prague2 - FAO

Document Sample
prague2 - FAO Powered By Docstoc
					                                                       Field document
                                                            UR/REU/2



               Umbrella Programme
                  for Training on
   Uruguay Round Follow-up and Multilateral Trade
            Negotiations on Agriculture




                       Report



Workshop on Uruguay Round Follow-up and
Multilateral Trade Negotiations on Agriculture


           Prague, 10-14 January 2000


                     M. Duponcel
                    Policy Officer
                Policy Assistance Unit
   Subregional Office for Central and Eastern Europe




   FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION
          OF THE UNITED NATIONS

            Web site: http://www.fao.org/ur
                                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS



1    GENERAL INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1
  1.1 General Considerations .................................................................................................... 1
  1.2 Trade Issues in the Region ............................................................................................... 1
2. REPORTS OF THE PARALLEL SEMINARS.......................................................................4
  2.1 Parallel Seminar 1: Agreement on Agriculture ................................................................... 4
  2.2 Parallel Seminar 2: SPS and TBT Agreements ................................................................... 8
  2.3 Parallel Seminar 3: TRIPS Agreement ............................................................................. 17
3. EVALUATION OF THE WORKSHOP................................................................................20
  3.1 Main outcome of the workshop...................................................................................... 20
  3.2 Achievement of workshop objectives ............................................................................... 20
  3.3 Introductory topics ......................................................................................................... 20
  3.4 Parallel seminars ............................................................................................................. 21
  3.5 Cross-cutting issues ......................................................................................................... 21
  3.6 Workshop duration ......................................................................................................... 22
  3.8 Training kit ...................................................................................................................... 22
  3.9 Logistical aspects ............................................................................................................. 22
ANNEX I
     FINAL PROGRAMME OF THE WORKSHOP...................................................................23
ANNEX II
     LIST OF PARTICIPANTS....................................................................................................31
ANNEX III
     REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND MATERIAL............................................................37
ANNEX IV
     USEFUL WEB SITES...........................................................................................................45
1.        GENERAL INTRODUCTION
    1.1   General Considerations

          The Workshop took place over a full week and was organized in plenary sessions (first
and last days) and three-day parallel seminars (from the second to the fourth day). The parallel
seminars dealt with the Agreement on Agriculture (Seminar 1), the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and the Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT) (Seminar 2) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Seminar 3). The final programme is presented in
Annex I. The Workshop was attended by fifty participants from the following countries:
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the
Kyrgyz Republic, Macedonia, Moldova and Tajikistan. Turkmenistan did not participate. The
full list of participants with their addresses is provided in Annex II.

        The Workshop was co-financed by the TCP programme of FAO and the Czech
Government. The participation of the Czech Republic in the co-financing of the event is
gratefully acknowledged.

    1.2   Trade Issues in the Region1

         Trade policies in agriculture are liberal in most countries with the exception of
Croatia. These policies contrast sharply with those implemented by the countries of Central
and Eastern Europe (CEECs). Most countries have very low import duties for agro-food
products. All have abolished import quotas and other non-tariff barriers to trade (with the
exception of Croatia - with variable levies for some products - and the Republika Srpska of
Bosnia-Herzegovina). On the export side, most restrictions have been abolished. State orders
in trade have disappeared in all countries. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of stability and
transparency of the policies in some countries, especially in the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS). No doubt that trade policies will become more predictable as
countries adopt WTO-conform measures. If most formal non-tariff trade barriers have been
lifted, informal barriers can be significant. Insufficient transparency and stability of the
policies is often accompanied by discretionary powers in the administration and rent-seeking
activities.

        It turns out that the adjustments of agricultural trade to the new context (i.e. trade
reorientation, renewal of trade specialization, signing of new trade agreements) have been
faster for the CEECs than for the Balkan and the CIS countries. Three main reasons explain
this. First, CEECs are closer to Western Europe, with which they could rapidly sign trade
agreements. Second, these countries often relied less heavily on intra-regional trade (either
within the USSR or the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance - CMEA). Third, some of
these countries had already, at the beginning of transition, some experience with trade
reforms.




1
 A full account of trade issues in the region can be found in Duponcel, M. 1999. Agro-food Trade in selected
countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and of the Balkans: main trends, existing trade
agreements and emerging policy issues.
Food security, which was broadly satisfactory in all countries prior to transition, has worsened
throughout the region in the 1990s for the following reasons:

          contraction of agricultural output in most countries and increased variability of
           agricultural production due to the transitory impacts of the reforms. In some
           countries the situation was aggravated by wars and civil conflicts;
          sharp increase in poverty, resulting mainly from the contraction of GDP and
           shifts in the distribution of income and wealth;
          shifting of consumption patterns subsequently to the removal of the past price
           distortions;
          given the present situation of agriculture in the CIS and the Balkan countries, the
           dependence on imports for satisfying food needs of the population has
           significantly increased. However, the limited foreign exchange capacity of the
           countries to finance agro-food imports is a strong constraint. Several countries
           have had recently to rely temporarily on food aid to satisfy the needs of the
           population; and
          disruption of traditional trade flows due to the trade liberalization and the
           abandonment of previous trade regimes. The latter entailed significant changes in
           terms of trade as the highly distorted price arrangements were discontinued.

        The majority of the countries had a negative agricultural trade balance over the period
1995-1997. However, for a number of them these deficits are not structural, but reflect current
difficulties faced by their agro-food sector in the initial years of transition.

        For most countries, whether CIS or from the Balkans, it appears that the EU has
become a major trade partner, mainly for imports. Export flows are primarily oriented towards
intra-regional trade. Such a marked asymmetry contrasts with what is observed with the
CEECs for which the EU and the OECD at large are a much more important export
destination. Geography provides part of the explanation. Armenia has understandably stronger
ties with the Russian Federation than with the EU. However, this asymmetry also reflects the
greater difficulties faced by the agro-food sector of the CIS and Balkan countries (less
advanced reforms, low restructuring of the food industry, etc.) and, thus, the lower
competitiveness of their exports.

        Balkan and CIS countries have signed bilateral and/or regional trade agreements.
However, these countries have not been as active as the CEECs in concluding agreements,
especially with Western Europe. The real impact of agreements signed by the CIS countries
on trade flows is most often poor: they have been ineffective in mitigating the impacts of the
demise of the USSR and the decline of intra-regional trade. This can be extended to some
agreements signed by countries in the Balkans. The failure of trade arrangements to mitigate
the decline of regional trade shows that, with some exceptions, they are not a driving force of
current trade developments. Several reasons explain the poor impact of these agreements.
First, they have limited effectiveness in trade growth among the CIS countries where
obstacles to trade are significant (payment difficulties, etc.). Second, they cannot counteract a
necessary geographical diversification as intra-regional trade before transition was most often
over-developed, especially among the CIS countries. Third, they cannot replace trade with
OECD partners which supply products unavailable regionally (high quality consumption
products, investment goods, etc.). This points to the fact that the CIS and Balkan countries
have to seek better access to OECD markets. On this ground however, results achieved so far
are mitigated; for instance, none of the countries has reached an association agreement with
the EU, which would provide for substantial trade liberalization.

       Among the countries under study, only one is a member of WTO, the Kyrgyz
Republic. Eight other countries are currently negotiating their accession. The accession
process is completed in Croatia and near completion in Moldova and Georgia. Accession to
WTO is a long process which can be explained by the large number of candidates, by the
complexity of the WTO agreements together with the necessity for all members to adopt all of
them and by demanding conditions imposed by incumbent members during the negotiations.

         Under the present circumstances, gaining WTO membership is indeed particularly
demanding. In effect, some WTO members use their leverage in the negotiations to extract
commitments from applicant countries that go far beyond the commitments of the present
members agreed in the Uruguay Round. This is particularly the case in agriculture. New
members have to comply with levels of support to agriculture, export subsidies and import
tariffs, which are significantly lower than for most of the present members of WTO.

        Besides the potential advantages that can be reaped from liberalized trade, it needs to
be said that premature binding of tariffs at very low levels could have adverse effects on the
current structural adjustment of the production sectors, agriculture included, of the new WTO
member countries. In the same line, the very limited room granted, within the Schedules in
Agriculture, to use amber box policies might reduce the capacity of the concerned countries to
foster recovery from the slump of production since transition. In effect, the use of green box
policies - which are the main measures available to the new WTO members given the
conditions of accession - is difficult for these countries which, most often, do not have
sufficient institutional and administrative capacity to design and implement such measures.
Last but not least, given the fact that green box policies are financed by the state budget,
which is severely constrained in most countries, the scope for use of such policies is also
severely limited.

        In the long term, potential advantages of WTO membership will provide to the agro-
food sector guaranteed MFN status and access to the trade-dispute mechanism of the WTO.
Membership will also bring increased stability of agricultural and trade policies conducive to
sustained growth. Finally, WTO membership will help to build a friendlier environment
towards foreign direct investment (FDI), critical to the restructuring and the development of
the food industry of these countries.

        The agro-food exports of the CIS and Balkan countries often have limited
competitiveness, which seriously constrains their access to distant and/or demanding markets.
A large part of the food industry works under very difficult circumstances: obsolete
equipment and processes, disrupted agricultural raw material supply channels, low quality of
raw materials, inadequate marketing and labelling. In addition, geography limits access to
foreign markets for a number of countries. Due to poor infrastructure - storage capacity, rail
and road networks, handling facilities at ports, etc. - in-country transport and handling of
agricultural commodities are inefficient and costly.

        The CIS and Balkan countries face significant difficulties in complying with
international food quality and sanitary standards. In livestock, exports are often constrained by
the veterinary and sanitary situation in the countries. The ability of the CIS and Balkan
countries to implement and monitor efficient veterinary and sanitary controls in their domestic
market and at their borders will be critical to the steady growth of trade flows for livestock
and cultural products. This will imply the upgrading of the current infrastructure, the
reorganizing and the strengthening of the veterinary services.

        Limited overall competitiveness of agro-food exports, together with difficulties in
complying with the strict veterinary and sanitary rules of western European markets, make it
difficult for the CIS and Balkan countries to diversify their geographical export structure. This
partly explains why these countries are highly dependent on their region (CIS or Balkans) for
their exports, as quality requirements of these markets are often less demanding.


2.     REPORTS OF THE PARALLEL SEMINARS
 2.1   Parallel Seminar 1: Agreement on Agriculture

      The agenda of the parallel seminar on Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) may be
grouped into three categories as follows:

         1. presentations on the three main components of the AoA, namely market access,
            domestic support measures and export subsidies;

         2. additional presentations on related topics such as regional trading agreements,
            state trading enterprises and studies/analysis on AoA issues; and

         3. a “positions” game simulating actual trade negotiations.

        This report presents the summary of the key issues discussed by participants in the
parallel seminar as well as suggestions for studies/analysis and for technical assistance.

2.1.1 Sessions on various provisions of the AoA

       The main objective of the workshop was to deepen the knowledge of the participants
on various provisions of the AoA through in-depth presentations of the subject matter and to
expose to them the issues that are being debated in the context of the new round of
negotiations. Accordingly, almost two days were devoted to this part. This “theoretical” part
was complemented in each session with actual implementation experiences of various
countries, first globally, and then of the countries in transition. This brought in many
additional issues and the difficulties facing these countries in implementing the agreements or
preparing for accession, further deepening the knowledge base.

       Judging by the range and depth of the floor discussions that followed the
presentations, it was concluded that the workshop achieved very well its key objectives. This
was also confirmed from the evaluation results filled out by participants on the last day of the
workshop.

