like Brazil, China and India participate in sectoral initiatives of their interest namely chemicals, industrial machinery, health care products (medical devices), electrical and electronics .

(d) Non-tariff barriers

Non Tariff Measures (NTMs) refer to those measures on international trade that are not in the form of a tariff or a tax. These measures include trade related procedures such as documentation, certification and inspections; technical regulations; standards; import related measures such as restrictions, prohibitions, seasonal duties; tariff rate quotas; foreign exchange controls including artificial exchange rates; public procurement practices etc. Certain NTMs such as imposition of anti-dumping and safeguard duties do have the effect of imposition of tariffs. Of course, countries tend to impose some restrictions on imports that some measures are intended to protect human, animal and plant life and health. These are known as Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures. Non Tariff Barriers (NTBs) are a sub-set of NTMs. NTBs are considered unfair measures discriminating against imports and therefore violative of the obligations under the Agreements of the WTO.

The NAMA negotiations focussed on the listing of NTBs by countries. Subsequently, the Negotiating Group went into text based negotiations on various proposals. In the draft NAMA modalities of 6th December, 2008, there were 13 NTB textual proposals listed in Annex 5. These are as follows:

i. Horizontal proposals (those related across sectors)

• Ministerial Decision on Procedures for the Facilitation of Solutions to Non-Tariff Barriers (known as the Horizontal Mechanism)

• Decision on the elimination of Non-Tariff Barriers imposed as unilateral trade measures

• Ministerial Decision on Trade in Remanufactured Goods

ii. Vertical proposals (related to specific sectors)

iii. Export related proposals

• Revised submission on Export Taxes

• Protocol on Transparency in Export Licensing to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994

• TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) related proposals

• Understanding on the Interpretation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade as Applied to Trade in Fireworks

• Understanding on the Interpretation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade as Applied to Trade in Lighter Products

• Understanding on the Interpretation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade as Applied to Trade in Electronics

• Decision on non-tariff barriers affecting forestry products used in building construction

• Agreement on Non-Tariff Barriers Pertaining to the Electrical Safety and Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) of Electronic Goods

• Negotiating Proposal on Non-Tariff Barriers in the Chemical Products and Substances Sector

• Understanding on the Interpretation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade with respect to the Labelling of Textiles, Clothing, Footwear, and Travel Goods

• Agreement on NTBs pertaining to standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures for automotive products.

While listing these 13 proposals, the NAMA text states that 7 of the proposals merit particular attention which includes the proposals on the horizontal mechanism; remanufactured goods; TBT proposals on electronics (2 in number); vertical proposals on automotives; labelling in textiles, clothing, footwear and travel goods; and chemical products. Subsequently, the EC came out with its proposal on automobiles thereby putting 14 NTB proposals on the table.

(e) Preference Erosion

An issue affecting smaller developing countries is the erosion of their market access dueto the reduction in MFN tariff levels. All developed countries have established schemes that allow smaller developing countries duty free or low duty access for their export products.  These schemes are largely responsible for the export performance of these countries, despite their lack of a general competitive industry. To allow these 

small developing countries time to restructure and improve their competitiveness, developed countries will be granted a longer period to phase in their tariff commitments on such products. On the other hand, there is also recognition that some developing countries would be disproportionately affected since some of these affected tariff lines are of export interest to them. The tariff cuts would be accelerated for these disproportionately affected countries for the specific lines of export interest for them.

In the NAMA text of 6th December, 2008 57 tariff lines of the EC and 29 tariff lines of the US have been identified as being affected by erosion of preferences. Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are listed as countries disproportionately affected.

III. Services

India has been a demander in services. It has also offered substantial sectoral and modal coverage in its Initial Offer (January, 2004) and the First Revised Offer (August, 2005) of the ongoing Services negotiation. At the Signalling Conference (July 2008) some further improvements were also conveyed. However, our offers / signals are conditional on receiving satisfaction in respect of our Modes 1/2 and Mode 4 requests.

