RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/W/135
26 January 1999
(99-0278)
General Council Original:  English
PREPARATIONS FOR THE 1999 MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
General Council Discussion on Mandated Negotiations on Agriculture and Services
23-24 November 1998
Communication from Egypt
The following statement made by Egypt at the Informal Intersessional General Council
meeting on 23 November 1998 is being circulated at the request of that delegation.
_______________
The built-in-agenda (BIA) is an integral part  of the Uruguay Round Agreements (URAs) and
constitutes an important element in the balance of rights and obligations of the commitments of WTOmembers. It contains an ambitious program of work of unfinished negotiations, special reviews, regular
reviews and new negotiations.
As you requested, this statement will be limited to the consideration of the mandated
negotiations in agriculture and trade in services.
We believe that all WTO members are committed to start these negotiations on time. We will be
ready to address the scope, structure and time framework of these negotiations. However, we would
like to indicate that these negotiations have to be governed by a number of guiding principles.
We believe that these principles have to be adequately taken into account in order for our
negotiations to start in a constructive and forthcoming manner. A number of these principles are alreadystipulated in the relevant provisions on the mandated negotiations in Article 20 in the Agreement on
Agriculture and Article 19 of GATS.
These principles which we are confident will be further elaborated on and developed by other
delegations, include the following:
(1) A comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of the provisions of the Agreement on
Agriculture and the Agreement on Trade in Services and in particular the impact on the trade of
developing countries is a prerequisite to a successful initiation of negotiations and to safeguard the
credibility of the Multilateral Trading System.
(2) One of the most important objectives of the negotiations should be to address the difficulties
facing developing countries in the process of implementation. This would apply only to the limited
difficulties that can not be addressed except through future negotiations.
(3) Special and differential treatment and taking into account the particular interests of developing
countries should be a fundamental cross-cutting consideration in all aspects of the negotiations.WT/GC/W/135
Page 2
(4) The scope, structure, and time frame should be realistic and has to take into account that these
negotiations will be conducted at a time when most developing countries are finding it exceedingly
difficult to effectively participate in the regular WTO activities. Hence, negotiations must take into
account the limited capacity and the resources available at the disposal of developing countries in thisrespect. If not, then it should be known before hand that the major trading partners will conduct these
negotiations with a very few number of developing countries while the majority of developing countries
will wait to be informed about the outcome of nego tiations to which they will not be in a position to
take part.
(5) Adequate assistance should be provided, to developing countries and in particular to LDCs, to
assist them in ensuring that their interests are fully taken into account in future negotiations.
I would like to briefly address the future negotiations in both agriculture and services.Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture indicates that a number of elements should be taken
into account in the mandated negotiation. These in clude the experience in implementing reduction
commitments and their impact on world trade in agriculture. Moreover, non-trade concerns, S&D
treatment to developing countries, a fair and market oriented agriculture trading system as well as the
objectives contained in the Preamble of the Agreement on Agriculture are also elements that are
indicated in Article 20.
From our perspective, four indispensable objectives of the preamble should be taken into
consideration in negotiations. These include  inter alia : first, that developed countries should take into
account the particular interest of developing countries by providing greater market access opportunities
to products of export interest of these countries. A second  objective is related to having regard to non-
trade concerns including food security. A third equally important objective is that S&D treatment is an
integral element of the negotiations. A fourth cruc ial objective is to take into account the possible
negative effects of the reform program on LDCs and NFIDCs.
We would also like to indicate that we believe that the papers that were submitted by New
Zealand and the US for this meeting (doc uments WT/GC/W/112/Rev1 and WT/GC/W/115
respectively) are not in complete conformity with Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture since
they consider S&D treatment for developing countrie s in the negotiations in agriculture as a peripheral
or a marginal issue and not as an integral part of future negotiations as stipulated by the Agreement.
The difficulties identified in the process of implementation of the Agreement on Agriculture in
the areas of market access, domestic support and export subsidies are examined  in some detail in the
Egyptian paper on S&D treatment (document WT/GC/W/109). We will therefore not repeat theseissues. Nevertheless, I would like to indicate the following:
(1) We believe that the Secretariat should prepare a comprehensive paper to assess the impact of
the implementation of the Agreement on Agriculture. As we mentioned in the October informal
meeting of the General Council, the analysis of the sh are of developing countries in the growth of trade
in agriculture after the UR compared to the levels before the implementation process will be of
significant importance for the evaluation of the situation and the preparation for future negotiations.
