  
 RESTRICTED  
 
WT/GC/M/177  
 
9 July 2019  
(19-4537) Page: 1/109 
General Council  
7 May 2019    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 7 MAY 2019  
Chairperson: H.E. Ms. Sunanta Kangvalkulkij  (Thailand ) 
The Chair, the Director -General and delegations  expressed their deepest sympathy and heartfelt 
condolences to the Governments and People of New Zealand and of Sri Lanka for the atrocious 
terrorist attacks that had stricken them in recent weeks. Th e Chair said that those  were heinous acts 
of violence against the h umanity as a whole and should  be condemned.  
 
During the meeting, t he Chair  acknowledged the presence of Honourable Bradley Felix , Minister for 
Commerce, Industry, Investment, Enterprise Development and Consumer Affairs of Saint Lucia. 
Minister Felix subseq uently  addressed1 the General Council  on behalf of the WTO Members of the 
OECS Economic Union .  
 
Subjects discussed2: 
 
1   REPORT BY THE CH AIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITT EE AND 
REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL  ................................ ................................ .............  2 
2   IMPLEMENTATION O F THE BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUT COMES – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IR ................................ ................................ .............................  3 
3   WORK PROGRAMME O N SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF 
THE DEDICATED SESSIO N OF THE COMMITTEE O N TRADE AND DEVELOPM ENT ..............  5 
4   INFORMAL PROCESS  ON MATTERS RELATED TO THE FUNCTIONING O F THE 
APPELLATE BODY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  7 
4.1   Progress Report by the Facilitator  ................................ ................................ .................  7 
4.2   Guidelines for the work of Panels and the Appellate Body – Communication from            
Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay  ................................ ................................ ............................  10 
4.3   Guideline Development Discussion – Communication from the Separate Customs         
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  ................................ ................................ .. 11 
4.4   Informal Process on matters related to the Functioning of the Appellate Body – 
Communication from Japan, Australia And Chile ................................ ................................ ... 12 
4.5   General Council Decision on the Dispute Settlement System of WTO –              
Communication  from Thailand  ................................ ................................ ...........................  13 
5   EUROPEAN UNION – SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON INDICA RICE FROM 
CAMBODIA – REQUEST F ROM CAMBODIA  ................................ ................................ ...... 24 
6   PROCEDURES TO ST RENGTHEN THE NEGOTIA TING FUNCTION OF THE  WTO –
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ............................  27 
                                                
1 The full statement can be found in Annex 1 of this document.  
2 The proposed agenda was ci rculated in document WT/GC/W/771 . WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 2 - 
 
  7   PURSUING THE DEV ELOPMENT DIMENSION I N WTO RULE -MAKING EF FORTS 
–COMMUNICATION FROM NORWAY, ICELAND, NEW  ZEALAND, SINGAPORE AND 
SWITZERLAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  34 
8   SPS AGRICULTURE ISSUES – STATEMENT B Y CANADA  ................................ .............  46 
9   TRADE RESTRICTIV E MEASURES BY BRAZIL  – STATEMENT BY ECUADOR  .................  48 
10   COMMITTEE ON BU DGET, FINANCE AND AD MINISTRATION – REPOR T ON 
MEETING OF MARCH 201 9 ................................ ................................ .............................  49 
11   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 50 
11.1   Geneva Week – Statement by St. Vincent and the Grenadines on behalf of the OECS  ...... 50 
11.2   Administrative Matters for MC12 – Statement by the Chair  ................................ ..........  51 
11.3   Statement by the Chairperson in connection with Administrative Measures for          
Members in Arrears  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  51 
ANNEX 1 – HONOURABLE  BRADLEY FELIX'S ADD RESS TO THE GENERAL 
COUNCIL O N BEHALF OF THE WTO MEMBERS OF THE OECS ECONOMIC UNION  ............  52 
ANNEX 2 – THE REPORT S BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHAIRS  OF THE 
NEGOTIATING GROUPS A T THE INFORMAL TNC A ND INFORMAL HODS 
MEETINGS HELD ON 3 M AY 2019  ................................ ................................ ..................  54 
ANNEX 3 – STATEMENTS  BY MEMBERS AT THE I NFORMAL TNC AND INFO RMAL 
HODS MEETINGS HELD O N 3 MAY 2019 ................................ ................................ .........  62 
 
 
 
1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE A ND REPORT 
BY THE DIRECTOR -GENE RAL 
1.1.  The Chair recalled that the Director -General had convened Informal TNC and Informal Heads 
of Delegation meetings on 3 May where he had provided a report on his recent activities and 
consultations. Chairs of Negotiating Bodies had also provided their reports on the n egotiating work 
where updates were available, and forty-seven  delegations had taken the floor.  
1.2.  As had been announced at that meeting, the Director -General's report and the reports of the 
Chairs of Negotiating Bodies would be included in the minutes of the General Council meeting.3 
Statements delivered by delegations would also be included in the minutes unless indicated 
otherwise.4  
1.3.  The General Council took note  of the report of the Chairman of the TNC and of the Director -
General's report on 3 May and of th e statements delivered at the 3 May  Informal TNC and Informal 
HODs meetings.  
                                                
3 The Director -General's report (also circulated in JOB/TNC/ 74) and the reports of the Chairs of Negotiating 
Bodies at the 3 May Informal  TNC and Informal HODs Meetings  are incorporated in the minutes of this meet ing 
and are  reproduced in Annex 2  of this document.  
4 The statements at the 3 May Informal TNC and Informal HODs Meeting s by the following delegations 
are incorporated in the minutes of this meeting and can be found in Annex 3 of this document:  Canada (Ottawa 
Group); Jamaica (ACP); Panama (Article XII Members); Australia ( Joint Statement Initiative on E -Commerce ); 
Trinidad a nd Tobago (CARICOM); Japan; Mexico; Angola; European Union; Colombia ( Structured Discussions on 
Investment Facilitation for Development ); China; Ghana; Cuba; Singapore; India; Peru (including Lima Group); 
Argentina; United States; Egypt; Chinese Taipei; Ba rbados; Chad (LDCs); Brazil; Chile; New Zealand; Thailand 
(ASEAN); Russian Federation; Republic of Korea; Paraguay; Norway; Pakistan; Turkey; Uruguay ( Informal 
Working Group on MSMEs ); Plurinational State of Bolivia; Switzerland; Benin (African Group and C -4); Sri Lanka; 
South Africa; Indonesia; Solomon Islands (Pacific Group); St. Lucia (OECS); Nigeria; Hong Kong, China; Malaysia 
and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Annex 3 also includes the remarks of the Director -General at the end of 
that meeting.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOME S – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IR 
2.1.  The Chair5 said th e item remain ed on the agenda so that the General Council c ould continue 
to follow up on the decisions adopted in Bali, Nairobi and Buenos Aires – and to do so in a horizontal 
and transparent manner.  
2.2.  On 30 April, in preparation for th e General Council meeting, she had  held a meeting with the 
Chairs of Regular Bodies. They had  had a useful discussion  in which she had  invited Chairpersons to 
explore ways to ensure a more regular and interactive dialogue on issues of common interest and 
responsibility. Their reports and updates on the implementation of the Ministerial mandates were 
the basis of her statement under th at item.  
2.3.  Concerning the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, in response to Members' request 
for more data and analysis on the moratorium, the Secretariat had organi zed a workshop on 29 April 
to support their discussion on th e issue. The workshop had been  well attended and had addressed 
a number of matters such as: the history of the moratorium; possible revenue implications; technical 
challenges of imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions; and the development dimension 
of the moratorium.  
2.4.  While Members' views differ ed, there had been a useful exchange of information and she hoped 
that they could continue their deliberations in an inclusive and Member -driven manner. Th at 
discussion w ould need to inte nsify, in particular in light of the need for a decision on the moratorium 
by December of th at year. As General Council Chair, she intend ed to consult broadly with Members 
on the way forward. She also remain ed ready and willing to convene further discussio ns as 
necessary, and would welcome any additional contribution from Members.  
2.5.  The next mandated review of the Work Programme w ould take place at the July session of the 
General Council. On that occasion, Members w ould have the opportunity to discuss e -comm erce 
further and hear the reports from the bodies tasked with the implementation of the Work 
Programme.  In th at regard, she intend ed to meet with the Chairs of th ose bodies in due course to 
discuss work in their respective areas.   
2.6.  Regarding some of the M inisterial outcomes on Agriculture, the review of the Bali Decision on 
TRQ administration  had begun in October 2017. Members ha d identified three broad themes in th ose 
discussions: (1) Effective implementation and follow -up of the Bali TRQ Decision; (2) TR Q 
transparency requirements; (3) Underfill Mechanism. The Committee on Agriculture was expected 
to finali se the report and draft recommendations of the review by June 2019. The General Council 
was expected to take a decision on the recommendations arising from the review normally no later 
than 31 December 2019, unless Members agree d otherwise.  
2.7.  With respect to the implementation of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition by Members 
with scheduled export subsidies reduction commitments, the situation ha d improved significantly, 
with 9 Members having had their revised schedule certified, and three Members which ha d circulated 
draft revised schedules, but th ose were not yet certified – the most recent one had been  circulated 
in March.  
2.8.  She encourage d the other remaining Members with scheduled export subsidies commitments 
to provide an update on the steps taken to implement the Decision at the next Dedicated Discussion 
on Export Competition, which w ould take place at the June meeting of the Committee o n Agriculture.  
2.9.  Turning to the LDC Services Waiver,  at the Services Council meeting held in March, the LDC 
Group had noted that it had started to consult with Members about the organization of the dedicated 
Services Council meeting to review the operation o f the preferences notified under the LDC Services 
Waiver, which had been agreed by the Council at the end of 2018. The dedicated meeting w ould 
allow Members to exchange information as part of the mandate in the Nairobi Decision that the 
Council "initiate a  process to review the operation of notified preferences, on the basis of information 
provided by Members".  
                                                
5 The Chair's statement was circulated in JOB/GC/21 6. WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.10.   LDCs had called for th at information to address principally how notifying Members had been  
building awareness of the benefits of their preferences; how they had been  increasing LDC suppliers' 
access to those preferences; and how their capacity building and technical assistance programmes 
had been  supporting the use of preferences.  
2.11.   On Development matters,  she had been  informed by the Chair of the CTD that the situation 
regarding the Monitoring Mechanism on Special and Differential Treatment remain ed unchanged, 
with divergent views persisting on how to proceed with the review of the Mechanism, which was 
long overdue. The next meeting of the Monitoring M echanism w ould be held in June.  
2.12.   The Bali Decision on Duty -Free Quota -Free market access for LDCs remain ed on the CTD 
agenda. The CTD Chair intend ed to continue consulting with Members on th e issue, including the 
Secretariat's report which should inform the  review of the Decision and which  could not be prepared 
for the past two years due to divergent views on its scope and coverage.  
2.13.   The Aid for Trade Global Review w ould take place on 3 -5 July, and w ould discuss how Aid for 
Trade support ed economic diversifi cation and empowerment – with a focus on eliminating extreme 
poverty, particularly through the effective participation of micro, small and medium enterprises, 
women and youth. Discussions w ould also be informed by the "Aid for Trade at a Glance" report, 
published jointly by the WTO and the OECD, and with contributions from other international 
organizations.  
2.14.   On Trade and Transfer of Technology the Chair ha d expressed his intention to start a process 
of informal consultations, with the objective of injecting  new life into the discussions, and 
determining a results -oriented approach for work in the coming months.  
2.15.   And lastly, on the Trade Facilitation Agreement, 142 Members ha d ratified the Agreement, 
accounting for more than 86% of the total.  
2.16.   The representativ e of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , said that the Chair's report 
stresse d the importance Members g ave to the implementation of decisions taken at the Bali, Nairobi 
and Buenos Aires M inisterial Conferences  so as to respond to the needs of developing countries and 
LDCs, among which there were African countries. The issues covered were domestic support in 
agriculture, public stockholding for food security purposes, special safeguard mechanism, the 
situation of developing countries which were net  food importers, SPS, TBT, services, preferential 
rules of origin for LDCs, and capacity building for production and export for developing countries and 
for African Countries , among others.  
2.17.   The African Group also thanked the Chair for stressing the importance of ensur ing 
transparency through notifications. Th at was an absolutely essential element  to be able to assess 
the current state of play  and the additional results that they could  register.  
2.18.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , repeat ed the LDCs'  appeal  for all decisions 
taken in favour of LDCs during MC9, MC10 and MC11  to be fully implemented. The LDCs  welcome d 
those Members who ha d notified their preferences in the context of the services waiver and who had 
also accepted to work with them on the ways and means of ensuring that their services suppliers 
were fully aware of the preferential treatment laid out in th ose notifications.  The LDCs  were working 
on a specific session before the end of th at year to have an exchange of information on the ways 
and means of guaranteeing the use of preferences as well as to implement the Ministers' mandates  
which had been  handed down to them in the  relevant Nairobi  decision. In th at respect, the LDCs 
thanked  the M embe rs for putting forward some ideas to make best use of th at specific session  and 
for their positive reaction when they had  mentioned with them the structure and the elements of 
the session. The LDCs  were pursuing their consultations with Members who ha d notified on the 
subject and they hoped to have a fruitful discussion during th at session. Finally, concerning the 
relevant decisions on DFQF market access and on preferential rules of origin, the LDCs  again c alled 
upon Members to ensure their full implementat ion. 
2.19.   The representative of Angola  noted that Angola had  deposited its instrument of ratification of 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement  on 9 April 2019 – a clear and unambiguous expression of Angola's 
commitment to  be bound by th at agreement.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.20.   The entry into f orce of the TFA  for Angola launche d a new phase for trade facilitation reforms 
in the country. The Angolan Government consider ed its implementation in a broader framework of 
creating an environment conducive to business and private investment, particularly  for foreign 
investments.  
2.21.   Notwithstanding it s LDC status, Angola ha d decided to  rapidly  implement most of the trade 
facilitation measures, indicating only a quarter of th ose measures as falling under C ategory C as had 
been stated in its March 2018 notification circulated in document G/TFA/N/AGO/1.  
2.22.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's statement and of the other statements.  
3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPO RT BY THE CHAIRMAN O F THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TR ADE AND DEVELOPMENT  
3.1.  The Chair recalled that in line with the agreement in the General Council in 2002, the Work 
Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the agenda and the Committee on Trade 
and Development reported regularly to the Council on the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions. 
In Buenos Aires, Ministers had adopted a Decision reaffirming their commitment to the Work 
Programme and instructing the CTD to continue its work in Dedicated Sessions under the overall 
responsibility of the Gene ral Council.  
3.2.  Deputy Director -General Yonov Agah, on behalf of the Chair man of the CTD, report ed that, as 
had been  announced in the last General Council meeting, the CTD, on 29  April held its 38th Dedicated 
Session on Small Economies.  
3.3.  In that session, the SVE Group had presented an outcome document of the work undertaken 
in the Dedicated Session on the challenges and opportunities experienced by small economies in 
their efforts to reduce trade costs, particularly in the area of trade facilitation, as  had be en mandated 
at the Eleventh  Ministerial Conference.  
3.4.  The document , circulated in WT/COMTD/SE/W/38  and then with a General Council symbol in 
WT/GC/W/772 , provide d a background of the work in th at area and the main topics of discussion, 
such as, trade costs in goods, transport and infrastructure costs, border measures and procedures, 
trade costs in services, technology, non -trade measures, and natural disasters and their impact on 
trade. Each topic  contained in the document describe d the most relevant trade costs and include d 
some suggestions to address the challenges at national, regional and multilateral level. The Group 
had seen  that as a very important document since it show ed the specific chall enges that SVEs face d 
regarding trade costs, and also an array of possible solutions to reduce them.  
3.5.  The Dedicated Session had also heard a presentation from the WTO Secretariat on trade and 
natural disasters. The Secretariat  had recalled that two symposia  had been held in April and 
December 2018 to discuss the links between natural disasters and the multilateral trading system 
and to survey the hazards, risks and losses from natural disasters. A third symposium would be held 
on 10 May 2019 where studies fo cusing on Nepal, Dominica, Saint Lucia, Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu 
would be presented. The symposium would also address trade issues relating to disaster response, 
recovery and resilience.  
3.6.  Another topic that had been  discussed in the Dedicated Session had be en commodities trade. 
That had been  an issue that SVEs had flagged as being of particular interest for them. For th at 
purpose, they had been  fortunate to have in attendance the Managing Director of the Common Fund 
for Commodities to present the mandate and  work of the CFC . It had been  explained that the CFC 
was an international financial institution that mainly finance d projects in the agricultural commodity 
sector for producers, processors, traders and SMEs in developing countries. Specific examples of 
projects undertaken by the CFC in Small Economies had been  provided.  
3.7.  A lively discussion had taken  place on the basis of the two presentations. The meeting had 
benefitted in particular from interventions from several SVEs that  had shared some of their 
experie nces with regard to the issues under consideration. It had generally  been recogni zed that 
further discussion about natural disasters and its impact on trade would be beneficial for the Group. 
The importance of commodities to the trade and development of ma ny SVEs had also been 
recogni zed. WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.8.  In the second semester, another meeting of the Dedicated Session w ould be held with a view 
to considering what future work c ould be done, and paving the way for eventual Ministerial guidance 
at MC12.  
3.9.  The representative of Guatemala , on behalf of the SVEs , said that discussions had concluded 
on the topic mandated by the Ministers at the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aire s on the 
"Challenges Small Economies experience in their efforts to reduce trade costs, particularly in  the 
area of trade facilitation " as had been mentioned in the CTD Chair's report. The discussions had 
been fruitful and the results of such discussions ha d been recorded in an outcome document 
prepared by the SVE Group contained in document WT/GC/W/772. Du ring the dedicated session 
meeting on 29 April, the document had been  thoroughly discussed, but as a group , it had though t 
that it had been important to also present it to the General Council.  
3.10.   The document highlight ed the main sources of trade costs for S VEs and include d several policy 
options and solutions at a national, regional and multilateral level. It show ed trade costs in areas 
such as goods, services, transport infrastructure and non -trade measures. Technology had been  
identified as an important to ol for the reduction of costs and the creation of opportunities, but the 
problem of lack of infrastructure to support technology tools had also been mentioned. During the 
discussions, the effect of natural disasters in basic infrastructure had likewise bee n highlighted as a 
relevant source of trade costs.  
3.11.   The Group w ould continue to analyse the solutions contained in the document and try to 
reflect it in the work of the WTO.  
3.12.   During its previous  meeting , the dedicated session  had also discussed the topic of vulnerability 
of small economies to natural disaster s and the impact of trade. The SVEs looked forward to the 
continuing discussions on th at issue and to the results of the research and case studies that the 
Secretariat ha d produced over the impact of natural disasters in several SVEs.  
3.13.   The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of CARICOM , took note of the outcome 
document presented at the recently held Dedicated Session on Small Economies and thanked 
Guatemala for its  efforts. The Group support ed the continuation of work to address the challenges 
small economies experience d. Advancing the Work Programme on Small Economies was particularly 
important for the members of CARICOM who were exposed to unique circumstances and  challenges. 
The outcome document shed further light on the obstacles facing small economies in meaningfully 
participating in global trade and the collective effort that was needed from th e organization to 
confront those issues. Strong systemic level respo nses from the membership  were needed  given 
that the routine flexibilities currently provided to small economies were insufficient to support a 
pathway to sustainable growth and development.  
3.14.   "Natural Disasters and their impact in trade " was of special interest to CARICOM and the 
Group  looked forward to continued work on th at theme and greater awareness among the Members  
of the vulnerabilities of small island developing economies and the adverse effects natural disasters 
could have on tr ade costs. For example, the 2017 hurricane season in the Caribbean had ushered in 
a record number of six consecutive hurricanes which had accounted for US$ 229 billion in damage  
– resulting in significant economic closes across the region. The destruction of the economies of 
territories in CARICOM provide d a clear illustration of the substantial threat and impact climate 
change pose d to their trade with the global community.  
3.15.   CARICOM  called on Members to work towards establishing mechanisms that could be 
activated subsequent to a catastrophic natural disaster and to allow for the necessary policy space 
to achieve recovery in the shortest possible time.  Their countries need ed special treatment beyond 
what was currently  offered under existing rules. It was evident that small vulnerable economies 
needed flexibilities corresponding to existing vulnerabilities.  
3.16.   CARICOM support ed the crafting of rules that promote d the building of economic and trade 
resilience in small island developing States and looked forward to  participating in the upcoming third 
Symposium on Natural Disasters and Trade.  
3.17.   The representative of Sri Lanka  acknowledge d the message of condolences expressed by the 
various delegations  on the tragic losses that ha d unfolded in Sri Lanka. S ri Lanka  had assured the WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 7 - 
 
  international community that it would  be resilient  and, as it had done in the past, would try to  put 
the pieces together and face all those manmade disasters which ha d taken most of the influential 
sectors in the country – particularly tourism  – backwards .  
3.18.   Sri Lanka  associate d with the statements made by the SVE Group and by Trinidad and Tobago. 
As a small economy  which had vigorously promoted its tourism sector,  the recent manmade disaster 
had created a lot of challenges for Sri Lanka. Accord ing to recent statistics , nearly 70% of hotels 
were losing their occupancy bookings  and in 30% of its tourism  sector, the damage was calculated 
to be around 30% in losses  – posing a n obstacle to  Sri Lanka's  tourism industry  which had recently 
been gaining momentum – trying to be the biggest income earner for the country  by surpassing 
trade in goods. Those examples demonstrate d how vulnerable Sri Lanka was to both natural and 
manmade disasters . The WTO should therefore focus more  on such issues faced by small and 
vulnerable economies like Sri Lanka .  
3.19.   Sri Lanka had actively participated in d iscussions  particularly on trade costs and on natural 
disasters. A lthough the WTO provide d certain flexibilities  in those circumstances , they were not 
adequate to addre ss its concerns. The TFA per se ha d been cited as one way to overcome t he 
challenges SVEs faced  but certain limitations existed in the Agreement  due to the lack of technical 
assistance that  had been foreseen under Category C commitments. The bigger Members hip should 
therefore look into various  possibilities to see whether the requests Sri Lanka  had made under 
Category C commitments c ould be entertained within their own financial resources.  
3.20.   Sri Lanka also called on Members to translate the recommendations of the reports and the 
studies presented at the dedicated sessions  into meaningful action  – as that was what had been  
envisage d in the process.  Sri Lanka thank ed the Secretariat in carrying out a lot of studies, 
particularly on national disasters  and assure d Members  that although it was not figuring in that 
study, it would still like to share its experience in that area.  
3.21.   The General Council took note  of the report of the CTD Chair and of the statements.  
4  INFORMAL PROCESS ON MATTERS RELATED TO T HE FUNCTIONING OF THE APPELLATE 
BODY  
4.1  Progress Report by the Facilitator  
4.1.  The Chair recalled that  at the February meeting, her predecessor had proposed that the 
Informal Process on Matters related to the Functioning of the Appellate Body led by Ambassador 
Walker as Facilit ator, continue d under the auspices of the General Council, and that another stock -
taking of the situation take place at th e General Council meeting.  
4.2.  Since then, the Facilitator ha d continued his process of consultations in different configurations 
and ha d also provided an additional report to all delegations in an informal Open -ended meeting on 
9 April. Consultations ha d continued since that meeting . She therefore invite d Ambassador Walker 
to report on the developments in th at Informal Process including on a possible way forward.  
4.3.  Ambassador David Walker, Facilitator of the Informal Process on matters  related to the 
Functioning of the Appellate Body , reported6 on the status of the informal process and of his  own 
consultations . He thank ed all delegations for their continued guidance and support. Th e report should 
be read in conjunction with his report to the 28 February meeting of the General Council which had 
been issued as JOB/GC/215.  
4.4.  Since then , meetings ha d continued in a range of form ats, keeping in mind the solution -
oriented spirit of th e exercise. This included the open -ended meeting on 9 April that the Chair ha d 
described. He had  also convened five small -group meetings on 21 and 28 March, 16 and 23 April 
and 1 May.  
4.5.  As in previous m eetings , the group had comprised delegations and coordinators that had (i) 
tabled written proposals; (ii) raised concerns about the functioning of, and the adherence to WTO 
                                                