2.1.2 The “Positions” game on WTO negotiations on agriculture
        This was organized to deepen the knowledge on the provisions of the AoA. All
participants participated in a simulated game of WTO agricultural trade negotiations. The
objective of the game was fourfold:
            to deepen the knowledge on the provisions of the UR AoA and options for further
             liberalization of agricultural trade;
            to have an opportunity to actively apply this knowledge;
            to develop skills of presenting, justifying and defending a particular position
             during trade negotiations; and
            to develop negotiation skills to find a mutually acceptable compromise.

       Participants negotiated on all the major aspects of the AoA, namely market access,
domestic support and export subsidies. Six negotiating teams were organized, representing
diverse sets of economies: India, South Africa, European Union, Australia, Poland and
Romania. Participants were provided with background information on each country, including
the main objectives of agricultural development, socio-economic issues facing the country,
commitments made in the UR and implementation difficulties encountered.

        Participants started by stating their particular socio-economic problems and
negotiating goals. By design, the negotiating interests and positions of these countries were
very different, which was capitalized by participants in terms of the identification of what
could be given up and what they could not compromise. As a result, negotiations were tough
and demanding, and participants often took time out to go to smaller “Green Rooms” to sort
out their particular differences. At the end, an agreement was announced and the compromises
reached were explained to the group. As one delegation said, it was a successful negotiation
because everyone came out equally unhappy.

        Participants agreed that this was a very useful session in that it forced them to fully
understand not only the provisions but also the consequences. It also provided an opportunity
to learn some negotiating skills.

2.1.3 Summary of discussions

        The following summarizes the key topics and/or issues that were discussed by
participants in the parallel seminar on agriculture.

         The complexity of actual policy making on trade liberalization. While discussing
trade theory, participants drew a distinction between theory and practice. Trade liberalization,
in theory, was considered to be good for most, if not for all. The case of New Zealand was
mentioned as a success story where agricultural policy reforms led the sector to be
competitive with the need for little subsidy. The reality for most countries, however, was quite
different. The theory ignores the fact that a number of pre-conditions have to be met for good
results to materialize. These range from the availability of resources, infrastructure and
institutions, including appropriate legislation. This is not the case currently in the transition
economies. Therefore, trade liberalization needs to be approached carefully. Moreover, world
agricultural markets are still distorted and so the role for some protection and support at the
other end – i.e. in the transition economies – can not be ruled out without further analysis.

        WTO-compatible domestic support measures. The specific question asked was – how
relevant were the green box and other measures provisioned in the AoA for the economies in
transition. It was noted that the green box measures were designed, on the whole, with
developed country policies and reality in mind. These measures were expensive and required
effective administrative machinery. This, unfortunately, was not the case with most
economies in transition.

        Moreover, these measures are mainly de-coupled from production, which fits well
with the goal of the richer countries (i.e. containing structural surpluses and excessive
production), but not of the transition economies. Some of these issues are being raised at the
WTO by developing country Members; the transition economies, as outsiders, are not in a
position to make a direct contribution to that debate, but there is a need for deepening their
own analysis and thinking in this area.

        Accession to WTO. This was an issue that came up many times, and was also
addressed under a separate agenda item in the plenary. The tough accession terms for new
members was seen as a matter of great concern. It is now a common knowledge that all
acceding countries enter WTO with a much tighter set of commitments. Thus, the problem for
them does not end at the end of the long and difficult process of negotiations - once they are a
member, they will continue to face imbalances in their “rights” and “obligations”. Many
asked where is fairness in this process? Transition economies – by definition – are weaker and
more vulnerable to external and internal shocks, and as a result they required greater policy
flexibility and wider range of policy instruments than others, not less as is the case now. The
participants felt that the current WTO body needs to take serious note of these concerns in
negotiating new accessions.

         Additional issues in accession negotiations. Participants drew a distinction between
“general” WTO rules that applied to all Members and commitments “specific” to a Member.
They noted that although everything is negotiable for new members, they need to draw a
distinction between those aspects of the WTO rules that are obligatory for all and the rest
where current WTO members try to exact greater concessions from acceding members.
Participants agreed that acceding members should focus their negotiating capital on the latter.

         A specific issue raised in this connection was access to the Special Safeguards (SSG)
provision of the AoA. The meeting noted that although the current practice seems to deny
SSGs to new members, there was no particular WTO rule that said so, and therefore attempts
should be made to obtain the SSG. As a negotiating tactic, the instrument should be sought for
only a small, selected list of sensitive products, backed by solid reasoning, e.g. food security
consequences or infant industry arguments. The fact that tariffs are bound at very low levels
provided yet another strong justification.

         The other issues that came up here was the use of ad valorem versus specific tariffs.
Although there is no legal obligation for using ad valorem tariff only, new acceding countries
are typically asked to limit to this form of protection. Participants noted that although ad
valorem tariffs are preferred on economic grounds, there may be cases where the other is
preferred, including on a strategic ground. As with the SSGs, attempts should be made to have
these, but with great caution, limited to a few sensitive commodities and backed by strong
reasoning.

        Importance of avoiding possible conflicts arising from various accessions and
agreements. Participants identified a particular problem facing them in the area of multilateral
and regional trade agreements (RTAs). This was the risk of potential conflicts of
commitments to a specific RTA once WTO commitments are made. As an example, consider
forming a RTA, even involving two countries. If one of the countries is already a WTO
member with its set of WTO commitments (typically very tight), this will similarly constrain
the range of commitments in the RTA, e.g. on tariff rates.

         Participants said that this was not a theoretical issue but something that these
countries are already facing, since one or more of their potential RTA members have already
acceded to the WTO with very tight commitments while some others are about to join under
similar terms. Thus, WTO commitments were of strategic significance for countries wishing
to form RTAs, but there were very little information and analysis to guide them here. This
issue was identified as a high priority area for further analysis and debate.

         Somewhat related to this was the issue of the timing and terms of Russia’s accession
to the WTO. Participants felt that economic and trade ties with Russia are still strong and the
Russian economy is very large with the potential to impact the economies of the neighbouring
countries. Under this scenario, when Russia joins the WTO - and equally important, under
what terms - was seen as a matter of concern to all. Here too, there was a need for in-depth
analysis of various scenarios on the timing and terms of the Russian accession to the WTO
and their consequences.

2.1.4 Suggested areas for studies/analyses

       A number of these came up during the discussions. Most of the issues discussed above
(Section III) were high-priority areas for studies and analysis. In order to avoid repetition,
what follows summarizes a few key ones.

        Poor data base and weak analytical capability. This was a common problem
throughout the region, mainly reflecting the transitional nature of these economies. Not only
were the data base for modern economic analyses very poor, there were far fewer analytical
studies available for these countries. Future efforts in this area should focus on both the data
base and associated analysis.

        In-depth analysis of various domestic policy measures. The objective should be: i) to
identify domestic support policy measures that are relatively efficient to achieve the country’s
stated agricultural goals; ii) to examine their compatibility with the WTO rules; and iii) to
assess needs and possibilities for re-instrumentation of agricultural policies.

        Analysis of proposals on regional trading agreements. The transition economies had
strong economic and trade links among them under the old Soviet system. Trade relationships
continue and there are proposals for strengthening these ties again. A number of difficult
issues were identified in relation to the formation of RTAs (discussed earlier). In-depth
analyses were required to understand how best these trade relationships can be fostered, at the
same time complying with WTO rules on RTAs.

        Also related to this, there was a need for a separate study on the consequences for the
CIS countries of the timing and terms of Russia’s accession to WTO, keeping in perspective
trade and economic relationship with Russia.

       Country-level studies on agricultural competitiveness. As countries accede to WTO
and participate in world markets, the key factor that determines gains and losses is
competitiveness. This applies both to increasing exports and efficient import-substitution,
especially of food products.
2.1.5 Suggested areas for technical assistance

        A session was devoted to the presentation of technical cooperation offered by
UNCTAD and FAO and discussion of the needs of the countries2. Participants recognized that
in view of the transitional nature of these economies and weak analytical capability, technical
assistance has an important role to play in all these countries. The workshop itself was said to
be a good example of an effective technical assistance programme. Listed below are some
areas for technical assistance that may be considered by international organizations like FAO
in the area of agricultural trade and agricultural policies.

        In-country workshop/training. Very limited numbers of officials have participated in
this as well as similar other workshops. Many more people in the capitals need to be exposed
to WTO rules and more experts trained on the analytical details. International organizations
should consider assisting the transition economies in organizing capacity building seminars at
the national level. The Excel Model prepared by Mr. Ratinger on Czech’s WTO
commitments, with necessary adjustments tailored to individual country cases, was said to be
a useful analytical tool for such training purposes.

        Issue-focussed workshops at the regional level. The above activity needs to be
complemented with issue-focussed workshops at regional level because several of the issues
and problems identified were at this level. For this type of activity, an expert on accession
difficulties and issues would be an asset.

       Study tours to similar countries that are already WTO Members should be organized
in order to understand implementation difficulties. This also provides an opportunity for
studying new units and analytical machinery established by new WTO countries for dealing
with WTO matters, as well as WTO-related legislation.

        Analysis/studies. Section IV above listed several areas for study/analysis. The
international community should assist the transition countries in undertaking these studies.

         Post-accession technical assistance. Needs for re-instrumentation of agricultural
policy tools could be identified and alternatives proposed in impact study projects, similar to
project TCP/TUR/4552 (A) or included in broader projects dealing with agricultural
strategies. Technical assistance could also support preparing WTO notifications and setting up
institutional and human resource capability to analyze the consequences of notifications of
other trading partners.


    2.2   Parallel Seminar 2: SPS and TBT Agreements

2.2.1 Introduction

        Three parallel seminars were held on days 2 to 4 of the five-day workshop. This
seminar addressed the technical agreements of the WTO: the Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
(TBT). A brief introduction on these Agreements was presented to the plenary on the first day
of the workshop.
2
 Regarding policy assistance provided by REUP/SEUP, the document “FAO activities in policy support of CEE
and CIS countries” was presented and distributed to the participants.
Purpose of the seminar

       The purpose of this seminar was to provide the participants with a working knowledge
of the provisions of the technical agreements of the WTO and to advise the participants of
information needed to guide their efforts in future negotiations of these and similar
agreements. The seminar programme is annexed.

Presenters

       The seminar on the SPS and TBT Agreements was presented by:

       - Mr. David Ward, FAO/AGAH, representing animal health and the OIE perspective;
       - Ms. Mary Megan Quinlan, international expert on plant protection and consultant to
         the FAO/IPPC;
       - Ms. Sarah Cahill, FAO Food Quality and Standards Service;
       - Dr. Barbara Röstel, international expert on food quality and safety, consultant to the
         FAO/Food and Nutrition Division.

Participants

        The participants in this seminar were government officials with expertise in the fields
covered by the SPS and TBT Agreements. The majority of the 22 participants came from the
Ministries of Agriculture and associated services in their countries. One participant came from
a Ministry of Industry and Trade and one from a Ministry of Health and Environmental
Protection. Most of the participants assume responsibilities in the inspection services; 12
participants active in veterinary inspection cover both animal health and food safety and six
participants are responsible for plant protection matters. Three participants represented
specific expertise and responsibility in relation to SPS, TBT and WTO matters.

        The countries represented were Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Kazakstan, Macedonia, Moldova and Tajikistan. It
should be noted that most of these countries are members of the OIE and the Codex
Alimentarius Commission but only Croatia and Albania are contracting parties of the IPPC
(as of 1999). Only one of the participating countries, the Kyrgyz Republic, is a member of
WTO. All other countries are in negotiation for accession to the WTO.

2.2.2 Summary and analysis of the presentations and discussions

SPS and TBT Agreements

        The SPS Agreement is a technical agreement, which prohibits the use of unjustified,
arbitrary and discriminatory application of technical barriers (sanitary and phytosanitary
measures) to trade in the area of plants and plant products, animals and animal products and
food for human consumption. The Agreement specifically addresses the sanitary and
phytosanitary measures taken by trading partners of the WTO to protect the health and life of
plants, animals and humans.

