and obligations that developing countries would be
able to achieve.  India neither understood nor was willing to accept this argument.  It was worth
noting that developing countries, who it was stat ed would benefit most from the round being made
comprehensive, were not responsible for bringing in paragraph 9(b) or 9(d) issues, at least initially,
although some might have subsequently agreed to some of the subjects.  It was the developed
countries that had by and large made all the suggestions for the inclusion of additional issues andsectors.  Furthermore, if simply having a large number of issues on the negotiating table was to be
beneficial to developing countries, then the Uruguay Round should by now have provided the
maximum trade benefits to developing countries.  These were benefits that India at least had not
perceived or received.  This had obviously not happened and, in fact, developing countries saw a large
number of the Uruguay Round Agreements as being tilted against them. These points needed to beclosely reflected upon, before making the argument that a larger round, by its very definition and
scope, would benefit developing countries.
40. The representative of the United States recalled that at the commemoration of the
50th anniversary of the GATT/WTO in May 1998, the US President had laid out a broad vision of the
trading system for the 21st century and the task s to be accomplished (WT/FIFTY/H/ST/8).  The
President had emphasized that Members would only be successful if they ensured that the WTO
adapted to the rapidly changing global economy and become a more open and inclusive organization
that addressed the interests of the diverse constituencies engaged in trade.  Globalization brought new
challenges to the relations between the WTO and the environmental community and the needs of
workers.  Members could not shy away from the social concerns that confronted the system. Recently,
the President had issued a bold challenge to launch a new type of global trade round that would
require three types of decisions to be put before Ministers.  First, recommendations on hownegotiations would be conducted in the mandated areas of  agriculture and services, supplemented by
additional issues such as industrial market access, to ensure a broad-based negotiation reflecting the
needs and interests of WTO Members.  Of necessity, this would have to include provisions for the
consideration of issues that were not yet ripe for negotiation.  All of this would have to be done on an
accelerated basis, and in a way that ensured that agreements already achieved were fullyimplemented.  Second, while the WTO was a new institution, it should continue to be adapted to the
new challenges to the system.  In July, Members would complete the important review of the Dispute
Settlement Understanding so that Ministers could rati fy the results in Seattle.  This also meant putting
in place additional consultative mechanisms with stakeholders and other international organizations,
providing mechanisms to ensure capacity bu ilding for developing countries and economies in
transition, and addressing concerns about the transparency and openness of this important institution.
Finally, Members should also strive for decisions and agreements that demonstrated that the WTO
continued to be a forum for ongoing liberalization, and was able to adapt to the rapid changes in the
global economy.  These ambitions should include agreement on an accelerated tariff liberalization
initiative, which had originated in the APEC, tran sparency in government procurement, and further
improvements in the area of electronic commerce.  Such results at Seattle would  ensure that Members
maintained the momentum and support for an open, multilateral trading system and that the WTO
played its rightful role in the constellation of international economic institutions.  The General
Council had a heavy responsibility in the coming few months, while work had to continue inWT/GC/M/34
Page 21
subsidiary bodies on issues ranging from concluding, where possible, negotiations for the accession of
new entrants, to ensuring compliance with agreements, including in areas such as TRIPS, TRIMs and
customs valuation, where the transition periods expired at the end of the year.
41. The United States looked forward to the work  ahead, including the important meetings that
would be convened in March on trade and environment and trade and development.  TheUnited States considered the environment meeting as an opportunity to turn around the negative
public perception that the WTO was working at cross purposes with the environment community.
This meeting should help change that perception and help a way forward to be considered.  Similarly,
the important issues and concerns raised by the developing and least-developed countries would come
into sharper focus as a result of the development meeting.  Like others, her delegation agreed with the
Chairman's proposal that the second phase be struct ured as a series of monthly formal and informal
meetings of the General Council, and be proposal-driven. It was also useful to address paragraph 9issues sequentially, with paragraph 10 being taken up in June.  Moving forward in this way, Members
should be able to assess where things stood on various proposals by July.
42. The representative of Pakistan said he wished to emphasize at the outset that Members were
engaged in a process of preparing for the third Ministerial Conference, and not in preparing for a new
round of negotiations.  That was a decision that remained to be taken at a much later stage.Furthermore, Members had to maintain clarity with regard to the different nature, both legal and
political, of the categories of issues listed in paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration.  Pakistan
believed that the implementation issues covered by paragraph 9(a)(i) had the highest political and
legal commitment.  Implementation problems that had arisen were of two kinds, namely, those that
were due to non-implementation of agreed obligations, and those that were due to difficulties inimplementation and had become evident in the process of implementation.  The main concerns related
to the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, where the manner and spirit of implementation thus far,
with no benefits for the exporting countries, was gravely disappointing; the Agriculture Agreement,
where there was an inherent inequity between the developed and developing countries;  the Anti-
Dumping, SPS, TBT and TRIPS Agreements and the Dispute Settlement Understanding.  Theproblems involved were not so much technical as they were political, and Pakistan hoped to put
forward concrete proposals to secure fuller implementation of these agreements and redress for
difficulties experienced in implementation.  Agreement on proposals to redress the difficulties
encountered in implementation and the non-compliance of certain clauses of those agreements should
constitute an early harvest, and should be achieved at the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  Such an
agreement on implementation issues would enable decisions to be taken on other aspects of the
agenda.
43. Regarding the mandated negotiations, it was incumbent on the Seattle Ministerial Conference
to launch the negotiations on agriculture and services, which all had agreed to start by the year's end.
The objective in agriculture was obviously to brin g such trade under the normal rules of the trading
system.  The negotiations should be designed to sketch the steps towards this objective, and the time-
frame for these should be determined.  The negotiations had also to correct certain glaring inequitiesin the current structure of agricultural trade, particularly between developed countries that maintained
protectionist measures and developing countries that were not permitted to do so.  With regard to
services, the focus thus far had remained on certain areas of interest to developed countries, such as
basic telecommunications and financial services.  It was therefore important to now focus on areas of
special interest to developing countries such as movement of natural persons, accountancy services,health services, engineering services, and tourism, among others.  Apart from the mandated
negotiations, further work was also to be undertaken on the mandated reviews, such as the reviews of
the DSU, and the SPS, TRIPS, and Subsidies Agreements.  Members should endeavour in this context
to redress difficulties and problems encountered under the agreements concerned, particularly those
that could not be resolved under the present terms of the agreements and therefore required someadjustments or modifications. The next area, in which the degree of commitment was as yet of aWT/GC/M/34
Page 22
political nature, concerned the Singapore issues. The process of analysis and study on these issues had
not been completed, and many areas needed further clarification and analysis.