As a part of the plurilateral (where more than two countries are involved) process, 22 plurilateral groups have been formed at the WTO in service sectors/modes. India has received plurilateral requests for greater liberalisation in 14 different services sectors, including Telecom, Finance, Maritime, Environment, Education, Air Transport, Energy, Audio Visual and Retail. India is the coordinator of the plurilateral requests on Mode 1 (cross border supply) and Mode 4 (Movement of Natural Persons) - the core areas of its interest on the services negotiations. India is also a co-sponsor of plurilateral requests on Computer and Related Services (CRS) and Architectural, Engineering and Integrated Engineering Services.

India has received Requests for liberalisation of services from 27 countries. These Requests coverall the major service sectors such as express delivery services, telecommunication services, audio visual services, financial services, distribution services, legal services, energy services, environmental services etc. and are in all modes of supply of service. The core interest of most of India’s trading partners, as evident from their requests, is in Mode 3, in which the request is either for binding the presently applicable FDI policy, or for offering a more liberal policy than is currently prevailing or for opening up new sectors. Negotiations are ongoing and it is India’s endeavour to maximize gains in respect of Modes 1 and 2 and Mode 4 requests.

Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, Shri Anand Sharma addressing the Plenary Session of WTO Ministerial Conference, in Geneva on November 30, 2009.

One of the areas of crucial interest to India is development of disciplines in Domestic Regulations involving qualifications and licensing requirements and procedures, without which Mode 4 access gets severely impeded. Negotiations on this subject are proceeding on the basis of the Chairman’s text of March 2009. Development of disciplines on Domestic Regulations is a very crucial area of negotiations, since as per the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration members should develop disciplines on domestic regulation pursuant to the mandate under Article VI: 4 of the GATS, before the end of the current round of negotiations.

In order to take the negotiations forward, a fresh round of Offers would need to be tabled at the WTO by Member countries. A timeline for the submission of the Second Revised Offers in Services would be decided after a breakthrough is achieved in Agriculture and NAMA. An ambitious outcome in Services has to be an essential part of any breakthrough package. India has stated repeatedly that any future work in Services must be anchored in Annex C of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. Members need to spell out clearly how they intend to meet the modal objectives outlined in Annex C. In particular, developed countries need to provide clear signals of market openings in sectors and modes of interest to developing countries, particularly in Modes 1 and 4.

India continued to participate sincerely in all bilateral/plurilateral meetings through 2009. India has also actively participated in the Services Clusters held in March, April, June, October, November and December of 2009 and February, 2010. In these meetings bilateral discussions have also been held with our important trading partners on market access issues. The Domestic Regulation Text is also being discussed in detail at the WPDR. India is actively participating in these discussions as disciplining of DR is our key area of interest.

Unlike agriculture and NAMA where modalities are yet to be finalized, in Services the modalities have been agreed upon. Members need to finalize their schedule of commitments, which are linked to the outcome of Agriculture and NAMA negotiations. As and when these are finalized, the process of services negotiations would also move for conclusion under the current round.

IV. Rules negotiations 

As per the mandate of the Doha Declaration in para 28, Members are engaged in negotiations aimed at clarifying and improving disciplines under the Anti Dumping Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), while preserving the basic concepts, principles and effectiveness of these agreements and their instruments and objectives.

The Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules (NGR) had issued first draft texts of the Anti dumping Agreement and the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement including the fisheries subsidies on 30 November 2007. The draft text had several elements which did not reflect consensus views of Members. In Anti Dumping Agreement such issues are: the prohibition on use of zeroing in dumping margin calculations, strengthening the sunset review provisions, new rules on anti circumvention, non-attribution analysis for causal link, lesser duty rule, public interest examination, etc. In the Subsidies Agreement, the amendments proposed by the Chair included those relating to interpretation of benefit conferred and specificity of a subsidy, provision of goods or services at regulated prices, certain financing by loss making institutions, provisions relating to export credits and market benchmarks, etc.

The Chair issued new draft texts on 18th December 2008 on Rules negotiations wherein he identified issues where there is considerable disagreement among Members in the Anti dumping and Subsidies Agreements. During the current year, the Chair continued the negotiations on his revised texts by holding discussions on identified topics in Anti Dumping Agreement and the Subsidies Agreement (ASCM) under three broad categories viz. (a) topics in the Chair’s unbracketed text, (b) topics in the Chair’s bracketed text and (c) unaddressed issues.