        The TBT Agreement also prohibits the use of technical measures as trade barriers
through the use of technical regulations, conformity assessment procedures and technical
specifications unless these measures are in agreement with international standards. A Code of
Good Practice is also included in the Agreement and commitment is required to honour the
provisions of the Agreement.

       In addition to the Training Kit for Session 2, participants were given a copy of the SPS
and TBT Agreements. A list of membership in WTO, Codex, IPPC, and OIE was distributed
and participants were asked to add Albania and Croatia as IPPC contracting parties. The
implications of these agreements for forestry and fisheries were provided in the Training Kit.

       Before the first session began, each of the presenters and participants introduced
themselves, highlighting their areas of expertise.

        The session began with presentations on the history of the development of the
Agreements and their provisions to establish a complete understanding of their disciplines,
obligations and members’ rights. Both Agreements were explained in detail over the course of
the first day. In addition, Dr. Röstel explained the main points of the dispute between the
United States/Canada and the European Union regarding the EU’s ban on imports of beef
from cattle raised on growth hormones, emphasising the important precedents that have
resulted from the dispute settlement process. A copy of the SPS Committee Review, carried
out three years after the Agreement came into force, was distributed to each participant to
complement the original Agreement.

Harmonization with international standards, guidelines and recommendations (CAC, OIE,
IPPC)

        Each organization referenced by the SPS Agreement as an international standard-
setting body – the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), the International Office of
Epizootics (OIE) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) - was described in
a separate presentation. For each organization, their structure, functioning and relationship to
the SPS and TBT Agreements were presented. Presenters emphasized the role of international
standards, guidelines and recommendations developed by the three reference organizations as
the basis for harmonisation of sanitary and phytosanitary measures of WTO members. The
rights and responsibilities of WTO-member importing countries and exporting countries were
discussed from the IPPC, OIE and Codex perspective.

        Whereas basic knowledge existed on the provisions of the SPS and TBT Agreements,
specific knowledge on the Codex, OIE and the IPPC was very limited. None of the
participants had a personal working experience with either Codex or the OIE. One participant
had a good knowledge of the IPPC and other organizations dealing with plant protection. For
this reason more time was spent on the detailed presentation and discussion on these
organizations. The participants were very interested in the work of the CAC, the OIE and the
IPPC; but they stressed that their countries do not always have the necessary financial
resources to enable their participation in the organizations' work. As a result, the participants
were interested in obtaining further information (written, Web sites, etc.) about these
organizations and were made aware of the information which is available from both the FAO
and these organizations.

Necessary components at the national level

      The three presentations on the necessary components at the national level for
implementing the Agreements outlined the national legislative requirements, necessary
controls in administration, inspection, laboratory analysis and import/export inspection and
certification from the perspective of the IPPC, OIE and Codex.

        In order to facilitate the discussion of issues of regional relevance, a summary of the
responses to the FAO questionnaire, which were received from eight participating countries
prior to the meeting, was made available to the participants. Additionally, the participants
received a copy of five reports from WTO member countries (Chile, Guatemala, Malawi,
Zambia, and Thailand) regarding their experiences in adapting government structure and
legislation to comply with the SPS provisions. These “Case Studies on Enquiry
Points/National Notification Authorities” came from the November 1999 SPS Committee
Special Meeting on Transparency Provisions. With these reports as guidance, the participants
were asked to present the state of affairs on related issues in their own country during the
afternoon of day two.

Risk analysis

        Risk analysis requirements of the SPS Agreement were discussed in detail, again from
the perspective of the three international standard-setting organizations. Emphasis was placed
on the similarities in purpose and principles of risk analyses among the three organizations
even if the terminology was slightly different. The participants were provided with examples
of a risk analysis in the areas of human, animal and plant health. For example, Mr. Ward
explained the strengths and weaknesses of a risk analysis performed by the Government of
New Zealand regarding the potential risk to animal health from imported goat and sheep meat.
Ms. Quinlan pointed out the weaknesses of the importing country’s risk analysis in each of the
other two disputes brought under the SPS Agreement related to plant (importation of
particular plant varieties into Japan) and animal health (importation of salmon into Australia),
and how this contributed to losing the case. Ms. Cahill presented an example of
microbiological risk analysis, an expert consultation on Listeria monocytogenes in fish that
had been conducted by FAO.

        All presenters reiterated that a country’s sanitary or phytosanitary measures are
presumed to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement and of GATT
1994 when they conform to international standards, guidelines or recommendations. Members
may introduce or maintain sanitary or phytosanitary measures which result in a higher level of
sanitary or phytosanitary protection than would be achieved by measures based on the
relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations, if there is a scientific
justification, or as a consequence of the level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection a
Member determines to be appropriate in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 5.
Here reference is made to the obligation to conduct a risk assessment according to techniques
developed by the relevant international organizations, to take into account the available
scientific evidence, to minimise negative trade effects and to achieve consistency in the
application of the concept of the appropriate level of protection. In cases of insufficient
scientific evidence, Members may on a provisional basis adopt sanitary or phytosanitary
measures on the basis of available pertinent information. It was also noted, that for matters not
covered by Codex, the OIE and the IPPC, appropriate standards, guidelines and
recommendations promulgated by other relevant international organizations, open for
membership to all members, as identified by the SPS Committee may be applied.
Regional issues related to the SPS/TBT Agreements / Country issues of concern, potential
conflict between EU and WTO requirements

        Matters relating to WTO accession were of concern to the majority of countries. Trade
with, and accession to the EU was also an important issue. A specific conflict arises for many
countries of this region due to the fact that many of them are preparing for their accession to
the WTO and the European Union at the same time. In order to accede to the EU, these
countries will be required to adopt and implement European legislation in its entirety, which
was considered in some cases not to be in agreement with the requirements of the SPS
agreement. Also specific requirements for trade with the European Community are considered
to be in conflict with technical requirements under the SPS and TBT Agreements. These
conflicts were the subject of concern for several country representatives. The lack of
international standards, particularly in the phytosanitary field, appeared to cause concern to
many countries and some participants had a misconception regarding the use of EU standards
as international standards. The specific example that arose was Croatia’s use of the European
and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) potato certification scheme in the
absence of an international standard.

       The prevalent attitude among the participants was that a country wishing to join the
EU or WTO must do whatever they are told in order to become a member. Presenters
encouraged the participants to ask the EU, or any other group or country, for a copy of the risk
analysis on which the regulation or guideline is based.

Risk assessment – a tool available under the SPS provisions

        All speakers emphasised the notion of risk assessment as the available tool within the
SPS provisions, which may serve to question sanitary, or phytosanitary measures of any WTO
member. If WTO countries or international organizations cannot provide the underlying risk
assessment of a particular standard or measure, the exporting country may question the need
to adopt this regulation. If a risk assessment is available from a country or an international
organization, the importing country may use this document as a basis to justify its sanitary or
phytosanitary measures without having to conduct a full risk assessment. However, in doing
this, care would have to be taken that the risk analysis reflected the conditions of the country
precisely.

Potential support from the SPS Committee for observer countries

        The question arose whether one could use the SPS Committee to raise an issue if the
country is an observer in the SPS Committee but not a member of the WTO. It was believed
that one could not. This should be further motivation to achieve membership in the WTO.

Need for information flow

A. Rapid notification of issues related to sanitary and phytosanitary protection

        In the context of trading with the EU the participating countries stressed their need for
a very rapid information flow on emerging food safety, animal or plant health issues leading
to specific sanitary or phytosanitary measures. Because of insufficient information, importing
countries may restrict importation as a safety measure. Dr. Röstel drew the participants’
attention to the European Commission's Web sites where up-to-date information, including
press releases can be accessed at any time.

B. Information related to accession and harmonization

        The need for access to information related to accession was also raised and this is
addressed in the conclusions and recommendations. In relation to this, information was also
provided on the current undertaking of the European Commission to revise the EU food safety
legislation including the consideration of creating a European food safety authority. The
White Paper was to be issued by 12 January of this year.

Acceptance of Codex standards

        In response to a question of a country being a member of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission but not a member of the WTO, it was clarified that no obligation exists to accept
Codex standards. The OIE and IPPC standards also are not legally binding, although the
international agreements are legal agreements.

        If a country is a member of the CAC, it can accept Codex standards fully, with a
specified deviation or consider not accepting a Codex standard. However, it was stressed that
the large majority of Codex standards are adopted by consensus and therefore most countries
should be in the position to accept these standards without any difficulties. Additionally, it
was indicated that the acceptance procedure is currently under revision by the Codex
Committee on General Principles in order to accommodate obligations of notification existing
under the SPS Agreement and to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and burden on CAC
and WTO member countries.

        Furthermore it was emphasized, that under the provisions of the SPS Agreement,
WTO members are strongly encouraged to harmonize their sanitary measures on the basis of
Codex standards which are serving as reference to the SPS. A country applying its measures
based on Codex standards is considered to fulfil its obligation under the SPS Agreement.
However, should a country base its measures on those other than Codex standards or apply a
higher level of protection, it has to justify its measures by conducting a risk assessment based
on available scientific evidence.

Other issues

        Mr. Dr. František Mates, State Veterinary Service, Czech Republic, presented his
experiences in preparing for the WTO and eventual membership in the EU. He explained a
regional coalition that exchanged ideas and information in veterinary health and was
supported by the EU. This generated a lot of interest and was used as an example of why
regional expertise should be sought first, as it is generally much less costly and is more
relevant to the neighbouring country’s situation. He also provided a Web site for all EU
legislation and related information.

2.2.3 Conclusions and recommendations

        The discussions in this seminar focussed on the problematic issues faced by the
participating countries in relation to the SPS and TBT Agreements. Although these
discussions identified a number of issues of common concern, significant differences exist
between some of these countries. Therefore, the extent to which the following issues may be
relevant to the participating countries is somewhat dependent on factors such as geography
and the state of progress of negotiations to join the WTO.

        These conclusions and recommendations were presented to the plenary on the last day
of the workshop by Mr. Aurelian Rotaru from Moldova, who was elected by the group as their
representative for the plenary. The following text was endorsed by the plenary session.

1. The frustration and tension arising between political objectives of trade ministries to
join the WTO and technical ministries’ capabilities to implement directives and
standards need to be recognised and accounted for in terms of planning, re-training, re-
structuring and the availability of appropriate budgets.

       It was mentioned that international organizations, including WTO, FAO and
UNCTAD, need to take into account the technical capacities of countries to implement
provisions of trade agreements before advising countries to finalise their membership in
WTO. In becoming a member of WTO, countries may wish to consider a postponement of
signing the SPS and TBT Agreements to a later point in time.

        It was recommended that communication among relevant ministries be enhanced in
order to come to a common understanding of objectives.

2. It was felt that there is a lack of influence on decisions on sanitary and phytosanitary
measures as well as a lack of sufficiently rapid information on changes in the legislation
of trading partners.

       It was clarified that countries, as members of international standard setting
organizations, can influence the setting of new standards or the revision of existing ones,
which are references in the event of trade disputes under the SPS and TBT Agreements.
However, the participants highlighted that currently the lack of financial resources is
preventing most of these countries from participating in the meetings of these international
organizations.

       It was noted that WTO member countries have the right to make comments on
proposed measures from other members.

       Access to information is addressed in point 9.

3. Countries need an analysis of the overall impact on the national economy of joining
WTO. This analysis should include the impact of opening a country to imports versus a
country's competitiveness in exports.

       Individual countries require their own analysis with the assistance of international
organizations (FAO, UNCTAD).