The current tariff levels and tariff reductions since the implementation process started, particularly in
products of interest to developing countries, should be  analyzed on a tariff line basis in preparation for
future negotiations. The impact of the implementation of the Agreement on food security, particularlyof developing countries, should be analyzed as well.
(2) As we indicated in the October meeting, the Secretariat has prepared a factual note in the
context of the  analysis and exchange of information  process on the implementation of the special andWT/GC/W/135
Page 3
differential provisions in the Agreement on Agriculture. It will be necessary to complement this note
with an analytical examination of the implementation of these provisions. This is an essential ingredient
for the effective consideration of issues pertaining to future negotiations.
These studies can be conducted in cooperation with FAO, UNCTAD and other relevant
organizations.
We have indicated in the October meeting as well that the implementation of the Decision on
NFIDCs has been a source of deep concern to NFIDCs and LDCs and that no progress has been
identified by these countries towards the implementation of this Decision. What is even more disturbing
is that a delegation have taken the view that the anticipated difficulties facing NFIDCs simply did not
materialize. We believe that delegations should be more sensitive to the concerns and preoccupations ofdeveloping countries if our objective is to have an approach that is more forthcoming and constructive
and not confrontational.
We would like to note that the statement that was made by the delegation of Australia in this
meeting has a much more positive tone in relation to NFIDCs compared to the statement in theOctober meeting. We welcome this positive tone. However, we believe that their approach is similar
to that presented by the US and New Zealand in relation to s&d treatment.
The statement by Australia indicated that pri ce movements in agricultural products is not due
to the implementation of the Uruguay Round. We do not  share this view. If this is the case then it
means one of two things: either that the commitmen ts in the Agreement on Agriculture were minimal
and have not affected market prices, or that the market mechanism is not functioning. We do not
believe that either alternative is true.
Furthermore, the difficulties facing NFIDCs should not await the new negotiations. The non-
implementation of this Decision will effect the credibility of the whole system and may lead to
unnecessary complications that we should avoid.
The AIE process that started as a result of the Decision of the Singapore Ministerial Conference
has been helpful. The Secretariat has prepared a number of useful papers. Contributions by members
were also very useful in deepening the understanding of various issues and view points in the process of
implementation. However, the participation of many developing countries in this process has beenconstrained due to lack of adequate institutional and human capacity.
As far as the negotiations on trade in services is concerned, according to Article 19 of GATS,
the objective is to achieve a progressively higher level of liberalization in successive rounds of
negotiations. This liberalization shall respect national policy objectives for individual developingcountries for opening fewer sectors, liberalizing fewer types of transactions, extending market access in
line with their level of development, and when maki ng access to their markets, attach to such access
conditions aimed at achieving the objectives of Article 4 (related to the increasing participation of
developing countries in international trade in services)
It was agreed in Singapore to commence a process of exchange of information to facilitate
future negotiations. This process has been helpful. The Secretariat has prepared a number of useful
papers. Contributions by members were also very useful. However, the situation is quite similar to that
in the AIE process in agriculture. The participation of many developing countries has been constrained
due to lack of adequate institutional and human capacity.
To prepare for negotiations, the Council for Trade in Services should carry out an assessment
of trade in services in overall terms and on a sectoral basis with reference to the objectives of GATS,
including those set out in paragraph 1 of Article 4. Such an assessment would need to include,  interWT/GC/W/135
Page 4
alia, an analysis of whether commitments on commercial presence has led to a positive impact on FDI.
Negotiating guidelines should establish modalities for the treatment of liberalization undertaken
autonomously by Members since previous negotiations, as well as for the special treatment for
developing countries.
As we indicated in the October meeting, the sectors where agreements have been recently
concluded such as financial services and basic telecommunications are capital, technology and
knowledge intensive. Developing countries are constr ained in increased participation in international
trade in these sectors.
Furthermore, although one of the most significant aspects of GATS is that it covers cross-
border movement of service suppliers as an integral part of trade in services, there have been nomeaningful liberalization in the mode of movement of natural persons without commercial presence.
Due to the extremely limited nature of commitments undertaken, the benefits accruing to developing
countries as a result of these commitments are likely to be marginal. We believe that useful cooperation
can take place between WTO and IOM in this regard.
It is also regrettable that the negotiations concerning emergency safeguards which could
encourage developing countries to make more significant liberalization commitments have not been
concluded.
We hope that these trends would be reversed in future sectoral negotiations and that our future
consideration of this issue would be based on a study that would be prepared by the Secretariat to
address the above mentioned issues with a particular focus on the effective participation of developing
countries in trade in services since the entry in to force of the Uruguay Round compared with the
situation before the Round.
__________