6 The Facilitator's report was circulated in JOB/GC/217 . WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 8 - 
 
  rules by, the Appellate Body and (iii) made alternative proposals and/or raised fol low-up questions 
or concerns on the proposals or issues.  
4.6.  The objective of th ose informal sessions had remained two -fold, namely: to actively and 
constructively review and discuss the concerns raised, issue -by-issue; and to provide an opportunity 
to hear n ew or alternative proposals, concerns and other ideas. They had also remained mindful that 
some of the discussed issues were interlinked and multifaceted.  
4.7.  Ahead of the open -ended meeting, small -group discussions in March had been  focused mainly 
on specifi c issues. Discussions had evolved around 'overreach', 'precedent' and the 'issue of law and 
fact'. Th ose issues had already been discussed, to some extent, in February but – as he had  indicated 
in JOB/GC/215 – merited further discussion.  
4.8.  Since the open -ended meeting, small group discussions in April and on 1 May ha d revolved 
around a series of proposals from Members – which were listed under th e agenda item t hat day as 
follow ed: WT/GC/W/763/Rev.1 – Chinese Taipei; WT/GC/W/767/Rev.1 – Brazil, Paraguay and 
Uruguay; WT/GC/W/768/Rev.1 – Japan , Australia and Chile; and WT/GC/W/769 – Thailand.  
4.9.  Those proposals, which were of a more horizontal nature, look ed to take account of earlier 
discussions and s ought  to frame potential solutions to the issues raised.  
4.10.   In intro ducing th ose proposals in the small -group discussions, proponents had argued in 
favour of a simple and practical approach to reinforce existing DSU provisions and ensure their 
effective implementation through the vehicle of decisions by the Dispute Settlement Body and/or 
the General Council, including possible 'guidelines' for the benefit of the Appellate Body, Panels and 
Members.  
4.11.   In addition, as he had  mentioned at the open -ended Informal Meeting on 9 April, a number 
of supplementary ideas ha d only been expressed orally in th e informal process and were not yet 
captured in any of the written proposals.  
4.12.   On his second report on Informal Process , his assessment of the current state of play across 
the various issues under consideration was as follow ed. 
4.13.   Concerning Rule 15 , discussion ha d reinforced that the DSB ha d the explicit authority and 
responsibility to determine membership of the Appellate Body. To assist Members in discharging 
that responsibility, the selection process to replace outgoing Appellate Body members should be 
automatically launched six months before the expiry of their term in office. How such selection 
process could best be conducted remain ed to be discussed.  
4.14.   Proposals ha d been made to better align the assignment of Appellate Body member s nearing 
the end of their term with the general rule on expected duration of an appeal in DSU Article 17.5.  
Discussion continue d as to whether, notwithstanding DSU Article 17.2, an Appellate Body member 
so assigned should be able to complete an appeal pro cess in which the oral hearing ha d been held.  
4.15.   Concerning 90 Days , there remain ed no disagreement as to the clear text of DSU Article 17.5 
– 90 days mean t 90 days.  Proposals ha d been made to facilitate th e deadline being met. For 
example, that 'proceedings'  should be taken to mean the issuance of the Appellate Body report in 
the 'original language' of the dispute; and that it could  be useful to provide guidance to the Appellate 
Body and Members on potential ways to assist the '90 days' timeframe being met in  complex appeals.  
4.16.   It remain ed under consideration whether the parties should be able to agree that their appeal 
could exceed 90 days if the Appellate Body was unable to complete its report within th at time period 
and, in that instance, whether the ability to extend should be time -limited.  Discussion also continue d 
on the consequences if an Appellate Body report was not completed within 90 days or any allowable 
extension agreed by the parties.  
4.17.   Concerning Municipal Law , discussion ha d reinforced that the 'meaning of municipal law' 
should be treated as a matter of fact and therefore was not subject to appeal.  It was also understood 
that the DSU d id not permit the Appellate Body to engage in a de novo review or to 'complete the 
analysis'  of the facts of a dispute.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 9 - 
 
  4.18.   There had also seemed to be convergence that it had been  incumbent on Members engaged 
in appellate proceedings to refrain from advancing extensive and unnecessary arguments in an 
attempt to have factual findings overturned on ap peal, under DSU Article 11, in a de facto 'de novo 
review'.  Discussion continue d on whether guidance should be provided limiting Article 11 appeals to 
situations of exceptional circumstances such as 'egregious error' by a Panel.  
4.19.   Concerning Advisory Opinion s, discussion had indicated concurrence that issues that ha d not 
been raised by either party should not be ruled or decided upon by the Appellate Body.  Discussions 
continue d on how best to provide guidance to the Appellate Body that it should address issue s raised 
by parties in accordance with DSU Article 17.6 only to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute.  
In that context, proposals ha d been made which s ought  to encourage the Appellate Body to make 
greater use of judicial economy.  
4.20.   Concerning Precedent , there remain ed no disagreement that binding precedent was not 
created through WTO dispute settlement proceedings.  At the same time, it was clear that consistency 
and predictability in the interpretation of rights and obligations under the covered agreeme nts was 
of significant value to Members.  
4.21.   While Panel/Appellate Body findings were specific to the particular dispute at hand, discussion 
continue d on how best to provide guidance to Panels and the Appellate Body that they should take 
previous Panel/Appella te Body reports into account to the extent relevant and only follow ed findings 
of those reports if and to the extent they f ound them to be sufficiently persuasive in the dispute they 
had before them.  
4.22.   Concerning 'Overreach' , it was recogni zed that 'overreac h' remain ed potentially the most 
complex aspect of th e process, depending on the scope of issues identified and the type of solutions 
proposed.  It had also been suggested that solutions to some of the general interpretive issues 
identified above could  help contribute to mitigating future concerns about 'overreach'.  
4.23.   The idea of holding an annual meeting between the Appellate Body and WTO Members, under 
the auspices of the DSB, where Members c ould express their views on issues in a manner unrelated 
to the adoption of particular reports continue d to be seen as potentially useful. Discussions continue d 
about how to design such a mechanism to be of most use and relevance.  
4.24.   To date only one proposal ha d been made to provide guidance on a specific interpretive issue 
– that in WT/GC/ W/768/Rev.1 in respect of Article 17.6(ii) of the Anti -dumping Agreement. It 
remain ed to be seen whether delegations w ould seek to address any further issues of a specific 
nature.  
4.25.   He had attempted in th at report to capture where he thought  Members  stood in the discussion 
and to identify where, in his view, it would be fruitful to explore issues further. T hat day's report 
would be issued after the meeting – also in the JOB/GC -series and delegations looking to report to 
capitals on the e volution and status of th at discussion might  wish to make reference to it.  
4.26.   The discussion so far ha d shown that finding a solution that would address the key concerns 
raised was not going to be easy. But Members  needed to keep trying and sound out compromi se 
solutions that would help improve the functioning of the Appellate Body and adherence to the DSU.  
4.27.   Unless advised otherwise by the Chair, it was his intention to continue their dialogue in a 
solution -oriented manner in different configurations in the run  up to the next General Council 
meeting in July.  In doing so, he would  count on the continued input and support of all Members  in 
framing possible areas of convergence – drawing on the ingredients in the specific proposals which 
had been made and supplemen tary ideas which ha d been expressed orally in th e informal process.  
To ensure transparency, he would continue to report at open -ended Informal Meetings and formally 
to the General Council, at the invitation of the Chair of the General Council.  
4.28.   He thank ed all delegations who ha d contributed with ideas and suggestions so far. If any 
delegation wishe d to discuss any specific issue on th e informal process further, they could come and 
see him at any time.   WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4.2  Guidelines for the work of Panels and the Appellate Bo dy – Communication from 
Brazil, Paraguay a nd Uruguay (WT/GC/W/767/Rev.1)  
4.29.   The Chair  referred to the communication circulated by Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay in 
WT/GC/W/767/Rev.1 and invited the proponents to introduce it. 
4.30.   The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation support ed the informal process and w ould 
continue to engage constructively.  As one of the main users of the WTO dispute settlement 
mechanism , Brazil  wanted to ensure not only that the WTO maintain ed a functioning dispute 
settlement  system, but also that the main features of the system were preserved. A solution to the 
present deadlock require d, above all, the clarification of some key provisions of the DSU.  
4.31.   That was why Brazil, together with  co-sponsors Paraguay and Uruguay,  was proposing the 
adoption of guidelines based on a minimalist and pragmatic approach. The proposal tackle d the core 
issues that were hindering the effectiveness of the dispute settlement system and only to the extent 
necessary. The aim was not to reiterate th e text of the DSU but rather to provide guidance on its 
interpretation. It deal t with the practice rather than the rules themselves which was a simpler path 
than seeking changes to the DSU text.  
4.32.   Without  going into the technical details , Brazil noted that t heir proposal deal t with the 90 -day 
deadline, Rule 15, Extent of Analysis and Findings, Factual elements and Precedents. The co -
sponsors  remain ed ready to discuss the details of the proposal with all interested Members. Members 
could not lose focus of that exercise. Their immediate goal should not be  to improve or perfect the 
system  but to find a timely resolution for the issues raised before December 2019.  
4.33.   As for the other proposals that w ould be examined t hat day, Brazil  had listened carefully to 
Members during the informal process and had looked at the proposals tabled. There seem ed to be 
a good deal of common ground among them. There  was a clearer picture of what the possible 
outcomes were which was  encouraging. Members  had enough elements on the table t o let them find 
a workable solution in time if there was real engagement. What they needed then wa s a flight plan.  
4.34.   The representative of Paraguay  reiterate d Paraguay's  concern over the current situation of 
the Appellate Body. Paraguay  would continue to support the informal process led by Ambassador 
Walker to identify a negotiated solution to the Appellate Body impasse . 
4.35.   Over the years, Paraguay ha d not made much use of the dispute settlement system but w as 
aware of the need to maintain an effi cient and predictable Body that was accessible to the entire 
Membership irrespective of  their level of development or status  – a Body before which they c ould 
resolve their trade disputes.  
4.36.   The priority of the entire membership should be to restore the Appel late Body to its full 
capacity and launch the selection process of its members without further delay. Paraguay ha d 
decided to co -sponsor the proposal for guidelines submitted by Brazil and Uruguay because it 
contain ed interesting elements that could feed i nto the debate and  reach a meeting of minds and 
overcome the current impasse.  
4.37.   The aim of the guidelines was to establish a framework in order to guarantee the continuity 
of the panels and the Appellate Body without interruption, incorporating regulations e stablishing, 
inter alia, respect for the 90 day deadline in accordance with the DSU, limit the scope of 
recommendations to that which was strictly relevant for resolving the dispute and launching the 
selection procedure for filling vacancies as they ar ose 180 days before the expiry of a member's 
mandate so as to ensure that the Body c ould function at all times.  
4.38.   That was why they were calling on all Members to pursue open and constructive discussions 
to enable them to reach a negotiated solution under th e process. Paraguay  thank ed all Members 
who ha d submitted proposals and made contributions as they continue d to work towards a solution.  
4.39.   The representative of Uruguay  noted that t he latest proposals would seem to point to a 
growing consensus on responding t o the concerns related to the Appellate Body through the 
formulation of recommendations or guidelines to enhance its functioning rather than modifying the 
original agreements.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.40.   Their proposal was timely and provide d a good avenue for allaying the concerns r aised over 
the functioning of the Appellate Body. It  revisit ed the spirit of the original agreements, re -conferring  
to the Ministerial Conference, the General Council or the DSB the powers to decide on the main 
concerns  – with a text that was concrete and concise.  
4.41.   The proposal echoe d in two ways what had been  agreed twenty -five years ago when the 
Marrakesh Agreement had been  signed: first , because it respond ed to what was currently politically 
possible since the conditions for revisiting the agreements d id not seem to be met and second, 
because it was based on a critical assessment and implicitly recogni zed that some adjustments were 
needed for the concrete application of the original agreements.  
4.42.   Uruguay recall ed the importance of respecting the necessary independence of judgement of 
the Panels and the Appellate Body and unders tood that the adoption of guidelines w ould not 
compromise th at and w ould enable, in parallel, the rectification of some problems that ha d been 
witnessed in practice with the Appellate Body over the years.  
4.43.   Uruguay called on all Members to work together and reach a compromise that would allow a 
negotiated and consensual way out of the stalemate. For the proper functioning of the Appellate 
Body,  Uruguay recall ed the urgent need to work in t hat manner to find a solution to the process of 
appointing members to the Appellate Body.  
4.3  Guideline Development Discussion – Communication from the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  (WT/GC/W/763/Rev.1)  
4.44.   The Chair  referred to the communication circulated by the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu in WT/GC/W/763/Rev.1 and invited Chinese Taipei to introduce 
it. 
4.45.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that,  as Ambassador Walker ha d reported, Chinese 
Taipei's  proposal had first been  circulated in document WT/GC/W/763 in February . A revision had 
later made and resubmitted in April . 
4.46.   Chinese Taipei's  proposal suggest ed a "guideline approach"  where  Members develop ed a set 
of guidelines to clarify or elaborate on the existing DSU rules with a view to addressing the concerns 
being raised. Th at suggestion was based on practical considerations  given that Members were 
seeking for a solution with minimal impact to the ex isting system  and the limited time they had  to 
prevent the paralysis of the Appellate Body . Chinese Taipei therefore  consider ed that guideline 
development was a preferable way to address th ose issues.  
4.47.   Chinese Taipei  did not see that the proposals on the ta ble were necessarily mutually exclusive  
and was  flexible with all the other approaches as long as a solution could be reached. Without going 
into much detail, Chinese Taipei highlighted three points concerning the substance of the guidelines.  
4.48.   First, regar ding the municipal law issue, in addition to confirming the Appellate Body's 
jurisdiction under Article 17.6 of the DSU and the characterization of municipal laws, Chinese Taipei  
suggest ed for  Members to consider setting a clear threshold for the appeals r aised under Article 11 
of the DSU. The "egregious error" and "good faith" approach had been  expressed by the Appellate 
Body in  the 1998 EC – Hormones dispute.  By setting such a threshold, Members c ould assist the 
Appellate Body to perform what it ha d repea tedly stated, "not interfere lightly with a panel's fact -
finding authority" . Furthermore, Members also demonstrate d their willingness to refrain from raising 
factual issues at the appellate stage.  
4.49.   Second, Chinese Taipei  propose d a mechanism that c ould enhance the interaction between 
the Appellate Body and the Members. The mechanism was actually based upon the existing practices. 
The proposal urge d the Secretariat to summari se Members' concerns that were expressed under 
Article 17.14 of the DSU and the Appel late Body to respond to those concerns in its annual report 
or other dedicated documents.  
4.50.   Lastly, regarding setting guidance on the Appellate Body's legal approaches, the guidelines 
should not be too prescriptive or intrusive. The independence of the Appe llate Body was the  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 12 - 
 
  foundation of the mechanism  and should not be shaken. A rigid, ossified framework could  drive away 
capable potential candidates.  
4.51.   Chinese Taipei thanked Members for their efforts in that regard, would continue working  in 
that area  and looked forward to effective and constructive engagement from all of them . 
4.4  Informal Process on matters related to the Functioning of the Appellate Body – 
Communication from Japan, Australia and Chile (WT/GC/W/768/Rev.1)  
4.52.   The Chair  referred to the communication circulated by Japan, Australia and Chile  in 
WT/GC/W/76 8/Rev.1 and invited Japan, Australia and Chile to introduce it. 
4.53.   The representative of Japan  said that Ambassador Walker's  report reflect ed the discussions 
they had had since the General Council  meeting  last February and also identifie d remaining issues 
emerging along the way.  
4.54.   Japan, together with Australia and Chile, had tabled the document WT/GC/ W/768/Rev.1 to 
the General Council. The document addresse d certain key  issues confronting Members with a focus 
on the issue of 'overreach ' and thus  intend ed to build on other proposals. To summari se, the proposal 
contain ed possible solution elements in the form of DSB decisions which the co -sponsors  consider ed 
to be most pra ctical.  
4.55.   The draft decisions would cover the following aspects:  Scope of issues to be considered by 
the Appellate Body;  Strict observance of the 90 -day time -period for appellate review;  Precedential 
value of prior Appellate Body reports;  Requirements that a panel and the Appellate Body not add to 
and diminish the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements; and  Regular dialogue 
between the DSB and the Appellate Body.  
4.56.   Since they had  started preparing for th at proposal, they had had fruitful and  in-depth 
discussions with other Members on the various elements which were contained in th e document. It 
was not their intention to pursue the adoption of the proposed legal instrument as it was. They had 
rather wanted to contribute to Members'  collective  efforts to explore the most practical, feasible and 
expeditious solutions to the matters related to the functioning of the Appellate Body.  
4.57.   The informal process should continue.  There ha d already been enough ingredients on the 
table for possible solutions to the issues before Members . With th ose proposals and other 
contributions made so far, Members  were ready to move to the next phase. The next two months 
were critical to the successful c onclusion of th e process. Japan  urged all Members to continue to 
actively engage in the discussions so as to find a final solution in a timely manner.   
4.58.   Apart from their proposal in WT/GC/W/768/Rev.1, a recent ruling in a dispute to which Japan 
had been  a party  of should remind Members  of the importance of the principle that DSB 
recommendations or rulings sh ould be aimed at achieving a satisfactory settlement of the matter.  
4.59.   The representative of Australia  was pleased to join Japan and Chile in tabling the proposal 
WT/GC/W/ 768/Rev.1 which s ought  to address systemic issues in the WTO dispute settlement 
system. Th e proposal t ook the form of a DSB decision which the co -sponsors  consider ed to be one 
way but not necessarily the only way of resolving th ose issues. As Japan had noted,  the proposal 
sought  to respond directly to some of the concerns raised by Members  by succinctly clarifying the 
scope of issues that c ould be reviewed by the Appellate Body – that the Appellate Body should  
observe the 90 -day timeframe for completing appeals, the precedential value of prior Appellate Body 
reports and that Panels and the Appellate Body could not add to or diminish the rights and obligations 
of Members as provided for in the covered agreements . It also establishe d a regular dialogue 
between the DSB and the A ppellate Body to ensure among other things that th at guidance was 
properly implemented.  
4.60.   Australia  thank ed Members for their constructive engagement on th e proposal  and to those 
who had p ut forward other valuable proposals  – some of which it had also  co-sponsored. Taking all 
of the proposals together, the parameters were much clearer for a more structured and targeted 
discussion of the issues. Going forward, Australia  encourage d Members to ste er the discussion WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 13 - 
 
  towards concrete proposals and solutions  – and to do so swiftly to ensure that Members  would find 
solutions in the interest of all by the end of th e year. 
4.61.   The representative of Chile noted that  Chile ha d co-sponsored th e proposal which had 
originally  been put forward by Japan with the title "Informal Process on matters relating to the 
Functioning of the Appellate Body". Since then,  Australia ha d also joined th e communication.  
4.62.   Their proposal was simple , pragmatic and constructive . It sought to reach consensus on the 
issues  the dispute settlement system was currently confronting without the need to change the 
original text. It reassert ed the commitments and obligations under the  GATT 1994 in the area of 
dispute settlement  seeking to ensure  their correct implementation, both by Panels and the Appellate 
Body as well as by all Members.  
4.63.   The proposal s ought  to be a constructive contribution to the informal process  carried out by 
Ambassador Walker . Chile trusted that the process would be successf ully concluded on the basis of 
the consensus currently being buil t. 
4.5  General Council Decision on the Dispute Settlement System of WTO – Communication 
from Thailand (WT/GC/W/769)  
4.64.   The Chair  referred to the communication circulated by Thailand  in WT/GC/W/76 9 and invited 
Thailand to introduce it. 
4.65.   The representative of Thailand  appreciate d the various proposals that ha d been made by  
Members. Thailand's  proposal was intended to complement th em and  to contribute to the ongoing 
discussion s on the Appellate Body by  providing more detailed and constructive suggestions on key 
issues.  In that regard, Thailand  highlight ed six major components of its proposal . 
4.66.   First, on the transition rules for outgoing Appellate Body members, the proposal 
recommend ed consultation and ap proval by the DSB which sh ould be automatic in appeals where  
the oral hearing t ook place at least 30 days before the completion of the term of the outgoing A B 
member.  
4.67.   Second, on the 90 -day deadline, the proposal reiterate d that the appellate review sh ould be 
strictly completed within 90 days. Thailand propose d a consultation process between the Appellate 
Body and the Parties to the appeal whenever the Appellate Body consider ed that it would be difficult 
to meet the 90 -day deadline.   
4.68.   Third, on the characte rization of municipal law, Thailand propose d to clarify that, in principle, 
the interpretation of municipal law was a question of fact. In addition, wherever "mixed " questions 
of fact and law were involved, Panels were encouraged to characteri se the issues  as either factual 
or legal, and the Appellate Body should afford due consideration to the Panel's characterization.  
4.69.   Fourth, with respect to the issue of findings necessary for the resolution of the dispute or 
obiter dicta, Thailand propose d to clarify th at the Appellate Body sh ould carefully consider the extent 
to which findings on each issue raised were necessary to secure a positive solution to the dispute. 
Its proposed draft decision also establishe d, among other things, a consultation process between 
the Appellate Body and the Parties, to determine which findings were necessary to secure a positive 
resolution to a dispute. The ultimate decision -making power rested  with the Appellate Body. 
However, the Appellate Body should explain its reasoning in its report.  
4.70.   Fifth, with respect to the precedential effect of previous Panel and Appellate Body reports,  
only authoritative interpretations by Members under the WTO Agreement , and not  the findings of 
Panels and of the Appellate Body, had binding effect. At the  same time, the draft decision recogni zed 
the useful value that prior reports c ould have for any given dispute and require d Panels and the 
Appellate Body to explain in detail the extent to which they view ed those prior reports to be relevant 
to the case being considered.  
4.71.   Lastly, Thailand propose d to institute a regular annual dialogue between the WTO membership 
and members of the Appellate Body. Th e dialogue sh ould be without prejudice to the right of WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Members to express their views on an Appellate Body re port, and sh ould be conducted in a manner 
that ensure d the integrity and impartiality of the appellate review.   
4.72.   Thailand remained  open to further discuss its proposal with other Members  and noted that  
the process of  WTO reform should be transparent and in clusive where all Members should actively 
participate in and contribute.  
4.73.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  said that t he Informal Process ha d successfully 
served as a way to facilitate the discussion on the Appellate Body issue. Korea support ed the 
continuation of the Informal Process and urge d all Members to participate in discussions with a view 
to finding solutions in a timely manner.  
4.74.   There were  eleven proposals on the table including the four communications on the agenda 
of the meeting. Without going into  detail o n the proposals as the specifics ha d already  been dealt 
with at the Informal Process , Korea wished to  share some  general observations on them.  
4.75.   Among the eleven proposals, the one contained in WT/GC/W/752 which was co-sponsored by  
the European Union, Korea and others ha d the most comprehensive and clear suggestions. The 
solutions contained in all the proposals were not however mutually exclusive but ha d commonality 
with each other in nature.  
4.76.   For example, the proposal by Thailand was complementary to the other proposals as it 
clarifie d the options included in other proposals by providing detailed criteria. It also suggest ed an 
additional consultation process between the Parties and the Appellate Body to seek better solutions.  
4.77.   It was  therefore  time to prepare a compilation to sum up the proposals so that Members  could 
analy se the options altogether. Korea hoped that all Members would share the sense of urgency and 
join in the efforts to come up with solutions to the impasse in the App ellate Body.  
4.78.   The representative of  the European Union  thanked Ambassador Walker for his summary  and 
for provid ing a fair description of where things currently stood. The EU reiterate d its support for th e 
solution focused process. The crisis was urgent and  should  be addressed as a matter of priority. In 
previous meetings, th at urgency ha d been quasi -unanimously acknowledged by the membership.  
4.79.   That was why the EU, and so many other Members, ha d made serious efforts to address the 
concerns raised by the Member blocking the appointments thereby taking hostage of the whole 
dispute settlement system. Even though  the EU  did generally not agree with the underlying concerns, 
it had  made a serious and s incere effort to address them.  
4.80.   Members currently  had a number of proposals on the table and the opportunity to discuss 
them in detail in room E. The EU hoped that th e process w ould move forward and  support ed 
Ambassador Walker's intentions that he ha d just laid out.   
4.81.   On substance, the best way forward remain ed the one contained in the concrete proposals 
WT/GC/W/ 752 and WT/GC/W/ 753 that the EU  had submitted together with other Members to the 
General Council. The EU  had taken good note of the comments and po sitions expressed by other 
Members on the details of th ose proposals. Overall, th ose discussions had revealed that there could 
in principle be agreement on the substance of most of the proposals.  
4.82.   In that regard, there were similarities in terms of substanc e between a number of elements 
contained in their proposals and those contained in the proposals put forward by other Members. As 
always, there were different options to deal with various issues and the EU w ould continue to 
approach th ose discussions in a constructive fashion.  
4.83.   Taken together, th ose proposals were no small matter. If adopted, they w ould have a 
profound impact on the way the Appellate Body operate d. 
4.84.   The EU therefore call ed on all Members, and in particular the Member who ha d raised the 
concer ns in the first place, to engage. Staying silent d id not help to take the reform process forward. 
Engagement mean t moving beyond general questions as to why the Appellate Body ha d allegedly WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 15 - 
 