       Guidance from FAO, UNCTAD and other organizations is available for this type of
analysis.

       Advice and funding could be requested from WTO.
4. It is essential for countries to make an analysis of their overall technical assistance
needs prior to allocating resources for and requesting technical assistance.

       Once the analysis is completed, the needs and strategy can be communicated to
organizations providing assistance.

5. Participants expressed concern regarding the availability of financing resources for
SPS and TBT Agreements implementation. Plant protection programmes are
particularly limited in receiving political support and financial resources.

        Government resources may be redirected based on results of cost / benefit analyses
and risk analyses. For example Pest Risk Analysis can show the high cost of taking no action.

      Communication to create awareness, for instance among consumers, industry and
government, of SPS and TBT issues is fundamental.

       Some countries have introduced "user fees" as a means of financing ongoing expenses,
such as diagnostic tests and livestock health certification.

        Other countries have attracted foreign direct investment to the benefit of agricultural
industries.

6. The organizational structure of relevant ministries may not be adequate to carry out
new responsibilities under SPS and TBT Agreements. Major inadequacies often include
the overlapping of responsibilities of several ministries.

        Policy divisions of concerned ministries need to define strategies for implementing the
SPS and TBT Agreements. External technical assistance for review of the organizational
structure may be useful.

7. Technical training for all levels of staff was identified as a need in most countries.
This may include training for administrative staff in ministries (in legislation, including
enforcement procedures, policy making) and staff in inspectorates and laboratories.
Some of the areas identified for priority training include elaboration, integration and
review of technical regulations and legislation; risk analysis; laboratory techniques; and
information technology.

       The following sources for providing or facilitating technical training were identified:

           countries should use available national expertise for assisting other countries
            within the region;
           hosting scientific meetings (jointly with regional or international organizations) is
            a cost-effective way to expose national staff to the latest technical information;
           requests for assistance should be directed towards donors and international
            organizations;
           sponsorship from private corporations and trade associations should be sought;
           countries should develop a core of trainers in order to provide in-service training
            to others (participation in training of trainers workshops); and
           short-term staff exchanges between policy and implementing units, as well as
            between ministries, will increase understanding.
       It was suggested that regional workshops should be divided into groups of countries
with similar interests, e.g. those with a special interest in the European Union. This would be
more beneficial for the participants.

8. Laboratories and other infrastructure may need to be upgraded. This would include
modern equipment for testing and diagnostic methods.

       This could be achieved by:

           charging the private sector user fees for services as indicated; and
           assistance from international organizations (FAO, UNCTAD), donors, regional
            banks to finance equipment and facilities may be requested.

        The designation of regional laboratories for highly specialised and very costly tests
should be given consideration. Without a regional approach, many countries may not have
access to this type of laboratory capacity.

9. Information access was identified as an important limitation by all countries. Faster
access to relevant information, such as WTO requirements; changes in the legislation of
trading partners; disease or pest outbreaks relating to human, animal or plant health;
new developments and research related to emerging problems; new testing
methodologies and other related information is critical for meeting SPS and TBT
Agreement requirements.

       This problem could, among others, be addressed by:

           access to Internet and subscription to relevant list servers (usually free of charge)
            (see Annex IV of the report);
           establishment of Codex contact points/national Codex committees;
           participation in the meetings of Codex Alimentarius Committee, International
            Office of Epizootics and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC);
           becoming a contracting party to IPPC;
           participation in regional and international technical meetings; and
           financing for translation from external sources for translation into national
            languages through a specific project; WTO may be contacted for assistance; and
            completed translations may be requested from neighbouring countries.

10. The requirement is universal for computer equipment and training. Access to
Internet was especially limited in regional offices and border posts. Networking of
agencies and services internally would improve efficiency.

      In order to achieve this, internal and donor financing is required. Expenditure will be
dependent upon identified national requirements. The first priority is to establish email
networks.
11. Illegal trade is a major concern for some countries.

       This can be addressed by:

            implementation of appropriate legislation;
            border inspection;
            testing;
            infrastructure improvement;
            implementation of programmes focusing on the control of smuggling out-of-date
             products; and
            application of appropriate penalties.

       In order to address this issue successfully, it was highlighted that all concerned
services/agencies must work together.


 2.3   Parallel Seminar 3: TRIPS Agreement

2.3.1 Introduction

        The purpose of the first session on the TRIPS Agreement was mainly to allow the
participants to become familiar with the general principles and notions governing intellectual
property rights (IPRs) and the differences between copyrights and industrial property. The
relationship between IPRs and trade and between IPRs and plant genetic resources (PGRs)
has been strongly emphasized during this first session. In that respect, positive and negative
implications of IPR have been identified and the current debate between the South and the
North of the world with respect to IPR was touched upon on many occasions.

        After a general overview of the content of the TRIPS Agreement was given to the
participants, the discussions focused on the provisions and the principles of the Agreement
relevant to agriculture, in particular those related to patents and the protection of new varieties
of plants, geographical indications and patent protection of agricultural chemical products.
The differences between the recognition and the rights conferred to what is called “formal”
and “informal” innovation were described. In relation with the issue on Patents, some
countries underlined the sensitive issue concerning the terminator technology, which is
considered, also by FAO, of negative impact on the environment.

        An important session of the seminar focussed on the provisions of Article 27.3 (b),
with the aim of giving to participants a clear understanding of the various alternatives given in
the Agreement to comply with its provision on the establishment of an intellectual property
rights system for the protection of plant varieties. In fact, under the TRIPS Agreement, Article
27.3 (b) states that Member countries are obliged to provide for the protection of plant
varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof.
According to this provision, patents have to be available for any inventions, whether products
or processes, in all fields of technology. This includes biotechnology. Article 27.3 (b)
provides that Members may exclude from patentability plants and animals other than micro-
organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other
than non-biological and micro-biological processes.
        In this context, the participants stressed that the wording of Article 27.3 (b) has created
substantial uncertainties as to its legal implications, especially for absence, within the
Agreement, of a detailed analysis of its terminology, which is fundamental for the
implementation process. For example, the complications arising from the notion of plant
varieties are caused by the deficiencies of any classification of plant varieties as races or
species. It was noticed that, where a broad understanding of the term will be sought by
industrialized countries to broaden the range of protection for biotechnological products, it is
more than certain that those countries relying on traditional agricultural economies will seek a
narrow interpretation of the term to promote unrestricted availability of plants species.

        Moreover, Article 27.3 (b) cannot be read in isolation vis-à-vis other related
international Agreements. In this context, the discussions focused on the importance of some
potentially conflicting provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) with the
TRIPS Agreement as well as on the system set up by the International Convention for the
Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Different views on the interest for the
countries in the region to join the UPOV system were expressed. While very few of the
countries participating in the seminar have already joined the UPOV, others expressed
concern on their possible adherence to UPOV as the sui generis system for the protection of
their plant varieties. The relevance of other non binding related international agreements was
also discussed: among those the various elements which form the FAO Global System and
Agenda 21.

        Within the context of the implementation of Article 27.3 (b), presentations and
discussions also focused on the drafting and enacting national legislation (sui generis system).
Participants obtained information on the elements of the various alternatives given by the
TRIPS Agreement to comply with the provisions of Article 27.3 (b). They were able to
understand their advantages and disadvantages, so that they will be in a position to make
informed decisions when facing the implementation of the said provisions.

2.3.2 Outcome of the meeting

        From the discussions held during the seminar it appeared that the TRIPS Agreement is
for many countries quite a complex and rather ambiguous instrument, which needs urgent
clarification as to some of its provisions. The fact that only one of the countries participating
in the seminar is a member of the WTO, while the majority of these countries are in different
stages of the negotiating process of accession, underlined their different needs in the context
of IPR.

        The fundamental need to restore a balanced relationship between all actors involved in
agriculture at the national level was recognized. It was stressed that this can be achieved
through the formulation of national legislation, which balances rights and obligations of
formal and informal plant breeders as well as express due respect for biodiversity.

2.3.3 Recommendations for consideration by FAO

         The following recommendations are advanced for consideration by the FAO and
implementation in cooperation with other international and regional competent bodies. They
all address identified needs of countries participating in this seminar. The recommendations
are categorized into (i) actions for implementation at both the national and regional levels and
(ii) actions for the implementation of which technical assistance is required.
        Considering and recognizing the participating countries’ background characterized by
an ongoing process of economic and social transition, and stressing that action at the national
level should be conceived and implemented with precedence over any other level of action,
and also form the basis for any action at the regional and international level, the following are
the actions deemed to be of special importance:

1.     Provide countries with a broad range of legal advice and legal assistance on the
       drafting of national legislation in the field of IPR Protection. In such activity, the
       drafters should take stock of the existing national legislation, as well as of the existing
       international instruments such as the TRIPS, Convention on Biological Diversity
       (CBD), FAO-International Undertaking and UPOV-91 and any other useful
       information contained in other legal texts;
2.     Provide for assistance for the implementation of existing national legislation. In
       particular, some countries envisaged the need for FAO technical assistance in
       establishing the relevant “inspection structures” on the protection of Geographical
       Indications and Designations of Origin for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs (as
       mentioned in Art. 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2081/92, of 14 July 1992);
3.     Provide for assistance in the need of clarification of the nature and kind of data which
       should be published according to the national legislation, in the context of protectable
       plant variety;
4.     Assistance should also be provided for the clarification of some terminology contained
       in the TRIPS Agreement (e.g. “reputation of the good”; “public interest”; etc.);
5.     Train professionals in the field of advanced plant breeding and genetic engineering at
       pertinent institutions;
6.     Organize workshops and training programmes for experts and professionals in the
       field of agriculture, especially focussing on the IPR related issues;
7.     Organize seminars for lawyers and legislators with the aim of discussing and
       comparing existing laws in the field of IPR Protection, which are in place both in
       developed and developing countries or in the international context;
8.     Assist countries in the process of reviewing their national laws in order to complete or
       to start the process of accession to WTO;
9.     Assist countries in the request and process of accession to WTO;
10.    Assist and support countries in the creation of programmes aimed at improving the
       obsolete technology and infrastructures, as well as specific programmes to run
       experiments in the field of agriculture; and
11.    Assist countries in being fully informed on the TRIPS review negotiation process,
       which is scheduled to take place in the year 2000, as well as Article 27.3(b) review
       negotiation process.

Technical assistance

       The FAO, in cooperation with other international competent bodies, is called upon to
render practical and impact-producing technical assistance to the participating countries in the
following areas of action.

1.     Implementation of the above-mentioned recommendations for action at both the
       national and the regional levels;
2.     Preparation of comparative reviews of legal texts of existing laws concerning the
       protection of IPR Protection;
3.     Development of courses and public awareness programmes which help in the creation
       of a general culture on IPRs stressing the importance of their protection;
4.     Training of professionals in advanced plant breeding techniques and Research and
       Development (R&D) for the development of Genetically Modified Organisms
       (GMOs); and
5.     Organize some seminars in order to include the participation of experts coming also
       from neighbouring countries, which have similar climate and agriculture-related
       characteristics and problems.


3.     EVALUATION OF THE WORKSHOP

        The feedback obtained from the analysis of the evaluation questionnaires filled in by
the participants was generally quite positive. Altogether 37 questionnaires were filled in (24 in
English and 13 in Russian). Many participants were absent in the last session because of an
outbreak of flu which was later to hit many more once the workshop was over.

 3.1   Main Outcome of the Workshop

       The majority of the participants felt that, after this workshop, they were better
informed for participating in multilateral trade negotiations (mark: 3.4 out of 5). They were
less sure to be more qualified or actually ready for such negotiations. Whereas they
acknowledged that the workshop was useful, an excellent source of information and run by a
group of good and well prepared lecturers, participants felt that more detailed and practical
inputs would still be needed for participants to be quite ready for the negotiations.