44. With regard to new issues, the following criteria should be applied, as had been done in
Singapore, to determine whether an issue was elig ible for admission as a negotiating issue in the
WTO:  (i) the issue should be trade-related;  (ii) consideration of the issue should not strain theabsorptive capacity of the WTO system;  (iii) the issu e itself should be mature for consideration;  and
(iv) negotiations on the issue should redress and not add to the asymmetry that existed in the balance
of benefits between developed and developing countries in the trading system.  It would also be
necessary to try and ensure that autonomous liberalization measures undertaken by a number of
developing countries in implementing structural adjustment programmes were credited to them in any
future negotiations.  With regard to industrial tariff s, Pakistan was studying with interest the proposals
that had been made, and hoped to have a position on this matter in the near future.  His delegationwished to note, at the same time, that a number of other issues had been identified on earlier
occasions, such as those mentioned by the Chairman of the Marrakesh Ministerial meeting in his
concluding remarks, that would also require to be re flected in any future set of issues.  Finally, two
issues had been raised at the present meeting which posed a danger to the process and to the trading
system.  The first was the endeavour to link trade measures with environmental measures.  WhilePakistan supported both trade liberalization and environmental protection, it believed that if trade
liberalization began to be qualified and constrained by what was offered as environmental concerns,
the door would be opened to a new protectionist arena that could lead into areas that were as yet
unknown and unforeseen in their consequences.  This applied even more so to the second issue, i.e.
labour standards.  Pakistan would urge against any effort to raise this issue once again either in thepreparatory process or at Seattle.  The issue had been settled once and for all at the Singapore
Ministerial Conference, where it had been decided that work should take place in the ILO and that the
WTO would not have a work programme on this issue.  The statement by the Chairman of the
Ministerial Conference in Singapore (WT/MIN(96)/9) had made it abundantly clear that this issue did
not belong within the WTO.  The informal group of developing countries had also taken a jointposition two years ago stating that they would oppose consideration of labour standards within the
WTO.  He hoped therefore that Members could reach an early and mutual understanding that this
matter would not be raised and reintroduced either in the preparatory process or at Seattle.  Such an
assurance was essential to enable measures for further liberalization to be considered.
45. The representative of Brazil said that while his delegation had no difficulty with the
Chairman's proposed organization of further wo rk, it wished to emphasize the importance of
maintaining flexibility as regards the dates, formats, and agendas of the meetings.  Although it wouldbe convenient to have all proposals on the table before a certain date, perhaps mid-September, no
definitive deadlines should be imposed. The agendas for the formal and informal meetings should also
not preclude the possibility of Members raising any appropriate issue, as long as it related to the next
Ministerial Conference.  Like others, Brazil believed that paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Declaration
deserved careful attention, and understood that the issues referred to in that paragraph might beaddressed at any time in the forthcoming formal or informal meetings.  During the first phase, Brazil
had had the opportunity to stress the significant imbalances in the implementation of the Uruguay
Round Agreements.  It had underlined that expectations with regard to the results of the Uruguay
Round had been frustrated.  In certain cases, the level of obligations had proved too high for some
countries.  Longer implementation time-frames were not enough, and the wide gaps, in terms ofadministrative, technical and human resources, that separated developing from developed countries
had not allowed the former to rise to the level of the latter in the fulfilment of some of the
requirements of the WTO Agreements.  In other cases, the special and differential treatment expected
by developing countries had not been effectively put into practice by developed countries. These
shortcomings had to be addressed seriously at the next Ministerial Conference.  Some agreementsshould be revisited, and concrete proposals to this effect in the second phase would be welcome.
Brazil was convinced that clauses concerning special and differential treatment for all developing
countries should be revitalized, and that their basic idea and purpose could not be ignored.  A genuineWT/GC/M/34
Page 23
multilateral trading system, in order to be properly operative and fair, had to recognize the different
development levels of its Members, and provide for equitable conditions of participation in the
international market.  His delegation wished to reiterate that the built-in agenda was part of the
package negotiated in the Uruguay Round, and emphasized the crucial importance of the agricultural
negotiations for Brazil.  While some Members wished  to incorporate built-in agenda issues into a
larger negotiating framework, it was not clear to Brazil, at this stage, how this could be arranged.  He
wished to make clear that Brazil would no t support a selective sectoral approach.
46. The representative of Colombia said that as his delegation had indicated at earlier meetings, it
was necessary to have a work programme that would make it possible to arrive at Seattle with
proposals and recommendations on the content of future negotiations.  In this regard, his delegation
welcomed the Chairman's proposals, with which it could go along in general terms.  Analysis of the
results of the Uruguay Round showed that implem entation of certain agreements had not met the
expectations for the creation of market access opportunities for developing country products, and an
objective evaluation of the impact of the Uruguay Round, particularly on developing countries,
needed to be conducted.  Developing countries had concerns with regard to the implementation of the
Agreements on Anti-Dumping, Safeguards, TRIMs, and Textiles and Clothing, where the review of
its implementation had shown the precariousness of progress in liberalization.  Regarding themandated negotiations in the areas of agriculture and services, Colombia believed that Members
would need to specify certain terms of reference that would give clarity as to the structure, the
methodology and the time-frames of the negotiations.  Trade in agricultural products was clearly
subject to distortions and obstacles that hampered the increase in exports of goods that were of
considerable interest to certain countries.  Furthermore, the agriculture sector, more than any other,was a substantial component in the exports and in the economic activity of the majority of developing
countries.  For this reason, Members should correct the existing distortions in agricultural trade in the
forthcoming negotiations, and move towards a fair and market-oriented system.  Regarding other
issues that could be on the negotiating agenda, Colombia was willing to work constructively in areas
such as trade and investment and trade and competition.  Furthermore, Colombia viewed positivelythe work done on transparency in government procurement.  The inclusion of these issues, as well as
others, such as industrial goods, on the negotiating agenda would of necessity be linked to the
attention that was given to the problems identified in the course of implementation, in particular with
regard to the TRIMs Agreement.  Finally, referring to the pressing need for assistance to developing
countries in the dispute settlement area, he said that the lack of resources in developing countries,
including human resources, had resulted in an unequal access to justice under the system, which
required urgent action.  A number of countries, both developed and developing, had been workingtogether to draw up a proposal in this regard, an d Colombia hoped that the results of these efforts
could be put into practice as soon as possible.