India has been asking for strengthening of rules in Anti Dumping so as to prohibit the use of zeroing in dumping margin calculation, strengthening of the Rules for Conduct of sunset reviews including automatic sunset after certain agreed period. India had also moved proposal for mandatory application of lesser duty. In the Subsidies Agreement, India has not been supportive of proposals to expand the prohibited subsidies with a view to retain the policy space for the development objectives of the national economic policy. In view of these considerations, India did not support the proposal related to using external bench marks for calculation of subsidies in the case of inputs provided at regulated prices.

In Fisheries Subsidies, the Chair’s text of 30th November 2007 prescribed several unwarranted conditions for availing the Special and Differential (S&D) treatment by the developing countries. India has been seeking effective S&D treatment for the developing countries in the light of employment and livelihood concerns for small, artisanal fishing communities and for retaining sufficient policy space to enable us to develop our fisheries infrastructure. India along with Indonesia and China proposed revised fisheries subsidies text in the papers submitted to the Negotiating Group of Rules (NGR) in April and May 2008.

The Chair did not table a revised text in fisheries subsidies but instead suggested a road map for further discussions on the identified issues. During the current year, the Chair held discussions in the NGR on the questions posed in the road map on the main elements of fisheries subsidies text viz. subsidies covered by the prohibited list, general exceptions, special and differential treatment to developing countries, general disciplines, fisheries management, transparency (notification requirements), dispute settlement, implementation and transition rules. India maintained its position to safeguard the interests of fish workers in the coastal regions as well as to encourage fishing operations in the EEZ and keeping in view this objective sought exception from prohibition of subsidies meant to support the fishing operations in coastal regions and EEZ.

V. TRIPS Related Issues 

Trips - CBD

India and other developing countries have been raising the issue of protection of traditional knowledge and the relationship between the Convention on Bio-Diversity (CBD) and the TRIPS Agreement for the last few years in the WTO. India had submitted a proposal (IP/C/W/474 dated 5th July 2006) to amend the TRIPS agreement by incorporating a new provision, Article 29 bis that would make it mandatory for patent applicants to disclose the use of any biological resources or associated traditional knowledge (TK) in their invention. The thrust areas of the Disclosure Groups proposal (comprising of Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, India, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand and Tanzania) are:

• Source and country of origin of the biological resource and of the traditional knowledge used in the invention should be disclosed,

• Evidence of prior informed consent (PIC) under the relevant national regime to be furnished,

• Evidence of benefit sharing (BS) under the relevant national regime to be furnished.

There have been discussions on the proposals submitted in this regard by various countries including India. While some countries have expressed support for the Disclosure Group’s Proposal, some developed countries have strongly opposed the proposal and, in general, the idea of a disclosure amendment to the TRIPS Agreement. Their argument is that a new disclosure requirement would not help prevent the issuance of “bad” patents that incorporate genetic resources without proper recognition of the source or access agreements. The disclosure proposal is also viewed as being burdensome in terms of procedures and costs on patent offices.

Geographical Indications (GI) Extension

The “Friends of GIs Group” (India, Switzerland, the EC, Sri Lanka, etc.) have been demanding the removal of the disparity between two different levels of protection for GIs (one, for wines and spirits, and other for all other products). They have been demanding an expansion of the scope of protection available under Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement to products other than wines and spirits also. The basic idea behind seeking extension of Article 23 protection to all other products is that GIs can be used to promote the export of valuable products and prevent misappropriation.

GI Register

Informal consultations are also taking place at the WTO on the issues around the GI Register. In 2007, the EC had proposed a new proposal on GIs. In these discussions, India has emphasized on the strong linkage between the issues of GIs and CBD.

Present State of Play

During 2008 there has been a significant change in dynamics in TRIPS related issues. Around 110 countries including India, EC, Albania, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ecuador, the European Communities, Iceland, India, Indonesia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Liechtenstein, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, the ACP Group and the African Group have filed modalities text on the three TRIPS issues (TN/C/W/52) on July 19, 2008. 