  been straying and to call for a return to what had been  agreed in 1995. For there to be  progress , 
there had to be a political willingness to discuss very specifically the concrete proposals on the table.  
4.85.   The representative of Mexico  said that the proposals  tabled clearly  reflect ed the interest there 
was in try ing to overcome the current crisis. T here were currently  eleven proposals before Members  
from different points of view and positions seek ing to take on board the concerns expressed by one 
Member. It was time for them to listen to that Member's reaction to those proposals.   
4.86.   As Mexico had said at the 3 May Informal HODs meeting,  all Members were  responsible for 
the good health of the dispute settlement system  and should  work in a constructive fashion to 
maintain  it. Mexico  continue d to support the work of the  Facilitator and remained  ready to engage  
in the coming meetings that he would  convene.  
4.87.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada was a strong supporter of the rules -based 
multilateral trading system and the dispute settlement system  – which was one of its key pillars. 
Constructive discussions require d involvement of all Members.  In that respect, Canada invite d the 
United States, as the Member that ha d raised concerns, to provide views on the various proposals 
on the table, or to introduce concr ete proposals to develop the solutions that it consider ed necessary 
to unblock the AB selection process.  
4.88.   Canada  welcome d the proposals that ha d been tabled by Chinese Taipei, Brazil, Japan and 
Thailand. Canada  agree d with the view expressed in the proposal s that the good functioning of the 
dispute settlement system depend ed not only on the Appellate Body itself but on the Members as 
well. For example,  there ha d been too much focus on strict adherence to the 90 -day rule for the 
issuance of Appellate Body rep orts, and not a sufficient evaluation of the underlying causes for delays 
in the appellate process.  Canada therefore encourage d a serious examination of all possible causes, 
for example the increasing complexity and length of appeal submissions.  
4.89.   With resp ect to Appellate Body reform, as with all of the issues facing th e organization, the 
responsibility for a solution was a shared one – all stakeholders should  participate and contribute.   
4.90.   The representative of Switzerland  noted that  the meetings held so far  had made it possible 
to hold useful substantive discussions . Switzerland welcome d the new proposals that ha d been 
submitted since the last meeting of the General Council. Several proposals, based on the Dispute 
Settlement Understanding, call ed for Members to reaffirm certain principles and clarify certain 
provisions. Certain proposals refer red explicitly to "guidelines" that would be given by Members to 
the adjudicating bodies . Switzerland  consider ed that approach to be pragmatic and constructi ve. 
4.91.   Regarding the subjects addressed,  Switzerland stressed the importance of discussing all the 
concerns expressed, including transition arrangements for outgoing Appellate Body members ("Rule 
15"), or the issue of the increase or reduction of rights and o bligations. Switzerland also consider ed 
that solutions should not call into question the major achievements of the dispute settlement system, 
such as the adoption of reports by negative consensus. As regards the 90 -day period for the appeal 
procedure, the suggestions aimed at greater involvement of the parties to the dispute in the search 
for solutions appear ed positive. Switzerland  also welcome d the fact that a number of proposals 
highlight ed the importance of a strengthened dialogue between Members and th e Appellate Body.  
4.92.   Those initiatives were testimony to Members' genuine desire to find concrete solutions to the 
concerns expressed as regards the functioning of the Appellate Body. At present Members  had a 
wide range of possible options at their disposal t hat they could take as a basis in  their ongoing 
discussions.  Regarding the form that the solutions could  take, several proposals envisage d a decision 
of the General Council or the Dispute Settlement Body, and th at seem ed to be a route worth 
exploring.  Howe ver, if Members  wished to make real progress, it was essential that all of them  
engage d in the process constructively.  
4.93.   Switzerland remained  ready to pursue and intensify the discussions as part of th e process 
conducted under the auspices of the General Cou ncil with the aim of finding practical and viable 
solutions as quickly as possible.  
4.94.   The representative of Ukraine  reiterate d Ukraine's  previous statement related to the urgency 
of launching the selection process of Appellate Body members and st ood ready to engage WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 16 - 
 
  constructively and collaboratively to help resolve th e impasse. Ukraine  had carefully examined all 
proposals listed on t he agenda and stressed  again the importance of finding a solution to the current 
impasse – the absence of which would j eopardise the stability and predictability of the international 
trading system as of December 2019 . 
4.95.   There was still a long road ahead for Members  as they needed to study, analyse and compare 
all proposals to find a balanced approach acceptable to all in tackling the many matters at stake.  In 
that regard, Ukraine wished  to contribute to the discussion and put on record its perspective on the 
municipal law issue. The general rule that only the panels would review the factual findings  – findings 
on issues of f act – and that the scope of appellate review had been  and should be limited only to 
legal issues  – findings on issues of law  – was clear. The rule specified in Article 11 of the DSU that 
one possible legal issue that could  arise on appeal was whether a pan el had failed to discharge its 
responsibilities under the DSU including its duty to conduct an objective assessment of the facts of 
the case  was also beyond dispute.  
4.96.   The issue of whether or not a panel ha d made an objective assessment of the facts before it, 
as required by Article 11 of the DSU, was a legal question which, if properly raised on appeal, would 
fall within the scope of the appellate review.  Otherwise, the Appellate Body could not review the 
matter before it in order to come to a proper understanding of the situation and would base its 
review on the panel 's allegedly wrongful legal interpretations and characterization.  
4.97.   Ukraine  did not see how the Appellate Body would be able to exceed its mandate if it followed 
the rules embodied in the DSU particularly Article 17.6. At the same time, since the application of 
the rules in a specific case could  sometimes be difficult and the distinc tion between the issue of law 
and the issue of fact c ould be blurry, Ukraine share d the approach of some Members seeking to 
clarify the notion of "issues of law " by adopting guidelines on the future functioning of the AB.  
4.98.   Ukraine was however  still not con vinced how th at matter, as well as concerns expressed with 
regard to Rule 15  and 90  days could  justify a blockage of filling the Appellate Body vacancies as they 
arose. Ukraine was grateful for the opportunity to express its views and reiterate d its willin gness to 
participate in the dialogue and contribute towards finding solutions to th ose issues . 
4.99.   The representative of Singapore  noted how  encouraging  it was  to see that Members ha d not 
given up hope in unblocking the Appellate Body impasse. Eleven proposals  had been tabled so far 
and Singapore thank ed the proponents for their hard work and outreach  efforts . Those proposals 
had greatly enriched Members'  discussions  – providing them with many options to build on to 
address the various key issues such as the 90 -day timeline and Rule 15. Singapore ha d been 
carefully considering the recent proposals on the Appellate Body and look ed forward to continue 
working closely with Members to find a pa th forward. Amid the many proposals and the intensive 
discussions, Members should not however  lose sight of their ultimate objective  – the unconditional 
unblocking of the Appellate Body selection process.  
4.100.   It was timely to consider how the entire membershi p could work together to bring about 
convergence. The Facilitator ha d the unenviable task of drawing together the common elements that 
seem ed to be emerging from the various proposals that ha d been tabled and identifying a possible 
landing zone. Singapore had every confidence in Ambassador Walker's ability to achieve th at goal. 
Singapore looked forward to actively engage with all Members, including the United States,  to 
identify the common landing zone.  
4.101.   It was critical that Members  recogni zed the urgency of  the matter. As the Director -General 
had stated at the 3 May Informal HODs meeting , Members should already talk about all possible 
options  and not wait until  December  since any option that Members could  decide on would still 
require time for implementation. In other words, the resolution of the Appellate Body impasse w ould 
not happen instantaneously. Singapore therefore  urged all Members to redouble their efforts to 
resolve the issues surrounding the Appellate Body urgently to avoid compromising  the important 
adjudicatory function of the WTO . 
4.102.   The representative of Colombia  said that, a s a general observation, the path Members  were 
taking by exploring guidelines for the application of the relevant provisio ns of the DSU was the right 
one – one which the Members should continue exploring with a view to overcoming the current 
impasse. Any negotiation should use as its starting point the need to comply with the rules and WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 17 - 
 
  establish interpretation criteria that were consistent with what had been  agreed in 1995 thus 
strengthening the rule of law that ha d characteri sed and guided the organization.  
4.103.   Historically, Colombia ha d insisted for the WTO not to enforce the  rule on precedent . The 
proposals reflect ed that point which some ha d considered to be a clear principle. Implementing th at 
would imply that each Member, by participating in the dispute settlement system, w ould not insist 
on using the principle of precedent in its disputes  as its main tool for arguing i ts case. The Panels 
and the Appellate Body  should  rule on the cases based on the facts, evidence and law as  had been 
submitted for consideration rather than on a doctrine developed on a case by case basis. Th at 
doctrine c ould be little more than a benchmar k rather than a basis for argumentation. Consequently, 
Colombia was pleased that the proposals reflect ed that point.  
4.104.   Colombia  concur red on the importance of complying with the statutory terms established in 
the DSU. That would require, inter alia, the Secr etariat having the requisite resources to be able to 
ensure proper administration and implementation of the terms provided for under the DSU. The 
Parties in turn should be aware that appealing a case was not the same as relitigating it. The appeal, 
by its nature, was limited to matters of law and should be much less substantial than a claim. It 
should be precise and of high standard to be admitted in the second instance. Parties err ed in 
bringing appeals without making a distinction between elements of fact  and elements of law, and 
the Appellate Body err ed in admitting empty, immaterial or irrelevant appeals. It seem ed that they 
should continue to reflect on th at with a view to proposing a structural solution to th at problem.  
4.105.   There were issues that d id not m erit further discussion and that should be implemented. 
That was the case of the Appellate Body and the Panels not being able to interpret municipal law. 
They should  consider it as a fact in line with the development of over 100 years during which th at 
had been part and parcel of international law.  Colombia welcome d the new proposals and view ed 
them favourably as a concrete response to the impasse that was affecting the dispute settlement 
system, particularly with the looming December deadline. As Colombia had indicated at the  3 May 
Informal HODs meeting, those proposals represent ed a brave step forward towards allaying the 
concerns raised . Colombia  hoped that th ose proposals  would help Members  overcome the impasse 
through  their active participation . 
4.106.   The representative of Nigeria  had taken note of  all the proposals and hope d that Members 
would eventually reach  convergence on positions that w ould be favo urable to all.  Nigeria  thank ed 
Japan, Australia and Chile for the proposed draft General Council  decision  in WT/GC/W/768 /Rev.1 
on Appellate Body reform. Nigeria underscore d the importance of ensuring the effective functioning 
of the dispute settlement system. The WTO dispute settlement system remain ed a core pillar of the 
multilateral trading system. It was therefore pertinent that Members strive d to strengthen the 
system in order to enhance predictability in the functioning of the Appellate Body.  
4.107.   The maintenance of the 90 -day period  for examining cases submi tted to the Appellate Body 
and the presentation of the final report thereafter would undoubtedly result in improving the 
efficiency of the Appellate Body. Nigeria was however  mindful of the current challenges faced by the 
Appellate Body in discharg ing its functions within the stipulated 90 days. Given the ir large volume 
of work, imposing strict deadlines could  not be effective. It was therefore  recommend ed that some 
level of flexibility within th at period  was pertinent. The proposal for 120 days  would be mo re ideal  
as it would give ample time for the Appellate Body to discharge its functions.  Nigeria acknowledged 
the importance of the  ongoing discussions on the AB  and on reform  both at the regular and special 
sessions . Nigeria  stood ready to engage in furthe r discussions around the foregoing issues to 
facilitate the effective  functioning  of the dispute settlement system.  
4.108.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , had taken note of the progress reported 
in the proce ss and welcome d the considerable efforts of delegations in submitting  proposals geared 
towards unblocking the logjam in the appointment process. In that regard, the ACP  thank ed the 
various proponents  including the  European Union , Chinese Taipei, Japan, Brazil and Thailan d and 
their respective co -sponsors  for the proposals advanced thus far. The ACP had  also noted the 
commonalities and overlap s in the proposals.  All Members ha d conveyed the importance of the WT O 
dispute settlement mechanism and its international reputation  of success.  All efforts to make the 
system function in accordance with the spirit of the Dispute Settlement Understanding should  
therefore  be welcomed.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 18 - 
 
  4.109.   While the ACP was still considering its position on the various proposals, the Group  support ed 
the rea ffirmation contained in most of the proposals that the dispute settlement system was central 
and necessary to providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. As such, 
the primacy of the DSU remain ed undiluted. Further, the Group's  interest rested  at the heart of an 
independent, impartial, efficient and transparent mechanism. Nothing should  therefore  undermine 
the principles of independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body. The ACP support ed the need 
for an effective and effic ient dispute settlement system which should not add to or diminish the 
rights and responsibilities of Members. Approaches should not be overly engineered or too 
prescriptive to foresee flexibility when needed.  
4.110.   Further, the solution should not result in an adumbration of the rights and responsibilities of 
any party to the dispute. Limiting the scope of issues to be treated with or the length of submissions 
could be seen as an artificial construct thereby limiting the rights of parties to the dispute. In 
addition, discussion should not lead to new understandings or de j ure interpretations of the covered 
agreements outside of the formal process outlined in the Marrake sh Agreement.  
4.111.   There was established practice in international courts and tribunals which was worth 
considering in areas which assist ed with promoting certainty and stability which were important 
aspects of law. For example, in the area of precedence, while there was no strict adherence to the 
doctrine of precedence, some international courts t ook into account previous decisions when the fact 
patterns were similar and the same legal principles appl ied with respect to similar agreements.  The 
Group continue d to study the idea of an annual meeting between the Appellate Body and the DSB 
such as in WT/GC /W/752 which  was worth testing. Further discussions and additional assessments 
would be required in order to ensure that the elements of the guidelines outlined in the various 
submissions remain ed consistent with the principles regarding the system.  
4.112.   With t hat in mind, the ACP Group welcome d further informal exchanges on non -binding 
guidelines with a view to agreeing a solution. Importantly, the ACP reiterated that it  did not support 
agreeing on guidelines before commencing the process of appointment. The Group urge d Members 
to start and complete the Appellate Body appointments process while examining various issues 
causing the difficulty over appointments. It was important to place a greater focus on resolving the 
impasse over the appointment of Appellate Body members to avoid the paralysis of the Appellate 
Body in December while continuing discussions on guidelines or DSU reform. The ACP Group 
reiterate d the importance of a strong, rules -based, fair, inclusive and transparent multilateral trading 
system.  
4.113.   The representative of  the Philippines  commended  the hard work of all contributors to th e 
process including the recent communications in WT/GC/ W/767 by Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, 
WT/GC/W/ 768 from Japan, Australia and Chile, and the latest from Thailand in WT/GC/W/ 769. 
Those, together with  all prior proposals , inform ed the discussion usefully and support ed Members'  
efforts to find a landing zone  on time . 
4.114.   As had been noted by Ambassador  Walker, as a brainstorming and solutions -oriented 
process, not all the ide as and potential solutions in th e interactive process were necessarily captured 
in written proposals and encouraging open and further discussions could yield other options and 
ideas that could provide constructive pathways ahead.  One example was Jamaica's reference to ICC 
and Vienna Convention rules. Another was the possible automaticity of panel rulings on the 90th day 
as was also envisaged by parties to disputes recently opting for no appeal options to adopt panel 
reports.  
4.115.   The Philippines support ed efforts by Ambassador  Walker to continue work to narrow possible 
landing zones by penci lling down emerging ideas on Rule 15 and the 90 -day deadline  as there were 
enough building materials to envisage how the landing zone could begin to look like.  On where  the 
landing zone could  be located, work on the emerging ideas w ould eventually suggest to Members  if 
guidelines or amendments would be most suitable. Further structured work, as had been suggested 
by Australia,  could  also show which ideas c ould be impleme nted through a guideline, or which ideas 
would need an amendment of the rules.  
4.116.   The question of when the landing zone should be completed c ould become complicated when 
attempt ing to address the issue of overreach. Th at kind of  conversation c ould take time . If a linkage 
was created, it w ould not bode well for the urgent need to fill up the AB vacancies. On the other WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 19 - 
 
  hand, the conversation could also be decoupled from the immediate task of filling up the vacancies.  
The Philippines st ood ready to engage with al l Members in a solutions -oriented effort and contribute 
to finding a balanced and durable outcome on the functioning of the Appellate Body.  
4.117.   The representative of Argentina  value d the proposals that ha d recently been circulated as 
well as  the detailed discu ssions Members had  held on the m and the elements in the documents by 
Japan and Brazil which  were positive. The informal discussions ha d enabled Members  to have a 
sound initial assessment on the aspects of the system that function ed well and those that c ould be 
improved upon. As a next step, Members  should  focus on making progress on specific results on 
matters discussed to date, and to have preliminary conclusions on various issues. Th at would help 
them have clarity on the areas of convergence and diverg ence that persist ed among the 
Membership.  
4.118.   In that respect, Argentina  insisted on its position on the issue of precedence. A rejection of 
the obligatory principle of precedence should not be equated with the rejection of the continuation 
and coherence of ju risprudence of the WTO system. Discussions without specific outcomes c ould 
lead to the collective failure in meeting the December deadline  – the moment when t he Appellate 
Body could be paralysed if Members  did nothing to revert the situation.  
4.119.   Argentina  reiterate d its commitment to continue to actively participate in th at informal 
dialogue  and to  preserving the essential characteristics of the dispute settlement system – 
independence, efficiency  and professional competence in line with the covered agreements . 
Argentina also  highlight ed the pressing need for transparent and pragmatic dialogue involving all 
interested stakeholders and their active participation to reach a basic consensus among the 
Membership.  
4.120.   The representative of Benin , on behalf of the African Group , recalled that, a t the 3 May 
Informal TNC meeting, the African Group had  shared its views with other Members on the Appellate 
Body issue  – the elements of which could be found  under Section E of its statement . All reforms 
should  take up views  of developing countries in line with the WTO development program in order to 
respond to capacity issues and that of the development of African countries and to address the 
structural aspects in order to help African countries to participate in the dispute  settlement system 
while preserving its integrity.  It was urgent for the selection process of Appellate Body  members to 
be unblocked and launched. Members should step up their  efforts to have concrete  and concerted 
proposals  which should be  easy to implem ent. In th at regard, the African Group was discussing it 
and w ould be providing a structured text taking into account their needs and priorities.  
4.121.   The representative of Guyana  recogni zed the efforts of Members that ha d advanced 
proposals and ideas including  the four papers before them that day and  thank ed them  for the ir 
collective effort to promote reform and find a durable  solution to the A ppellate Body  crisis.  Guyana 
support ed the full consideration of all the elements in the communications before them that day. 
Together, all the proposals , including WT/GC/W/ 752 and WT/GC/W/ 753, address ed the concerns 
that ha d been raised for improving the functioning of the Appellate Body. Guyana  support ed 
particularly the call for regular dialogue between the DSB and th e AB in WT/GC/W/ 768/Rev.1 and 
the filling of vacancies proposal in WT/GC/W/ 767. 
4.122.   In spite of all the efforts, Guyana had  a foreboding concern. It was time to assess how 
Members  were doing and what more they could  do on the current path to resolve th e Appellate Body 
crisis.  Sufficient ideas and proposals were on the table around which they should be able to resolve 
that matter. Guyana  worried about continuing with what could deteriorate into a circular and 
repetitive process of consultations without a c lear path to a solution on th e matter. Members should  
develop and concur on an agreed path with set timelines to complete both aspects of th e matter – 
settling the AB appointments and the reform of the dispute settlement system . Guyana  stood read y 
to contr ibute to th at process.  
4.123.   The representative of India said that t here was a growing desire among many Members to 
reform the WTO. They could kickstart th at process of reforms by finding a solution to the impasse 
of filling up of Appellate Body vacancies. Since the last General Council  meeting , Members  had had 
several meetings under the informal Walker process on Appellate Body matters where many 
Members ha d submitted proposals. India thank ed all Members who ha d made submissions on th at 
critical issue and support ed the informal solution seeking process.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 20 - 
 