47. The representative Switzerland said that the first phase had fulfilled its objectives and had
established a solid base on which to make progress in preparing concrete recommendations to
Ministers.  Following the four informal intersessional meetings held thus far, his delegation believedthat a positive assessment could be made regarding the functioning of the WTO.  The WTO had been
recognized as the guarantor of a solid multilateral trading system, proof of which lay in the increasing
recourse to the dispute settlement system.  It had thus been possible to clarify and better define the
scope of application of WTO rules, and improve respect for these rules.  The handling of the difficult
case of bananas had nevertheless pointed to certain shortcomings that would have to be remedied.  Areview of the functioning of the WTO did not, however, point only to reasons for satisfaction.
Switzerland regretted that negotiations had not been concluded either on non-preferential rules of
origin or on information technology products.  New multilateral negotiations would provide the
necessary framework to enable the objectives in these two important areas to be reached.  As regards
implementation, although the situation could generally be considered satisfactory, the discussions hadshown that certain problems remained.  His delegation believed that technical assistance efforts
should be intensified and rationalized, as a matter of priority, to confront these problems.  To this end,
a mode of financing and institutional structures should be set up to give countries that needed it theWT/GC/M/34
Page 24
means to integrate fully into the trading system. Th is implied, notably, the financing of technical
assistance activities through the regular WTO budget.  The strengthening of technical assistance
activities should complement the most important measures for developing countries, namely market-
access improvements.  Switzerland regarded very seriously the decisions taken regarding LDCs at
Marrakesh, Singapore and at the High-Level Meeting on LDCs in October 1997, and wished to seethem translated into action. For its part, Switzerland had undertaken a complete review of its tariff
preference scheme, as a result of which LDCs benefited from zero duties on all industrial goods and
most agricultural goods.  Ninety eight per cent of LDC exports currently entered the Swiss market
duty free. Also, for reasons of improving market access, Switzerland had never applied anti-dumping
duties or quantitative restrictions on textiles, whether under the MFA or other provisions.  Switzerland
recognized that certain implementation difficulties resulted from more fundamental problems, which
were sometimes related to the nature and scope of the commitments undertaken in the UruguayRound.  These types of problems would undoubtedly have to be approached in an appropriate but
clearly distinct manner.
48. Regarding agriculture and services, the discussions had highlighted two important elements:
a willingness among all Members to engage in the mandated negotiations within the time-frame and
in accordance with the parameters defined in the Uruguay Round, and that notable progress in thesetwo areas could only be made if these negotiations were included in a broader framework, making it
possible to take into account globally the legitimate interests of all participants.  Switzerland noted
with satisfaction that a consensus was emerging on this approach.  It also welcomed the priority
accorded by many Members to an improvement in market-access for industrial goods, and fully
shared this view given the high tariffs that still remained in certain sectors and countries.  As regardsthe work programme under the built-in agenda, two problems had arisen in the past months:  those
that were linked to implementation, and those concerning the balance of rights and obligations of
Members.  Switzerland continued to believe that implementation problems should largely be able to
be settled within the competent WTO bodies.  Matters concerning the balance of rights and
obligations, however, would only find a satisfactory response in the framework of global negotiations.As regards the dispute settlement mechanism, Switzerland believed that Members should already
consider certain amendments in order to strengthen its credibility.  Switzerland had made concrete
proposals in this regard concerning the introduction of a remand authority for the Appellate Body, and
the obligation to notify bilateral arrangements.  On technical barriers to trade and sanitary and
phytosanitary measures, Members needed to dr aw lessons from the reviews already under way,
particularly regarding the new dimension due to consumer concerns that were becoming ever more
preponderant.  Beyond the consolidation and development of areas already covered by the WTO, themultilateral trading system should be able to take up the challenges of globalization.  Switzerland was
convinced, in this regard, that the scope of WTO's multilateral rules should be extended to cover, or
better cover, the issues of trade and environmen t, investment, competition, government procurement
and trade facilitation.  Finally, with regard to the organization of future work, his delegation believed
that work in the second phase should be focused around concrete proposals.  Through these proposals,each Member would have to express clearly and precisely its position regarding the issues, objectives
and modalities of the next negotiations.  Proposals would therefore have to be concise, restricted to
listing the programme of future activities as each Member viewed it.  A precise and ambitious work
programme could be drawn up along the lines of the Punta del Este Declaration which, in just a few
pages, had made it possible to launch the largest trade negotiations in history.  As regards the structureand timetable for further work, while his delegation agreed with the Chairman's proposal, it wished to
stress the need for flexibility regarding the fre quency and mix of formal and informal meetings.