 3.2   Achievement of Workshop Objectives

        Among the four stated objectives of the workshop, participants felt that by far the one
which was best achieved was the description and explanation of the existing WTO agreements
(3.8/5). The identification and debating of regional and sub-regional issues came second in the
degree of achievement (3.6/5), followed closely by the objective of analysing new issues
likely to arise during the negotiation process and the implications of related proposals on
national economies (3.5/5). The least well achieved objective, according to the participants,
was that of getting an overview of specific agricultural trade issues and their implications on
food security at national and sub-regional level (3.4/5). The workshop was felt to be too
theoretical at times. However, a positive outcome was that many countries realized that they
were not ready technically or institutionally for accession to WTO or for implementing WTO
agreements.

 3.3   Introductory Topics

        The evaluation suggests that participants felt that during the first day, in plenary,
introductory topics were well covered and presented and sufficient time was allotted to them.
The most adequately covered topic was, according to them, the introduction to the existing
agreements (4.0/5). This good coverage was in part due to the relatively long period of time
allotted to the subject (3.6/5) and the excellent presentations (4.0/5). The status of countries
with respect to WTO accession was not as well handled, neither were the proposals for the
Millennium Round Negotiations to which insufficient time was devoted, according to the
participants.
 3.4   Parallel Seminars

3.4.1 Agreement on Agriculture (15 questionnaires filled)

        The depth of coverage of various topics in this parallel seminar was generally felt to
be satisfactory (>3.8/5). Time allotted was felt to be adequate, with the exception of “market
access” which did get more than its share, according to the participants. Presentations were
also well appreciated (>3.8/5). They were a bit quick and not all that clear in the case of
export subsidies and state trading enterprises which indeed were presented in a rush. The
position game was highly appreciated, although some participants felt that with a little bit
more time, it could have been even better. Some also felt that it would have been useful to
have for each negotiating country one resource person to help and advise in the negotiations.
Some participants also believed that all materials should have been made available in the
Russian language.

3.4.2 SPS and TBT (16 questionnaires filled)

        In the case of this parallel seminar, the depth of coverage of the topics was not quite as
good as in the previous one. Whereas Risk Analysis was considered to be satisfactorily
covered (3.8/5) in part because of a relatively better presentation (4.0/5), Regional Issues
could have been dealt with better. Strangely, despite this lack of sufficient coverage,
participants felt that too much time was spent on all topics identified in the questionnaire.
However, they also felt that more information would have been required on TBT, and
explanations would have been welcome on how to organize the process for preparing
technical legislation (and also for harmonising them with EU regulations).

3.4.3 TRIPS (4 questionnaires filled)

       This parallel seminar, attended by only a small group of participants, was by far the
best evaluated. Both in terms of coverage and presentation, all questionnaires gave high marks
(4 and 5). Time allotted to identified topics was generally felt to be adequate or slightly too
long.

 3.5   Cross-cutting Issues

        The general impression arising from this part of the questionnaire was that it had been
difficult to come up with common cross-cutting issues. The main reason to explain this
situation put forward by participants was that the countries participating in the workshop were
too heterogeneous. It was felt that if the workshop had been organized for groups of more
homogeneous countries (importance of agriculture, level of development) such as Balkan
countries, Caucasian countries and Central Asian countries, it would have been possible to
identify more common issues and deal with them in a more detailed and practical way. This
would have contributed to have a less theoretical and more practical workshop, participants
believed.

       Technical assistance needs were, according to participants, better tackled at the
national level, rather than at the regional/sub-regional level. There is certainly a need for
technical assistance for the implementation of WTO agreements for the more advanced
countries. Expertise is particularly needed in veterinary and phytosanitary matters.
      Specific requests were to be made directly to FAO (Subregional office or
Headquarters).

 3.6   Workshop Duration

       It was felt to have been adequate.

 3.7   Training Kit

      It was well evaluated, particularly the part on the Agreement on Agriculture and
SPS/TBT. Documents should however also have covered the following topics:

            status of participating countries with respect to WTO;
            summary description of important regional issues; and
            procedures to develop technical legislation, norms, harmonisation and co-
             ordination.

      Some questionnaires mentioned that documents should also have been distributed in
advance, which was the case (one full set of documents was sent to all focal points).

 3.8   Logistical Aspects

        The quality of accommodation and transport was rigorously evaluated by participants
(2.9/5 which is below the average of 3) while resource persons generally rated it very high.
This may in some way be connected with the difficulties some participants had with visas
(this actually disrupted the last session of the workshop and was the source of unexpected
expenses because of a new immigration law that became effective in the Czech Republic at
the start of the year 2000). However, training facilities were, and rightly so, highly evaluated
by participants.
                                                                                      ANNEX I


                   FINAL PROGRAMME OF THE WORKSHOP

                                WORKSHOP PROGRAMME
                                 Prague, 10-14 January 2000

Monday, 10 January: PLENARY

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL TOPICS

    Time                             Topics                         Resource Persons
09.00-09.15   Welcome speech                                        T. Zidek, Deputy
                                                                    Minister of Agriculture

09:15-09:30   Introduction to the Workshop (objectives, scope,      M. Duponcel
              expected results)

09:30-10:30   Introduction to Salient Trends and Issues on Global   M. Maetz
              and Regional Agricultural Trade                       M. Duponcel

10:30-11:00   Coffee Break

11:00-11:45   Introduction to the WTO Agreements and the UR         R. Sharma
              Agreement on Agriculture

11:45-12:30   Introduction to the UR Agreements on SPS and TBT      B. Rostel/ D.Ward/
                                                                    M.M. Quinlan

12:30-14:00   Lunch Break

14:00-14:30   Introduction to the TRIPS Agreement related to        A. Ingrassia
              Agriculture

14:30-15:15   Status of WTO Accession –Difficulties Faced and       I. Anastassov
              Issues Raised

15:15-15:45   Coffee Break

15:45-17:00   The Next Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations:    R. Sharma
              Issues from Seattle                                   M. Shirotori

18:00-19:00   Get Together
              FAO Video ‘The New Challenge: Working Together
              to Feed the World
11, 12, and 13 January: PARALLEL SEMINARS

Seminar 1: Agreement on Agriculture

       Time                             Topics                     Resource Persons
   Tuesday, 11 January
   09:00 – 10:30   Session 1: Introduction to the Theory and       M. Maetz
                              Concepts of Agricultural Trade

   10:30 – 11:00   Coffee break

   11:00 – 12:30                   Session 2: Market Access        S. Davidova
                                                                   T. Ratinger
                                                                   S. Sharma
                                                                   H. Twesten
                     Basic concepts
                     What was agreed and committed in the AoA?
                     Experience so far and issues raised
                     Experience of the Czech Republic
                     Experiences and concerns of countries in
                      transition

   12:30 – 14:00    Lunch Break

   14:00 – 15:30    Session 3: Market access (continued)

   15:30 – 16:00    Coffee break

   16:00 – 17:00    Session 4: Explanation and Setting Up of the   S. Davidova
                               Positions Game                      H. Twesten
                                                                   M. Duponcel

         Wednesday, 12 January
   09:00 – 12:30 Session 1: Domestic Support Measures              S. Davidova
                                                                   T. Ratinger
                                                                   S. Sharma
                                                                   H. Twesten
                     Basic concepts
                     Measurement of AMS
                     What was agreed and committed in the AoA
                     Experience so far and issues raised
                     Experience of the Czech Republic
                     Experiences and concerns of countries in
                      transition

   12:30 – 14:00   Lunch Break

   14:00 – 15:30   Session 2: Export Subsidies                     S. Davidova
                                                                   T. Ratinger
                                                                   S. Sharma
                                                                   H. Twesten
                What was agreed and committed in the AoA?
                Experience so far and issues raised
                Experience of the Czech Republic
                Experiences and concerns of countries in
                 transition

15:30-16:00    Coffee Break

16:00-17:00    UNCTAD and FAO technical cooperation and
               needs of the countries

Thursday, 13 January
09:00-10:30    Session 1: WTO Rules and Regional Trade          H. Twesten
                          Agreements                            I. Anastassov

                 Theoretical aspects – economics
                 Theoretical aspects – WTO rules
                 Possible consequences for the CIS countries

10:30-11:00    Coffee Break

11:00-12:30    Session 2: State Trading Enterprises and WTO     R. Sharma
                          Rules                                 I. Anastassov

                 STEs in the WTO context: concerns and issues
                 WTO rules on STEs
                 Possible consequences for countries in
                  transition

12:30-14:00    Lunch Break

14:00-17:00     Session 3: Positions Game on WTO Negotiations   Participants
11, 12 and 13 January: PARALLEL SEMINARS

Seminar 2: SPS and TBT Agreements


     Time                          Topics                             Resource Persons
  Tuesday, 11 January
  09:00-10:30 Session 1: Overview of the SPS and TBT Agreement

                 Review of the SPS Agreement
                 - History of development                             M.M. Quinlan
                 - Provisions, basic rights and obligations           B. Rostel/S. Cahill
                 Review of the TBT Agreement                          B. Rostel/S. Cahill

  10:30-12:00   Session 2: Harmonization with international
                           standards, guidelines and
                           recommendations

                 Introduction to the Codex Alimentarius               B. Rostel/S. Cahill
                   Commission (CAC)
                 Introduction to the International Plant Protection   M.M. Quinlan
                   Convention (IPPC)
                 Introduction to the International Office of          D. Ward
                   Epizootics (OIE)

  12:00-14:00   Lunch Break

  14:00-15:30   Session 3: Necessary Components at the National       B. Rostel/ S. Cahill
                           Level                                      M.M. Quinlan
                                                                      D. Ward
                 Appropriate legislation
                 Necessary control capacities
                 - Administrative
                 - Inspection
                 - Analytical
                 - Import/export inspection and certification
                   (presentations on food quality and safety,
                     plant protection, and animal health)

  15:30-17:00 Session 4: Necessary Components at the National
                         Level (continued)
  Wednesday 12 January
  09:00-10:30 Session 1: Risk Analysis

                 Risk Analysis and Codex                              B. Rostel/ S. Cahill

                 Risk Analysis and the IPPC                           M.M. Quinlan
                Risk Analysis and OIE                                 D. Ward
  12:00-14:00   Lunch Break
14:00-15:30   Session 4: Regional Issues Related to the SPS/TBT
                         Agreements

               Overview of problems
                  - Food control                                      B. Rostel/ S. Cahill
                  - Plant protection                                  M.M. Quinlan
                  - Animal health                                     D. Ward

Thursday, 13 January
09:00-10:30 Session 1: Discussion of Regional Issues                  B. Rostel/S. Cahill/
10:30-12:00 Session 2: FAO Technical Assistance Related to the        M.M. Quinlan/ D. Ward
                       SPS and TBT Agreements

12:00-14:00   Lunch Break

14:00-15:30   Session 3: Technical Assistance Needs in the Region

15:30-17:00   Session 4: Development of recommendations and
                         strategies to meet existing obligations of
                         the SPS/TBT Agreements and to prepare
                         for future negotiations
11, 12, 13 January: PARALLEL SEMINARS

Seminar 3: TRIPS Agreement


      Time                             Topics                            Resource Persons
  Tuesday 11 January
  09.00-10.30   Session 1: Introduction                                  A. Ingrassia

                  Basic concepts of intellectual property rights
                  Intellectual property rights and their relation with
                    trade
                  Intellectual property rights and their relation with
                    the conservation and sustainable use of biological
                    diversity

  10:30-12:00    Session 2: Introduction to the TRIPS Agreement          A. Ingrassia

