RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/W/136
26 January 1999
(99-0281)
General Council Original:  English
PREPARATIONS FOR THE 1999 MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
General Council Discussion on the Built-In-Agenda
23-24 November 1998
Communication from Egypt
The following statement made by Egypt at the Informal Intersessional General Council
meeting on 24 November 1998 is being circulated at the request of that delegation.
_______________
The built-in-agenda (BIA) contains an ambitious program of work of unfinished negotiations,
special reviews, regular reviews and new negotiations. We have addressed the mandated negotiationsin the areas of agriculture and trade in services and will address other elements in the BIA in this
intervention.
It has to be indicated at the outset that there is no clear or agreed legal definition of the BIA.
Furthermore, in some cases the demarcation line is not very clear between implementation issues and
what may be considered an issue related to the BIA. A recent WTO publication included a list of the
commitments in the BIA. The said list includes ev en the establishment of the WTO as one of the
elements of the BIA. This demonstrates the fact that what constitutes the BIA has varying
interpretations.
A number of useful papers have been prepared on the BIA. The first was a note by the
Secretariat in October 1995 (document WT/L/88). More over, during the preparation for the Singapore
Ministerial Conference two useful papers were also presented by  Asean and Australia. Finally, a
more recent note was prepared by the Secretariat in May 1998 (document WT/L/271).
The BIA has been categorized in different ways, such as:
(i) by the deadline for the start or completion of tasks;
(ii) by dividing it into: unfinished business, regular or special reviews, and future negotiations;(iii) by dividing it into obligations in different agreements.
We believe that one of the most important objectives of the various elements in the BIA
should be to address the difficulties encountered by WTO Members, particularly the developing
countries, during the process of implementation. Some of these difficulties were highlighted in some
detail during the informal meeting of the General Council in October.WT/GC/W/136
Page 2
Several obligations in the BIA have already been implemented. This has been achieved with
varying degrees of success. Some activities were successfully completed, and some others were
suspended, postponed or unsuccessfully completed. Others are ongoing or are taking much longer
than initially anticipated.
The negotiations on financial services and basic telecommunications have been completed
successfully. The negotiations on maritime transport services were not successful and were therefore
suspended. Negotiations on rules and disciplines in emergency safeguards, government procurement,
and subsidies in the area of services is taking much  longer than originally anticipated. This is the
situation as well in the process of harmonization of non-preferential rules of origin.
It was also agreed that a review of non-acti onable research and development subsidies would
be conducted at a future time if Members so wished. Moreover, many developing countries have
expressed frustration at the outcome of the review of the ATC Agreement.
Generally speaking, we have found that  a number of the reviews that were completed so far
did not adequately address the fundamental difficulties encountered by developing countries duringthe process of implementation.
In addition to the work that has already been completed, a number of activities are currently
taking place in the context of the BIA. Others will commence at a later stage.
The ongoing work in the context of the BIA, excluding in the area of trade in services,
include:
(i) the work programme on the harmonization of non-preferential rules of origin which was
initiated in July 1995 and was supposed to be completed within three years has not beencompleted;
(ii) a review of the operation and implementation of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement
has already started;
(iii) the review of dispute settlement rules and procedures is also ongoing and is not expected to
be completed on time.
The Review of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)   
The difficulties facing developing countries in the area of standards were addressed in the
meeting in October. A number of ideas have been proposed to address these difficulties in the courseof the review of the SPS Agreement. One of the ma in objectives of the review should be to reach
concrete recommendations in a manner that would address the difficulties  facing developing
countries in this area. The paper that was presented by Egypt on S&D treatment (document
WT/GC/W/109) addressed a number of these issues in some detail.
The Review of the DSU (The Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes)
We have indicated our general satisfaction with the functioning of the dispute settlement
mechanism on numerous occasions. However, we have also indicated the difficulties identified in thisrespect including the lack of implementation of a number of S&D provisions in the DSU. Another
source of concern is that resorting to the dispute settlement body proved to be extremely onerous from
the perspective of developing countries. Despite the larger involvement of developing countries in this
system, it is not as accessible to developing countries as it should be. Bringing a dispute to the WTOWT/GC/W/136
Page 3
proved to be a legal intensive process which requir es specialized expertise that is lacking in most
developing countries. We hope that these difficulties would be adequately addressed.
Another concern is related to the fact that even if the outcome of the settlement is in favour of
a developing country that is party to a dispute, the ruling does not provide compensation to the lossesinflicted on the developing country concerned which in some cases may lead to lay-off of workers and
bankruptcy with all the social and economic repercussions that this may entail.
The Harmonization of Non-Preferential Rules of Origin in accordance with Article 9 of the
Agreement on Rules of Origin
Rules of origin are still not regulated or harmonized at the multilateral level.  This situation
has allowed some countries to apply rules of origin in a questionable manner and has resulted in trade
tensions in some cases. The preliminary outcome of the negotiations at the product level tend to
reflect the views of active industry groups mostly in developed countries.  The majority of unresolved
issues are linked to different views held by domestic industries in various members as to the kind of
processing that should be considered as "substantial transformation".  Most domestic industries tendto protect their interests by arguing that the processing carried out in their premises involved a
"substantial transformation" and deserved origin status.
The final rules of origin which will emerge from the negotiations may have profound
implications particularly when they interact wi th other instruments of commercial policy such as
safeguards, quotas, or anti-dumping duties.  Thus, it is important to assist developing countries to
strengthen their participation in the process of negotiations in both WTO and WCO to enable them to
protect their interests in these negotiations.