  4.124.   Keeping in mind the urgency of th e matter, it was imperative for the  Member who ha d major 
concerns with the functioning of the Appellate Body to express its views on various proposals tabled 
and engage substantively in finding a solution.  
4.125.   Without going into the specifics of the eleven  proposals on the table, India wished to  
underline on e interesting point. The interaction or the dialogue mechanism between the DSB and 
the Appellate Body members ha d been suggested in almost all the proposals – originally proposed 
in WT/GC/ W/752 which it had co-sponsored seem ed to be gaining traction.  It would however  require 
an elaborate mechanism to operationali se keeping the independence of the Appellate Body and 
avoiding any undue pressure on its members.  
4.126.   India again call ed on all Members to try to converge on a solution and to respect their treaty 
obligations under Articles 17. 1 and 17.2 of the DSU for maintaining a standing Appellate Body and 
filling up its vacancies as they ar ose. It w ould be insincere and hypocritical on their part to use the 
pretext of the Appellate Body's digression from the mandate of the DSU to justify their own wilful 
non-compliance with the same.  
4.127.   The representative of Egypt  welcome d all the proposals and ideas put forward by many WTO 
Members in order  to find a way out of the current impasse  and for t he continued effective functioning 
of the dispute set tlement system including the Appellate Body within the interest of developing 
countries. Th e dispute settlement  system was what ma de the rules enforceable for all Members 
especially for those that ha d no other means of enforcing the rules for defending the ir interest. It 
was therefore vital to continue the Informal Process  – the success or failure of which  would depend 
on the constructive participation of all Members in th ose discussions especially those Members who 
had previously expressed deep concerns ab out the functioning of the Appellate Body.  
4.128.   Based on current proposals, there was also an issue on how any agreement on reforms 
related to the Appellate Body issues should be implemented. For example and for the sake of greater 
clarity, some Members envisa ged amending the DSU  while others envisage d a General Council 
Decision . Both options were available.  It could however be preferable to implement any reform to 
the extent possible by a GC decision  rather than an amendment  given the latter's complexity . 
Memb ers should  also bear  in mind the crucial importance of the time element as they continued with  
the Informal Process.  
4.129.   The representative of China  agree d in principle with the Facilitator's Report on the progress 
of the consultation s. With a view to breaking  the selection deadlock expeditiously, China w ould 
continue supporting the Chair  and the Facilitator by closely working with other Members and 
pragmatically participating in the future consultations with flexibilit y. China  welcome d the new 
proposals by Bra zil, Chinese Taipei, Japan and Thailand – further illustrating  Members' sincere efforts 
to accommodate the US concerns. Eleven  proposals ha d been tabled so far and discussed by 
Members which ha d already captured the whole range of issues raised by the Unit ed States.  
4.130.   The ball was currently  in the US court. China  expect ed the United States  to respect Members' 
collective effort and to meet them halfway by constructively engaging in the consultations. Th at 
should include meaningful engagement in discussions of proposals, making specific comments on 
proposed elements or tabling its counter proposals.  
4.131.   A well -functioning Appellate Body was the cornerstone of the WTO dispute settlement system 
– the paralysis of which w ould result in unintended consequences. One of t he most direct results 
was the de facto forfeiture of a Member's right to appeal. The dispute settlement system would move 
from a rules -based system to a more power based one . Such a devastating impact could moreover 
go beyond dispute settlement. The ongoi ng reform including the negotiations w ould inevitably take 
the bite and even lose its negotiatin g momentum.  
4.132.   To break the selection deadlock, time was of the essence. To further enhance the 
consultation's efficiency, Members  could consider establishing a consultati ve framework sooner than 
later which  may include making a clear roadmap or timetable consolidating various proposals into 
one single negotiating document.  
4.133.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , said that  the LDCs were pursuing a review 
of the proposals which ha d been put forward , including the recent ones , and thanked Members for WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 21 - 
 
  those proposals  which would form part of their internal discussions . The LDCs called upon Members 
to resolve as soon as possibl e the current impasse . Whatever solution Members would find should 
ensure that there was no calling into question the balance between the rights and obligations of 
Members nor should it call into question the independence of the Appellate Body.  
4.134.   As the LDC s had  said at t he previous General Council meeting, although the LDCs were not 
the main users of the dispute settlement mechanism, it was an essential pillar of th e institution . It 
ensure d the functioning of the rules -based multilateral trading system. Tec hnical changes put 
forward by Members  should  not represent additional burden. They should  help Members  move out 
of the impasse . When resolving th at impasse, the proposals under negotiations for many decades 
should  also be taken into account within the  DSU review.  
4.135.   The representative of Malaysia  said that t he Informal  Process ha d been a good avenue for 
Members to openly discuss the systemic challenges they faced  with eleven  submissions 
demonstrat ing the seriousness of Members in resolving the current issue a t hand. Malaysia 
welcome d the current engagement by Members in finding the best way forward to resolve the issues 
pertaining to the dispute settlement mechanism.  Malaysia  appreciate d the recent submission s by 
Japan, Australia and Chile in WT/GC/W/768/Rev .1 and by Thailand in WT/GC/W/769  – which were 
currently being assessed by it . While Members ha d been constructive in providing suggested 
solution s, it was important that the engagement be inclusive and transparent especially with those 
Members having specif ic concern s. 
4.136.   With only less than seven  months away, it was crucial for the  Appellate Body  vacanc ies to 
be filled as soon as possible and for the selection process to commence while the discussions on the 
prevailing issues were progress ing. Members should  be mindful that the failure to resolve the 
impasse of the A ppellate Body  selection process could  lead to the paralysis of the system which 
would in turn undermine the credibility of the multilateral trading system. As such, Malaysia  
encourage d all Members  to be flexible and resolve the issues with an open mind.  
4.137.   The representative of Peru expressed his delegation's  support for the  Informal Process and 
noted its readiness to continue participating in a constructive way in t hose discussions.  Peru 
consider ed trade to be a driver of economic development  and support ed the prevailing multilateral 
trade framework . The Appellate Body, as part of the dispute settlement system , was a mainstay for 
ensuring the system's proper functioning and stable trade relations amon g Members.  Ambassador 
Walker's report illustrate d that Members could  have different viewpoints on the functioning of the 
Appellate Body. In parallel, the sheer quantity of proposals submitted show ed that the current 
situation require d urgent and broad atte ntion.  
4.138.   Peru had already submitted specific comments on the proposals made and ha d met with 
some of their proponents to exchange views. Peru was  grateful for the responses it had received. 
Although Peru continue d to assess in its capital some of the proposals made at th e meeting, it 
expressed  its support  for all the efforts aimed at finding a solution to the situation faced by the 
Appellate Body as soon as possible.  Peru was open to working constructively to allay Members' 
concern s on the functioning of the Appellate Body . Peru encourage d Members  to redouble their 
efforts to reach agreement  to overcome the current impasse without linking  the process to progress 
in discussions on other issues.  
4.139.   The representative of Indonesia  continu ed to raise concern over the chronic impasse of the 
selection process of Appellate Body members . Indonesia therefore highly appreciate d Ambassador 
Walker 's leadership in the Informal Process  and thanked him for his report in that regard.  The 
discussion in the Informal Process seem ed to have a landing zone to improve the functionality of the 
Appellate Body. Indonesia however  regret ted that the process d id not provide clarity on a way 
forward to prevent the dysfunction of the dispute settlement mechanism if Members fail ed to appoint 
new A ppellate Body  members before  the end of th e year . 
4.140.   The draft GC decisions proposed , as had been mentioned that day,  would not  automatically  
break the impasse even though they had potentially offered possible solutions to improve the 
functioning of the Appellate Body . Indonesia warned against being in a situation where despite 
consensually agreeing on methods to improve the function ing of the Appellate Body , Members  would 
still remain  unable to appoint new Appellate Body  members.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 22 - 
 
  4.141.   The Informal Process was in need of a roadmap on which one single acceptable document 
could become their working document.  Such an agreement sh ould however  be in parallel with the 
unblocking of the impasse. Only with such understanding  could a just  process be achieved. In th at 
regard, Indonesia  reiterate d its position to willingly discuss the proposals with the pretext that it 
would run in parallel with the Appellate Body selection process and call ed on all Members  to 
demonstrate  their political wil l and good faith to resolve th at urgent issue.  
4.142.   The representative of Viet Nam  intervened on  items 4, 6 and 7  and reiterate d its full support 
to the rules -based, free, open, fair, transparent and inclusive multilateral trading system as 
embodied in the WTO which ha d set the conditions favo urable for increasing trade, attracting 
investment and improving efficiency for all of its Members.  In that spirit, Viet Nam  commit ted to 
work together with other Members to improve the functioning of the WTO including its negotiating, 
monitoring and dispute settlement functions. Viet Nam share d the same sense of urgency as had 
been expressed by many Members o n filling the vacancies in the Appellate Body so that it could 
continue to work after the end of th e year.  
4.143.   Viet Nam  continued to support the Informal Process and to contribute actively in the 
discussions and thanked  Ambassador Walker for his efforts in facilitating such process  to break the 
current AB impasse . It was delighted to see encouraging progress  in that front . Viet Nam also  
thank ed other Members for their contributions and proposa ls including  the recent ones. Given the 
need to  maintain the Appellate Body to preserve the whole system's effective operation and 
credibility, the current discussion s deserve d the fore most and complete attention of the Membership . 
Discussions on other issues related to  improving the functioning of the WTO could  only be prioriti sed 
once the important and urgent AB issues were adequately addressed.  A more effective approach to 
considering  new issues for WTO enhancement was needed. An  issue which was crosscutting in the  
WTO architecture affecting a vast number of Members should be discussed within a comprehensive 
package rather than in isolation. Viet Nam  called on all Members to  fully engage so that their 
collective efforts c ould mobilise  consensus and achieve concrete results.  
4.144.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  thank ed the proponents for their  
concrete efforts to identify solutions to the problems o n the way the Appellate Body function ed. 
Bolivia could  agree to a proposal based on the guidelines to avoid having to open negotiations on 
the substance of the rules relating to the WTO's dispute settlement system.  Bolivia  consider ed it a 
priority to ensure the continui ty of the system and was open to proposals along th ose lines. Bolivia 
again stressed that t he Appellate Body, and the system in general,  should  be based on the principles 
of independence and legal certainty.  
4.145.   Members should  reflect on how the solution they were called upon to devise to address the 
situation they currently faced  would become a cornerstone of their efforts to strengthen the 
multilateral trading pact based on a binding, rules -based system accountable to a recogni zed 
jurisdiction and protected by all.  The timelines for issuing reports, the value of precedence or lack 
thereof in decisions and the reform of the  Appellate Body  were all topics for discussion as had been 
illustrated in the  eleven  proposals  currently tabled . It could be useful, given the urgency of the 
situation, to draw up a table or document containing  all the proposals so that they c ould be 
considered and consolidated into a single document that c ould serve as the basis for consensus.  It 
was imperative for all Members to comment on those proposals with a view to identifying a solution  
as soon as possible . 
4.146.   The representative of Turkey  joined the Chair  and other colleagues in their message 
regarding the horrific terrorist attacks in New Zealand and Sri Lanka and express ed his delegatio n's 
sincere condolences to the people of both countries.  
4.147.   The good functioning of the dispute settlement system was critical for the WTO and its 
Members. As a strong supporter of the rules -based multilateral system  and in the face of all the 
discussions regardin g improving the effectiveness of the organization, Turkey  reiterate d the urgen t 
need to solve the Appellate Body crisis.  
4.148.   Concerning the function ing of the DSB , there had been several proposals tabled in front of 
Members and Turkey thanked the propo nents for their efforts . Turkey however expressed its general 
frustration over the lack of indication of a tangible outcome no matter how much they continued 
their discussions.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 23 - 
 
  4.149.   Turkey  highly appreciate d Ambassador Walker 's efforts . The Informal P rocess continue d to 
produce valuable work. The issues were clear and significant progress ha d been made on some of 
them. As others  had suggested, the M embership ha d shown that it c ould get together around certain 
common denominators concerning the improvement of the implementation of existing rules. Th at in 
itself would be considered significant success if it  had happened at any other given time  – all the 
more significant considering the current environment surrounded by trade tensions.  That 
conversation should  proceed for progress to be achieved. Turkey called on all Members to facilitate 
that and would continue to contribute to the substance of th ose discussions in good faith and with a 
cooperative spirit.  
4.150.   The representative of Honduras  noted some possible points  of convergence that were 
emerging among th ose different proposals. It was on th at basis that it believe d that a text -based 
discussion should be considered as a next step.  Honduras support ed the Chair and the Members in 
seeking a solution as soon as possible.  
4.151.   The representative of United States  said he wished to reiterate  what he had said at last 
December's General Council meeting  - if Members sa id that they support ed a rules -based trading 
system, then the Appellate Body should  follow the rules they had all agreed to.   
4.152.   Consequently, the Appellate Body  should  circulate its reports within 90 days of an appeal ; a 
person who ha d ceased to be an Appellate Body member could  not continue deciding appeals as if 
his term had been extended by the Dispute Settlem ent Body ; the Appellate Body could  not make 
findings on issues of fact, including but not limited to those relating to domestic law ; the Appellate 
Body could  not give advisory opinions on issues that w ould not assist the DSB in making a 
recommendation to b ring a WTO -inconsistent measure into compliance with WTO rules ; the 
Appellate Body could  not assert that its reports serve d as precedent or provide authoritative 
interpretations ; and the Appellate Body could  not change Members' substantive rights or obliga tions 
as set out in the text of the WTO Agreements.  
4.153.   The United States ha d been making many of th ose points not just for 16 days, or 16 months, 
but for 16 years  across multiple administrations.  In short, no country ha d been more constructively 
and consistently engaged on th ose substantive issues than the United States.  
4.154.   The United States appreciate d that certain Members were then, in recent weeks, beginning 
to engage on the substantive issues raised by recogni sing that t he DSU d id provide for rules, and 
those rules ha d been broken with impunity by the Appellate Body.  On the other hand, it was striking 
that a few Members appear ed to be taking the view that the DSU d id not provide for th ose rules. 
They w ould not acknowledge  that the Appellate Body ha d been acting contrary to the unambiguous 
text of the DSU. The United States  would like to understand how it was that Members c ould 
supposedly understand the same clear words in such disparate ways.  
4.155.   As the United States  had previously explained, it was vital that Members unders tood how it 
was that they had come to th at point where the Appellate Body, a body established by Members to 
serve the Members, was disregarding the clear rules that had been  set by those same Members.  
4.156.   In oth er words, Members need ed to engage in a deeper discussion of why the Appellate Body 
had felt free to depart from what Members  had agreed to.  Equally important was the need to 
understand why the Membership itself ha d been so reluctant over the course of so many years to 
take corrective action in response to Appellate Body rule -breaking.   
4.157.   Members should  first have th ose understandings in order to determine how they could find 
appropriate and effective solutions to prev ent th at from happening in the future.  Without th ose 
understandings, there was no reason to believe that simply adopting new or additional language, in 
whatever form, w ould be effective in addressing the concerns that the United States and other 
Members ha d raised.  
4.158.   The United States ha d made its views on th ose issues very clear: the United States  would 
not negotiate a weakening of the rules or a further lack of accountability for the Appellate Body.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 24 - 
 
  4.159.   The Chair said that Members  had had another interesting di scussion . She  thank ed again 
Ambassador Walker for his work and all delegations that ha d put forward concrete proposals, 
suggestions and ideas to advance th at conversation.  
4.160.   She recall ed once more that the primary objective of th e Informal Process was to fi nd 
possible solutions to address a very difficult situation. She fully share d Ambassador Walker's view 
that they needed to continue exploring possible compromise solutions ahead of the next General 
Council meeting in July. She appeal ed once again to all de legations to engage in th at conversation.  
4.161.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's statement, of the report of the Facilitator and 
of the other statements.  
5  EUROPEAN UNION – SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON I NDICA RICE FROM CAMB ODIA – 
REQUEST FROM CAMBODIA  
5.1.  The Chair recalled  that o n 17 April, the delegation of Cambodia had requested the Secretariat 
for the item be included in the agenda of t he meeting.  
5.2.  The representative of Cambodia  noted that t he European Union was Cambodia's largest trading 
partner , accounting  for 45% of Cambodian export in 2018 under  the EU EBA scheme which provided 
special treatment for LDCs by grant ing DFQF market access for all products except arms. Indica Rice 
from Cambodia had previously benefited from duty -free access  to EU markets under  the scheme. 
Cambodia  express ed its appreciation to the EU for such special preferential treatment.  
5.3.  Cambodia was however  disappointed that on 16 January 2019, the EU had adopted Regulation 
2019-67 through which it had withdr awn the duty -free treatment from Indica Rice originating in 
Cambodia by imposing the duty of 175 EUR in Year 1, 150 EUR in Year 2 and 125 EUR in Year 3. 
Cambodia note d that the preferential duty -free treatment was unilateral and the EU decision to 
withdraw th at treatment should  be discu ssed bilaterally.  
5.4.  In that regard, Cambodia had used every effort to negotiate with the EU from the date of the 
commencement of the investigation at issue in February 2018. Recently, Cambodia ha d conducted 
several bilateral meetings in Brussels, in its capital and in Geneva. Cambodia ha d also conducted 
several bilateral meetings at expert and Ambassador level s. On 26 March 2019, Cambodia had  met 
with H.E. Marc Vanheukelen,  Permanent Representative  of the EU to the WTO, to discuss th e matter.  
Cambodia's Mini ster of Commerce, H.E. Pan Sorasak, on behalf of the Royal Government of 
Cambodia ha d moreover  written two letters – one to H.E. Cecilia Malmström, European 
Commissioner for Trade; and the other one to the Deputy Head of the Directorate of Trade Defence 
of the European Commission – to explain its concern and to seek the withdrawal of the duty. It was 
however highly uncertain whether th e matter c ould be resolved through bilateral negotiation and 
discussion.  
5.5.  The Royal Government of Cambodia had then instructe d the Permanent Mission of Cambodia 
to the WTO to address the issue at relevant meetings. In th at regard, after consulting with the WTO 
Secretariat and some Members, Cambodia ha d raised the issue at  the CTD on 5 April and at the CTG 
on 11 April. Cambodia  thank ed Members for their support at those meetings including at the current 
General Council  session . The purpose of raising the issue at the General Council wa s not to blame 
or criti cise the EU , but to explain its concern and to show the negative impact of the recent 
withdrawal.  
5.6.  After receiving instructions, Cambodia  had found that the imposition follow ed a determination 
in the EU domestic safeguard proceeding. To impose the measure, the EU needed a qualified majority 
vote – but only thirteen  members had supported it, seven  had abstained and eight had not agree d 
to the imposition. Cambodia thank ed the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg, 
the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom for their kind understanding – and Austria, 
Croatia, Ge rmany, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta and Slovenia for being neutral.  
5.7.  Cambodia had moreover  found that the reason for the imposition was the ostensible surge  of 
import s of Indica Rice from Cambodia in the EU market which had supposedly caused injury to the 
EU domestic industry. In th at regard, Cambodia and some Members believe d that its impact on the 
EU farmers was much less than th at on the Cambodia n ones.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 25 - 
 
  5.8.  Under  the WTO, Cambodia considered that the duty at issue  had not  met the definition of a 
WTO safeguard measure under the GATT 1994 and the Safeguard s Agreement. Furthermore, the 
duty of 175 EUR per tonne was very high – equal to the EU bound and applied rate for Indica Rice. 
The duty was inconsistent with  the MFN obligation under Article I:1 of the GATT 199 4 and the GATT 
1979 Decision on Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Full Participation of 
Developing Countries. In particular, contrary to footnote 3 paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause, 
the preferential duty -free treatment for In dica Rice under the EBA scheme was applied in a 
discriminatory manner. It appear ed that the EU withdrawal of the duty -free access to Indica Rice 
from Cambodia undermine d the fundamental requirement of the Enabling Clause that was in favour 
of developing an d LDC Members and which should  not constitute a means of discrimination.  
5.9.  The EU safeguard rule set out in Articles 22  to 28 of EU Regulation 978/2012 of 
25 October  2012 and EU Regulation 1083/2017 of 28 August 2017 were likewise inconsistent as 
such with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Enabling Clause  for specifically 
allowing the EU to accord discriminatory treatment to like products originating in developing 
countries including LDCs.  
5.10.   Given the excellent relation and long-lasting cooperation between Cambodia and the EU, 
instead of resorting to legal action under the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism, at th e moment, 
Cambodia was seeking a satisfactory solution with the EU by addressing its concern through the 
diplomati c channel in the spirit of friendly cooperation.  
5.11.   Through the diplomatic channel and th e current  high level meeting, Cambodia  drew Members'  
attention  to the following: First, the EU decision seem ed to completely defeat the overall objective 
of the EU GSP P rogramme which was to promote the economic development of developing countries 
in particular LDCs and to facilitate the ir integration to international trade. Second, the EU decision 
also create d a significant barrier to Cambodia's rice export s which ha d been declining in the EU 
market after the imposition. The EU ha d placed Cambodia's  rice export s at a competitive 
disadvantage which  impact ed their revenue. It was contrary to the policy of encouraging Cambodia 
to graduate and achieve the 2030 Sustainable Dev elopment Goals. Third, the EU decision ha d 
seriously threatened Cambodia's poor farmers due to the fact that it ha d eliminated their only source 
of income. It was consequently harming their famil ies who live d in debt and financial hardships.  
5.12.   In short, the decision ha d affected the majority of poor people in Cambodia – an LDC. On 
behalf of the Royal Government of Cambodia, the Cambodian delegation  urged the EU to reconsider 
its imposition and to withdraw the duty on Cambodia's Indica Rice to enable it as an LDC to continue 
benefiting from the EU EBA Scheme for its economic growth, poverty reduction and integration into 
the multilateral trading system.  
5.13.   The representative of European Union  stress ed that it was a bilateral issue and point ed out 
that the EU had adopted the safeguard in question in the framework of its Generalised System of 
Preferences . The measure should thus not be confused with WTO safeguards. There was no 
discrimination and no incompatibility with WTO rules.  
5.14.   The EU was fully aware of the econo mic importance of rice exports for Cambodia. Cambodia 
had benefitted from the Everything But Arms scheme, the EU's special arrangement for LDCs under 
the GSP which unilaterally grant ed duty-free quota -free access to LDCs for all products except arms, 
including rice.  
5.15.   Cambodia ha d currently  filed an application for annulment of the measures with the EU 
General Court. The EU  therefore  was not in a position to make any further comments.  
5.16.   The representative of Thailand , on behalf of the ASEAN , said that LDCs fac ed challenges and 
capacity constraints in accessing international markets and hence need ed policy flexibility, including 
trade preferences, to benefit from trade liberalization and global trade.  
5.17.   ASEAN encourage d Members to take into account the challenges and difficulties of LDCs prior 
to taking any measures to withdraw an existing trade preferential scheme and encourage d relevant 
Members to consider the concerns and request of Cambodia accordingly.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 26 - 
 
  5.18.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , noted that t he LDCs fully support ed the 
efforts made by all Members to ensure that LDCs c ould fully benefit from the decisions taken 
previously during Ministerial Conferences in the context of WTO Agreement s – which  include d S&DT  
that enable d them to export, ens ure economic growth, reduce poverty and be integrated into the 
multilateral trading system.  
5.19.   The LDCs were facing particular challenges in having access to international markets. In order 
to help resolve th at and address the challenges that they face d, LDCs  needed preferential treatment 
from individual Members in the context of the WTO Agreements and the GATT Enabling Clause in 
order to foster trade of developing countries including LDCs and not to meet obstacles that ha d 
undue effects on trade.  
5.20.   The LDC Grou p encourage d Members to adopt a constructive and pragmatic approach in order 
to maintain and continue to grant preferential treatment to LDCs. Any measure or imposition of 
duties on groups from LDCs would compromise the global goal of preferential treatmen t and 
therefore would be an obstacle to their growth and development.  
5.21.   Accordingly, the LDC Group encourage d the European Union to consider withdrawing th ose 
duties on Indica Rice from Cambodia in order to continue with the policies in place to help Cambodi a 
graduate from its status and to achieve the SDGs.  
5.22.   The LDC  Group  thank ed Members for the preferential treatment accorded to LDCs and 
encourage d them to examine the consequences of a potential negative impact on LDCs prior to 
taking any decision to withdr aw preferential treatment which the LDCs  benefit ed from.  
5.23.   The representative of Myanmar  associate d his delegation  with the statements made by the 
LDC Group and the ASEAN. S&DT and development were integral parts of the WTO framework. 
Myanmar  fully support ed the ongoing efforts of Members to ensure that developing Members 
especially the LDCs c ould successfully benefit from it – to integrate into global trade and to fulfil the 
needs of their economic development.  
5.24.   Developing Members, particularly the LDCs, fac ed challenges and capacity constraints in 
strengthening their trade capacity. They require d legal flexibility including trade preference s to 
benefit from trade liberalization , to overcome structural and economic transformation and to carry 
out trade integr ation in ways that support ed sustainable and inclusive economic growth. Any 
measure taken to developing Members especially LDCs should therefore take into account their 
challenges and particular needs to promote their trade growth and development and to me et the 
overall objective of SDG 2030.  
5.25.   The representative of Yemen  associate d with the statement made by the LDC Group . In the 
spirit of Members' support for LDCs' development and global integration, Yemen  reemphasise d the 
call to reconsidering the unfortun ate situation that Cambodia as an LDC had found itself in. Yemen, 
along with others who had spoke n before  it, therefore looked forward to see th e matter resolved as 
soon as possible.  
5.26.   The representative of Afghanistan  said that the  LDCs should be able to be nefit from 
preferential treatment offered by Members to facilitate the integration of LDC economies into the 
multilateral trading system and to maximise their benefits from international trade. Afghanistan 
therefore thank ed all Members for providing prefer ential treatment to LDCs – which it request ed to 
be maintain ed and to continue to be provided to them.  
5.27.   Afghanistan supported  the LDC Group's statement  and encourage d the EU to consider 
withdrawing the imposition of import duties on Indica Rica originating from Cambodia.  
5.28.   The representative of China  had listened carefully to the statements made by Cambodia and 
Myanmar expressing their concerns on the EU's increased tari ff on imports of Indica Rice from 
Cambodia and Myanmar. Although it d id not exceed the relevant bound level of tariff in the EU's 
schedules of concession, such a withdrawal of preferential tariff treatment w ould seriously hurt the 
vulnerable LDCs.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 27 - 
 