While formal meetings were necessary to place on record written proposals, a true dialogue among
Members was important to better understand respective positions and reduce divergences, and could
only take place in informal meetings.  Necessary flexibility should therefore be allowed to modulatethe number of informal meetings in the light of progress made.  If necessary, the number of informal
meetings could be increased and that of formal meetings reduced.WT/GC/M/34
Page 25
49. The representative of Canada said that the work since the September Special Session had
been especially helpful in identifying issues of interest to Members, and in developing a common
understanding of these issues.  Members were now moving into the second phase, which would be
proposal-driven. The Chairman's proposed meeting schedule for the second phase clearly reflected the
broad consensus that the preparatory work would inte nsify over the next several months.  It also fit
well with Canada's own preparatory process, which included extensive consultations with domestic
stakeholders.  The Chairman's proposal, including recognition of the need to remain flexible to
accommodate developments as they arose, corresponded with Canada's views on how best to move
forward.  While Canada supported the approach that meetings in this phase should focus on proposals
and discussions relating to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Ministerial Declaration, Members should not be
confined to those issues alone, particularly since there might be horizontal, cross-cutting issues to be
considered.  At Seattle, Ministers would requir e clear, concise proposals and recommendations to take
the necessary decisions on future negotiations.  Given these needs, Members should conduct their
work in a way that facilitated Ministers' decision-making.  To that end, one might consider how best
to table proposals at future meetings.  Canada would follow a simplified format which would include
a brief proposed recommendation, accompanied by background and rationale.  It believed this would
assist Members' work in the third phase by organizing proposals in a way that would facilitate thework of Ministers.  Some Members would want to  offer indications of modalities and time-frames,
and this could also be included.  Given the varying levels of domestic preparations, Members should
have flexibility to table proposals on any sector or issue.  That said, to ensure the successful
completion of phase three, all Members should aim to table any proposals before the summer break.
As Australia had suggested, however, a period of reflection following the completion of this phase,allowing the possibility for proposals to be tabled into September, might be useful.  Members might
wish to re-table proposals at subsequent meetin gs once views and input from discussions had been
collected and further refinements made.  It might also prove possible to submit proposals for decision
by Ministers at Seattle, which some had referred to as "deliverables".  Canada, for example, looked
forward to proposals on possible improvements to the dispute settlement mechanism arising from theongoing review.
50. The Secretariat could play an important role in compiling and synthesizing Members'
proposals and grouping them in a rational way for further consideration during the recommendation
phase.  Canada also recognized and appreciated the role that the Secretariat did and could play in
compiling information and data and in identifying gaps between existing data and that which was
needed to produce the analysis on which to base future negotiations.  Members needed to remain
focused on developing the analytical tools essential to fulfilling the existing requirements fornotification and the market access exercises, including the Integrated Data Base and the electronic
loose-leaf Schedules, as well as for future negotiations.  Canada considered the ongoing work on data
collection an important part of the preparatory process.  While a lack of data would not prevent the
negotiations from beginning on time, a thorough set of data would clearly facilitate Members' efforts
in preparing and executing the negotiations.  Canada recognized the legitimate concerns of developingcountries, especially the LDCs, in connection with data collection and analysis, and agreed that ways
to address these concerns should be explored.  Canada's goal, like that of many Members, remained to
ensure that the Uruguay Round Agreements were fully and effectively implemented, and that the
world trading system remained relevant to the needs of its beneficiaries.  In that regard, Canada was
already committed to new negotiations on agriculture and services beginning at the end of the year.  Itwould consider how to bring trade in agriculture mo re fully under the rules, including eliminating all
export subsidies, as well as how best to extend the coverage of rules on trade in services, including
professional services.  Beyond that, Canada's Minister for International Trade had identified certain
key areas of interest that might merit consideration, including:  (i) further reductions in industrial
tariffs, including possible elimination of nuisance tariffs;  (ii) eliminating non-tariff barriers thatimposed unnecessary bureaucratic costs on exporters, such as technical standards, customs valuations
and rules of origin;  (iii) curbing abuse of antidumping, countervailing duties and safeguard actions;
(iv) expanding trade rules to reflect current in ternational business practices in areas such as
intellectual property, electronic commerce, transparency in government procurement, and investmentWT/GC/M/34
Page 26
and competition policy;  and (v) finding ways to ensure that trade rules fully took into account and
respected sound cultural, environmental and labour polices.  To build and maintain public support and
understanding for international trade, Ministers had agreed in 1998 to consider how to improve the
transparency of WTO operations.  This was a crucial issue for Canada.  Canadians wanted their
Government and international institutions to be more open and accountable.  They wanted to be
presented with the facts so that they could conduct their own analysis, and they expected that their
questions and concerns would be addressed.  To ensure the full, active and informed participation of
Canadians, his Government was determined to pres ent the key issues in such a way that Canadians
could understand what it meant to them.  For this reason, his Government was conducting an
extensive outreach and consultation process with provincial governments, the business community
and civil society at large.  More broadly, Canada considered it essential to connect the work being
done in Geneva with the realities of the challenges being faced by firms and workers.  He wished toencourage all those responsible for preparing proposals to consider those realities and address them in
their preparatory work.  Put simply, proposals should be understandable at home as well as to experts
in Geneva.  This would go a long way towards building public support for the work being conducted
at the WTO.
51. Making the system work for all Members was also a key Canadian goal.  Some Members
were having considerable difficulty in meeting their obligations, and technical assistance could play a
role in assisting developing countries implement existing agreements.  Capacity building was key to
providing developing countries with the necessary to ols to participate more fully in the multilateral
trading system.  In this respect, the WTO should continue its cooperation with other international
organizations that could provide complementary contributions to assist in advancing the participationof the LDCs.  Most Member countries participated in various bilateral, regional, or inter-regional fora.
Other institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank, were also examining trade related issues.  Many
of these fora had Ministerial-level meetings scheduled over the coming weeks and months.  All
should work to ensure greater coherence among the institutions and organizations engaged in
addressing the challenges of the international economy as an integral part of their efforts to strengthenand build an effective approach to all trade-related matters.
52. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that Members were entering a more intensive
phase of the preparatory process on the basis of the initial work done in the previous phase.  The aim
of this phase should be to define the maximum scope of the future work programme, both in terms of
topics for negotiations and the scope of individual topics.  It was not necessary, however, to reach
consensus on the detailed negotiating objectives for individual subjects in this phase.  As many
delegations had indicated, the second phase should be more focused and proposal-driven.  Theproposals could emanate from paragraph 8 or relate to paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration, and
could come either from Members or from subsidiary bodies tasked to examine relevant issues.  His
delegation supported the Chairman's proposal concerning the organisation of work during the next
phase, and shared the view that a combination of formal and informal meetings would enable more
active discussions on the proposals put forward.  As had been suggested, formal meetings wouldprovide for the presentation and tabling of proposals  and stocktaking, while informal meetings would
enable Members to clarify and elaborate the proposals tabled.  The General Council should convene
more informal meetings as and when necessary.  Towards the end of the second phase, the General
Council should aim to produce an initial outline of the recommendations, and to develop it further into
a set of recommendations in the third phase, which would start in September.  His delegation alsoconsidered that the General Council should allow for the evaluation of implementation called for
under paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Declaration during the second phase, and understood that the
Chairman would specify a time-frame for this important exercise.