                  Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement
                  Basic principles, objectives, transitional and final
                   provisions
                  Standards concerning the availability, scope and
                   use of intellectual property rights: copyright,
                   trademarks, industrial designs, layout-designs of
                   integrated circuits, undisclosed information,
                   control of anti-competitive practices in
                   contractual licences
  12:00-14:00    Lunch Break

  14.00-15.30    Session 3: Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement          A. Ingrassia
                            relevant to agriculture (I Part)
                  Geographical indications (Arts.22-24)
                  Patent protection for agricultural chemical products
                    (Art.70.8 and 70.9)

  15.30-17.00    Session 4: Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement            A. Ingrassia
                            relevant to agriculture (II Part)

                  Patents (Arts.27-34)
  Wednesday, 12 January

  09.00-10.30    Session 1: Implementation of Art.27.3(b) of the         A. Ingrassia
                            Agreement (I Part)

                  Recognition of “formal” and “informal” innovation
                  Farmer’s Rights

  10.30-12.00    Session 2: Implementation of Art.27.3(b) of the         A. Ingrassia
                            Agreement (II Part: Related international
                            agreements)
                 FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic
                  Resources and the Commission on Genetic
                  Resources for Food and Agriculture
12:00-14:00     Lunch Break

14.00-15.30     Session 3: Implementation of Art.27.3(b) of the        A. Ingrassia
                           Agreement (II Part: Related international
                           agreements

                 International Code of Conduct for Plant
                   Germplasm Collecting and Transfer
                 Leipzig Declaration and Global Plan of Action for
                   the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant
                   Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
                 Convention on Biological Diversity
                 Agenda 21

Thursday, 13 January
09.00-10.30    Session 1: Implementation of Art.27.3(b) of the         A. Ingrassia
                          Agreement (II Part: Related international
                          agreements)

                 UPOV Conventions

10.30-12.00     Session 2: Implementation of Art.27.3(b) of the        A. Ingrassia
                           Agreement (III Part)

                 Drafting and enacting national legislation (“sui
                  generis” systems). Organizing the relevant
                  institutional aspects

14.00-15.30     Session 3: Recommendations and strategies to meet      A. Ingrassia
                           existing obligations and to prepare for
                           future negotiations (I Part)

                 Regional problems, needs and priorities in the
                  implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. Related
                  technical assistance




14.30-17.00     Session 4: Recommendations and strategies to meet A. Ingrassia
                           existing obligations and to prepare for
                           future negotiations (II Part: TRIPS review
                           negotiations)
                 1999 review of the provisions of Art.27.3(b)
                 2000 review of the TRIPS Agreement
                 Development of a regional position
Friday, 14 January: PLENARY

 13:00-13:30       Distribution of evaluation questionnaires

 13:30-16:00       Conclusions and recommendation of parallel   Spokespersons
                     seminars

 16:00-16:30       Results of evaluation of the workshop        M. Maetz
                   Conclusion of the workshop
                                                                                   ANNEX II
                                   LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
                              Seminar on Agreement on Agriculture

 Name                                   Street                   Telephone
 Position                               City, ZIP                Fax
 Institution                            Country                  E-mail
 Josef SAJDL                            Těšnov 1                 Tel.: +420 2 21812845
                                        Praha 1, 117 05          Fax: +420 2 24810652
 Ministry of Agriculture                                         Email: sajdl@mze.cz
  Serri ALLUSHI                         Scenderberg Square 2     Tel.: +355 42 29309
  Director of Statistic Section         Tirana                   Fax: +355 42 29309
  Ministry of Agriculture and Food      Albania                  Email:
ifdcstas@albaniaonline.net
 Artur GALANXHI                         Scenderberg Square 2     Tel.: +355 42 25105
 Advisor to the Minister                Tirana                   Fax: +355 42 25105
 Ministry of Agriculture and Food       Albania                  Email: artsil@ikc-al.org
  Hayk AZIZYAN                                                   Tel.: +3742 589293
  Leading Specialist                    Yerevan                  Fax: +3742 51833
  Ministry of Industry and Trade        Armenia                  Email:
azizian@mbox.amilink.net
 Samir MUSAYEV                          Azadlig square, Gov. House 1 Tel.: +994 12 943325
 Senior Specialist                      Baku                        Fax: +994 12 944334
 Ministry of Agriculture                Azerbaijan                  Email:
                                                                    msamir_minagre@hotmail.com
 Momčilo ŠARABA                      Musala 9                    Tel.: +387 71 206151
 Senior official                     Sarajevo                    Fax: +387 71 655060
 Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic                          Bosnia-Herzegovina
 Email:
 Dragana ŠARIČ                          Zmoje od Bosne 8         Tel.: +387 71 653033
 Assistant Lecturer                     Sarajevo                 Fax: +387 71 667429
 Faculty of Agriculture                 Bosnia-Herzegovina       Email: vselak@utic.net.
 Miroslav BOŽIČ                         Ul. Grada Vukovara 78    Tel.: +385 1 6106206
 Assistant Minister                     Zagreb, 10000            Fax: +385 1 6109202
 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry   Croatia                  Email: mbozic@mps.hr
 Borislava DUKIČ, B. Sc.                Ul. Grada Vukovara 78    Tel.: +385 1 6106654
 Junior Advisor                         Zagreb, 10000            Fax: +385 1 6109202
 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry   Croatia                  Email: dboba@yahoo.com
 Tomáš DOUCHA                           Mánesova 72              Tel.: +420 2 22000111
                                        Praha 2, 120 00          Fax:
 Research Institute of Agricultural Economics                    Czech Republic Email:
doucha@vuze.cz
 Vojtěch HAVRÁNEK                         Těšnov 1                      Tel.:+420 2 21812452
                                          Praha 1, 117 05               Fax: +420 2 24810652
 Ministry of Agriculture                  Czech Republic                Email: havranek@mze.cz
 Jiřina ŠLAISOVÁ                         Mánesova 72                    Tel.: +420 2 22000111
                                         Praha 2, 120 00                Fax:
  Research Institute of Agricultural Economics                          Czech Republic Email:
slaisova@vuze.cz
  Nugzar DUCHIDZE                        Kostava Street 41              Tel.: +995 32931997
  Deputy Minister                        Tbilisi, 380023                Fax: +995 32933300
  Ministry for Food and Agriculture      Georgia                        Email:
sps_levan@access.sanet.ge

  Levan CHITEISHVILI                      Kostava Street 41             Tel.: +995 32990531
  Deputy Head                             Tbilisi, 380023               Fax: +995 32933300
  Ministry for Food and Agriculture       Georgia                       Email:
sps_levan@access.sanet.ge
 Mikheil PATASHURI                   Al. Kazbegi Avenue                 Tel.: +995 32393063
 Leading Specialist                  Tbilisi, 380023                    Fax: +995 32234134,
32770075
 Ministry of Trade and Foreign Economic                                 Georgia    Email:
micheil1@hotmail.com
 Badri RAMISHVILI                         Av. D. Agmashenebeli, 13 km Tel.: 529601
 Assistant to the Rector                  Tbilisi-31                 Fax:
 Georgian State Agrariane University      Georgia                    Email:
 Aizhan OMAROVA                           Abai ave. 49                  Tel.: +3172 324010, 324537
 Senior Expert                            Astana, 473000                Fax: +3172 324541
 Ministry of Agriculture                  Kazakhstan                    Email: maldaryger@nursat.kz
 Zamira OSMONOVA                                                        Tel.: +996 31 283746
 Chief Specialist                       Bishkek, 720050                 Fax: +996 31 229703
 Ministry of External Trade and Industry                                Kyrgyz Republic Email:
 Sasko TASULOV                            Dame Gruev 4                  Tel.: +389 91 110333
                                          Skopje, 91000                 Fax: +389 91 115790
 Ministry of Foreign Affairs              Macedonia                     Email: ktmnr4@mnr.gov.mk
 Zoran VIDINOVSKI                         J. Gagarin 15                 Tel.: +389 91 393401
 Assistant Minister                       Skopje                        Fax: +389 91 384982
 Ministry of Trade                        Macedonia                     Email:
 Viorel GUTU                                 bd. Stefan cel Mare 162, of. 518 Tel.: +373 2 246155
 Head of Department                          Chisinau, 2004                Fax: +373 2 246155
 Ministry of Agriculture and Processing Industry                           Moldova Email:
vgutsu@cpbr.moldpac.md
 Georgeta MINCU                           Government House, Office 233, Tel.: +373 2 237650
 Head of WTO Division                     Chisinau, 2004            Fax: +373 2 234053
 Ministry of Economy and Reforms          Moldova                   Email: mincu@moldova.md
 Svetlana BALKHOVA                                                      Tel.: +992 37 2 211367 or
 218566
 Chief Manager                            Dushanbe                      Fax: +992 37 2 510117
 Government                               Tajikistan                    Email: svetlana@tajnet.com
 Mahbuba KARIMOVA                                     Tel.: +992 37 2 213861
 Senior Specialist         Dushanbe                   Fax: +992 37 2 216901
 Ministry of Economics     Tajikistan                 Email:
 Faizali MUSAVVIROV        Rudaki str.80              Tel.: +992 37 2 210847
 Head of Department        Dushanbe                   Fax: +992 37 2 210847
 Office of the President   Tajikistan                 Email:
 Tokhir OSTONAEV           Rudaki str. 44, room 144   Tel.: +992 37 2 210021,
218566
 Director                  Dushanbe                   Fax: +992 37 2 510117
 Government                Tajikistan                 Email: r.centre@tajnet.com
                                      Seminar on SPS and TBT

 Name                                   Street                     Telephone
 Position                               City, ZIP                  Fax
 Institution                            Country                    E-mail