  5.29.   China  appreciate d the EU's effort in reducing the tariffs on a considerable range of products 
from LDCs in its EBA scheme. However, the measures to be taken to withdraw such preference and 
potential negative impacts on relevant LDCs should be well taken into accou nt.  
5.30.   For example, Indica Rice was the most important  agriculture product  export  of Cambodia. 
Withdrawal of the preference and the EBA to Cambodia and Myanmar could disrupt the normal trade 
on Indica Rice. Besides, a large number of small scale rice farmers  who were making a living on 
Indica Rice exports would also be seriously affected – as Indica Rice was such a critical product that 
affect ed not only trade but also the national economy and people's livelihood in LDCs like Cambodia 
and Myanmar.  
5.31.   China hoped that the EU w ould reconsider the measure at matter on Indica Rice. Besides, 
WTO Rules should be observed.  
5.32.   The representative of Benin  associate d with the statement made by  the LDC Group. Given the 
importance of the rice sector in Cambodia in combatting po verty and ensuring food security, rural 
development and full involvement of women in th e country, Benin urge d the EU to reconsider the 
measures that it was applying on Indica Rice imports from Cambodia. Benin  recommend ed that 
negotiated bilateral solutions  be sought and that the current status of the LDCs which Cambodia 
enjoy ed be given priority and preferential treatment associated with that.  
5.33.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
6  PROCEDURES TO STRENG THEN THE NEGOTIATING  FUNCTION OF THE WTO  –
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES (W T/GC/W/757/R EV.1 AND 
WT/GC/W/764)  
6.1.  The Chair recall ed that Members had  had a discussion on th at item at their February meeting, 
and the delegation of the United States on 24 April had requested that th e item be again included 
in the current agenda  together with the two communications circulated in documents 
WT/GC/W/757/Rev.1 and WT/GC/W/764.  
6.2.  The representative of the United States  was pleased to continue the discussion of th at 
important reform initiative . As the Membership was aware, the United States in January had 
submitted a detailed paper on differentiation at the WTO. On that factual and analytic basis, the 
United States in February had submitted to the General Council a proposal to resolve the 
differentiation problem through a pragmatic approach that recogni zed the complexity of th e issue.  
6.3.  The US proposal establishe d objective criteria for determining whether a WTO Member could  
continue to avail itself of "special and differential treatment " in current and future WTO negotiations. 
The four criteria were: a WTO Member that was a Member of the OECD, or a WTO Member that ha d 
begun the accession process to the OECD;  a WTO Member that was a member of the G20;  a WTO 
Member that was designated as a "high income " country by the World Bank; or  a WTO Member that 
account ed for no less than 0.5 per  cent of global merchandise trade.  
6.4.  At the February meeting of the General Council, the United States  had been  encouraged by the 
generally constructive response from the Membership. Most of the speakers had acknowledged the 
problem and the need to reform, and they  had expressed their willingness to engage further on th at 
important topic.  That was how a good conversation beg an. 
6.5.  During the last 10 weeks, the United States  had begun to broaden and deepen th at 
conversation with Members not just in Geneva but also in capitals and in Washington. The United 
States  recogni zed that some capitals were not yet familiar with the issue and with the US proposal 
to resolve it.  
6.6.  The US proposal was already gaining important support.  In March, President Bolsonaro, during 
his visit with President Trump in Washington, had committed Brazil to forego special and different 
treatment in WTO negotiations in line with the US proposal. The Un ited States  applaud ed Brazil for 
its leadership and for its shared commitment to the viability of the WTO 's negotiating arm.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 28 - 
 
  6.7.  The discussions that the United States  were having with Members in capitals and in Washington 
were constructive, sincere and candid  – and they w ould continue.  
6.8.  The United States was  committed to th at effort because the differentiation problem should  be 
resolved if the WTO was to remain a relevant and viable negotiating forum. The United States  could 
not pretend th at the  problem d id not exist nor c ould it  wish it away by embracing empty affirmations 
of shared principles or gauzy calls for drawing inspiration from the past.  On the issue of 
differentiation, the WTO was mired in the past  – not inspired by it. The WTO need ed reform  – not 
sentimentality.  
6.9.  The United States then  said it wished to  respond to some of the comments and questions that 
it had heard from Members regarding its proposal.  
6.10.   First, a few Members ha d told the United States  that it would be impossible for them to change 
their declarations of developing country status. The United States  clarified  that the US  proposal d id 
not require any Member to change its declaration of its development status.  
6.11.   Second, some had been  peddling the view that under the US proposal S&D T would not be  
guaranteed for any Member , including LDCs. Th e claim appear ed intended to persuade LDCs and 
other Members that the United States  mean t to deprive the poorest Members among them of S&D T. 
The United States stressed that the claim was inaccurate.  
6.12.   The United States reiterate d its longstanding view that S&D T should be available to Members 
having difficulty integrating into the global trading system.  The US proposal w ould ensure that, in 
current and future WTO negotiations, S&D T would be available only for those  Members having such 
difficulty.  
6.13.   In addition, the proposal applie d to current and future WTO negotiations  and not to existing 
WTO Agreements and their S&D T provisions. To be clear , if a Member ha d the right to utili se an 
S&DT provision in an existing WTO Agreement, th at right w ould not be affected by the US proposal.  
6.14.   Concerning  the last sentence of the US proposal , it state d that, with respect to sector -specific 
negotiations, the draft Decision d id not preclude Members from reaching agreement that other 
Members in addition to those captured in the four categories  could  also be ineligible for special and 
differential treatment.  
6.15.   The sentence recogni zed the possibility that other Members could  be significant players in a 
specific sector. In a negotiation specif ic to that sector, it probably would be impossible to reach 
agreement on obligations that would apply to some significant players in that sector but not others.  
6.16.   It would also be difficult to argue that a significant player in that sector need ed special and  
differential treatment in that sector. If the significant players in a negotiation ha d no ambition, 
negotiating was fruitless.  
6.17.   Hypothetically speaking, i n a sector -specific negotiation, if there were four significant players 
in the sector and two of them sought S&DT  that would shield them from obligations that would apply 
to the other two significant players , agreement would be impossible.  No Member would take on a 
sector -specific obligation that would not apply to its competitors.  
6.18.   Third, a few Members ha d opined that the US proposal was focused on just one Member.  That 
was inaccurate  since its  concerns went far beyond just one Member. There were a large number of 
relatively wealthy, advanced and/or influential economies who would seek to avail themselves of 
S&DT in current and future WTO negotiations. A broad -based solution was required.  
6.19.   Finally, the United States  had heard a few Members suggest that the US proposal was 
"polari sing". They seem ed to believe th at was regrettable and a sign that they were on the wrong 
path. The United States thought just the opposite.  The US  proposal s ought  to address a problem 
that was hurting all  Members  especially  the poorest among them. Trade agreements that could open 
new opportunities for less developed Members and deepen their integration into the global trading 
system d id not materiali se because a good portion of the wealthier or more advanced economies WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 29 - 
 
  would not make trade liberali sing commitments that were commensurate with their status in the 
trading system.  
6.20.   To address th e problem, they should  ask th ose Members to forego such unjustified treatment 
in current and future negotiations. Th at was bound to cause s ome discomfort. It be came  easy for 
some among them to brand such requests as "polari sing". But if they avoid ed that discomfort and 
those difficult conversations, th e organization would be  left on a path toward irrelevance.  
6.21.   The United States looked forward to continuing to engage with Members on th at reform 
proposal.  
6.22.   The representative of Paraguay , on behalf of Argentina , Brazil , Colombia , Chile, Mexico , Peru, 
Uruguay  and Paraguay , reiterate d their position as stated at the previous General Council,  that 
development was a multidimensional concept as set forth in the WTO Agreements.  Recognition of 
the centrality of development should point to the various forms of implementation offered by the 
multilateral trading system to facilitate trade as a real e ngine of inclusive economic growth.  
6.23.   They consider ed S&DT as one of the essential tools that developing countries c ould use to 
achieve better and faster integration into the multilateral trading system.  
6.24.   They called on the Members to reflect on dealing with the development discourse with a focus 
that would enable implementation of S&DT  in a pragmatic manner, according to the needs of each 
Member, in negotiations on new areas. The countries that subscribe d to that statement support ed 
consensual solutions that result ed in balanced rights and obligations, and that ensure d that all 
Members benefit ed from free trade in goods and services.  
6.25.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , took note of the responses given by the 
United States at the last meeting of the General Council  and welcome d the announcements made 
regarding flexibilit ies mentioned by the United States. The LDC Group , however , express ed concern 
as the subjects of negotiatio n had been  suggested under  development and not within the CTD SS 
nor the TNC bearing in mind Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.  
6.26.   Furthermore, the LDCs  had serious concerns  regarding  those who were about t o graduate 
from LDC status , because of the proble ms which could hit LDCs that move d towards development 
status. Members should be engaged in a constructive fashion in the negotiations , including affording 
different levels of flexibility for developing and LDC Members on Agriculture and NAMA.  
6.27.   The right of developing countries and LDCs to gain access to relevant provisions on S&DT , 
such as those included in the WTO Agreements , had been  negotiated during the Uruguay Round and 
before that, on Part VI of the GATT. The foundation of th e organization relie d on the necessary 
flexibilities at all levels of development – even those that developed Members had benefited from. 
S&DT had also been enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement to be part and parcel of all WTO 
Agreements.  
6.28.   It was up to the Members to declare them selves as developing countries and to determine 
their needs and the way they resort ed to such provisions. Within the GATT and the Uruguay Round, 
the development status had been  intentionally not defined. Conversely, Members  continue d to have 
a working method to take into account the capacity constraints and other challenges they had. 
6.29.   The representative of  South Africa  noted the United States'  resubmission of its previous 
proposals  and did not believe that the General Council was the r ight forum to conduct th at kind of 
debate.  South Africa once again call ed on all Members to respect mu ltilateral mandates by ensuring 
that debates on development and S &DT did not undermine mandated negotiations. Paragraph 44 of 
the Doha Ministerial Declara tion provide d a clear mandate  – the CTD SS was the only mandated 
body for discussions of th at kind. South Africa found  it highly disturbing that certain Members would 
object to mandated negotiations in the CTD SS only to raise the very same issues in the G eneral 
Council  – a body which ha d no mandate in th at respect.  
6.30.   South Africa  emphasise d key points that it had been making on a consistent basis. S &DT in 
conjunction with the implementation issues remain ed key to unlocking the development component 
of the D oha Development Round and had been  identified as a priority in th at context. Yet t hat day, WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 30 - 
 
  more than ever, th at mandate was being questioned. Turning to the issue at hand, Mr. Robert B. 
Zoellick, then the President of the World Bank, in an address delivere d on 14 April 2010 at the 
Woodrow Wilson Centre for International Scholars, famously proclaimed the following: "If 1989 saw 
the end of the 'Second World ' with Communism 's demise, then 2009 saw the end of what was known 
as the 'Third World '…" Much like Francis Fukuyama 's false herald of the "end of history ", Mr. Zoellick 's 
premature obituary to the "third world " suffer ed from the same defect . 
6.31.   Very early on in the GATT era, Contracting Parties had taken  steps to accommodate specific 
concerns of  developing countries prevailing at that time in order to better meet their development 
needs and objectives. During th at time, developing countries  had sought to emphasise the 
uniqueness of their development problems and challenges and had called for trea tment that would 
be different and more favourable than had been  provided in the GATT 1947. Indeed, it  had made 
sense to allow developing countries not to liberalise their own trade and to be granted preferential 
access to developed country markets. Th at had been  no different from exemptions accorded to 
developed countries from general trade rules often times to the detriment of developing countries.  
6.32.   In many areas where WTO rules appl ied, one c ould detect reverse S &DT in favour of 
developed countries. There  was no rationale or justification for the egregious and deleterious 
consequences that such flexibilities ha d had for developing countries in areas where they ha d 
comparative advantages. In so far as the issue of S&DT  under the WTO Agreements was concerned , 
serious questions ha d been posed whether developed countries ha d lived up to the spirit of 
commitments identified in WTO Agreements. The preamble of the Agreement establishing the WTO 
called for "the need for positive efforts to ensure that developing an d least developed countries 
secure a share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic 
development ". For over two decades , the pledge to reform agricultural trade ha d fallen on deaf ears . 
Market access for developing countries was still undermined by application of unclear and non -
transparent tariff protection, tariff escalation, high domestic support and stringent SPS measures.  
6.33.   The effects of such measures were clearly present under the Agreement on Agriculture . Many 
developed countries had been  given special treatment through large bound Aggregate Measures of 
Supports, more affectionately known as "trade -distorting domestic supports " while developing 
countries had bound their AMS to zero . The result was that they could at present  only provide AMS 
supports limited by their 'de minimis ' supports. Th at had not been a voluntary choice on the side of 
developing countries since at that time they had not provide d that kind of support and had been  
otherwise constrained by structural adjustment conditions. Clearly , a lack of capacity had been  a 
main driver of th at kind of outcome yet they were then  asked to make the same kind of commitment 
in fisheries subsidies negotiations where capping proposals b ore an uncanny resemblanc e to de 
minimis outcomes under domestic support. Such an outcome w ould tend to lock in the level of 
subsidies that big subsidisers provide d even if certain cuts were undertaken whil e most developing 
countries were locked into an absolute ceiling with no fl exibility to sustainably increase their 
subsidies over time in order to address their development needs. Such an outcome would be 
manifestly anti -development and unfair.  
6.34.   South Africa  emphasise d the importance of the principle of self -selection which in its elf was 
an expression of the principle of sovereignty. More than two thirds of the WTO Members were 
developing countries. There wa s no agreed definition of what was to be considered a "developed " or 
a "developing " Member . It was  the right of every Member t o decide which category was most 
appropriate for itself  and not for any other Member to impose criteria for graduation.  
6.35.   The representative of Brazil  noted that  development ha d been at the centr e of discussions at 
the WTO  in the past months . That was its rightful place as development was one of the main 
objectives of the multilateral trading system. Although perspectives var ied on how to translate 
development objectives into solution -oriented approaches, no delegation ha d ever questioned the 
centrali ty of development to the WTO in the comprehensive and detailed debates on the matter. 
That was encouraging and it should support Members'  efforts to have meaningful development -
related deliverables at the next Ministerial  Conference . 
6.36.   On S&DT, Brazil recall ed that flexibilities had been  the outcome of extensive negotiations in 
the past and should not be revisited. The record of such provisions also show ed that they ha d varied 
according to the agreements and to the level of development of groups of countries,  including 
examples such as in the Agreement on Safeguards – exemptions for developing countries from 
safeguards applied depending on the level of their exports; in the Agreement on Agriculture – higher WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 31 - 
 
  percentage of domestic support; in the TRIPS and othe r agreements – longer timeframes for 
implementation of commitments and in the TFA – developing countries had been  able to associate 
compliance with deadlines to the provision of technical assistance. Furthermore, a ny discussion on 
development and on S &DT should take into consideration the special needs of the LDCs.  
6.37.   As exemplified, S &DT was a dynamic tool that ha d evolved and that ha d taken many forms. 
Against th at background, on March 19, in the context of a recent bilateral visit to Washington, 
President Bolsonaro and President Trump had issued a joint communiqu é. In line with Brazil' s 
understanding of S &DT as a concrete and evolving mechanism, the communiqu é indicated that Brazil 
would begin to for ego S&DT  in WTO negotiations. Th at understanding expressed at the highest 
political level w ould guide Brazil in its participation in their ongoing discussions and negotiations.  
6.38.   The representative of  Japan  recalled what i t had said at the February General Council meeting  
regarding the importance of  the concern raised by the United States.  
6.39.   Developing countries ma de up two thirds of the WTO Membership . It was undeniable that 
they were far from uniform in terms of their respe ctive development levels. Members  should 
therefore  take into consideration the individual situations and needs of developing countries when 
engaging in th e discussion.  
6.40.   As Japan  had stated on various occasions, taking a pragmatic approach would be an effect ive 
way forward. A pragmatic approach was one where Members discuss ed S&DT in each negotiation 
individually and specifically so that the necessary S&DT w ould be granted to the Members who 
genuinely need ed such treatment.  
6.41.   Certain developing Members had recently stated that they w ould not seek S&DT in ongoing 
or future negotiations. Japan  expect ed that that  would give momentum to Members'  development 
discussion . Japan was ready to engage in th at discussion in a constructive manner.  
6.42.   The representative of the  European Union  firmly believe d that development was a central 
pillar of th e organi zation.  At the same time, the current crude distinction between developed and 
developing countries no longer reflect ed the reality of the rapid economic growth in some  developing 
countries. Members  should therefore continue to work on S&DT  with a view to ensuring that 
flexibilities were made available to those Members who actually need ed them.  
6.43.   The EU d id not contest the right of  Members to self -designate themselves as d eveloped or 
developing countries.  Members should  however  continue to explore options to encourage themselves  
to undertake full commitments in ongoing and future WTO negotiations.  
6.44.   If the organi zation was to prosper, future differentiation should  become muc h more granular 
in function of an individual Member's demonstrated needs and capacities. Negotiations predicated 
on a crude distinction between developed, developing and least developed were bound to fail. Future 
differentiation should be designed in terms  of specific individual country needs at the sectoral or 
activity level rather than calling for a block exemption of a large category of Members. Furthermore, 
the EU consider ed that each developing country's need for S &DT should be assessed on a case-by-
case and evidence -based basis.  
6.45.   S&DT should focus on providing more time to implement commitments to those who need ed 
it rather than being exempted from obligations and on providing assistance where it was needed. 
The emphasis of WTO negotiations sh ould be on trade facilitation and liberalization instead of carve -
outs. Flexibilities w ould still be available but they should  respond to each Member's needs. The 
notable exception should be the LDCs who deserve d particular treatment and who in any case ha d 
a graduation mechanism.  
6.46.   The EU  was open to discuss and help other Members with the difficulties they face d and 
already provide d considerable development assistance to help developing countries, in particular 
LDCs, achieve their development objectives.  
6.47.   There was a strong need to reform S &DT and the EU  was open to discuss several proposals. 
In the end , Members  should find a solution that c ould be supported by all of them . In that respect, 
the EU was supportive to the initiative taken by Norway to facilitate  a discussion among Members WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 32 - 
 
  on the development issues – particularly looking for a pragmatic and solution -orientated approach 
on development and differential treatment focusing on current and future negotiations.  
6.48.   The representative of  China  had carefully listened to the explanation of the United States  on 
the re -submission of the US document. China fully  unders tood the importance of  S&DT  for 
developing Members , but would  not make a substantive comment at the moment  because its 
position ha d not changed since the last General Council meeting. China's comment would only focus 
on a procedural issue.  
6.49.   Having to address th e same document already discussed at the previous  General Council 
meeting  remind ed him of what career choice he had  made years ago. He respect ed his middle school 
teacher and liked a lot the literature that he had  learned that time. For example, Jack London's "Love 
of Life" and Hemingway's "Old Man and the Sea". He could still remember the lines from them such 
as "a man can be des troyed but not defeated".  Despite his passion for literature, he had not chose n 
the career of teaching it because he had not want ed to talk about the same text year after year  – 
but he  underst ood that th at was what was necessary to build memory.  
6.50.   As a trad e negotiator, what attract ed him was that Members  constantly face d new challenges 
in international trade – although it could take  time to address some of them. In th at process, 
everyone c ould have their own views. For example, that China was a developing Member was a 
position he could not and w ould not change but he would not take out his speaking notes from the 
last meeting and re -read it. He believed that Members did not want him to do that. Every time 
Members  discuss ed, even if their positions remain ed the same, they needed to come up with new 
arguments or address the issues from different perspectives. Simply recycling documents and 
arguments was like having warmed up cabbage served at each dinner. Th at would soon make 
Members  lose appeti te in the discussions.  
6.51.   Lately, there ha d been a lot of UK Parliamentary debate on B rexit on television. He very much 
liked the style and the ways of H.E. John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons of the 
United Kingdom. He ha d made an important deci sion – that the Government c ould not send the 
Brexit deal back for a third vote in Parliament immediately unless substantial changes were made 
to it. It was based on a Parliamentary Rule set in the 17th Century requiring that a motion or 
amendment which was the same in substance or something already voted on should not be brought 
forward again in a session for the Parliament. Members  should perhaps consider having similar rules 
to ensure the quality of their discussions.  
6.52.   The representative of  India was disappointed by th e resubmission by the U nited States  of its 
paper presented earlier and the slant of the communications tabled by it in WT/GC/W/757/Rev.1 
and WT/GC/W/764 on the sensitive issue of development. Upon taking up the matter of the Appellate 
Body, the United States had  repeated its statement made at the previous  General Council  meeting  
and then Members  had a repeat of a paper the United States had earlier presented. India asked 
what was going on and if there was no sign or chance of progress.  
6.53.   India reiterate d its position stated in the previous  General Council  meeting  that S&DT  for 
developing and LDC Members  was an unconditional right. S&DT  recogni zed the enormous difference 
in the levels of development between different Members and allow ed developing Members the space 
to formulate domestic trade policy to reduce poverty, generate employment and integrate 
meaningfully into the global trading system. Over the past five decades, th at had formed the basis 
for the concept of S &DT and less than full r eciprocity under the GATT and the WTO  and Members 
needed to firmly keep th at in mind.  
6.54.   While developing Members ha d achieved progress in some economic indicators since the 
inception of the WTO, old gaps were far from being bridged or ha d even widened while  new divides 
had emerged especially in the digital and technological spheres. In view of the gaping divide between 
their levels of development, it would be grossly unfair and iniquitous if developing countries had 
been required to take the same obligations as developed countries. Further, as had been pointed 
out by UNCTAD, most S &DT provisions in the WTO covered agreements were imprecise, 
unenforceable and in the form of best endeavour clauses . The assertion that onerou s S&DT 
obligations were making the WTO irrelevant was therefore  untenable.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 33 - 
 
  6.55.   While Members c ould declare themselves as developing, the specific rights and obligations 
were still subject to negotiations . Claiming that WTO rules appl ied only to a few develope d countrie s 
was further from the truth. As had been  pointed out  earlier , there exist ed several reverse S &DT 
provisions in the covered agreements providing explicit carveouts to developed Members benefitting 
them at the expense of developing ones. Those included waiver from some of the key obligations 
especially in the area of agriculture and textiles, sectors of export interest for LDCs and developing 
countries for almost forty years.  
6.56.   It was also incorrect to blame the self -declaration of development statu s as a reason for the 
lack of progress in negotiations. In fact, negotiations were stalled in the WTO due to the inability of 
the developed Members to abide by the agreed negotiating mandates of the WTO round and progress 
made thereunder.  
6.57.   In view of the a bove, India c ould not agree to the premises of the US papers and also share d 
the view expressed by South Africa that the G eneral Council  was not the right forum for th at debate 
and the mandate of Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration need ed to be respected.  India 
also cautioned that  efforts to raise such a divisive issue at a difficult time for the WTO was not only 
going to be polari sing but also put Members  at risk of a gigantic train wreck.  
6.58.   The representative of Australia,  interven ing on items 6 and 7 , said that  Australia's 
longstanding perspective ha d been that fostering and supporting all Members' participation in global 
trade as a tool for economic development was a fundamental part of WTO work.  
6.59.   S&DT c ould support the integration of developi ng countries into the multilateral trading 
system. The global economy in which Members  currently operate d was however different in many 
ways to when th e organization was founded. A one -size-fits-all approach to S&DT was unlikely to be 
workable or effective  in facilitating full participation in the global trading system.  
6.60.   S&DT w ould be more effective if tailored to particular contexts on a needs basis enabling 
Members to make commitments commensurate with their capacity to do so. It w ould be important 
for Me mbers to adopt a creative and solution -oriented approach to their discussions on th at 
important issue especially in the context of current negotiations.  
6.61.   The representative of Argentina,  interven ing on items 6 and 7 , said that  trade and 
development ha d been relevant  for Argentina  throughout the history of the GATT and the WTO. 
Development was multi -dimensional  and Members  needed to be creative. There were variables which 
could be conducive to striking a balance between rights and obligations among a diverse 
Membership. Argentina therefore  underscore d on specific agreements  and p lurilateral approaches 
could be an example to be taken into account.  
6.62.   It was equally important to focus on pragmatic, innovative and alternative approaches in each 
area of negotiation.  One size d id not therefore  fit all. For example, in the current negotiations on 
fisheries subsidies, some delegations including Australia and the United States ha d put forward 
creative proposals beyond traditional aspects which t ook into account specific areas, main players 
and challenges. On th at basis, future negotiations and other trade areas c ould also have flexibilities 
with a view to addressing the rules of the WTO on the one hand and the multilateral trading system 
as a whole while adequately addres sing specific current realities.  
6.63.   Argentina  agree d with some of the aspects in the document presented by Norway in that it 
was important to look at the outcome of negotiations and the rights and obligations of Members.  
6.64.   The representative of Pakistan  said t hat development and prosperity for its people were real 
aims of  every country. Every country  also had the right  to make policies for its own development. 
The same principle ha d been recogni zed and enshrined in WTO rules. The right to S&DT was 
unconditional  and non -negotiable – one which ha d to be exercised by every country itself as it 
deem ed appropriate.  
6.65.   There were no changes in the submissions by the United States since the last General Council  
meeting . Unfortunately, there was likewise no change in Pakistan's  position. Pakistan therefore 
recalled the statement it made  on 27 February on th e same  agenda item  and believe d that the CTD 
SS was the most appropriate forum for such discussion.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 34 - 
 
