10:30 AM Feb 7, 1997

CANADA PROPOSES MINISTERIAL MEET EARLY 1998

Geneva 7 Feb (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- Canada proposed at the General Council of the World Trade Organization that a ministerial meeting should be held in the early part of 1998 for the observance of the 50th anniversary of the multilateral trading system, which has been decided upon at Singapore last December.

The meeting, presumably the biennial ministerial meeting of the WTO, to observe the 50th anniversary of the multilateral trading system, according to the Canadian proposal, enable ministers to take stock of the implementation of the WTO accords, but not make any decisions on any new issues. The meeting is also to reflect on why the least developed countries have not been able to share in the world trade.

The meeting is to be in Geneva.

Both Canada, and Switzerland which supported, said a decision would have to be taken by March this year -- given the need for hotel reservations in Geneva at a busy season.

While no specific dates have been mentioned, the idea of holding it in May, around the time of the London G-7 summit, and to invite President Clinton to participate, has been canvassed by Western officials.

Cuba suggested the holding of an international seminar in Havana, where the Havana charter was adopted 50 years ago -- but could never enter into force because the US would not ratify it.

Earlier, the Council put off action to followup on the Singapore Ministerial Conference and set up three working groups on the three new issues of investment, competition policy and transparency in government procurement.

The new chair of the General Council, Amb. Celso Lafer of Brazil, is to hold further consultations on choosing the three chairpersons.

There are a number of candidates vying for these posts, and the consultations so far have not produced a consensus.

While some members felt that the three chairpersons could be named by Lafer, after consultation with the members, some like Jamaica, Pakistan and Morocco argued for the choice being formally made by the Council.

The next meeting of the Council is set for April, though there was some mention Friday of a special meeting for naming the Chairman. No decision was taken on this suggestion.

The question of terms of reference for the working groups also was raised, but trade officials said no conclusions were reached.

Besides naming Lafer to head the General Council, in place of Amb. Rossier of Switzerland, the Council also named others to head various WTO bodies: Amb. Wade Armstrong (New Zealand) for the Dispute Settlement Body, Amb. Munir Akram (Pakistan) for the Trade Policy Review Body, Amb. Terje Johannessen (Norway) for the Council for Trade in Goods, Amb. Mrs Carmen Luz Guarda (Chile) for the TRIPs Council, Amb. Jung Yung Sun (Korea) for Council on Trade in Services, Amb. Bjorn Ekbolm (Finland) for the Committee on Trade and Environment, Amb. Dhurmahdass Baichoo (Mauritius) for the Committee on Trade and Development, Amb. Kamel Morjane (Tunisia) for the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration, Mr. Peter Jenkins (UK) for the Committee on Balance of Payments, and Mr. John Weekes (Canada) for the Committee on Regional Trading.

Earlier, the discussion at the on the issue of observer status for international intergovernmental organizations -- those already having such status on an Ad Hoc basis, and others seeking observer status -- brought forth comments from several members on the need for transparency over the process of choice of institutions to be provided observer status. Jamaica urged the need to delineate between international intergovernmental organizations and those that are "institutional and bureaucratic". The United States wanted decisions on observer status to be based on whether the activities of the body are relevant to the WTO activities and whether there is reciprocity.

On the report on the International Trade Centre, which is jointly administered and run by the WTO and UNCTAD, Egypt wanted the ITC to pay attention to technical cooperation to LDCs, particularly those in Africa. India supported this view and, referring to reforms in the secretariat, said this should be gradual.

The Council also asked for a report on the conditions of service of the WTO staff and their legal status (technically the WTO staff are still employees of the Interim Committee for the International Trade Organization, set up by the UN after the Havana Charter).

On the other items on the agenda, the Council took note of the report on the consultations with India on balance-of-payments which, in terms of the Committee's report, are to be resumed in June when India is to present its plan for gradual phasing-out of its BOP restrictions.

At the Council, the EC wanted India to "graduate" out of its BOP rights under Art. XVIII:B, while the US wanted India to present its report on what it would be doing in terms of the BOP Committee report by May, in time for the June consultations. The EC and Switzerland made references to the 3000 odd tariff lines (consumer goods, agricultural products and textiles) where India maintained quantitative restrictions, and wanted these to be removed.

The Indian ambassador, S. Narayanan, repudiated the suggestions in the EC comment, supported by Switzerland, that India was not living up to its GATT obligations. Narayanan said that the reform process in India (for which there was praise in the BOP Committee report, and in the comments of the US and others) would get political support within the country if the industrialized countries increased their own market access opportunities for Indian goods.

The United States in a statement complained that one year after its accession, Ecuador had not fully implemented its obligations. Reference was made to its consumption tax and the import bans on used tires, clothes and automobiles, and for inadequate compliance with the TRIPs agreement.

The Ecuador representative however insisted that the consumption tax applied without discrimination on imported and domestic products and that the bans on import of some used products was similar to those in many other WTO members.

On the TRIPs accord, Ecuador, supported by Venezuela (speaking for the other members of the Andean Pact) said that the Ecuador's law was in line with the provisions of the Andean treaty.

According to some Latin American sources, the Andean Court of Justice has issued a ruling which implies that in order to give the 'pipeline' patent protection for some pharmaceutical and agro-chemical products, the basic requirement of disclosure in return for grant of patent needs to be fulfilled.

The TRIPs accord provides that where countries have a transition period to comply with the TRIPs provisions, in the area of pharmaceuticals and agro-chemicals, they should set up a mechanism to receive patent applications, disposing them off after the transition period, but provide sole marketing rights to applicants during the period.