53. Hong Kong, China wished to emphasize that the preparatory process should be the top
priority of the WTO leading up to the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  Once the scheduled dates ofmeetings had been agreed to, they should be maintained unless there were compelling reasons for
rescheduling.  Also, contrary to customary practices of the WTO, the formal and informal meetingsWT/GC/M/34
Page 27
should start relatively on time.  His delegation believed that proposals should be sufficiently precise in
terms of negotiating objectives, modalities and scope to ensure the efficient conduct of negotiations.
To encourage the early submission of proposals and allow sufficient time for an exchange of views, a
target date for tabling proposals was desirable, and the end of July seemed logical.  However, a degree
of flexibility would be useful.  As regards the process, his delegation believed that it should be aninteractive "top-down" one, with the General Council firmly in charge in order to ensure timely
completion.  The General Council should set clear parameters for inputs from subsidiary bodies to
ensure that progress was made on the right track and in good time.   Subsidiary bodies should be
invited to report to the General Council on progress made on issues under their respective
responsibility.  Finally, he noted that some delegations had raised the idea of possible decisions being
submitted to Ministers at Seattle for immediate implementation, referred to as "deliverables".  The
General Council might wish to consider whether and how such proposals would be raised in the
second phase and, in particular, their relationship with paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration.
The General Council might also wish to consider the relative priority of these issues when compared
with the important task of launching a new round of negotiations at Seattle.
54. The representative of Venezuela said that to be truly effective in the next phase of work and
have an outline before the summer recess, and to avoid too tense an agenda during the two months
preceding the Ministerial Conference, a methodology was necessary which not only referred to
schedules of forthcoming meetings but also enabled Members to touch on those issues that were on
the agenda and within the overall vision of countries or groups of countries. One should give an
indication of what one hoped to achieve.  It was important also to assess the previous exercise and to
understand the general trends that had emerged.  Venezuela believed that in the first phase Membershad given clear signals that they wished to all co me to an understanding.  The methodology he had
referred to should also include answers, suggestions and alternatives from delegations on the different
issues in a clear and concise manner so that issues of convergence and of divergence could be seen.
At the end of the day, one was looking for a consensus as to the issues that were capable of being
advanced.  Only a review, even if approximative, of where one stood at present would allow furtherprogress to be made in a practical manner, taking account of all the interests and visions.  Venezuela
was currently in the process of carrying out its assessment. It believed that one must look at all the
issues, trends and expectations from national perspective and see which issues truly wished to make
progress on,  and on which there could be convergence.  It was better to have a realistic vision, taking
into consideration all the previously mentioned visions than to tread the same well-worn path.  The
programme outlined by the Chairman should enable Members at the very first meeting of the second
phase to give a clear assessment of their expectations and a clear-cut methodology.  As Argentina hadstated, this was not the time for negotiations, a reality that meant that all could work in a disciplined
manner with a view to conducting the greatest po ssible number of consultations that would allow
capitals to assess the combined trends and visions.  In essence, the aim was to strengthen the
multilateral system with a vision that looked to th e future while remaining realistic.  The system
would not necessarily make progress only with more rules or more issues but rather only when all
were able to benefit from and strengthen what had already been achieved and when all countries
believed that the multilateral system had enabled them to achieve a beneficial situation reflecting their
respective national interests.
55. The representative of South Africa said that the first phase of the preparatory process had laid
out the wide scope of issues that Members wished to see addressed, including within the context of
new negotiations.  There appeared to be wide recognition that work in the second phase would need to
be intensified, and that it should be proposal-driven.  Proposals in this phase could be expected to go
into great detail and be likely to include recomme ndations to amend specific provisions in existing
agreements.  His delegation could agree to the mix of formal and informal meetings for the next phase
as proposed by the Chairman, and appreciated the latter's sensitivity to concerns that theintensification of these meetings on top of the ongoing WTO work would place greater burdens on
smaller delegations, putting them at a distinct disadvantage during this process.  Keeping in mind that
the preparatory phase did not in itself constitute substantive negotiations, Members needed to considerWT/GC/M/34
Page 28
how work in the current process would be translated into broad recommendations for a negotiating
mandate, including scope, structure and time-frames, to be submitted to Ministers at Seattle.  If clear
and specific recommendations setting out a negotiating mandate were to be drafted in less than the
three months from the end of the summer until November, the questions Members should be asking
themselves were whether they had given themselves sufficient time, and how the current processwould assist them.  While his delegation recognized the need for flexibility in time-frames to be
sensitive to the fact that domestic consultative processes continued, it might become important to
agree to a cut-off date for new proposals.  In addition, proposals should consider the scope, structure
and time-frames for new negotiations.
56. Turning to substantive issues, he said that South Africa's domestic consultations on the scope
and content of new negotiations continued.  While South Africa might have no particular difficulty at
this point with the notion of a wider round of negotiations, several fundamental questions needed tobe addressed.  The issue was not so much the scope of the negotiations, but rather the direction and
content of their outcome.  Members needed to consider how the WTO, and the impending
negotiations, would contribute to more sustained and equitable global economic growth, and increases
in trade and investment flows on the basis of appropr iate structural adjustment, including in industrial
economies.  This required ensuring the realization of developing countries' comparative advantages inagriculture and in areas which offered prospects for further restructuring and industrialisation.  WTO
agreements should facilitate -- not frustrate -- these processes, which would constitute an
indispensable basis for global economic growth and sustained development. The major industrial
countries had a particular responsibility in this regard.  Members should work together to ensure that
new negotiations did not result in driving deeper wedges and gaps between them.  A central objectiveof new negotiations should be to achieve an outcome that contributed to the meaningful integration of
developing countries into the trading system in  ways appropriate to their varying levels of
development.  In this regard, his delegation attached importance to the forthcoming symposium on
trade and development.
