The following statement by India at the informal intersessional meeting on 23-24 November 1998 is being circulated at the request of that delegation.

1. As all of us are aware, paragraph 9a(iii) of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration deals with recommendations concerning future work already provided for under other existing agreements and decisions taken at Marrakesh in the context of the General Council's preparations for the Third Ministerial Conference. My delegation recalls that the Secretariat had brought out a paper in October 1995 (WT/L/88) listing all the provisions in various agreements for review, future work or negotiations in the WTO Agreement and related decisions and declarations. If one looks at this list, there are two broad categories: provisions where future negotiations are explicitly contemplated and provisions where various terms like review, examination, report, etc. are used. We have had discussions earlier on the first set of provisions which basically come under paragraph 9a(ii), i.e. mandated negotiations. These are basically found in Agreement on Agriculture, Services Agreement and TRIPS Agreement. As far as the provisions relating to review, examination etc. are concerned, as the Secretariat's document shows and as confirmed by the deliberations so far in this session, they are found in various agreements.

2. In the first inter-sessional meeting, a number of delegations including my own have spoken extensively about our concerns with regard to implementation of the various WTO agreements. Some delegations, who have spoken earlier, have highlighted the interface between implementation and review/examination etc. provided for in a number of agreements. It is my delegation's understanding that a number of provisions were built into various agreements during the Uruguay Round negotiations because of the strong feeling in the minds of almost all delegations at that time that these agreements provide for substantial commitments in many areas and that there was a certain amount of anxiety as to what effect these agreements will have on the trade and development of various countries, especially developing countries. Besides, it was recognized that the WTO Agreement covered many new areas like TRIPS, Services, etc. and delegations were not sure as to how the commitments in these new areas will work in actual practice. And also there was a general recognition that the WTO Agreement is going to be a highly intrusive agreement having far-reaching implications for what was until now being considered a domestic policy-making area. It is obvious that it is because of these various considerations the negotiators were wise enough to build in some safety walls in the form of reviews etc. Therefore, it is clear to my delegation that the purpose of these provisions is not to impose additional commitments and burdens on developing countries but to ensure that on the basis of experience gained provide relief to all Members, especially developing country Members, if implementation of any agreement gave rise to grave difficulties. In the light of this, I am rather surprised to hear some delegations hinting today that they would like to utilize the review/examinations etc. provided for in various agreements to broaden the scope of commitments already taken or impose additional commitments on developing countries. If this happens, it would be contrary to the idea behind building in the review/examination etc. process in various agreements. I need hardly say that my delegation would not be in a position to go along with any approach whose design is to use the review process to impose additional burdens on developing countries.

3. There is another general point I would like to make at this stage. There are specific time frames provided for the reviews in different agreements. It comes as a surprise to us that some delegations treat some reviews rather casually while showing extraordinary enthusiasm to complete some other reviews. In fact, we have heard delegations even arguing in some committees that developing countries should report even before the end of the transition period as to how they are going to implement their commitments which would kick in at the end of the transition period. However, in a committee like the Rules of Origin Committee where we have already failed to observe the time-limit provided for in the Agreement, we are told we should not fix any deadline for the completion of the work since it will affect the quality of the work and quality of the recommendations. I think it is necessary for all of us to decide that if time-limits are to be observed, they should be observed in all cases and not selectively depending upon the individual interest of some delegations. We would like to stress this important aspect of the reviews etc. covered by paragraph 9a(iii) of the Geneva Ministerial Conference.

4. There is another general point I would like to make about reviews. It appears to us that one major delegation is trying to hint that virtually every review/examination provided for in the WTO agreements should be a subject matter for consideration in the Third Ministerial Conference. I do not think that this is what we had in mind when we drafted paragraph 9a(iii). I remember a statement was made to me at that time that no recommendation is also a recommendation. As I had indicated earlier, reviews provided for in each agreement should be undertaken on the basis of experience gained and difficulties faced in implementing that agreement. It looks as though that some delegations are anxious to promote a comprehensive round, whatever it might mean, and in trying to pave the way for linking every review/examination to a new round of negotiations. I would simply like to say that this is unfair. As I mentioned earlier, the review provisions built in various agreements were meant to remove difficulties and inequities noticed on the basis of experience acquired through implementation. It appears that some delegations would like developing countries to accept new inequities and new difficulties as a price for removal of inequities and difficulties experienced in implementing existing agreements by linking virtually every review provision to a new round. I am afraid that my delegation does not find this approach acceptable.

5. There is one last general point I would like to make. If one goes through the document WT/L/88, one will find the responsibility given to Ministerial Conference, WTO, Goods Council, TRIPS Council, Services Council, Committee on Agriculture, etc. for a decision basing on the review provisions. Very ironically, the General Council does not figure in any of these provisions except to the extent that it should constitute a Committee on Trade and Environment, which it has already done. I recognise that when the Ministerial Conference is not in session, the General Council can exercise the powers of the Ministerial Conference. I also recognise that the General Council can discharge the functions of any other WTO body. We continue to believe that the preparatory process for the third Ministerial Conference should be the responsibility of the General Council. However, we would like you to request the Legal Division to clarify in due course as to whether the review provisions in which the authority for taking a decision on the basis of review is given to the Ministerial Conference imply that such decisions should necessarily wait for the Ministerial Conference.

6. I note that some delegations have referred to the subject of environment in the context of our discussions on paragraph 9a(iii) of the Geneva Ministerial Decision. The General Council has already established a Committee on Trade and Environment in early 1995 as mandated by the Ministerial Decision taken at Marrakesh. At Singapore the Ministers directed the Committee to carry out its work, reporting to the General Council, under its existing terms of reference. The trade and environment interface issue is a complex one and in our assessment the existing WTO provisions are more than adequate to deal with genuine and bona fide environmental concerns. The real solution for the problem, if any, lies with international institutions dealing with multilateral environmental agreements.

7. Today, I do not intend to go into the review provisions of various agreements and highlight our concerns and points of view with regard to those reviews. This is for two reasons. Firstly, a number of delegations who spoke before me have already made detailed contributions on this aspect. My delegation shares almost all the points made by Egypt, ASEAN and Dominican Republic and most of the points made by Pakistan and Cuba. We also share a number of points made by Venezuela and Argentina. Secondly, we are participating actively in the reviews taking place in different WTO bodies and have presented our concerns in detail in these bodies. Thus, Members are aware of our concerns. We would therefore like to simply reiterate at this stage that the redressal of the problems and shortcomings highlighted in the various Agreements by the above Members, and by us in this and other bodies, is extremely important. Moreover, we would like these imbalances to be corrected in the preparatory process to the third Ministerial Conference.

8. Before I conclude, I would like to make one more point. The Director General of the WTO has been stressing that this is a rule-based organization and not a power-based one. It is our view that paragraph 9a(iii) of the Geneva Ministerial Decision provides an opportunity to the Members to demonstrate that this is actually a rule-based organization and that equity considerations are paramount.