  6.66.   The representative of Egypt  recall ed Egypt's  statement on the subject at the February  General 
Council meeting. The focus on categorization of Members was not the way to better  serve the WTO's 
future. Focus should be placed on pragmatic solutions to effectively implement and operationali se 
S&DT. Members  also need ed to differentiate between the existing agreements which ha d clear 
mandate s and the future ones bearing in mind development as a key component of the WTO.  
6.67.   As Members were aware, there were six identified different categories of S&DT provisions 
within the existing  agreements  including fifteen aimed at increasing the trade opportunities of 
developing country Members. Egypt would like to understand how th at approach w ould help 
implement Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration or would at least  enable developing countries to 
increase the ir participation in the international  trading system. All Members should  therefore  engage 
constructively to resolve the current impasse in the CTD SS.  
6.68.   In new negotiations, Members should  consider developing coun tries' specific needs and 
challenges. The process of trade liberalization sh ould take place with due respect for national policy 
objectives and the level of development of individual Members – both overall and  in individual 
sectors. Appropriate flexibility  should therefore  be given in or der to help developing and LDC 
Members to utilise any future WTO outcome as a catalyst for reform.  
6.69.   Egypt reaffirm ed its commitment to facilitate all the functions of the WTO as enshrined  in 
Article III of the Marrakesh Agre ement establishing the World Trade Organization.  
6.70.   The representative of United States  said that it had  listened intently to the comment of China 
and appreciate d the desire of China to make sure that agendas were current. The United States said 
that China c ould perhaps  reflect on its CTD proposals WT/COMTD/W/ 192 and WT/COMTD/W/ 208 
which ha d remained unchanged and ha d been on the CTD agenda for close to a decade – and by 
China's measures , Members  had nine years to go on th at one. 
6.71.   The representative of China  noted that its  previous comment had focused on the resubmission 
of the same document the United States had previously submitted . China had  listened carefully to 
the intervention made by the United States.  If the United States ha d submitted the statement it had 
made that day i ncorporat ing some of the response s to the questions and concerns raised by 
Members, although China  could  have had a  different view on them, the information would be  useful  
and, in that case , China  would have had refrain ed from making its previous comment.  
6.72.   The representative of the United States  appreciate d that clarification from China. The United 
States  pointed out that it was its understanding that China ha d submitted a proposal for more than 
a decade in the CTD that ha d remained unc hanged since its initial submission. As regards the current 
agenda item, the United States said that it had  heard a number of comments at the General Council 
meeting in February  which it had taken on board. Through its intervention that day, the United 
States had tried  to respond to th e comments it had  heard and to help clarify its proposal. That was 
one of the reasons why the United States had  re-submitted it to the General Council.  
6.73.   The representative of South Africa  pointed out that China's proposal was mandated whereas 
the United States' was not.  
6.74.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
7  PURSUING THE DEVELOP MENT DIMENSION IN WT O RULE -MAKING EFFORT S –
COMMUNICATION FROM N ORWAY, ICELAND, NEW ZEALAND, SINGAPORE A ND 
SWITZERLAND (WT/GC/W /770/REV.2)  
7.1.  The Chair  said that the delegation of Norway had requested the Secretariat to include th e item 
in the agenda  of the meeting together with the communication circulated in document 
WT/GC/W/770. A revision to the submission  had been  issued to add Iceland;  New Z ealand;  
Singapore and Switzerland as co -sponsors. She underst ood that Canada;  Hong Kong , China and 
Mexico ha d also joined the list of the co -sponsors and a new revised version w ould be circulated 
soon7. 
                                                
7 The revised version of the communication was subsequently circulated in WT/GC/W/770 /Rev.3.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 35 - 
 
  7.2.  The representative of Norway  present ed the communication in document WT/GC/W/770/Rev.2.  
He said that t he organization face d serious challenges in all three pillars : the dispute settlement 
system, the follow up of existing agreements and the negotiating pillar. Th e paper was related to 
the last pilla r and was motivated by deep concern about Members' collective difficulty in achieving 
multilateral results.  
7.3.  The paper focuse d on trade and development including S&DT  not because they saw the issue 
to be the only reason behind Members ' difficulties in the n egotiating pillar but because th e issue was 
one of the most important and challenging ones that influence d Members ' deliberations on most 
issues under negotiation.  
7.4.  The issue ha d represented a challenge for the Membership for a long time. But recent 
exchang es on th e matter ha d strengthened Norway' s view that there was an urgent need to explore 
alternative approaches. The negotiating track was in danger of deadlock with potentially serious 
consequences for the rules -based multilateral trading system based in the WTO.  
7.5.  Unless Members found a way forward, they would not be able to deliver results on any 
multilateral negotiations. Their aim with th e paper was to promote – and hopefully stimulate – an 
open, pragmatic dialogue on how Members  collectively accommodate d the development dimension 
in current and future negotiations. They needed to focus on what commitments Members were ready 
to take on and how S&D T could be designed to address the development challenges Members were 
facing in each area under negotiation.  
7.6.  Development was at the heart of the WTO and S&DT  was one of the fundamental principles 
embedded in WTO Agreements.  S&DT  was an instrument to enable development through trade, to 
make trade an "engine for development ". At the same time , S&DT was an importan t element in the 
common search for a negotiated balance of rights and obligations. Properly designed S&D T should 
play a constructive role in promoting both the progress of the multilateral trading system and the 
sustainable development of the developing Members within it.  
7.7.  The paper highlight ed a number of examples o n how development concerns ha d been 
accommodated in various agreements. Many other examples could have been highlighted  including 
those in the  comprehensive compilation produced by the Secretaria t in WT/COMTD/W/239.  
7.8.  The examples demonstrate d that S&DT took  many forms and cover ed the entire range of WTO 
Agreements  – from the principle of non -reciprocity in GATT Part IV to the creative and innovative 
approach agreed to in the Trade Facilitation Agre ement. Not all of the examples provided were 
explicitly labelled S&D T in the agreements but since the legal architecture in those cases allow ed for 
the accommodation of development concerns, th ose examples were relevant as well.  
7.9.  The examples were not meant to be exhaustive nor were they blueprints to be copied in the 
future. They however  serve d as an inspiration and as lessons Members could  draw on when 
negotiating new rules that also accommodate d the development dimension.  
7.10.   While the principle o f S&D T was firmly embedded and should not be put into question, there 
was not one single pre -defined operational S&D T modality that c ould be applied horizontally to every 
subject under negotiation. What was practical and possible in one area could  not be p ractical or 
possible in another one. Members  could not predefine the result of a negotiation. It ha d to be 
negotiated in a specific context  – not in the abstract.  
7.11.   While working on th e paper, the proponents  had engaged extensively with other Members 
and wer e grateful to those who ha d engaged with them in a constructive way. Generally, they had 
found that Members share d thei r fundamental concerns and wish ed to search for pathways out of 
the current situation.  
7.12.   Some questions and concerns ha d been raised as we ll. One recurring question ha d been 
whether the proponents  argue d for a case -by-case approach. Interestingly, Members seem ed to 
have different views about what a case -by-case approach actually entail ed. 
7.13.   Some express ed concern that they could  end up being left alone in providing documentation 
of their needs for S&D T and having to defend their interests in something that resemble d a WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 36 - 
 
  request/offer process with all other Members. Concerns related to the legal certainty of S&D T 
provisions  had also  been raised  – whether access to agreed S&D T provisions could  be conditional.  
Norway assured Members that it was not its intention.  
7.14.   There was nothing in the communication to the General Council that should be interpreted as 
suggesting that Norway was propo sing some kind of request/offer process or that access to agreed 
provisions should  go through some kind of notification and question/answer process of approval.  As 
Norway  had already emphasised, the paper underscore d the great variety in form and content o f 
S&DT provisions Members ha d negotiated in the past and that was what Members  should foresee 
for the future as well. S&D T should  be crafted and operationali sed depending on the area under 
negotiation.  
7.15.   The paper d id not suggest any fundamental change in th e way Members  negotiate d. Members 
would continue to be free to create alliances and collaborate with other  Members  with similar 
challenges and shared interests and ambitions. No changes to existing agreements were proposed.  
The fundamental point was that m ultilateral results c ould not be pre -defined. Results should  be 
negotiated not in the abstract but in relation to the specific and concrete subject under negotiation.  
7.16.   The paper expresse d doubts about the usefulness of negotiating a set of objective criteria for 
access to S&D T. LDCs however represent ed a separate category and there was consensus that the 
special treatment of LDCs should be maintained. Any other attempt at categorization were not likely 
to achieve consensus and risk ed distracting the Membership 's energy and attention away from what 
really matter ed. 
7.17.   What really matter ed was what commitments Members were ready to take on and how S&D T 
could be designed to address the developmen t challenges Members were facing in each area under 
negotiation. Development concerns ha d been addressed in many different ways in the past. Norway 
invite d Members to seek inspiration from th at experience as they engage d in current and future 
negotiations.  There was a lot at stake.  
7.18.   The representative of Switzerland  had co-sponsored the communication presented by Norway 
because the discussion that th e document call ed for aim ed to take the heat out of the debate in 
pursuit of realistic and pragmatic solutions . Switzerland then  highlight ed a number of elements that 
it felt should guide the discussion.  
7.19.   It seem ed clear that the development dimension approach to the work of the WTO, including 
S&DT , should  be thoroughly reviewed if Members  wished to be in a position to conclude new 
multilateral agreements.  
7.20.   The paper that it was  co-sponsoring show ed that there were numerous means and approaches 
for expressing the concept of S&D T in concrete terms. The instruments therefore exist ed and 
Members  shoul d use them in the way best suited to the circumstances of particular negotiations  – 
where c reativity could  be required at times.  
7.21.   Those instruments c ould obviously be used to determine the respective levels of engagement 
of Members according to their develo pment needs and their capacity to contribute to the multilateral 
trading system. Indeed, a country that ha d just graduated from LDC status c ould not be expected 
to contribute as much as a competitive economy that was far more advanced from all points of vi ew. 
7.22.   It would also be futile to try to define a priori abstract criteria for determining the levels of 
commitment of developing Members.  With the exception of the LDCs for which S&D T should  be 
maintained, it was not categorization that was important so much  as the binding commitments that 
each Member was in a position to make in the various fields that were or w ould be the subject of 
negotiations.  
7.23.   As Members  had seen, the instruments for modulating commitments according to needs and 
capacities were available  and it should be possible to find new ones for tackling unfamiliar situations. 
What matter ed was that the implementation of th ose instruments  made  it possible to achieve 
balanced, transparent and predictable results  – the goal being the best participation  possible of 
developing Members in the trading system.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 37 - 
 
  7.24.   The representative of Canada  welcome d the paper submitted by Norway and was  pleased to 
co-sponsor it . The paper was overall constructive and br ought  forward a number of pragmatic 
suggestions for the way forward. It was in the spirit of the various WTO reform discussions taking 
place amongst Members. Canada s tood ready to engage in deepening discussions and advance on 
those new grounds in order to make sure that development remain ed an engine of growt h and that 
it remain ed at the heart of the multilateral trading system.  
7.25.   The representative of Iceland  support ed the paper presented by  Norway entitled, " Pursuing 
the development dimension in WTO rule -making efforts ". Iceland share d the concerns expressed b y 
the No rway regarding Members'  collective difficulty of delivering multilateral outcomes  and saw the 
paper as a constructive approach to addressing some of the key challenges they currently faced as 
an organi zation.  
7.26.   Development was one of the core princi ples of the WTO and S&DT wa s the tool through which 
the organization  aimed to ensure that all its Members benefit ed from trade. It was important that 
Members  found a way of constructively addressing S&DT focusing on how S&D T provisions c ould be 
designed in a manner that addresse d the development challenges Members face d – so that they 
could continue to negotiate multilateral outcomes that benefit ed all. 
7.27.   Iceland thanked  Norway for the work it had undertaken to contribute to a constructive 
conversation among Members about how the development dimension, including S&DT, c ould best 
be pursued in WTO rulemaking efforts. The paper  had looked at how S&DT ha d been dealt with 
previously  – providing tools f or creative and pragmatic approaches for Members  to take inspiration 
from and  to engage with each other  in order to understand the ir concerns better.  
7.28.   The paper provide d a constructive and useful approach for bringing their discussion forward. 
Iceland  hoped that  the paper w ould be the start of a constructive dialogue on how the development 
dimension, including S&DT , could best be pursued in WTO rulemaking efforts.   
7.29.   The representative of Mexico  support ed the statement of Paraguay made on behalf of a Group 
of Latin American Countries under Item 6. At the February General Council meeting, Mexico had 
raised a series of elements that ha d to be taken into account for a discussion on S&DT. At that time, 
Mexico  noted that it was important to recogni ze that the circumstances ha d changed both in the way 
business was done as well as there ha d been a change in the main trading players.  
7.30.   It was also important to recogni ze that a single approach for all developing coun tries w ould 
not be functional either because it was said in the document that was being presented to Members 
that there was a great diversity of levels of development, sensitivities and priorities that ha d to be 
taken into account. Given the well -known pos itions of Members, they had to avoid a discussion that 
would detract them from consensus -building. They should  focus on pragmatic and forward -looking 
approaches. They could  take as a reference point and a source of inspiration negotiating approaches 
which had been successful in the past such as the Agreement on Trade Facilitation.  
7.31.   The document  presented by Norway reflect ed the ideas and the position that Mexico had 
expressed at the previous meeting. That was why it had  co-sponsored th e document. Mexico  shared 
the spirit behind th ose ideas that s ought  to contribute in a constructive way and build bridges 
between the different positions expressed in February and that they had just heard t hat day. The 
challenges before the organization were vast and varied.  
7.32.   Regarding the negotiations, Members should  work more pragmatically because if they would 
not do that, it would mean ignoring the new realities and the specific needs of each Member – two 
tenets that ha d to always prevail. Mexico d id not run away from th e debate nor from its 
responsibilities in th e organization. Any discussion on flexibilities in current and future negotiations 
should  be led in full recognition of th ose two tenets and that ha d to be enshrined in the result and 
the level of ambition of the ne gotiations.  
7.33.   The representative of Singapore  strongly support ed Norway's submission on pursuing the 
development dimension in WTO rulemaking efforts  and was pleased to co -sponsor it. The paper 
rightly state d that aiming at consensus on a negotiated set of cr iteria for when the developing 
Member should have access to S&DT was neither realistic nor necessarily useful. The question should 
rather be o n how S&DT should be designed to address the development challenges Members were WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 38 - 
 
  facing. As highlighted in Singapo re's statement at the February General Council meeting, 
development was a multidimensional and complex issue. Members  could not ignore their differing 
circumstances. It was more important and meaningful to look at Members' commitments, obligations 
and cont ributions at the WTO.  
7.34.   Second, there was more tha n one way to skin the cat. Norway's paper clearly show ed that 
S&DT t ook many forms and cover ed the entire range of WTO Agreements and ma de the case 
convincingly that th at should inspire Members  to explore how  the development dimension including 
S&DT c ould best be pursued in a pragmatic and creative manner in current and future negotiations. 
Taking fresh and creative approaches to S&DT w ould require Members to demonstrate political will 
and negotiate in good fa ith. Singapore look ed forward to engaging in a constructive dialogue on th at 
issue.  
7.35.   Third, Members  should  ultimately rebuild trust among the mselves  if they wanted discussions 
to move forward at the WTO – be it on development or any other issue. Some Members ha d 
commented that Norway's submission d id not provide any assurance that Members would engage in 
a more constructive discussion on S&DT. In th at connection, Singapore  share d a quote by Benjamin 
Franklin: "in this world, nothing can be set to be certain except death and taxes." As such, instead 
of waiting for any such assurances or guarantees,  Members should engage in a constructive 
conversation on useful proposa ls in good faith while remaining open to fresh and creative 
approaches. Th at wa s the only way to make progress and revitalise the WTO. Singapore associate d 
with the statement to be made by  ASEAN on development . 
7.36.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  welcom ed Norway' s communication which 
represent ed a pragmatic approach in taking forward the development dimension in  WTO 
negotiations . Hong Kong, China was  pleased to see th at positive input to the present discussions 
and was  happy to join as a co -sponsor of th e paper.  
7.37.   Various papers circulated by Members as well as the exchanges that had taken  place at the 
previous General Council meeting ha d clearly shown that the designation of development status and 
the related claim of S&DT were systemic issues of interest to the entire WTO Membership.   
7.38.   While informed debates would enhance  Members'  understanding on the subject, they should 
stay focused on their objectives for the multilateral trading system  – an important one among which 
was to ensure the widest possible in tegration of Members into negotiations for progressive trade 
liberali zation.  Hong Kong, China wa s open to discussing alternative approaches that could  better 
drive further commitments from Members at various stages of development.  
7.39.   Norway' s communication pl aced due emphas is on the pertinent role of S&DT in particular for 
LDCs. It suggest ed that negotiating the criteria for Members ' access to S&DT would be neither 
realistic nor necessarily useful. While the paper ha d not proposed a concrete solution, it dr ew 
Members ' attention to the different formats of S&DT that ha d been adopted over the years under 
different WTO Agreements. Th e open-ended approach help ed encourage all Members to continue to 
explore solutions that would respond to the opportunities and chal lenges currently faced by all 
Members.  
7.40.   The paper was going in the right direction and provide d a good basis for further meaningful 
discussions. Hong Kong, China  called on Members to remain open to new ideas and refrain from 
pursuing polari sed debates that did not have a real prospect of reaching consensus.  
7.41.   The representative of New Zealand  was pleased to co -sponsor Norway's paper. The issue of 
development and S&DT ha d been a longstanding issue of debate in th e organization. It was a 
complex issue which thre atened to become only more divisive. Papers submitted by other Members 
on th e issue ha d raised salient points. It was time to have a constructive debate focused on 
pragmatic solutions. New Zealand  had co-sponsored the paper because it believe d that discuss ions 
on development and S&DT necessarily involve d a range of perspectives. Th e paper helpfully provide d 
examples of the diverse approaches to S&DT taken in th e organization which illustrate d that point.  
7.42.   For New Zealand, S&DT was an instrument to enable development through trade, as Norway 
had said, to make trade an engine for development. When appropriately designed and tailored, S&DT 
should contribute to sustainable development and progress in advancing the multilateral trading WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 39 - 
 
  system. New Zealand  agree d with Norway's point that what really matter ed was what commitments 
Members were ready to take on and how S&DT c ould be designed to address the real development 
challenges Members were facing in each area under negotiation.  
7.43.   New Zealand ha d consistently su pported S&DT where its response to identified needs was 
targeted and proportional where it d id not undermine core WTO principles of liberalization and non -
discrimination and where it support ed the integration of developing countries into the multilateral 
trading system.  
7.44.   As a number of Members ha d mentioned t hat day  in relation to the previous item, S&DT 
should be tailored to the specific challenges faced by the Member. Members knew that s mall island 
developing States for example face d particular challenges associated with scale and distance.  
7.45.   Norway ma de an important point about what its paper was not intended to do. The tailored 
approach was not intended to create legal uncertainty or overly burdensome processes to accessing 
S&DT. It was intended to achieve  a tailored approach based on needs and special circumstances.  
The approach was not a reinvention of the wheel so to speak and reflect ed practices that they had 
applied already. The approach represent ed a pragmatic shift on the conversation and  New Zealand  
looked forward to engaging with all Members on th e issue.  
7.46.   The representative of Turkey  intervened on  items 6 and 7. S&D T was an indispensable 
principle of the WTO rulebook. It ha d been an integral part of the WTO Agreements and negotiations 
since the beginning.  The paper 's approach in underlining the importance of th ose elements was 
highly welcome d. Turkey  appreciate d the overall positive tone of the paper's narrative  and thanked 
Norway for its efforts in preparing the paper.  
7.47.   The current WTO Agreements ha d been agreed on the basis of  the single undertaking 
principle. S&D T had been part of th at single package.  At the 3 May Informal TNC meeting , Turkey 
had drawn attention to the fact that the integral parts of what had been agreed in 1994 was then 
coming to the table as separate issues. Members  could not deny that such dynamic ha d generated 
a certain momentum. Revising the approach on S&D T provisions was one of those issues. In the 
absence of  consensus, many countries bec ame apprehensive in the face of th at momentum for 
different reasons.  
7.48.   The WTO Agreements ha d been adopted by developing Members on the condition that there 
would be S&D T for developing Members and on the understanding t hat a Member's status of 
development would be self -designated.  Norway's  paper was drafted in a way as if it propose d a 
reverse approach  such that e ven if Members d id not give up their developing status they would still 
give up their ability to have direct access to S&D T provisions.  
7.49.   With th at approach  and without clarity on their status , developing Members could  find 
themselves in separate negotiations on each of the S&D T provisions which they had already secured 
during the establishment of  the multilateral  trading  system. How to avoid an endless loophole of 
"negotiation and discussion intensive processes " would be another question. It also ha d the potential 
to risk current rights of developing countries within the covered agreements . The objective ha d 
alway s been to further integrate developing countries and LDC s into the multilateral trad ing system  
– not to narrow  down  their existing rights in current agreements.  
7.50.   In the previous  General Council  meeting , Turkey had stated that it  remain ed open-minded to 
talking about finding solutions to update the rulebook where necessary or to introduce new rules 
where needed.  It had  also underlined that it would be more positive if Members  went back to the 
negotiating topics and to what c ould be done in th ose topics in a r ealistic manner taking into account 
the capacity of each Member to undertake new commitments. Turkey  maintain ed that view.  
7.51.   The paper le ft the door open on how to carry on the discussion on development – which was 
the key question there. Arriving at an understanding on how Members  should move forward with 
those discussions, including development, w ould be critical.  In that overall balance, Turkey w ould 
follow and assess ideas and continue to contribute to the discussion on how to res pond to the 
challenges facing the organization.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 40 - 
 