Key elements of the draft modalities text on disclosure incorporate a TRIPS Amendment to include a mandatory disclosure requirement of country providing/source and defining the details of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) later on. While pre-grant sanction has been included, post grant legal effects will be discussed later. On GI Extension, of which India has been one of the old proponents, the text calls for extending higher level of protection (currently available to only wines and spirits,) to all products. There is a window for including these items in the GI Register, if GI extension is agreed to.

Para 6 System

Paragraph 6 of Doha Declaration on TRIPS Agreement and Public Health had recognized that some WTO members with insufficient/no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing available under the TRIPS Agreement for accessing affordable medicines. To overcome such difficulties, WTO has in August 2003 devised a system (known as Para 6 system) for such members under which a compulsory license can be issued either by an eligible exporting country or by an eligible importing country to export/import required quantities of medicines in order to meet a public health problem under certain conditions. However, the system has been used only once in the last 6 years in Canada-Rwanda case and it took three years to complete it. In order to identify problems in the operationalisation of Para 6 system, an informal consultation was held in WTO on 12.2. 2010 on a specific request from India, Brazil, China and African group. Members shared their experiences and agreed to hold a workshop on this issue later in the year so that bottlenecks in the operationalisation of Para 6 system are identified and addressed.

The Doha Ministerial Declaration had provided a negotiating mandate on certain issues relating to trade and the environment. On the important issue of identifying environmental goods and services, the developed countries had submitted a list of environmental goods. The list focuses only on goods, and does not address the issue of environmental services. Moreover, most of the goods in the “list” have dual or multiple uses and cannot be justified as pure environmental goods.

India has submitted an alternative approach, called the “Environmental Project Approach” which clearly identifies environmental benefits and eliminates, or at least reduces, benefits from accruing to dual or multiple use products. It brings in, synergy between environmental goods and services, and by linking tariff concessions to a particular project, mitigates the apprehensions caused by the “list” approach, of misuse. The approach has been supported by some developing countries. India and Argentina have recently submitted an integrated {Job (07)/77} approach on 6th June, 2007 essentially keeping the essence of the project approach along with an element of the list approach, which has received the support of some countries.

The present status of the negotiation in the WTO is that in July 2008 members have been requested to prepare a work plan and make submission on environmental goods of interest to them identified across as many categories as possible; and submit a list of environmental goods exchanged with the other members under request/offer approach. Members have also been requested to submit concrete proposals on cross cutting issues such as technical assistance, capacity building, S&D treatment and transfer of technology.

In the meeting of Committee of Trade on Environment Special Session held on 19th November 2009, the developed countries and supporters of convergence list tried to justify their proposal on the ground that the list proposed by them is not exhaustive and should be taken as starting point for the discussion. The list includes the products that are critical for giving effect to environmental projects. Lately, Saudi Arabia, Philippines and Japan have come up with their own list of environment goods.

Developing countries including India opposed the list approach on the ground of dual use by giving specific HS code wise examples of dual use. The developed countries have not been able to counter this issue and rather want the developing countries to identify the single use environmental goods in the list.

Developing countries including India also raised the related issue such as issue of special and differential treatment, final tariff reduction, transitional period, NTB reduction and Transfer of Technology, etc. India stressed on triple win goal – environment, development and trade. Countries such as China, Brazil, South Africa etc supported India’s viewpoint that transfer of technology would increase the capacity of developing countries for market access in environment goods.

Dispute Settlement is the central pillar of the rules based multilateral trading system and the WTO’s unique contribution to the stability of the global economy. It underscores the rule of law and makes the trading system more secure and predictable. The salient features of the system are:

• It is based on clearly-defined rules,

• There are timelines for completing a case,

• Provisions exist for consultations, good offices, conciliation and mediation.

• Rulings are first made by a panel and endorsed (or rejected) by the WTO’s full membership.

• Appeals based on points of law are possible.