  Adrian DOKO                            Scenderberg Square 2      Tel.: +355 42 23352
  Director of the Section of Agriculture Tirana                    Fax:
  Ministry of Agriculture and Food       Albania                   Email:
adriandoko@hotmail.com
 Pavli KISI                             Scenderberg Square 2       Tel.: +355 42 25872
 Director of Agroindustry Section       Tirana                     Fax: +355 42 25872
 Ministry of Agriculture and Food       Albania                    Email: pkissi@yahoo.com
 Entela LARASHI                         Scenderberg Square 2       Tel.: +355 42 25539
 Veterinary Expert                      Tirana                     Fax: +355 42 25539
 Ministry of Agriculture and Food       Albania                    Email:
 Karine AZATYAN                         Hanrapetutian 5            Tel.: +3742 580626
 Expert                                 Yerevan                    Fax: +3742 564268
 Ministry of Industry and Trade         Armenia                    Email: karina@aeplac.am
 Edward BEGLARYAN                                                  Tel.: +3742 574602
 Head                                   Yerevan                    Fax: +3742 574472
 Ministry of Agriculture                Armenia                    Email: anushik@hotmail.com
 Nadir KALBIKHANOV                      A. Narimanov Str. 7 A, 909 block       Tel.: +994 12
627812
 Head of Department                     Baku                       Fax: +994 12 626606
 State Committee on Veterinary          Azerbaijan                 Email:
 Tatjana JANKOVIC                       Novo Selo bb               Tel.: +387 56 403004
 Technical Assistant                    Bijeljina, 76300           Fax: +387 56 403005
 PHARE                                  Bosnia-Herzegovina         Email: aspurs@bih.net.ba
 Semra ŠAHINAGIČ                        Hamdije Kresevljakovica 3/III Tel.: +387 71 663643
 Professional Assistant                 Sarajevo                    Fax: +387 71 206638
 Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water Bosnia-Herzegovina          Email:
 Nevenka GAŠPARAC, Ph. D.               Ul. Grada Vukovara 78      Tel.: +385 1 6106672
 Veterinary Directorate                 Zagreb, 10000              Fax: +385 1 6109207
 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry   Croatia                    Email:
 Višnja LJUBETIĆ                        Ul. Grada Vukovara 78      Tel.: +385 1 6106625
 Senior Counsellor                      Zagreb, 10000              Fax: +385 1 6106619
 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry   Croatia                    Email: vljubetic@mps.hr
 Marie PLUHAŘOVÁ                        Těšnov 1                   Tel.: +420 2 21812533
                                        Praha 1, 117 05            Fax: +420 2 24810652
 Ministry of Agriculture                Czech Republic             Email: pluharova@mze.cz
 Giorgi MARDALEISHVILI                  Kostava Street 41          Tel.: +995 32990531
                                        Tbilisi, 380023            Fax: +995 32933300
  Ministry for Food and Agriculture     Georgia                    Email:
sps_gio@access.sanet.ge
Talgat NURAHMETOV         Abai ave. 49   Tel.: +3172 337094, 324537
Senior Expert             Astana         Fax: +3172 324541
Ministry of Agriculture   Kazakhstan     Email:
 Name                                    Street                        Telephone
 Position                                City, ZIP                     Fax
 Institution                             Country                       E-mail
 Mahabat NYIAZBEKOVA                                                   Tel.: +996 31 228917
 Chief                                   Bishkek, 720050               Fax:
 Ministry of Health                      Kyrgyz Republic               Email:
 Asan SHAKIROV                                                         Tel.:
 Chief Engineer                          Bishkek, 720050               Fax:
 "Kyrgyzstandard"                        Kyrgyz Republic               Email:
 Vesna DANCEVSKA                        Leninova 2                     Tel.: +389 91 134477
 Chief of Veterinary Border Inspectors Skopje, 91000                   Fax: +389 91 230429, 130286
 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water                           Macedonia Email:
mafwe@unet.com.mk
 Nenad VEIK                             Leninova 2                     Tel.: +389 91 134477
 Adviser for Plant Protection           Skopje, 91000                  Fax: +389 91 230429, 130286
 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water                           Macedonia Email:
mafwe@unet.com.mk
 Nona LUSCALOVA                                                        Tel.: +373 2 750974
 Head of Standardization Division     Chisinau                         Fax: +373 2 750581
 Department of Standards, Metrology and                                Moldova Email:
moldovastandard@
                                                                       standart.mednet.com
 Savelie MOCANU                              bd. Stefan cel Mare 162, of. 918 Tel.: +373 2 247168
 Head of Department                          Chisinau, 2004                Fax:
 Ministry of Agriculture and Processing Industry                           Moldova Email:
 Vladimir MOROSANU                           bd. Stefan cel Mare 162, of. 504 Tel.: +373 2 248873
 Senior Specialist                           Chisinau, 2004                Fax: +373 2 248090
 Ministry of Agriculture and Processing Industry                           Moldova Email:
 Aurelian ROTARU                             bd. Stefan cel Mare 162, of. 403 Tel.: +373 2 248839
 Consultant                                  Chisinau, 2004                Fax: +373 2 237731
 Ministry of Agriculture and Processing Industry                           Moldova Email:
 Suhrob AKNAZAROV                                                      Tel.: +992 37 2 234592
                                         Dushanbe                      Fax: +992 37 2 510117
 Ministry of Environment Protection      Tajikistan                    Email: ogonazar@td.silk.org
                                           Seminar on TRIPS

 Name                                      Street                      Telephone
 Position                                  City, ZIP                   Fax
 Institution                               Country                     E-mail

 Ruben KALASHYAN                           Hanrapetutian 5             Tel.:
 Expert                                    Yerevan                     Fax:
 Ministry of Industry and Trade            Armenia                     Email:

 Natiq ISAYEV                              Prospect Azerbaijana 12     Tel.: +994 12 933389
 Deputy Chairman                           Baku                        Fax: +994 12 981028
 State Agency of Copyrights                Azerbaijan                  Email:

 Fikrat MIRZAYEV                           Prospect Bülbül 13          Tel.: +994 12 984831/933685
 Senior Specialist                         Baku                        Fax: +994 12 935487
 Ministry of Justice                       Azerbaijan                  Email:

 Damir TKALČIČ                           Hamdije Cemerlica 2/7         Tel.: +387 71 521848
 Assistant Director                      Sarajevo                      Fax: +387 17 652757
 Institute for Standardization, Metrology and                          Bosnia-Herzegovina
 Email:

 Krešimir JURLIN                           Ul. Ljudevita Farkaša Vukotinoviča Tel.: +385 1 4826522
 Research assistant                        Zagreb, 10000                   Fax: +385 1 4828361
 Institute for International Relations     Croatia                         Email: kreso@mairmo.irmo.hr

 Vladimir FEDURIN                          Abdullins st. 6             Tel.: +7 3272 300973
 Head of Department                        Almaty, 480002              Fax: +7 3272 301376
 "Kazpatent", state company                Kazakhstan                  Email: kazpat@online.ru
 Bakytbek SAPARALIEV                                                   Tel.: +996 312 510854
 Specialist                                   Bishkek, 720050          Fax: +996 312 510813
 State Agency of Intellectual Property under the                       Kyrgyz Republic Email:
oms@elcat.kg
                                         List of speakers

 Name                                           Street                      Telephone
 Position                                       City, ZIP                   Fax
 Institution                                    Country                     E-mail
 Ivan ANASTASSOV                              Palais des Nations            Tel.: +41 22 9075591
 UNCTAD                                       Geneva 10, CH-1211            Fax: +41 22 9170247
 Development of Trade Capacities Section (DICT/TSB)                         Switzerland Email:
 ivan.anastassov@unctad.org

  Sarah CAHILL                                  Viale delle Terme di Caracalla Tel.: +39 06
57053614
  Food Quality and Standards Service            Rome, 00100                 Fax: +39 06 57054593
  Food and Nutrition Division                   Italy                       Email:
sarah.cahill@fao.org
  Sophia DAVIDOVA                               Ashford                     Tel.: +44 1233 812401
  Wye College                                   Kent, TN 25 5AH             Fax: +44 1233 813006
  Department of Agricultural Economics          United Kingdom              Email:
s.davidova@wye.ac.uk
 Marc DUPONCEL                                 Benczur utca 34              Tel.: +36 1 461 2022
 FAO                                           Budapest, H-1068             Fax: +36 1 3517029
 Sub-Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe                         Hungary      Email:

 marc.duponcel@fao.org
 Antonella INGRASSIA                            Via Pacini, 93              Tel.: +39 347 6656073
 Consultant, fso                                Catania, 95129              Fax: +39 95 435234
 Legal Office (LEG)                             Italy                       Email:
                                                                            antonella.ingrassia@telvia.it

 Materne MAETZ                                  Via delle Terme di Caracalla       Tel.: +39 06
57053621
 FAO                                            Rome, 00100                 Fax: +39 06 57055107
 Agricultural Policy Support Service            Italy                       Email: materne.maetz@
                                                                                 fao.org
 Mary Megan QUINLAN                             24-28 St Leonards Rd, Suite 17     Tel.: +44 1753
854799
 Interconnect                                   Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 3BB        Fax: +44 1753
856708
 Regulatory Specialist                          United Kingdom              Email:
quinlanmm@aol.com
 Tomáš RATINGER                                 Mánesova 75                 Tel.: +420 2 22000420
 Research Institute of Agricultural Economics   Prague 2, 120 58            Fax:
                                                Czech Republic              Email: ratinger@vuze.cz
  Barbara RÖSTEL                                BP 90203                    Tel.: +33 2 99947887
  ANMV-AFSSA                                    Fougeres Cedex, 35302       Fax: +33 2 99947899
  International Relations Division              France                      Email:
b.rostel@anmv.afssa.fr
 Ramesh SHARMA                                  Viale delle Terme di Caracalla Tel.: +39 06 570
52946
 FAO                                               Rome, 00100               Fax: +39 06 570 54495
 Commodities and Trade Division                    Italy                     Email:
                                                                             ramesh.sharma@fao.org
 Miho SHIROTORI                                        Palais des Nations    Tel.: +41 22 9175556
 UNCTAD                                                Geneva 10, CH-1211    Fax: +41 22 9170044
 Division on International Trade in Goods and Services                       Italy Email:
 miho.shirotori@unctad.org

 Henning TWESTEN                                   Platz der Goettinger Sieben 5   Tel.: +49 551
394818
 University of Goettingen                          Goettingen, 370 73        Fax: +49 551 394823
 Institute of Agricultural Economics               Germany                   Email: htweste@gwdg.de
 David WARD                                        Viale delle Terme di Caralla    Tel.: +39 06
57056464
 FAO                                               Rome, 00100               Fax: +39 06 57055749
 Animal Health Service                             Italy                     Email:
david.ward@fao.org

 Tomáš ZÍDEK                                       Těšnov 1                  Tel.: +420 2 21811111
 Ministry of Agriculture                           Praha 1, 117 05           Fax:
                                                   Czech Republic            Email:
                                                                                    ANNEX III
                   REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND MATERIAL


                      Topics                        Languages     Can be obtained from

WTO. The results of the Uruguay Round of            E/F/S
Multilateral Trade Negotiations. The legal texts,
1994.

   Agreement on Agriculture (pp.39-68)                         http://www.wto.org/wto/eol/e/pd
                                                                f/14-ag.pdf
   Agreement on Application of Sanitary and
    Phytosanitary Measures (pp.69-84)                           http://www.wto.org/wto/eol/e/pd
                                                                f/15-sps.pdf
   Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
    (pp.138-162)                                                http://www.wto.org/wto/eol/e/pd
                                                                f/17-tbt.pdf
   Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
    Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (pp.365-               http://www.wto.org/wto/eol/e/pd
    403)                                                        f/27-trips.pdf


Agriculture Policies and the Uruguay Round

FAO. The implications of the Uruguay Round          E/F/S       Workshop
Agreement on Agriculture for developing
countries: a training manual, 1998

FAO. Agreement on Agriculture: Background           E           Workshop
document, Summary of the commitments of the
countries, 1999

Henning Twesten, Regional Trade Agreement in        E           Workshop
the GATT: An Assessment of the Legal
Provisions, Institute of Agricultural Economics,
University of Göttingen, 1999

Davidova, S., Giurca, D., Hubbard J, and Rusali,    E           Workshop
M.A., WTO Commitments and CAP Adoption in
Central and East European Countries: The case of
Romania, 1999
                      Topics                          Languages    Can be obtained from
Tangermann S., Widening the EU to Central and         E           Workshop
Easter European Countries: WTO and the
Perspectives of the New Member States. Institute
of Agricultural Economics, University of
Göttingen, 1999

Davidova S., Support to agriculture in countries in               Workshop
transition and compliance with WTO rules, 1999

Eiteljoerge U., Agricultural trade of selected CIS,               Workshop
1999

Ratinger T., The experience of the Czech Republic                 Workshop
with the implementation of its WTO schedule in
agriculture, 1999

Tangermann S., Interests and options in the WTO       E           Workshop
2000 Negotiations on agriculture: developed
countries


Food Standards and Safety

FAO. FAO Technical Assistance and the Uruguay         E/F/S       Publications-sales@fao.org
Round Agreements. Second Edition, Rome, 1998

WHO. Application of Risk Analysis to Food             E/F/S       Publications-sales@fao.org
Standard Issues. Report of the Joint FAO/WHO
Expert Consultation. Geneva, 13-17 March, 1995

FAO. Food and Nutrition Paper No. 65. Risk            E/F         Publications-sales@fao.org
Management and Food Safety. Report of a Joint
FAO/WHO Consultation. on the Application of                       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
Risk Management to Food Safety Matters. Rome,                     AOINFO/ECONOMICS/ESN/ris
27-31 January 1997, 1997                                          k/riskcont.htm

FAO. Food and Nutrition Paper No. 70. The             E           Publications-sales@fao.org
Application of Risk Communication to Food
Standards and Safety Matters. Report of a Joint                   http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
FAO/WHO Consultation. Rome, 2-6 February                          AOINFO/ECONOMICS/ESN/ris
1988. Published in 1999                                           kcomm/HTTOC.htm
                     Topics                      Languages      Can be obtained from
FAO. International Food Trade Beyond 2000;       E/F/S       Http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/
Science-based decisions, harmonization,                      FAOINFO/ECONOMIC/ESN/au
equivalence and mutual recognition. 11-15                    stral/austra-e.htm
October 1999 - Melbourne, Australia

WHO. Risk Assessment of Microbiological          E/F         lourdes.costarrica@fao.org
Hazards in Foods; Report of a Joint FAO/WHO
Consultation, Geneva, 15-19 March 1999                       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
                                                             AOINFO/ECONOMICS/ESN/ha
                                                             zard/hazard.htm

FAO. Technical Assistance Programme: Food        E           lourdes.costarrica@fao.org
Quality and Safety (ESN internal publication).