  7.52.   The representative of Afghanistan  said that  the communication and the follow up discussions 
could contribute to a constructive dialogue among Members on how the development dimension 
including S&DT c ould best be pursued in the WTO framework. Afghanistan  had communicated the 
paper to its capital and reserve d its right to comment on th e matter upon receiving the corresponding 
instructions . Furthermore, Afghanistan  recall ed and reaffirm ed its  general stateme nt on S&DT 
delivered on the February General Council meeting.  
7.53.   The representative of Uruguay  considered the paper to be a positive and constructive 
contribution to the discussions at hand.  Uruguay  concur red that the issue of development should 
continue to be at the centre of WTO work as Members had all agreed.  Uruguay  highlight ed the 
opportunity to have a constructive discussion on how best the S&DT pri nciple c ould be put into 
practice in current and future negotiations to make rational use of th at mechanism and to properly 
address the needs of the Members with a view to ensuring their full and effective participation in the 
multilateral trading system.  
7.54.   While Uruguay  concur red that the outcome of negotiations  in each case should  respond to the 
development conditions and challenges faced by the Members, and on the understanding that what 
had been  presented had not been a proposal per se but rather a discussion paper, doubts persist ed 
as to how and by whom th ose solutions c ould be implemented in practical terms. By way of example, 
Uruguay  wonder ed if, when transition periods were foreseen for certain commitments, there were 
different timelines for each developing country, and how th ose could be determined.  
7.55.   Urugua y remain ed ready to pursue constructive discussions on th at important issue with a 
view to achieving a consensual vision among Members t o strengthen the WTO's negotiatin g function.  
7.56.   The representative of  Thailand , on behalf of the ASEAN , welcome d Norway' s paper and 
thank ed it for its efforts to stimulate discussions and close existing gaps between Members ' positions 
on the delicate issue of trade and development.  S&DT provisions embodied in WTO Agreements were 
an indispensable element of the WTO 's tool box  – vital for pursuing sustainable and inclusive 
economic growth.  
7.57.   ASEAN share d the views of many Members that the focus of their discussions on trade and 
development should not be undertaken in a binary manner that focuse d on the development status 
of Member s as th at would create further polarization and deter real and constructive engagement.  
7.58.   As had been  pointed out in the paper entitled "Balancing Rights and Obligations in the WTO 
– A Shared Responsibility " published by three highly respected former Direct ors of the WTO 
Secretariat in 2018, ASEAN  recogni zed that S &DT measures t ook many forms and they exist ed for 
both developed and developing Members.  It was therefore important to have a shared objective and 
ability to find an appropriate negotiated balance of rights and obligations among  Members.  
7.59.   The ASEAN Member States therefore support ed constructive and pragmatic approaches to 
tackling the issue of development in a thoughtful and holistic manner and look ed forward to working 
with Norway and all Members o n that important issue. ASEAN urged  Members to move away from 
polari sing debates and to engage constructively in the development discussions with a view to 
achieving negotiated outcomes commensurate to Members ' needs for their economic development.  
7.60.   The representative of Jamaica , on behalf of the ACP , intervened on  items 6 and 7  and recall ed 
the ACP  statement made at the 3 May  Informal TNC meeting. The ACP  recall ed and reaffirm ed the 
only mandate on S&DT that was settled in Paragraph 44 of the Doha Mi nisterial Declaration which 
was to review S&DT provisions with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, 
effective and operational.  
7.61.   The ACP Group w ould always seek to preserve the right of developing and LDC Members to 
access the relevant  S&DT provisions embedded in WTO disciplines in current and future negotiations. 
In that regard, the Group d id not agree to the proposals that arbitrarily classif ied Members according 
to categories.  
7.62.   All developing countries were entitled to S&DT and c ould not be excluded from claiming 
flexibilities even before negotiations beg an. The latter would deviate and went against the spirit and 
agreed S&DT principle which were enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement and which formed  an WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 41 - 
 
  integral part of WTO Agreements.  There could  be Members who chose to opt out of S&DT or to 
voluntarily self -declare that they d id not require certain flexibilities in their implementation of WTO 
Agreements. Importantly, th ose discussions should seek to further the mandate of Paragraph 44  of 
the Doha Ministerial mandate.  
7.63.   The ACP Group ha d taken note of the communication from Norway and co -sponsors. A 
reiteration of inter alia the following principles in the submission was a step in the right direction : 
First, the submission rightly reaffi rmed the centrality of development enshrined in WTO Agreements. 
Second, the purpose of the document was to establish a constructive conversation about how 
development including S&DT c ould be best pursued in WTO rulemaking. It was important that th at 
endeav our was aligned to the mandate of S&DT as it relate d to WTO Agreements. Third, the 
recognition of the different levels of development among Members including different sensitivities 
and development priorities. In that regard, th ose should be addressed with the view to ensuring that 
the benefits of the multilateral trading system were shared on an equitable basis. Fourth, the 
negotiating criteria for Members' access to S&DT was unlikely to be productive. Fifth, the vital role 
of technical assistance and capacity building as enablers in balancing the rights and obligations of 
Members.  
7.64.   In the context of th e submission, the ACP Group reiterate d that the S&DT mandate was meant 
to allow policy space and flexibility for developing and LDC  Members to implement development 
policies to enable structural transformation, industrialization, economic growth and sustainable 
integration into the global economy. It was therefore important that the ambition or objective of any 
new or proposed WTO Agr eement should be to support and not undermine th ose current economic 
and/or developmental objectives of developing and LDC Members.  
7.65.   While Members ha d differing opinions about the value of some existing S&DT provisions, the 
ACP Group  agree d that S&DT was an established principle that was integral to WTO rules and that 
its application ha d many dimensions. The various suggestions could be better aligned with the 
development mandate. In that context, the Group  urged Norway and its co -sponsors to consider 
inter alia the G90 Agreement -specific proposals  which  would assist Norway's submission in 
responding to the mandate to strengthen the S&DT provisions by making them more precise, 
effective and operational.  
7.66.   The ACP Group with the G90 w ould resume consultations sh ortly with the intention of refining 
and tabling the G90 proposals to the CTD SS. The ACP Group  urged Members to engage 
constructively with it in the process  and looked forward to engaging specifically with Norway with 
the view to facilitating better under standing of the positions of both sides.  
7.67.   The ACP Group st ood ready to play a constructive role in any discussions that s ought  to make 
the WTO better serve the interest of all its Members. Any discussion moving forward should ensure 
that the basic principl es of inclusivity, transparency, development and in particular S&DT for 
developing and LDC Members were fully adhered to.  
7.68.   The representative of China  commend ed Norway and the other co -sponsors for their efforts  
in trying to bridge gaps between Members. China  appreciate d Norway's narrative that the 
categorization of Members d id not matter. Contentious notion s like differentiation or graduation of 
developing Members w ould lead them nowhere.  
7.69.   As it had  said in the 3 May Informal  TNC meeting, China could  not accept a case -by-case 
approach as a new general modality to understand and deal with S &DT. It was up to developing 
Members to accord themselves the fundamental right of S &DT on whether, when, how and to what 
extent.  The pragmatic fix to the problem was to encourag e developing Members to contribute 
according to their capacity to do so instead of requiring them to prove the case for their fundamental 
right prior to the negotiations.  
7.70.   For current negotiations and discussions like fisheries subsidies, the Memb ership should 
accommodate the needs of developing Members from the very beginning of the substantial 
negotiation s so that their capacity constraints could be properly addressed and they would be in a 
favourable position to better integrate into the global initiative.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 42 - 
 
  7.71.   The representative of Malaysia  associate d with the statement made by ASEAN. Malaysia 
welcome d the submission by Norway on the way forward for the discussion s on development  – one 
of the main objectives of the multilateral trading system. Significant gaps remain ed between 
developing and developed Members in terms of economic and social development, and developing 
Members were still facing tremendous capacity constraints to fully participate in the multilateral 
trading system.  
7.72.   S&DT wa s essen tial for developing countries  and the centrality of development should remain 
in the current Doha Round negotiations.  While Malaysia  noted the efforts to bridge the discussion 
on development, Members need ed to ensure that flexibility c ould be accorded to t he needs of 
developing countries in fulfilling their obligations and commitments under the multilateral trading 
system. Malaysia remain ed committed to engage in the discussions.  
7.73.   The representative of  India noted the assertion in th e paper that negotiating  criteria for 
designating Members' access to S &DT was unlikely to be productive. At the same time, it was not 
clear what exactly were the fresh and creative approaches being suggested by Norway on S&DT  for 
developing countries  – whether it was suggesting n ot having S&DT; providing S&DT on a case -by-
case basis; posing S&DT as per the capacity of individual Members including not availing of S &DT 
by the concerned developing Member on a voluntary basis ; or something else . India looked  forward 
to engaging with N orway to understand th ose aspects.  
7.74.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , said that the paper reaffirm ed the key role 
of S&DT for developing Members in the context of the GATT. The LDC s welcome d Norway's intention 
to engage in a constructive dialogue. Norway's relevant and innovative communication ha d been 
submitted to their capitals and they were awaiting feedback in order for them  to make further 
comments and participate in the discussions to come.  
7.75.   In the meantime, the LDC Grou p reiterate d its concern on the fact that the priorities of LDCs 
were not being addressed on an urgent basis. The LDCs  hoped that  S&DT would not be curtailed 
upon their graduation. G raduating LDCs w ould need specific attention a nd flexibilities in the cont ext 
of their transition towards developing country status  within  the rules -based  WTO system.  
7.76.   The LDC s continue d to support the need to prioritise the agreement -specific S&DT proposals 
of the G90  – an unfinished business from the DDA. Th at was especially im portant in light of the 
other matters relating to th e Doha  mandate which were being  addressed in  the current  negotiations. 
The LDCs  needed positive and constructive responses to th at matter  which would  help enhance  
Members'  comprehension and understanding on LDC issues and address them. 
7.77.   The LDC Group hope d that Members c ould make as much progress as possible in th at process 
so that Members  could  achieve results that were satisfactory and responsive to the needs and 
priorities of the LDCs.  
7.78.   The representative of Egypt  noted that Norway presented  some ideas on how to tackle the 
complicated issue of S&DT and to narrow the divergence among Members. While its capital was 
assessing the proposal, Egypt shared its preliminary comments.  
7.79.   Egypt  agree d with Norway that negotiating criteria for designating Members ' access to S&DT 
was unlikely to be productive. The way forward in S&DT negotiations should start with Members'  
reengag ement  on discussions on the substance of the S&DT proposals presented by dev eloping and 
LDC Members to better identify the core elements of the issues which had become the main 
stumbling block s. That was a pragmatic approach that Members  should follow at th e current  stage. 
They likewise needed to test all options and approaches th at ha d been utilised within the WTO 
covered agreements including the most recent ones.  
7.80.   Egypt  thank ed Norway for its efforts and encourage d all co-sponsors to do more consultations 
to address all Members' views and concerns. Egypt remain ed open to engage constructively in further 
discussing some of the ideas on th at topic.  
7.81.   The representative of Colombia  recalled  Colombia's  statement at the February General Council 
meeting and identif ied specific elements in th e paper  that contribute d to the important dialogue  on 
the matter.  Members'  dialogue should focus on striking an adequate balance between rights and WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 43 - 
 
  obligations among the Membership and not delve into discussions on criteria or elements to group 
together or exclude countries from differe nt categories.  
7.82.   Colombia agree d that it was important to strengthen and improve the rules -based multilateral 
trading system which focuse d on the development dimension from a socio -economic lens. As what 
had been mentioned in the paper, Colombia  underscore d the importance  of having enabling 
mechanisms to fully implement international obligations and to adopt new commitments which ha d 
as their starting point the realities and particularities of all Members. Th e dialogue should  be 
constructive  and should  aim t o strengthen links among Members and to nurture a sense of  shared 
responsibility  among them to ensure that trade rules were a genuine mechanism for the growth and 
development of all Members.  
7.83.   The representative of  Barbados  intervened on  items 6 and 7. Barbados noted Members ' 
continued focus on development  – reinforcing its importance and centrality in every aspect of  WTO 
work – and added its voice to the discourse in support  of that key observation.  
7.84.   Barbados  concur red with previous interve ntions which noted that S&DT wa s not a new or 
recent phenomenon as it had already been  articulated in the GATT and in various horizontal 
provisions and sector -specific WTO covered agreements. Th ose provisions were not without context.  
It was therefore cri tical that Members  did more than just viewing those through myopic lenses.  
Those provisions and the outcomes of current and future negotiations should remain accessible to 
developing countries especially SVEs, LDCs and other developing countries with capac ity constraints.  
7.85.   Members'  discussion t hat day provide d another opportunity to reiterate the shortcomings of 
per capita income alone as a measure, particularly for small island developing economies like 
Barbados and those in the Caribbean and Pacific region s which ha d been characterised as high or 
middle income countries. Their experience ha d been that per capital income d id not take into 
consideration the inherent challenges associated with smallness or vulnerability and ha d effectively 
marginalised many small, vulnerable countries. Barbados continue d to urge the international 
community for due regard to be given to economic and environmental vulnerability in defining access 
to development finance, concessional finance and te chnical assistance and capacity building.  
7.86.   Like others, Barbados view ed trade as an engine for growth and development, and S&DT  in 
the WTO  as an enabler for the implementation of their commitments and achieving their 
development objectives. Like the Marrak esh Agreement , Barbados  recogni zed the differing levels of 
development, development needs and objectives of individual Members and therefore the need for 
differentiated treatment for countries like it. 
7.87.   Barbados would  continue to listen to other Members ' contributions on th e issue and remain ed 
ready to engage constructively in an effort to ensure that all  Member s were fully integrated into the 
multilateral trading system.  
7.88.   The representative of Ecuador  value d the constructive spirit of th e proposal by Norway  which 
contained  interesting elements that merit ed being analysed. S&DT fulfil led the crucial role within th e 
system to seek a minimum balance in conditions where LDCs c ould compete on the international 
market. Ecuador  welcome d that the proposal mentioned that S&DT was an important tool to ensure 
development and greater participation in the multilateral trading system.  
7.89.   The current d iscussion on S&DT was based  on the competitiveness of various economic 
sectors of a country  and did not take into account the c hallenges faced by  developing countries 
where many of their  sectors that ha d low productivity were competing with highly modern ones that 
had greater means. S&DT should apply to all developing countries.  
7.90.   It was clear that S&DT was historically significant  including from the creation of the WTO. In 
1995, the General Council had established the Committee on Trade and Development with the aim 
of serving as a key forum for the coordination and consideration of the WTO's work in addressing 
development. It was in the CTD where Members  should therefore address th at horizontal aspect and 
the various dimensions of development.  
7.91.   On a number of occasions, Ecuador had  listened to references to the need to ensure the 
effective functioning of WTO bodies . It was however clear that if  Members  did not use those bodies WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 44 - 
 
  that already exist ed to address th eir concerns  then the result c ould be negative  for all . Ecuador 
stood ready to continue to constructively contribute to a dialogue on th at key matter.  
7.92.   The representative of Benin, on behalf of the African Group , noted that the paper, aimed  to 
contribute to the reflection under way to try to advance the work on S&DT,  came at a crucial time 
in the negotiation s. The African Group would  carefully analyse the elements set forth in the  paper  
and would assess the m in light of Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration so that the S&DT provisions 
in the covered agreements c ould be strengthened and made precise, effective and operational.  
7.93.   The development dimension was a major objective of devel oping and LDC Members with the 
view to promoting trade and to address ing the specificities of th at category of countries including  
their constraints.  Members w ould immediately need to examine the substance of the various S&DT 
proposals set forth t hat day including the G90 proposal. The African Group  thank ed the CTD SS Chair 
for the consultations with Members under various configurations and on a consensus basis that had 
been launched to identify possible outcomes  in that area . 
7.94.   The representative of Japan  commend ed Norway' s initiative in putting forward its paper  which 
reminded Members  that development concerns ha d been addressed in many ways in the past 
negotiations. As a next step, Members would  need to reflect on previous experiences and consider 
how they could actually apply different approaches to the ongoing negotiations.  
7.95.   The representative of South Africa  reemphasise d that the CTD SS remained the only 
mandated body that could address issues related to  development and S&DT . Although a ny Member 
was free to raise items on the General Council agenda,  any discussion of proposals that set modalities 
for S&DT negotiations should not undermine current processes underway in the CTD SS.  As a 
preliminary reaction, South Africa recogni zed and commend ed Norway for r eflecting the importance 
and essence of S &DT for developing countries in a positive way. S &DT remain ed at the heart of the 
multilateral system as a means to enable development through approaches that preserve d the 
collective rights of developing countries.   
7.96.   The right of developing countries to claim S &DT was unconditional and c ould not be eroded 
by approaches that require d them to prove their need for S &DT on a case -by-case basis before it 
was extended. Norway seem ed to suggest that except for LDC Members, every other developing 
country Member would have to prove their right to claim S &DT. Th at aspect of the paper was likely 
to divide developing countries and LDCs. It would further seem that developing country Members 
would have to make upfront "minimum base line" commitments that c ould be expanded through 
phase -in periods and thresholds that w ould act as triggers for such commitments. Th ose 
mechanisms erode d the unconditional nature of S &DT as embedded in the Marrakesh Agreement.  
7.97.   Norway' s paper seem ed to be confusing effect with cause thus putting the cart in front of the 
horse. Development was not an outcome but a process. Posing the right questions w ould allow 
Members  to come up with the right conclusions. Einstein captured the challenge crisply when he had 
said, "If I had 60 minutes to solve a problem and my life depended on it, I 'd spend 55 minutes 
determining the right question to ask ". At present, th e question was on how Members could make 
S&DT more effective, precise and implementable . It implie d no premeditation or judgment and was 
simple enough to implement. In th e end, differentiation was a policy choice that w ould be invoked 
by Members themselves based on self -determined and sovereign developmental prerogatives 
irrespective of whether they appl ied to current or future negotiations.  
7.98.   The representative of  the European Union  noted that the paper had the right  focus because 
it was looking for a pragmatic and solution -oriented approach with regard to future negotiations. 
The EU  welcome d the emphasis on the contribution of trade to development which need ed to be 
clearly acknowledged in the debate on development and should serve as an underlying principle in 
the reflection on the approach to S &DT. As the EU had  already said earlier, the objective of S &DT 
was not to exempt developing Members from obligations but to allow developing Members to 
progressively ensure full participation in the trading system.   
7.99.   The EU therefore  agree d with Norway that the question should be on how S &DT could be 
designed in order to address development challenges Members were facing. The EU also agree d that 
it was the negotiated result that matter ed and  not the categorization of Members except for LDCs 
where special treatment should be maintained.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 45 - 
 
  7.100.   The EU  share d Norway' s view that S&DT should be designed in terms of specific individual 
country needs preferably at sectoral or activity leve l and that the needs were somehow based on 
evidence. S &DT should focus on providing more time to implement commitments as well as on 
providing assi stance. Future agreements should  eventually  be universally implemented.  
7.101.   The representative of Nigeria  noted that the paper had reemphasi sed the centrality of 
development in  WTO work and had underscored the fact that S&DT c ould help achieve an acceptable 
balance of rights and obligations among Members.  S&DT should continue to be an integral part of 
all WTO Agreements to provide requisite flexibilities for developing Members to achieve their 
developmental objective. Nigeria was  however concerned that the pap er seem ed to suggest that the 
provision of S&DT should be directly related to the development challenges of a Member.  
7.102.   The question put forward to Members concerned the choice of the tool that could or should 
be used  to calibrate developing countries' development challenges for the purpose of S&DT 
negotiations or the provision of S&DT  – which Nigeria found problematic and unacceptable.  Nigeria  
associate d with the statements made by the ACP and the African Group  and urged Members to 
consider the G90 proposals on S&DT.  
7.103.   The representative of  Indonesia , interven ing on items  6 and 7 , observe d that the evolving 
discussion on th e matter in all  negotiating  fronts had been frantic and divisive. The discussion fail ed 
to assoc iate S&DT with the history o f why Members had insisted back then to have in place the 
development elements and hence the need to implement the D DA. Regardless  of the issue, Members  
should  agree that S&DT exist ed in many forms and enjoyed by them irrespecti ve of their 
development status  – an acknowledgement that the real issue was not S&DT. S&DT provide d a 
platform for all Members to enter into trade negotiation s with a view to obtain full development al 
benefit s from a just and effective multilateral trading  system . The T FA was a good example of 
showing that  defining S&DT could be achieved in trade negotiation s. 
7.104.   Indonesia however shared the  view that S&DT was only a part of development  policy . Careful 
examination of development challenges was needed in trade negotiation s. S&DT could  be design ed 
to address the development challenges faced by M embers.  As regards the  categories of challenges 
that would be acceptable in the negotiations , Indonesia noted that each Member had the sole right  
to determine th e challenges that it faced. D evelopment challenges were not only determined by 
Members ' development categorization. Some challenges also existed due to  the particular situation 
of the respective Member  such as for archipelagic and landlock ed countries.  Indonesia therefore 
urged Member s to carefully consider th e issue and to discuss  it in a more constructive manner.  
7.105.   The representative of the United States  agreed with Norway that "an underlying objective of 
the multilateral trading system is to enable all Members to contribute to the full extent of their 
capabilities to a set of disciplines that permits them to benefit fully from cooperation among trading 
partners. " Norway had also stated  that differences among Members "must be adequately addressed 
to ensur e that the benefits of the multilateral trading system are shared in an equitable  manner ". 
The United States however said that nothing in Norway's paper suggested anything that would make 
those happen.  
7.106.   The "rich menu of lessons " on S&D T that Norway refer red to was more like a direct path to 
irrelevance  for the WTO unless Members  confront ed reality  – which was that the wealthier, more  
competitive economies in the world d id not need S&DT  when compared to the LDCs and others. Th at 
was not confronted at all in Norway' s paper.  
7.107.   Refusing to take commitments or exempting out of them under the guise of  S&DT  did not 
enable development. In fact, fundamentally, th at was perhaps th e institution 's biggest problem. 
Trade and full implementation of the rules were pro -develo pment. Many others s aw trade and the 
rules as anti -development. That was why some Members want ed carve -outs and exclusions rather 
than assistance in achieving full implementation of the rules.  
7.108.   Members had sufficient proof that the current system was broken . The DDA had failed 
because many self -designated developing Members had steadfastly refused to undertake 
commitments commensurate to their status as major traders. Instead, they had clung to an 
increasingly outdated view of their level of development – one not at all defined by the reality of the 
time. Members  could not pretend they would make a different choice t hat day or in the future. A WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 46 - 
 
  prime example was the fisheries subsidies negotiations where the most capable among them still 
appear ed unwilling to do their part.  
7.109.   The United States d id not wish to have an academic exercise on S&DT . It rather  wanted to 
have a discussion grounded in the reality of that day . The United States  was pushing for actual 
change that w ould enable Members to negoti ate and close new WTO agreements.  
7.110.   The representative of Norway  said that t heir exchange prove d that th e issue was indeed of 
fundamental importance to th e organi zation.  Many Members had found something they had liked in 
the paper even if they had not agree d with every detail – which was not to be expected. Most 
Members  had agreed that they needed to search for another approach on how to pursu e trade and 
development in current and future negotiations.  
7.111.   A number of delegations  had expressed their concerns and had posed questions about where 
the paper  was taking them and what it mean t in operational terms . There had also been  comments 
based on an interpretation of what the paper seem ed to suggest. Such comments and questions 
were welcome because they c ould bring the discussion forward. The paper had been  deliberately not 
meant to be prescriptive but directional. Its purpose had been  to stimulate a discussion  – not to end 
it. The discussion should therefore continue.  
7.112.   Norway w ould continue to be engaged and would accept invitations put forward to engage 
with interested Members. It was not however the responsibility of just one or a few Members to 
carry th e discussion forward. It was rather their  shared responsibility as Members to search for 
alternative pathways an d avoid deadlock. They should  remind themselves that old talking points 
would produce old results, or no results at all, as the case could  be. 
7.113.   The most important thing Members  could do in terms of follow -up was to apply a more 
pragmatic and practical appro ach to trade and development when engaging in actual negotiations. 
One prominent opportunity before them was fisheries subsidies where they needed to address a 
number of challenges related to development within the mandate and timeline given by their polit ical 
masters. Another opportunity mentioned by several Members was the agenda in the CTD  SS. There 
was nothing in its paper that exclude d a discussion in the CTD or CTD  SS – where discussion s had 
been stuck for quite some time. There was reason to look forward with some anticipation to the 
revised G90 proposals that ha d been referred to. If th at could lead Members  to a more practical and 
pragmatic approach to those issue s, that would be welcomed by many.  
7.114.   Norway called on all Members to  continue the conve rsation at both conceptual  and practical  
levels addressing real challenges in specific areas under negotiations. In any case,  they should  not 
forget that old talking points w ould produce old results.  
7.115.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
8  SPS AGR ICULTURE ISSUES – STATEMENT BY CANADA  
8.1.  The Chair  recalled that the delegation of Canada had requested the Secretariat on 25 April to 
include th at item in the agenda of the current meeting.  
8.2.  The representative of Canada  recall ed that  the WTO's Twentieth  Monitoring Report on G20 
trade measures issued on 22 November 2 018 had shown that the amount of trade covered by 
restrictive measures had hit a new high during the current reporting period – a proliferation of trade 
restrictive measures and uncertainty that  could place economic recovery in jeopardy.  ln response to 
that report, the Director -General had called on Members to use all means at their disposal to "de -
escalate" the situation and to engage in a "solution -finding mode ". 
8.3.  Agricultural exports were impor tant to Canada making it always in a " solution -finding mode " 
when it c ame to agricultural market access.  Plant and animal health and food safety were also 
extremely important to Canada a nd it took the rules -based trading system very seriously.  
8.4.  The SPS Agre ement was a very good agreement which  provide d the basis for timely resolution 
of issues.  It struck the appropriate balance between rights and obligations.  Under the Agreement,  
Members ha d the right to take SPS measures necessary for the protection of huma n, animal or plant WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 47 - 
 