57. The processes of globalization continued apace, and Members needed to keep abreast of new
developments in order to be able to manage them e ffectively.  At the same time, they needed to work
together on existing agreements to ensure that benefits were shared more equitably.  Without greater
equity and balance in outcomes, confidence in the system would dissipate.  South Africa attached at
least three meanings to the notion of balance in new negotiations: a balance which accommodated the
interests of all Members, a balance in terms of processes so that the differential burden that
negotiations placed on different delegations was acknowledged, and a balance in outcomes so that all
Members were able -- and perceived -- to derive benefits from the negotiations.  Positions on thescope of future negotiations diverged considerably among Members.  This divide needed to be
bridged by demonstrating more understanding of the priority issues for all Members within the
framework of broad negotiations.  While all were obliged to negotiate services and agriculture, they
could also agree to devote sufficient time and resources to redressing the issues raised concerning the
imbalances and deficiencies of implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements.  In light of theending of the transition phase for implementing WTO obligations for developing countries, it was
appropriate that the special and differential treatment provisions in the various agreements be
reviewed as a distinct part of the WTO's ongoing wo rk programme with the aim of ensuring that these
principles were strengthened and deepened.
58. Careful consideration would have to be given also to whether agreed time-frames had been
sufficient to allow developing countries to meet their obligations.  It would be disastrous if, after
2000, the system witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of disputes brought against developing
countries as a result of the failure to take this pro-active step.  South Africa also encouraged efforts to
bind duty-free access to major markets for exports from LDCs and Africa, and would seek to ensure
that Members continued to pursue work in the cont ext of the integrated initiative for LDCs.  Members
should also signal their collective support for efforts to encourage progress in speeding up, deepening
and widening the Highly Indebted Poor Country init iative, not least for the negative impact of debtWT/GC/M/34
Page 29
over-hang on trade performance and integration into the trading system.  If Members were to take
these sets of issues as central priorities, the membership as a whole might be in a position to create a
more sound basis for negotiations in other areas.  In the current global economic environment, the
best efforts of all, both domestically and in this organization, could unravel rapidly through
developments in the international financial system.  South Africa welcomed and encouraged greaterefforts to enhance coherence between the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and UNCTAD.  Deepening
information exchange and analysis would go a long way to providing Members with an effective basis
on which to prepare and define their interests in future negotiations.  South Africa believed that the
WTO's integrity and legitimacy would be greatly enhanced if Members agreed on the need to adopt an
approach that put development and equity concerns at the centre of their objectives for new
negotiations.  It would, at the same time, contribute  in a meaningful way to reversing many of the
negative perceptions that cast a shadow over the WTO's work.
59. The representative of Morocco said that the work done since September had been important,
and had allowed Members to have a better picture of the ideas and proposals put forward by all.  Like
others, Morocco had been conducting internal consultations with a number of parties concerned by the
issues under discussion, which had made it possible to enlarge the view it had as to the future steps it
should be taking.  His delegation was agreeable to the work programme proposed by the Chairman,and to the frequency as well as the mix between formal and informal meetings.  It was important to
use the months between now and July to take stock of the various proposals that would be submitted
regarding, in particular, paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Ministerial Declaration. By the end of July, one
should be able to have an overall picture of the agenda of the next Ministerial Conference, and be able
to go going into greater detail as from September.  It was important that all delegations be able tomake clear and concrete proposals, because the real success of the future work would depend to a
large extent on Members' ability to give impetus to  future negotiations that would take into account
the interests of all and which would make it possible for developing countries in particular to enjoy
full and beneficial participation in the multilateral trading system.  Members should also work
together to ensure that a number of additional decisions or initiatives could be adopted at Seattle, andto take the opportunity offered by the Ministerial Conference to strengthen the legitimacy and the
efficiency of the dispute settlement system.  It  would also be important to take stock on matters
relating to rules of origin, particularly at a time when future negotiations would take Members
towards additional substantial liberalization efforts.  Morocco would be making specific proposals on
these issues, as well as on others of strategic importance to it such as agriculture and services, in the
following weeks.  His delegation supported the idea  that a summary document or outline be prepared
in July to enable a clearer picture of the various proposals made by delegations.
60. The representative of Tanzania expressed support for the organization of future work
proposed by the Chairman.  He hoped that the limitations facing small delegations would be taken
into consideration to the extent possible in convening future meetings.  His delegation had found
checklists of issues prepared by the Secretariat very useful, and hoped that the practice would be
continued in the second phase.  Tanzania shared the views of those who saw the next phase asproposal-driven, and hoped that all proposals would be given equal weight.  With regard to the
structure and content of a new round of negotiatio ns, his Government's position would depend greatly
on an analysis and evaluation of the benefits derived from the Uruguay Round, which needed to be
undertaken.  Such an  evaluation would also put Members in a better position to decide on whether the
idea of single undertaking should be continued in the new round.  His delegation welcomed theCommunity's proposal that Members consider establishing zero tariffs for LDC exports by the time of
the Seattle Ministerial Conference, and wished to make two additional proposals in this connection:
(i) that the question of non-tariff measures also be addressed at the same time, since, as had been
pointed out in the first phase, non-tariff measures on LDC exports were in some cases the main cause
of their inadequate market access;  and (ii) that the issue of supply capacity be also squarely addressedin order to make market access initiatives useful.  His delegation looked forward to a further
discussion on this when issues relating to paragraph 9(c) of the Ministerial Declaration were
discussed.  His delegation also believed that the question of making technical assistance more relevantWT/GC/M/34
Page 30
should be addressed.  It also supported the idea of an indicative cut-off date for new proposals.  As
regards Uruguay's proposal on the categorization of issues, his delegation would approach it with
caution, and believed that the categorization set out in the Ministerial Declaration was still relevant.