The impact of the work programme on the harmonization of rules of origin on the rights and
obligations of members should be adequately consid ered in the Committee of rules of Origin with a
particular focus on areas of interest to developing countries like textiles and clothing.
The results of the negotiations should not introduce additional burdens or impediments on the
market access of products of export interest to developing countries. It should be implemented in a
transparent and flexible manner that takes into account the needs of developing countries in this
context.
These were a few remarks on the ongoing work in the BIA. Moreover, a number of future
activities in the context of the BIA will take place in the near future. The preparatory work which has
already started in the areas of agriculture and services were addressed yesterday. I will focus now on a
number of other agreements.
The Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)
In accordance with Article 9 of the TRIMs Ag reement, the Council for Trade in Goods will
review its operation by the year 2000 and propose appropriate amendments to the MinisterialConference. In the course of its review, the Council should consider whether provisions on investment
policy and competition policy should be added to the Agreement.
A number of developing countries have indicated the difficulties that they are facing in the
implementation of the TRIMs Agreement. On our part , we are ready to engage in the review process
of this Agreement in a constructive manner taking into consideration the exploratory and educational
exercise in the working groups on trade and investment and trade and competition policy.WT/GC/W/136
Page 4
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs)
1. Increased protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits
The TRIPs Agreement establishes protection of the indications which identify a good as
originating in a country, a region or locality where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of
the good is essentially attributed to its geographical origin. It includes two provisions for continuing
negotiations with respect to geographical indications for wines and spirits. We believe that the
negotiations to increase protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits (Article 23.1)
should be extended to other products, particularly those of interest to developing countries.
2. Patent or sui generis  protection of plant varieties
Patentable subject matter was one of the most difficult issues in the negotiations of
intellectual property rights issues during the Uruguay Round negotiations. One of the main of the
difficulty was that intellectual property protection in this area of living matter is still in its early years
of development.  The TRIPs Agreement calls for a review of this matter four years after the date ofentry into force of the WTO Agreement (Article 27.3-b).
We believe that this matter remains a sensitive and controversial issue. While it may be useful
to consider the new developments in this area, the status quo should not be altered at this stage.
3. The non-application of non-violation provisions in the TRIPs Agreement
While paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the TRIPs Agreement affirms the applicability of the
Dispute Settlement Understanding to the TRIPs Agreement, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 64 try to
accommodate the inconclusive negotiations in th e Uruguay Round regarding non-violation provisions.
Non-violation provisions do not apply to the settlement of disputes under the TRIPs Agreement for a
period of five years from the entry into force of the WTO Agreement.
Due to the fact that developing countries are enjoying transitional periods, they will be unable
to assess the possible advantages and disadvantage s of the non-application of non-violation provisions
in the TRIPs Agreement. Therefore, during this period, the TRIPs Council should examine the scope
of and modalities for such complaints with a view to considering an extension of the period stated inthe Agreement. This will allow an accurate judgment on this issue and the submission of
recommendations to the Ministerial Conference in this respect.
Articles 66.2 and 67 provide commitments on the part of developed countries to extend
incentives for the transfer of technology to LDCs together with technical and financial assistance infavour of developing and least developed members in order to facilitate the implementation of the
TRIPS Agreement. These provisions should be subject to the review with a view of assessing their
implementation. This matter is of extreme importance to developing countries since these provisions
are within the balance of rights and obligations of members.
We also believe that the relationship between the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and the
Convention on Biodiversity should be examined in order to address any contradiction and to reconcile
the relevant provisions of these two agreements in particular those related to the protection of
knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities who should be enabled to
share equitably and fairly the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and the patentsgranted for the exploitation of these resources.WT/GC/W/136
Page 5
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Three important provisions should be reviewed in the context of the Agreement on Subsidies.
1. The Committee on Subsidies shall review the operation of Article 6.1 on actionable subsidies
regarding the criteria for existence of serious prejudice with a view to determining whether to extend
its application, either as presently drafted or in a modified form, for a further period. The operation of
these provisions is applicable for a period of five years.
2. A review of non-actionable research and development subsidies was supposed to be
conducted within 18 months of the entry into force of the WTO Agreement. However, in view of the
lack of experience and the fact that no notifica tions of non-actionable research and development
subsidies had been submitted, it was agreed that such a review would be conducted at a future time if
members so wished. This review should be conducted in the context of the other mandated reviews in
this Agreement.
3. The review of the operation of Article 27.6 on the export competitiveness provision for
developing countries should be conducted five years from the date of the entry into force of the WTO
Agreement.
The Subsidies Agreement is of great importance to developing countries due to the widely
held view that certain types of subsidies may be critical in the process of development. Given the factthat the financial capacity of developing countries to provide subsidies is limited and that their
development, particularly in the industrial sector, may require certain subsidies; these also should be
categorized as non-actionable under Article 8. These subsidies may include measures such as cheaper
finance, financial support for advanced technology, subsidy for diversification efforts or market
development, etc. We will need to examine whet her the provisions of that Agreement provided
adequate flexibility to developing countries to serve their development objectives.
To conclude, I would like to reiterate the fact that a number of the reviews that were
completed so far did not adequately address the fundamental difficulties encountered by developing
countries during the process of implementation and that addressing this issue should be one of our top
priorities in relation to the consideration of the BIA.
__________