As per the mandate of the Doha Declaration, the WTO Members are engaged in negotiations aimed at improvements and clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). The negotiations are taking place in the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). The discussions in the Special Session are primarily based on Members’ experience with the Dispute Settlement System and efforts by Members to develop areas of convergence, while maintaining the respective policy objectives. India and other developing countries have been reiterating their objective for a development oriented review of the Dispute Settlement Procedures under the Doha Development Agenda (DDA).

Keeping this objective into account India by bringing many developing countries on board is negotiating important reforms like the Litigation costs to mitigate the rising transaction costs of settling the WTO Disputes, S&D changes in the process to make the system more inclusive, and cross retaliation that allows the developing countries to retaliate in any sector/Agreement against the losing developed country, in the WTO self enforcing dispute settlement decisions. India and other developing countries could successfully convince the Chairman of the Special Session

to reflect these proposals in the draft Legal Text of July 2008. This text is the basis for the current round of discussions among the Members. The Chair also reported progress made in the negotiations on various issues such as Third party rights, Panel composition, Remand, Mutually agreed solutions, Strictly confidential information, Sequencing, Post retaliation, Transparency and amicus curiae briefs, Time frames, Developing country interests, and Member control and Effective compliance).

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

India is one of the founding members of ESCAP, the regional development arm of the United Nations, which serves as the main economic and social development center for the United Nations in Asia and the Pacific. Its mandate is to foster cooperation between its 53 members and 9 associate members. ESCAP provides the strategic link between global and country-level programmes and issues. It supports Governments of the region in consolidating regional positions and advocates regional approaches to meet the region’s unique socio-economic challenges in a globalizing world. The major areas of work of ESCAP include:

. Macroeconomic Policy and Development

. Trade and Investment

. Transport

. Environment and Development

. Information and Communications Technology and Disaster Risk Reduction

. Social Development

. Statistics

. Sub-regional activities for development

The 65th Annual Session of ESCAP was held in Bangkok, Thailand from 23-29 April, 2009. The theme topic for the Session was “Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in Asia and the Pacific”.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) aims at integration of developing countries into the world economy. UNCTAD serves as the focal point within United Nation for the integrated treatment of trade and development and the interrelated issues in the areas of finance, technology, investment and sustainable development. Three pillars of UNCTAD’s existing mandate are: a) independent policy analysis; b) consensus building; and c) technical assistance.

The Ministerial Conference, which meets every four years, is UNCTAD’s highest decision making body and sets priorities and guidelines for the

organization and provides an opportunity to debate and evolve policy consensus on key economic and development issues. The UNCTAD XII Ministerial Conference Meeting was held in Accra, Ghana from 20 - 25 April, 2008. The Indian delegation was led by the Commerce & Industry Minister (CIM). The UNCTAD XII Ministerial Conference included the High-level Segment Meeting which discussed the issue of “Trade and Development for Africa’s Prosperity”. This meeting was attended by several Heads of State/ Governments. CIM addressed the High Level Segment and utilized this opportunity in highlighting the benefits of the Duty Free Tariff Preference (DFTP) Scheme, which was announced by the PM during the India - Africa Forum Summit in New Delhi in May 2008.

The theme of UNCTAD XII was “Addressing the Opportunities and Challenges of Globalization for Development”. The CIM participated in the General Debate of UNCTAD XII, which was held on 22nd April, 2008. CIM’s intervention focused largely on India - Africa relationship (as UNCTAD XII Meeting was held in Africa), status of current Doha Round trade talks and the relevance of UNCTAD in the present globalized world. The CIM held meetings with more than ten African Heads of State/Government and discussed the issues of bilateral trade and economic cooperation and increasing technical cooperation with Africa.

