9:17 AM Dec 15, 1993

ONLY TIME CAN SHOW WHETHER OUTCOME WILL BENEFIT OR NOT

Geneva 15 Dec (TWN) -- "We have concluded the negotiations, but whether its outcome is going to be good or bad only time can tell," declared Amb. Balkrishan Zutshi of India Wednesday.

Zutshi, one of the key negotiators in the Round and who had been involved in some tense negotiations with the US and the EC over the last few days, including over textiles and clothing was commenting on the outcome at a press briefing on the conclusion of the Uruguay Round negotiations.

Commenting on the outcome from an Indian perspective, Zutshi said that in agriculture -- given its large size and population -- the outcome was satisfactory. India had to make no commitments. Its domestic support was well within the permissible level for a developing country nor had it to make any commitments on current access or minimum access, since its position was safeguarded by the provisions for continued restrictions on the part of those maintaining them for BOP reasons.

Indian concerns about stockholding and for the public distribution system had also been met in the approved text, Zutshi said. While the text itself had not been amended (in para three of Annex two) a footnote had been inserted to take care of Indian concerns.

In the area of Trips, in relation to agriculture, India had some concerns relating to sui generis system of protection of plant varieties and patenting of genetic material.

While the texts had not been changed, there had been some understanding that in terms of the sui generis system they would have, the rights of farmers to save seeds for replanting was exempted from the rights conferred on plant breeders, and so would be the rights for researchers. India would be enacting legislation to provide for the rights but with these safeguards.

As for patenting life forms, under the existing European Patent legislation (whose wording has been incorporated into the DFA text), in a number of European Union jurisdictions the patenting of genes, dha sequences etc are not permitted. India had sought some assurances on this, but had been told that it could enact similar provisions without falling foul of Trips.

India had also sought some changes on pharmaceuticals, with the US asking for changes in the other direction in regard to socalled pipeline protection. Both sides had to give up the changes.

The concern of India, and several others, over the non-violation disputes, had been resolved by providing for a moratorium on such disputes, for review after five years and any changes to be adopted by consensus.

In services, India like others had been able to resist the US approach, with the result that this issue would remain open for a period of time -- for six months after entry into force -- at the end of which all parties could take a final view and if necessary take their own MFN derogations (as the US for a second-tier) while agreeing to an MFN commitment for current access.

There would be a similar situation on movement of personnel. India was disappointed so far with the openings provided to them on this.

As a result of all this, in services negotiations would continue in basic telecom, financial services and perhaps maritime too.

The market access situation was still fluid. India had provided a trade-weighted reduction of 55% on raw materials, components and capital goods. The tariff offers did not cover consumer goods, whose imports remained banned under the BOP cover, where the Indian measures are subject to GATT surveillance. While India's own autonomous trade liberalisation policies would continue, there would be no bindings.

In terms of benefits, India has received a 63 percent tariff reduction from Japan, 41 percent from Norway and 38 percent from Canada. From the US and EC it was respectively only 18 and 22 percent.

On antidumping and other rules, Zutshi said that while they would now be clearer, GATT litigation on disputes would probably increase. And in areas like anti-dumping where special provisions had been made for socalled 'standard of review', there would be additional reasons adduced for challenging panel rulings.

Much would depend on how panels, who would now be quasi-judicial, would function. But no judicial or quasi-judicial system would consent to its own powers to be taken away. In terms of interpretations of the procedures and rules, where it was not specific, panels were bound to go into negotiating history or how reasonable ordinary minded people would view it.

If the US view and its proposals had prevailed, then the dispute settlement would have been mere formality to uphold US decisions.

A major gain was that the entire circumvention provisions had been given up.

Also there is to be a review after 5 years when a decision would be taken whether or not the standard of review in anti-dumping is to be applied across the board.

In textiles and clothing, while there are some safeguards against backsliding, he had no doubt that towards the end of the ten years there would be major attempts by US and EC industry to perpetuate the MFA.

On the outcome for developing countries, given the stance of India, Brazil and others in the runup to Punta del Este, Zutshi said that the overall situation had undergone a dramatic change.

There were no longer two super-powers, and the Berlin wall had collapsed and in its wake the centrally planned economies. At the time of launching negotiations, the developing countries had not been pursuing autonomous liberalization policies. Now they were and this created a change in their outlook.

But on the other side the western industrial countries were not in recession in 1986, and with growing unemployment.

The negotiations were launched in a different era and we have to take note of it.

And while at Punta, developing countries had claimed and pushed for special and differential treatment, they had received little or none, whereas the only parties enjoying S & D were the industrial countries -- in agriculture, textiles and clothing and several other areas.

Asked about the new MTO and Dispute Settlement Understanding, and the US claims that it would continue to use S.301 (unilateral powers to force open other markets), Zutshi said it would be a matter of lawyers and others as to whether or not the US, in accepting the MTO and undertaking to bring its laws and measures into line with its "obligations" under the MTO and its agreements, has to give up or change the S.301 provisions.

But there was little doubt it could not be used -- whether to force market access in goods or in services.

Even in the audiovisual sector, where the EC was not putting in any commitments, or in other areas where different parties might not have made any commitments, Zutshi did not see how the US could invoke any 301 actions. Whether there was a commitment to liberalise in any particular service or not, the GATS applied to all services.

The WTO and the DSU required participants to use only its provisions for settling trade disputes. If the US, or any other party chose to take unilateral steps, the other aggrieved party would come to the WTO and invoke dispute settlement -- with an automatic process leading to final outcome becoming binding.