FAO. The Trade Impact of Listeria in Fish                    lourdes.costarrica@fao.org
Products. Report of an FAO Consultation,
University of Massachusetts, USA, 17-20 May                  http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
1999                                                         AOINFO/ECONOMIC/ESN/List
                                                             eria/listeria.htm

FAO/WHO. Understanding the Codex                 E/F/S       Publications-sales@fao.org
Alimentarius. Rome, 1999
                                                             http://www.fao.org/docrep/w911
                                                             4e/w9114e00.htm
FAO/WHO. Codex Alimentarius Commission.          E/F/S       Publications-sales@fao.org
Procedural Manual. Tenth Edition. Rome, 1997


International Plant Protection Convention
(IPPC)
International Plant Protection Convention        E/F/S       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
                                                             aoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/
                                                             Default.htm

New Revised Text of the IPPC (FAO, Rome.         E/F/S       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
1997)                                                        aoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/
                                                             Default.htm

International Standards for Phytosanitary
measures (ISPM) of the IPPC
Principles of Plant Quarantine as related to     E/F/S       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
International Trade (ISPM Pub. No. 1, FAO,                   aoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/
Rome. 1995)                                                  Default.htm
                      Topics                       Languages      Can be obtained from
Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis (ISPM Pub. No.   E/F/S       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
2, FAO, Rome. 1996)                                            aoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/
                                                               Default.htm

Code of Conduct for the Import and Release of      E/F/S       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
Exotic Biological Control Agents (ISPM Pub. No.                aoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/
3, FAO, Rome. 1996)                                            Default.htm

Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free    E/F/S       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
Areas (ISPM Pub. No. 4, FAO, Rome. 1996)                       aoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/
                                                               Default.htm

Guidelines for Surveillance (ISPM Pub. No. 6,      E/F/S       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
FAO, Rome. 1997)                                               aoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/
                                                               Default.htm

Export Certification System (ISPM Pub. No. 7,      E/F/S       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
FAO, Rome. 1997)                                               aoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/
                                                               Default.htm

Determination of Pest Status in an Area (ISPM      E/F/S       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
Pub. No. 8, FAO, Rome. 1998)                                   aoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/
                                                               Default.htm

Guidelines for Pest Eradication Programmes         E/F/S       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
(ISPM Pub. No. 9, FAO, Rome. 1998)                             aoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/
                                                               Default.htm

Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free    E/F/S       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
Places of Production and Pest Free Production                  aoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/
Sites (ISPM Pub. No. 10, FAO, Rome. 1999)                      Default.htm


Animal Health

FAO. Mutual Trust between Veterinary Services -    E/S         http://www.fao.org/waicent/FAO
The Basis for Trade in Livestock and Livestock                 INFO/AGRICULT/AGA/AGAH
Products - An Electronic Conference                            /Vets-l-2/Default.htm
                       Topics                          Languages     Can be obtained from
FAO. DAD-IS Stage 2.0 CD-ROM -                         E/F/S/A/C   Keith.Hammond@fao.org
multilanguage containing whole DAD-IS system
for country use, including the databases and data                  David.Ward@fao.org or
input system -
Animal Health Conditions for the Trade of                          http://internal.fao.org/WAICENT
Livestock and Livestock Products - Guidebook for                   /ddafind/dda.htm
the Developing Countries and Countries in
Transition

FAO. Livestock to 2020 - The Next Food                 E           Henning.Steinfeld@fao.org
Revolution

FAO. Consultants' Report: Agro-Ecological              E           http://www.fao.org/paat/html/pro
Zones, Farming Systems and Land Pressure in                        gress.htm
Africa and Asia


Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) Agreement

Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and           E           http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/docs
Agriculture (CGRFA). The appropriation of the                      8.htm
benefits of plant genetic resources for agriculture:
an economic analysis of the alternative
mechanisms for biodiversity conservation.
Background Study Paper No. 1

CGRFA. Sovereign and property rights over plant                    Workshop
genetic resources. Background Study Paper No. 2        E/F/S

CGRFA. Providing Farmers’ Rights through in            E           http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/docs
situ conservation of crop genetic resources.                       8.htm
Background Study Paper No. 3

CGRFA. Identifying genetic resources and their E                   http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/docs
origin: The capabilities and limitations of modern                 8.htm
biochemical and legal systems. Background Study
Paper No. 4

CGRFA. Information on ex situ collections              E/F/S/A/C   http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/docs
maintained in botanic gardens. Background Study                    8.htm
Paper No. 5
                        Topics                        Languages      Can be obtained from
CGRFA. Mejora genética para mantener la               S           http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/docs
diversidad en los cultivos agrícolas. Background      (Summary    8.htm
Study Paper No. 6                                     in E & F)

CGRFA. Contribution to the estimation of              E/F/S/A/C   http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/docs
countries’ interdependence in the area of plant                   8.htm
genetic resources. Background Study Paper No. 7

CGRFA. Access to plant genetic resources and          E           Workshop
intellectual property rights. Background Study
Paper No. 8

CGRFA. Recent developments in biotechnology           E           http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/docs
as they relate to plant genetic resources for food                8.htm
and agriculture. Background Study Paper No.9

CGRFA. Recent developments in biotechnology           E           http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/docs
as they relate to animal genetic resources for food               8.htm
and agriculture. Background Study Paper No. 10

CGRFA. Anthology of definitions that might be         E/F/S/A/C   Workshop
pertinent for the revision of the International
Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources,
Ex5/98/Inf.2

CGRFA. Options for access to plant genetic E/F/S/A                http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/docs
resources and the equitable sharing of benefits                   8.htm
arising from their use (document submitted by
IPGRI). -Ex3/96/Lim/2

CGRFA. Background documentation provided by E/F/S                 http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/docs
the International Association of Plant Breeders for               8.htm
the Protection of Plant Varieties (ASSINSEL). -
8/99/Inf.9

ICPPGR, FAO. Global Plan of Action for the        E/F/S           Workshop and
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic                 http://web.icppgr.fao.org
Resources for Food and Agriculture, 1996
(Summary booklet)

ICPPGR and FAO. Report on the State of the            E           Workshop and
World’s Plant Genetic Resources, 1996                             http://web.icppgr.fao.org
(Summary booklet)
                      Topics                         Languages      Can be obtained from
International Code of Conduct for Plant              E/F/S/A      Publications-sales@fao.org
Germplasm Collecting and Transfer. FAO
Conference, November 1993 (T4970E/12/97)

International Development Research Centre,           E/S          Luis.Bombin@fao.org
Crucible Group. People, Plants and Patents, 1994

Kelly, L. (ed.) Patents and Food Security: Options   E            Workshop
for Research and Action. ActionAid, London,
1999

                                                     E/S          Workshop
Leskien, D. and Flitner, M. Intellectual Property
Rights and Plant Genetic Resources: Options for a
Sui Generis System. Issues in Genetic Resources
No. 6, International Plant Genetic Resources
Institute (IPGRI), Rome, 1997

Tansey, G. Trade, Intellectual Property, Food and    E/F          Workshop
Biodiversity, Quaker Peace and Service, London,      (forthcom-
1999                                                 ing in S)


Forestry

FAO. Trade in Forest Products: A Study of the        E            Publications-sales@fao.org
Barriers faced by the Developing Countries.
Forestry Paper 83, 1988

FAO. Impact of the Uruguay Round on                  E            http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoi
International Trade in Forest Products. by E.B.                   nfo/forestry/FOP/FOPH/barbier/
Barbier. FAO, 1996                                                B96-1.htm

FAO. Trade Restrictions and their Impact on          E            http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoi
International Trade in Forest Products, by I.J.                   nfo/forestry/FOP/FOPH/bkleich/
Bourke and Jeanette Leitch., 1998                                 B98-1.htm

Trade Restrictions and their Future, I.J. Bourke.    E
Special section in ECE/FAO Timber Bulletin
Forest products annual market review, 1998-1999.
October 1999
                       Topics                           Languages     Can be obtained from

Fisheries

Trade regulations and trends in the fish trade in the   E           Adelaide.Tesei@fao.org
USA, the European Union and Japan,
GLOBEFISH Research Programme, Volume 32,
Rome, January 1995

Trade regulations and trends in the fish trade in the   E           Adelaide.Tesei@fao.org
USA, the European Union and Japan: Tariff
Concessions, GLOBEFISH Research Programme.
Volume 32 (Suppl); Rome, January 1995

Impact of the Uruguay Round on International            E           Adelaide.Tesei@fao.org
Fish Trade; GLOBEFISH Research Programme
Volume 38, Rome July 1995. Updated version
forthcoming in 2000.


Fact Sheets about Agricultural Trade

   Trade, Environment, and Sustainable                 E/F/S       http://www.fao.org/ur/seattle.htm
    Development
   Trade Issues for Forest Products
   Agricultural Trade and Food Security
   Conference on International Food Trade
    beyond 2000: Science-Based Decisions,
    Harmonization, Equivalence and Mutual
    Recognition
   Food Quality, Safety and International Trade
   The TRIPS Agreement and Agriculture
   World Fisheries Trade and some Emerging
    Issues
   Biosafety Issues Related to Biotechnology for
    Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security
   The International Plant Protection Convention
    (IPPC)
   The Food Situation in the Least Developed and
    Net Food-Importing Developing Countries
   Report of FAO Geneva Symposium
                                                                        ANNEX IV
                                      USEFUL WEB SITES
Food and Agricultural Organization
http://www.fao.org/

Codex Alimentarius Commission
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/ECONOMIC/ESN/codex/default.htm

International Plant Protection Convention
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/PQ/Default.htm

Office International des Epizooties
http://www.oie.int/

World Trade Organization
http://www.wto.org/

European Union Legislation
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/

European Commission Services
http://europa.eu.int/comm/index_en.htm

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization
http://www.eppo.org/

North American Plant Protection Organization
http://www.nappo.org/

United Stated Department of Agriculture
http://www.usda.gov/

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
http://UNCTAD.org/

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand (MAF)
http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/index.htm

Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)
http://www.dpie.gov.au/ocvo/

Programme for monitoring emerging diseases
http://www.fas.org/promed/
The PROMED list server can be used to receive unofficial reports from throughout the world on plant,
animal or human disease outbreaks and issues: To subscribe send a message to -
Majordomo@promedmail.org. In the body (not the subject line) write –Subscribe or see the following
Web page http://www.promedmail.com:8080/promed/promed.signup.form

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:12
posted:12/21/2011
language:English
pages:51