Global System of Trade Preferences (GSTP)

The Agreement establishing the Global System of Trade Preferences (GSTP) among Developing countries was signed on April 13, 1988 at Belgrade following the conclusion of the First Round of Negotiations. The GSTP came into being after a long process of negotiations during the Ministerial Meeting of the Group of 77, notably at Mexico City in 1976, Arusha in 1979 and Caracas in 1981. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Group of 77 in New York set up the GSTP Negotiating Committee in 1982. The New Delhi Ministerial meetings, held in July 1985, gave further impetus to the GSTP negotiation process. The Brasilia Ministerial Meeting held in May 1986 launched the First Round of GSTP Negotiations. At the conclusion of the First Round in April 1988 in Belgrade, the GSTP Agreement was signed on April 13, 1988 it entered into force on 19th April 1989. Forty-four countries have ratified the Agreement and have become participants. The GSTP establishes a framework for the exchange of trade concessions among the members of the Group of 77. It lays down rules, principles and procedures for conduct of negotiations and for implementation of the results of the negotiations. The coverage of the GSTP extends to arrangements in the area of tariffs, para-tariff, non-tariff measures, direct trade measures including medium and long-term contracts and sectoral agreements. One of the basic principles of the Agreement is that it is to be negotiated step by step improved upon and extended in successive stages

The Third Round of GSTP Negotiations was launched during the Special Ministerial Session at Sao Paolo, Brazil on June 16, 2004 with the aim of invigorating and furthering the objectives of the Agreement through adoption of a package of substantial trade liberalization commitments on the basis of a mutuality of advantages in such a way as to benefit all Participants 

A Special Ministerial Session of the GSTP Negotiating Committee was held in Geneva on December 2, 2009. Shri Anand Sharma, Hon’ble Minister for Commerce and Industry participated in the Ministerial. The Ministers adopted the modalities for tariff concessions under the Third Round of Negotiations also fixed a time-line of end-May 2010 for Participants to exchange their offers and September 30, 2010 for finalization of the schedules of concessions.

The Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA), previously named the Bangkok Agreement, signed in 1975 as an initiative of ESCAP, is a preferential tariff arrangement that aims at promoting intra-regional trade through exchange of mutually agreed concessions by member countries. APTA has six members namely Bangladesh, China, India, Republic of Korea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Sri Lanka. ESCAP functions as the secretariat for the Agreement.

During the Second Session of the Ministerial Council at Goa on October 26, 2007 the following important decisions were taken:

• To launch the 4th Round of Negotiations

• To adopt modalities for extension of negotiations in other areas such as non-tariff measures, trade facilitation, services, and investment

• A common set of Operational Procedures for the Certificate and Verification of the Origin of Goods for APTA was approved and it was decided that the same would be implemented w.e.f. January 1, 2008; and

• To explore the possibilities of expanding the membership of the Agreement.

To move forward the 4th Round of Negotiations, the 3rd Session of the Ministerial Council and the 35th Session of the Standing Committee were held in Seoul, Republic of Korea on December 15, 2009 and December 13 – 14, 2009 respectively. The Indian delegation was led by Shri Jyotiraditya M. Scindia, Hon’ble Minister of State for Commerce and Industry.

Bay of Bengal Initiative on Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC)

The initiative to establish Bangladesh-India-Sri Lanka-Thailand Economic Cooperation (BIST-EC) was taken by Thailand in 1994 to explore economic cooperation on a sub regional basis involving contiguous countries of South East & South Asia grouped around the Bay of Bengal. Myanmar was admitted in December, 1997 and the initiative was renamed as BIMST-EC. It may be mentioned that the initiative involves 3 members of SAARC (India, Bangladesh & Sri Lanka) and 2 members of ASEAN (Thailand, Myanmar). BIMST-EC is visualized as a ‘bridging link’ between two major regional groupings i.e. ASEAN and SAARC. BIMST-EC is an important element in India’s “Look East” strategy and adds a new dimension to our economic cooperation with South East Asian countries.

A Free Trade Agreement between the member states of BIMSTEC is being negotiated. The BIMSTEC Trade Negotiating Committee (TNC) has had 18 sessions of negotiations. The negotiations are spread over the areas of (i) tariff concessions on trade in goods, (ii) customs cooperation, (iii) services and (iv) investments. At the 18th meeting of the TNC parties reached agreement on the text of the Agreement on Trade in Goods as well as the text of the Rules of Origin and the Operational Certification Procedures. Negotiations continue on finalizing the schedules of concessions and on the agreements on services and investment.