New proposals to categorize issues might lead to detailed discussions on specifics and result in the
loss of limited time.
61. The representative of Mauritius agreed with the time-frame and work plan proposed by the
Chairman.  His delegation also agreed with the proposals by several delegations that paragraph 8 of
the Ministerial Declaration be an important concern of the work in the coming months.  His
delegation also noted with satisfaction the suggestions by Members that issues could be addressed as
many times as possible during this period provided that there was a structured arrangement for the
submission of proposals so that one was not faced with last minute surprises.  His delegation was also
concerned that the workload should be realistic so as to enable small delegations to cope with otherpriority activities scheduled at the various international organisations in Geneva.  In this respect, he
had noted the Chairman's observation that the programme and dates were only indicative at this stage.
Finally, his delegation trusted in the Chairman to ensure the necessary balance of interests in and
benefits from the work programme keeping in view the developmental dimension, and the concerns,
vulnerability and problems of small countries such as Mauritius, in the upcoming agreements,understandings and other outcomes. His delegation had already had the opportunity of putting forward
some of its main concerns, and its expectations from the third Ministerial Conference.  It would come
forward in due course with concrete proposals in rega rd to the relevant paragraphs of the Ministerial
Declaration.
62. The representative of Chile said that the first phase of the preparatory process had been very
successful.  Like others, his delegation believed that the second phase should be proposal-driven.  It
would be important also to set an indicative deadline for the submission of proposals.  That being
said, his delegation did not preclude the possibility of other issues being raised, which was a right that
all Members had.  His delegation fully supported the Chairman's proposal regarding the organization
of future work, bearing in mind the need to maintain  flexibility.  It was important, however, to have a
strong commitment to a given time-frame so that Members could have something to reflect on over
the summer.  The second phase should therefore conclude with the preparation of an outline that
would reflect the intense discussions that would be  held.  Subsequently, actual negotiations on the
issues to be brought to the Ministerial Conference would have to be envisaged.
63. The representative of Mexico said that Mexico supported a comprehensive new round of
negotiations reflecting the interests of all Members and conducted as a single undertaking.  As regards
the implementation of existing agreements, it was important both from a political as well asnegotiating point of view to resolve the problems, whether real or perceived.  Questions of
implementation should not be used as negotiating tools to extract new concessions from developing
countries.  Mexico shared fully the views expressed in all the paragraphs of the Communiqué of the
recent ninth summit meeting of the G-15 group of countries, in which Mexico had participated.  With
regard to the built-in agenda issues, Mexico beli eved that commitments already undertaken had to be
complied with fully.  However, a broader round of negotiations would enable the built-in agenda
issues to be addressed in a more coherent and more ambitious manner.  On the Singapore issues,
Mexico could accept negotiations on each of them, and would defend or promote the specific interests
it had in each area.  However, the inclusion of these issues in a new round of negotiations would
depend on the overall balance of interests of all Members referred to in paragraph 11 of theMinisterial Declaration, as well as the specific balance that Mexico expected to achieve in each area
individually.  In any event, he wished to make cl ear that Mexico was not a "demandeur" in regard to
these issues.  As regards new issues under paragraph 9(d) of the Ministerial Declaration, market
access for non-agricultural products was of interest to Mexico.  Mexico deliberately used the term
"non-agricultural" instead of "industrial" goods to avoid any misunderstandings that the latter mightgive rise to regarding the inclusion of certain products.  Mexico did not wish to see any sectoral
exclusions.  All new issues would require the prior agreement of Members before they could beWT/GC/M/34
Page 31
included in the package referred to in paragraph 10 of the Ministerial Declaration.  As regards labour
standards and trade and environment, Mexico's position was fully reflected in the relevant paragraphs
of the G-15 Communiqué.  His delegation recommended the establishment of a time-limit for the
submission of proposals on new issues, and wished to note also that new issues, in particular, were
subject to a double consensus in the Ministerial Declaration.  As to procedure, his delegation believedthat Members should have a draft outline by the end of the second phase in July, which should contain
the scope and time-frames for future negotiations.  A limited deadline should be allowed thereafter for
the submission of additional proposals, and the third phase should be devoted to negotiating the text to
be submitted to Ministers.
64. The representative of Iceland said that the revision of the present agricultural agreement
would be one of the major tasks for Members in the next round of negotiations.  Iceland supported an
approach aiming for more open markets and stronger disciplines in this sector, although it wished toemphasize that the fundamental importance of non-trade concerns and the multifunctionality of
agriculture could not be left aside  Furthermore,  Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture had
been interpreted differently and debated in the Agriculture Committee, particularly the methods of
calculation of inflation adjustment of domestic support.  Iceland considered the particular conclusion,
that inflation should influence and in fact determine the implementation of Member's commitments tobe irrational.  Therefore, a common and reasonable solution to this problem had to be reached in the
next round of agriculture negotiations.  With regard to services, Iceland wished to see the negotiations
in this sector result in liberalisation in the fields of professional services, transport and communication
services, among others.  As regards trade and environment, his delegation believed that this issue was
as central to world welfare that the WTO could not but start looking beyond the analytical to theoperative phase.  There was already sufficient basis for commencing work towards a global agreement
on trade and environment in the context of the next round of negotiations.  As a nation heavily
dependent on the utilisation of renewable natural resources, Iceland was firmly committed to the
objectives of sustainable development.  However, for this to be realized, trade liberalisation and
environmental conservation must develop in harmony through multilateral cooperation.  There was noinherent contradiction between the two, and they should be seen as mutually reinforcing.  In the
fisheries sector, Iceland believed that the elimination of government subsidies, state aid and various
other obstacles to free trade in marine products was of fundamental importance, not only because such
measures distorted free trade and competition, but also for the direct relationship between government
subsidies and state aid in the fishing sector and excess fishing capacity and over exploitation of fish
stocks.  Iceland's considerable experience with market-driven fisheries management indicated that
there was  no visible reason for approaching the fishing industry in a different way from other sectorsof the economy.  Iceland would be pleased to share with others its experience and knowledge in
resource management in the fishing sector.
65. Iceland firmly supported the launching of negotiations on industrial tariffs alongside those
already foreseen.  Members should refrain from se ctoral tariff reductions on industrial goods, and
approach the task of radically reducing industrial tariffs in a broad based and comprehensive way withthe aim of reaching agreement on the overall reduction of tariffs on all industrial and other
manufactured goods including fish and fish products.  On transparency in government procurement,
Iceland recognised that a certain turning point had been reached on this issue and that serious efforts
should be made to enter into a new phase.  There should be sufficient basis to start discussions on
proposals and contents of a possible agreement.  Members should also make efforts in the next roundtowards an agreement on trade facilitation.  The principles of efficiency and simplification,
harmonisation and consistency, protection and compliance, transparency and integrity, co-operation
and consultations should provide a good basis for this aim.  Special attention should be paid to anti-
corruption measures, and in this respect the WTO could take note of the recent Convention on
Combating Bribery negotiated under the auspices of the OECD.  Iceland also attached particularimportance to the creation of a stable, free and equitable environment for global electronic commerce.
The WTO debate should be comprehensive and cover all trade-related aspects of electronic commerce
with the aim of clarifying to what extent current WTO rules applied, and defining, as appropriate, theWT/GC/M/34
Page 32
scope for new or improved disciplines.  Members would hopefully be able to conclude an agreement
on electronic commerce even before a new round of trade negotiations commenced.
66. Iceland placed particular interest in the proposal for the establishment of a multilateral system
of notifications and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits.  The concept,
however, required further examination, not only for the establishment and operational costs but alsofor proceedings for dispute settlement and arbitration.  If such an exercise proved to be acceptable and
the system turned out to be successful in improvin g identification and protection of the origin of the
goods in question, Iceland would be keen to see such a system extended to all kinds of goods,
including fish.  Iceland noted the growing interest in discussing investment issues at the WTO in a
comprehensive way.  If such discussions were to be launched, they would be very different from the
discussions in the OECD from a contextual point of  view.  The issue of investment protection would
be one of the important contributions as well as the elimination of barriers to movement of keypersonnel in connection with investment abroad.  Iceland was interested in seeing negotiations begin
on more sophisticated investment measures than were reflected in the present TRIMs Agreement.  In
concluding, he urged Members to aim for an accelerated round with a three-year time-frame, as well
as for institution building that would enable the WTO to adjust and respond to change and the
challenges of the global economy.  Furthermore, the difficulties faced by the least-developing andmany developing countries in implementing the present WTO agreements would need special
attention during a new round of negotiations.  Icela nd believed that implementation difficulties could
be dealt with within the existing WTO framework.  While Iceland stood ready to work constructively
with the concerned countries, it would caution against any backtracking or renegotiation of
commitments.
67. The representative of Uganda said that his delegation could go along with the Chairman's
proposed programme of work.  As the second ph ase would be proposal-driven, his delegation
expected that proposals would be submitted in time and that all would be given the necessary time to
consider them.  He hoped that at the end of the second phase it would be possible to see the outline of
what could constitute a declaration.  His delegation agreed with Egypt on the importance of theevaluation provided for in paragraph 8 of the Minist erial Declaration, which would give an idea of the
lacunae and the corrective measures to be taken.  As regards the mandated negotiations, these were
part and parcel of the Uruguay Round Agreements, and should not be used as a basis to demand
concessions in a new round.  In the area of agriculture, Members needed to review those provisions
that constrained the production of food for domestic consumption in developing countries.  There was
also a need to redress the weaknesses in the provisions relating to net food-importing countries.  As
regards services, it should be possible to negotiate the further liberalization of labour intensiveservices in developed countries.  This, coupled with the free movement of labour from developing
countries, would be helpful in promoting development.   With regard to TRIPS, there was a need for
an operational provision on the promotion of technological innovation and the transfer of technology.
As the weaker trading partners, least-developed countries faced considerable handicaps in the
multilateral trading system.  An effective system of special provisions for them should therefore bemade an integral part of the WTO.  This should be treated as a corrective measure to deal with the
structural weaknesses in their economies and to create a balance in the distribution of benefits from
the system.  It was also necessary to have an effective surveillance of the implementation of the
special and differential provisions.  With regard to the Singapore issues, his delegation believed, like
India, that it was as yet unclear whether the stage had been reached where negotiations could belaunched on these issues.  Uganda suggested that Members wait until this work was reviewed at a
later stage, possible at Seattle, when, if need be, one could consider if negotiations should be
undertaken.  On the issue of trade and environment, while Uganda was party to a number of
multilateral environment agreements, it would urge caution in bringing environment into the WTO so
that it did not become yet another non-tariff barrier.  Finally, like many others, Uganda also believedthat the issue of labour standards had been settled in Singapore.WT/GC/M/34
Page 33
68. The Chairman said that Members had had a useful and interesting exchange of views, which
he would not attempt to summarize.  A number of ideas had been put forward by delegations on how
to build on the process that had been undertaken thus  far, and all looked forward to receiving concise
and precise proposals geared towards preparing for recommendations to Ministers in Seattle.
Delegations had also raised a number of other points about the further process which would have toreflected on as one moved along.  These included the question of establishing a cut-off date for the
submission of proposals, the timing and the manner in which to handle work under paragraph 8 of the
Ministerial Declaration, and also the question of what specific product the work in the second phase
should result in.  Clearly, the process that Member s were agreeing to at the present meeting would
provide an opportunity for these and any other relevant issues to be considered during the course of
the further meetings.
69. He proposed that the General Council agree to the indicative programme for the organization
of future work that he had presented at the be ginning of the meeting, keeping in mind the views
expressed by various delegations regarding the importance of retaining flexibility and of avoiding to
the maximum extent possible overlapping with other meetings both in the WTO and elsewhere.  It
was understood that although a particular focus was suggested for the meetings in the proposed
programme, delegations would have the right to revert to any issue at any meeting.  It was alsounderstood that the programme might be reviewed, and if necessary modified, by the General Council
in the light of developments.
70. The General Council so agreed.  The General Council then took note
 of the statements and of
the report by the outgoing Chairman on the work done since the September 1998 Special Session.
__________