  life or health.  Members also ha d obligations to ensure that SPS measures were applied only to the 
extent necessary to achieve th ose goals; that they were based on scientific principles; that they d id 
not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate among Members; that they were based on international 
standards; and that they were not applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction 
on international trade.  
8.5.  A stronger commitment by Member s to the SPS Agreement could go a long way to addressing 
what appear ed – based on the large number of specific trade concerns regularly raised at meetings 
of the SPS Committee – to be an increasing number of SPS  based market access issues between  
Members.  
8.6.  Canada's most urgent , pressing and well publici sed SPS concern at present  was with respect 
to China's recent actions affecting Canadian exports of canola seed.  China was an important market 
for Canadian canola seed exports. ln 2018, Canadian canola seed ex ports to China had been  valued 
at $2.7 billion representing Canada's largest export market for canola seed. But also in 2018, Canada 
had exported canola seed to 27 markets without any SPS concerns raised by any other major trading 
partner.  
8.7.  ln March 2019, C hina had suspended two Canadian establishments from exporting Canadian 
canola seed on grounds that recent shipments had not met China's import requirements . China ha d 
also increased inspection of imports of canola seed from other Canadian companies,  creati ng 
additional uncertainty for both Canadian exporters and Chinese importers.   
8.8.  Regaining full market access for Canadian canola seed was a priority for Canada.  Canada 
wanted to be a good trading partner. If a partner identifie d a problem with a Canadian exp ort, it 
took that very seriously and it wanted to find a solution.  Canada ha d been working hard to resolve 
that issue with China – using every available channel on the ground both in China and in Canada. 
Canada  had been and remain ed open to working constru ctively with Chinese counterparts to address 
their stated concerns.  
8.9.  To do so , Canada would however need to fully understand the problem. The Canadian Food 
Inspection Agency had tested – and had then retested – the shipments from the two Canadian 
establishments suspended by China and had found that they had met China's Import requirements.  
Canada ha d repeatedly asked China for the scientific evidence that support ed its findings and the 
measures taken – but China  had not been forthcoming in providing th at information.  To fully 
understand China's findings, Canad a needed further technical information  including  pest risk 
assessments , sampling and testing methodologies and access to the specimens detected.  
8.10.   Over the years Canada and China ha d been able to successfully resolve differences of 
interpretation regarding import requirements through continued engagement. Canada  sought  to do 
so again . Open and predictable rules -based international trade was the only way globa l commerce 
could succeed.  Cooperation between Members  and willingness to engage on issues was equally 
important.  
8.11.   Echoing the words of the Director -General in response to rising trade restrictions, Canada 
asked China to "engage in a solution -finding mode".  Canada reiterated its call for  China to provide 
the scientific evidence that support ed its findings.   That was a specific case but was raised in the 
current  setting because it  was an important example of the broader concerns and the trend of 
increasing tra de restrictive measures.  Canada called for the issue to be  resolve d based on their 
shared overall commitments to the WTO particularly to the SPS Agreement.  
8.12.   The representative of China  fully agree d that all Members were obliged to abide by the 
principles and the requirements of the SPS Agreement to formulate and implement SPS measures 
on the basis of international standards, guidelines and recommendations and also based on scientific 
risk assessment. At the same time, Members ha d the responsibility to ensu re the safety of their 
exporting products and to meet the SPS requirement of the importing Members.  
8.13.   Recently, quite a number of cans of harmful pests from Canadian products ha d been 
intercepted by China's customs. The relevant information including photos had been provided to 
Canada. Consultations between both sides ha d been held  and China would like to keep 
communication with Canada in the SPS Committee framework in the WTO.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 48 - 
 
  8.14.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
9  TRADE RESTRICTIVE ME ASURES BY BRA ZIL – STATEMENT BY ECUADOR  
9.1.  The Chair recalled that the delegation of Ecuador  had requested the Secretariat on 25 April to 
include that item in the agenda of the current meeting . 
9.2.  The representative of Ecuador  said8 that given the importance of the matter, Ecuador had 
requested the inclusion of its concern in the agenda for th e current  meeting of the General Council.  
Exports of bananas from Ecuador to Brazil had been  suspended for 20 years since 1997 as a result 
of phytosanitary restrictions imposed as a con sequence of the suspected presence of certain diseases 
in banana plantations in Ecuador.  
9.3.  To address th ose concerns,  Ecuador had  taken a series of actions to comply with the 
requirements imposed by the Brazilian phytosanitary authorities and to prove the he alth of bananas 
produced in Ecuador.  As a result of th ose actions, in December 2017, Brazil had allowed the 
importation of bananas from Ecuador subject to compliance with various phytosanitary requirements 
including, among other things, the requirement of a certificate establishing the absence of five plant 
diseases of concern to Brazil.   
9.4.  On th at basis, exports of bananas from Ecuador to Brazil had been  made on normal commercial 
terms until 26 February 2019 when a Brazilian Federal Judge had suspended all imports. Th at 
decision had been  based on the alleged existence of studies indicating the presence of the bract 
mosaic virus in Ecuadorean bananas. The Federal Judge had referred to an alleged serious risk of 
the contamination of Brazilian banana plantation s by th at virus that would affect the entire Brazilian 
production of bananas.  
9.5.  It was important to note that, before the imposition of th e suspension, there had been  no 
reason to suggest that Brazil had any concern regarding the bract mosaic virus, because  – as the 
Brazilian authorities had recogni zed – that virus was not found in Ecuadorean territory.  
9.6.  In addition, on 18 March 2019, the Secretary of Agricultural Defence of Brazil's Ministry of 
Agriculture  had issued a decision suspending, officially, impor ts of bananas from Ecuador into the 
Brazilian market.  As a result of th ose developments, the phytosanitary measures adopted by Brazil 
in December 2017 – with which Ecuador had complied fully – had been  rendered ineffective. 
Consequently, at present, Ecuadorean bananas could  not be exported to Brazil.  
9.7.  That restriction was inconsistent with the requirements of the SPS Agreement . The restriction 
on imports was found ed in the decisions of two branches of th e Brazilian State: the decision of a 
Federal Judge which belong ed to the judicial branch and the decision of the Secretary of Agricultural 
Defence of Brazil's Ministry of Agriculture which was part of the executive branch. In Ecuador's view, 
the decisions referred to above were without basis . The judicial branch d id not have competence in 
phytosanitary matters while the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture was not based on the risk 
evaluation completed by Brazil in 2017.  Consequently, Brazil was acting i nconsistently with 
Articles  5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  
9.8.  In addition, the suspension of imports of bananas from Ecuador was a measure that was more 
restrictive than necessary. Given that the phytosanitary requirements agreed by Brazil and Ecuador 
in 2017 were a viable alternative means of phytosanitary regulation of imports of bananas from 
Ecuador, Brazil was also acting inconsistently with Articles 5.6 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  
9.9.  The measures adopted by Brazil also reflect ed an unjustifiable discrim ination against imports 
and a disguised restriction on international trade contrary to the provisions of Articles 5.5 and 2.3 
of the SPS Agreement.  
9.10.   In those circumstances, the Republic of Ecuador, in the exercise of its rights, request ed Brazil 
to immediat ely lift the suspension of imports of bananas from Ecuador given that the decisions of 
                                                
8 At the request of Ecuador, its statement was also circ ulated as a room document and can be found in 
RD/GC/11.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 49 - 
 
  the Federal Judge and the Ministry of Agriculture lack ed the technical and factual justification 
necessary to sustain a prohibition on importation of bananas from Ecuado r. 
9.11.   In addition, Ecuador request ed Brazil to reverse its decision and to apply the phytosanitary 
measures for the importation of bananas from Ecuador set out in Instrução Normativa N° 46 which 
had permitted trade in bananas between the end of 2017 and early  2019 after years of review and 
application by Ecuador of the requirements requested by the Brazilian phytosanitary authorities.    
9.12.   Ecuador  hoped that, in accordance with the obligations in Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement , 
Brazil would offer a prompt and clear response to its request in order to find a solution that would 
give access to its banana exports to the Brazilian market which had been closed to its exports for 
more than  twenty  years. Th at problem had caused significant economic losses to its producers and 
had led to th e issue being raised repeatedly as a trade concern in various bodies of th e organization  
without leading to a satisfactory solution that would be consistent with the rules of the WTO.  
9.13.   The representative of Brazil  had been  surpri sed by the placement of the present item in the 
agenda of the General Council. Ecuador had suggested an item entitled " Restrictive Measures by 
Brazil"  which  was so broad that it  did not provide a clue as to what they were talking about. It d id 
not provide any context on the area of trade, the underlying covered agreement or even the product 
at issue. They had only found out that it was about bananas after listening to Ecuador's statement.  
9.14.   The broad title  of "Restrictive Measures " had only been used  twice at the G eneral Council . In 
both cases , it had described broad measures with deep political and security implications. It would 
seem therefore that Brazil had  adopted various restrictive measures and had applied a wide range 
of protectionist measures  where  in fact they were only dealing with a single SPS issue regarding one 
product  – which seem ed to be a technical issue  rather  not a political problem.  
9.15.   Brazil t ook note of the views shared and reaffirm ed its intention to maintain a productive 
dialogue between sanitary authorities of their two countries. The imports of bananas of Ecuador ha d 
been provisionally suspended by judicial decision as a phytosanitary risk, the Banana Bract Mosaic 
Virus, which had not been part of the risk analysis when the market had been  opened in 2017. Th e 
decision had been  based on – and in order to ensure the objectives of the SPS Agreement – the 
adoption of phytosanitary measures necessary to preserve plant life. Th ose discuss ions could  
therefore  be more fruitful if undertaken in the SPS Committee.  
9.16.   Since the publication of the decision, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of 
Agriculture ha d maintained a frank and open dialogue with the Ecuadorian authorities in ord er to 
promote bilateral trade while preserving Brazil' s phytosanitary condition.  
9.17.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
10  COMMITTEE ON BUDGET,  FINANCE AND ADMINIS TRATION – REPORT ON MEETING OF 
MARCH 2019 (WT/BFA/1 78) 
10.1.   The Chair drew attention to the report of the Budget Committee in document WT/BFA/178 
and invite d Ambassador Dagfinn S ørli (Norway), Chair of the Budget Committee, to introduce the 
report.  
10.2.   Ambassador Dagfinn Sørli  (Norway), Chair of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , reported that t he CBFA had met on 20 March and on 30 April. His remarks w ould 
focus on the report of the meeting that had taken  place on 20 March, bearing the reference 
WT/BFA/178. He would  give a report o f the latter meeting at the next me eting of the General Council.  
10.3.   Concerning the 2019 Work Plan , the Committee had discussed the draft work plan for the 
year noting that it was a year for during which  the 2020-21 budget w ould be considered. The 
Committee ha d started reviewing the Financial R egulations of the WTO in keeping with the 
requirement that they be reviewed every four years and bearing in mind that the current version 
had been in place since February 2015. A formal recommendation w ould be made to the General 
Council during the course of the year.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 50 - 
 
  10.4.   The Committee ha d established two working groups to facilitate discussions regarding the 
development of a management policy for the Working Capital Fund and the assessment of 
expressions of interest related to the selection of External Audito rs for the period 2020 -2025. He 
remind ed Members that th ose working groups were open to any delegation that was interested in 
participating in them.  
10.5.   Concerning the 2019 Salary Scale , the Committee had taken  note of a presentation by the 
Secretariat regardi ng the WTO Salary Scale for 2019. The salary scale was developed using a 
weighted average of salaries of the United Nations Office in Geneva and a select number of 
organizations based in various cities in Europe, adjusted for exchange rates and Purchasing Power 
Parity. The effective change in the WTO salary scale for 2019 was 1.78%.  
10.6.   Concerning the WTO Pension Plan,  the Chair  of the WTOPP  had presented a brief update of 
the activities of the WTO PP in 2018  and had  notified the Committee that the 2018 Annual Report of 
the WTO Pension Plan w ould be available in mid -2019.  
10.7.   Concerning the Office of Internal Oversight , the Head of the  Office of Internal Oversight had 
informed the Committee of the notable progress made b y the Secretariat in implementing audit 
recommendations.  
10.8.   Concerning the c ontributions from Members and Observers in 2018 , the Secretariat  had 
notified the Committee that contributions received from Members for 2018 had been  higher than 
those that had been  received in 2017 and had been  in line with the 2016 receipts. There had been  
thirteen  Members under administrative measures as at 31 December 2018 with a total amount 
outstanding of CHF 7.9 million.  For Observers, the level of contributions for 2018 had more or less  
been the same as that in 2017. Three Observers had been  under administrative measures as at 
31 December 2018 with a total amount outstanding approximating CHF 646,000.  
10.9.   The Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration ma de the following reco mmendation 
to the General Council: "The Committee invites the General Council to urge Members and Observers 
under Administrative Measures to liquidate their arrears ".  
10.10.   The General Council took note  of the statement, approved  the Budget Committee's specific  
recommendation in paragraph 9.7 of WT/BFA/178 and adopted  the report.  
11  OTHER BUSINESS  
11.1  Geneva Week – Statement by  St. Vincent and the Grenadines on behalf of the OECS  
11.1.   The representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines , on behalf of the OECS , speaking under 
"Other Business" , said that during that week,  the WTO was hosting the 38th Edition of the Geneva 
Week – a weeklong event for Members who d id not have a permanent presence in Geneva and which 
aimed at providing and overviewing the current work and act ivities taking place within th e 
organization. The agenda set forth a comprehensive work programme with briefing sessions covering 
key issues currently being debated in th e House and updating participating Members with the most 
recent developments.  
11.2.   The part icipants also ha d the chance to attend WTO meetings including the current session 
at the General Council which proved to be a useful experience and a knowledge -sharing exercise. 
Overall, th e event provide d an invaluable opportunity for Members who were res ource -constrained 
making it a useful and important initiative.  
11.3.   However, since participation was restricted only to those Members who d id not currently have 
a permanent mission in Geneva, the OECS together with other small State delegations were working 
towards a proposal to broaden the scope of eligible participants to include representatives from 
Members which despite having a permanent mission in Geneva ha d limited staff and resources and 
inevitably face d more challenges when engaging in the multilateral trading system.  
11.4.   Geneva, being the international hub for diplomacy and international organizations, a lot of 
delegates from th ose missions ha d to divide themselves between different meetings, different 
subject areas a nd engage in other non -trade related int ernational organizations. The aforementioned WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 51 - 
 
  proposal would therefore allow for Members that ha d recently acceded or ha d recently established 
a permanent delegation in Geneva a nd those who ha d three or less delegates to designate 
representatives to partici pate in the Geneva Week exercise.  
11.5.   That would greatly facilitate their work and provide a broader understanding of the issues and 
the modus operandi of the WTO creating an opportunity for th ose Members to have increased 
participation in WTO work and to enhance their engagement in the different meetings and 
Committees – as well as with the Membership more broadly. The OECS  welcome d any small State 
wishing to associate with its proposal and aim ed to submit the proposal for a decision during the 
next Genera l Council meeting in July.  
11.6.   The representative of Dominica  associate d with th e statement  made by the OECS  and look ed 
forward to an affirmative decision during the next General Council meeting in July.  
11.7.   The representative of Grenada  associate d with the statem ent made by the OECS in support 
of Members to participate in the Geneva Week given the limited capacity to be in Geneva  and looked 
forward to the matter being taken up in the next General Council meeting.  
11.8.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
11.2  Administrative Matters for MC12 – Statement by the Chair  
11.9.   The Chair, speaking under "Other Business" , recalled that  MC12 w ould take place on 
8-11 June 2020 in the capital city of Kazakhstan which ha d been renamed as Nur -Sultan in March . 
In that regard , she referred to the communication circulated by Kazakhstan in WT/GC/201.  As 
Members moved  into their preparatory process in the months ahead, she would conduct 
consultations on matters related to: (a) Election of Officers; (b) Attendance of Observers from 
Governments and International Intergovernmental Organizations; and (c) Attendance of NGOs.  As 
the General Council w ould need to take a decision on th ose administrative matters, it was not too 
early to start thinking about them and she would be in contact with  delegations in due course.  
11.10.   The General Council took note  of the Chair's statement.  
11.3  Statement by the Chair person  in connection with Administrative Measures for 
Members in Arrears  
11.11.   The Chair , speaking under "Other Business ", noted that the revised Administra tive Measures 
for Members in arrears in WT/BFA/132 required that, at the end of each meeting of the General 
Council, the Chair of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration should provide 
information with regard to which Members and Observers were  under Administrative Measures.  
11.12.   Ambassador Dagfinn Sørli  (Norway), Chair of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , reported that  the Administrative Measures applicable to Members and Observers 
with arrears in contribution had been in place since 1 March 2013. In accordance with the Decision 
of the General Council, he should state all Members and Observers under all categories of 
administrative measures. As at 3 May 2019, there had been 23 Members and 6 Observers under 
Administrative Measures. The following 12 Members were currently in Category I: Democratic 
Republic of the Congo; Egypt; El Salvador; Gabon; Liberia; Mozambique; Papua  New Guinea; Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines; Senegal; Uganda; Yemen and Zimbabwe. The following 2 Members 
were in Category II: Cameroon and Congo. The following 9 Members were in Category III: Antigua 
and Barbuda; Burundi; Chad; The Gambia; Guinea; Guine a-Bissau; Niger; Sierra Leone and 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The following 3 Observers were in Category I: Comoros; South 
Sudan and Uzbekistan. Somalia was the only Observer in Category II. The following 2 Observers 
were in Category III: Libya and S ao Tomé and Principe.  
11.13.   The Chair said that she was required at each Council meeting to request Members and 
Observers in Categories II and III of the Measures to inform the Secretariat as to when their payment 
of arrears could be expected.  
11.14.   The General  Counc il took note  of the statements . WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 52 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
HONOURABLE BRADLEY F ELIX'S ADDRESS TO THE GENER AL COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF 
THE WTO MEMBERS OF T HE OECS ECONOMIC UNI ON 
 
This statement is being delivered on behalf of the WTO Members of the Organization of Eastern 
Caribbe an States (OECS) Economic Union.  
 
It is truly an honour to be with you today and to share a few perspectives on the WTO and its role 
in the development of its Members, particularly small, vulnerable economies. It is often said that if 
the WTO did not exist , it would need to be created. It would need to be created to build a common 
rulebook that allows for freer trade between countries. It would need to be created to mediate 
disagreements between trading partners. It would need to be created to prevent the d escent into 
protectionism that triggered the Great Depression. It would need to be created to avoid the beggar -
thy-neighbour policies that have led to violent conflicts. Mercifully, it was with hindsight, and the 
benefit of history that we turned to a rule s-based multilateral system two and a half decades ago.  
 
Indeed, it was hoped that the establishment of the WTO would bring an end to self -defeating 
protectionism. Regrettably, some of us are again turning inward, paying little heed to the lessons of 
the p ast. In consequence, the warning lights on the dashboard of the global economy are now 
blinking. The World Trade Report published last month offers sober reading. Trade growth has 
contracted. The forecast for this year and the next indicate strong headwind s linked to trade 
tensions. The most recent World Economic Outlook published by the International Monetary Fund 
also confirmed trade tensions as a major  constraining factor for global output. Two renowned 
economists – Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, have  recently pointed to darkening economic clouds 
on the horizon linked to trade tensions.  
 
For small economies like those of the OECS, these self -inflicted headwinds are likely to have real 
impacts on the livelihoods of our people. With small internal market s and high trade dependence, 
this slowdown only serves to complicate an already fragile recovery from the global financial crisis 
and multiple catastrophic -level natural disasters. But we are not the only ones who will suffer. Least 
developed countries, em erging markets and even some in the affluent world will also bear the 
burden.  
 
It is therefore critical to consider the costs of protectionism. We must consider the lives and jobs 
that will likely be affected. We must accept that multilateralism is not a z ero-sum game. We must 
know that our decisions here in this House can be a force for good – if only we take stock of the 
lessons of the past.  
 
Turning briefly to WTO reform , it is apparent that some Members would like the rule of this House 
to be updated. A nd as with all organizations, Members will from time -to-time consider how the 
organization can function better. The WTO is certainly not immune to improvement. Though some 
critical questions must be asked. Why reform? What is the aim? Who will it benefit? And, is the 
system broken? Of course, depending on whom you ask, the answer will differ. Regardless of the 
answers to these specific questions , there are a few cardinal principles that should guide us in our 
conversations.  
 
• One, any reform agreed must sup port the development aspirations of all.  
 
• Two, any proposal aimed at reform must strengthen and improve the functioning of the 
system.  
 
• Three, no reform proposal should undermine the delicate balance of rights and 
responsibilities we currently enjoy.  
 
• And finally, the principle of equity and fairness must be observed.  
 
While it is right and proper to focus attention on solving the log -jam related to the appointment of 
Appellate Body members, it is vital that other long -standing and unaddressed issues be als o 
considered, including the non -implementation of Rulings of the Appellate Body, and here I speak 
specifically to a case of high importance to one of our OECS Member States, Antigua and Barbuda.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 53 - 
 
   
Allow me to offer one final reflection. Beyond the call for stepping back from the cliff -edge of 
protectionism, and ensuring that WTO reforms benefit us all, we must act to further secure the 
credibility of the system. This demands that we roll up our sleeves, put our shoulders to the wheel 
and make a final push to  deliver a credible outcome on fisheries subsidies. The world's oceans are 
being pillaged by unsustainable practices. We all bear some responsibility but some bear a greater 
responsibility than others. We therefore need to redouble our efforts to find comm on ground and 
deliver on the mandate that we collectively agreed in Buenos Aires. It is within our reach. It is now 
for us to act. It is now for us to deliver.  
 
_______________  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 54 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
THE REPORTS BY THE D IRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHAIRS OF THE NE GOTIATING 
GROUPS AT THE INFORM AL TNC AND INFORMAL HODS MEETINGS HELD O N 3 MAY 2019  
Report by the Director -Genera l1 
 
I have had a number of very useful exchanges over recent weeks. Since our February meeting, I  
have conducted a bilateral visit to Mexico, including me eting with President López Obrador. And  I 
have engaged with business, academia and other stakeholders in Brazil and the US. Last month,  I 
took part in the Spring meetings of the World Bank and IMF in Washington DC. I also participated 
in a joint WTO -IMF-World Bank event on the role of trade in reducing poverty.  
 
Here in Geneva, I have conducted bilateral meetings with several Ministers, Ambassadors, Heads of 
agencies and other Stakeholders. I also participated in a range of events – at the invitation of 
Members and others.  These events included: an LDC Group retreat in Montreux which discussed 
the perspectives of LDC participation in WTO work and the road to MC12; a session to mark 
International Women's Day at the WTO, where we launched three new initiativ es for women's 
economic empowerment through trade including a training module and new research on trade, 
gender and the environment; an open -ended meeting of the Structured Discussion on Investment 
Facilitation for Development on 3 March, at the invitation  of the coordinator – Ambassador Gonzalez 
of Colombia; a High -Level Panel at UNCTAD's e -commerce week, together with Denmark's State 
Secretary for Trade, Susanne Hyldelund and Secretary -General Kituyi; a workshop on the Gender 
Considerations in Trade Agree ments, which was the 4th workshop in the context of the Buenos Aires 
Declaration on Trade and Women's Economic Empowerment; and a workshop on the Moratorium on 
Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions earlier this week.  
 
The WTO also hosted the Internati onal Forum on Food Safety and Trade last week, where I was 
pleased to be joined by the Director -Generals of the FAO, WHO and OIE, along with the African Union 
Commissioner for Rural Economy and Agriculture Josefa Sacko and a number of Ministers.  
 
While I have the chance, I would also like to highlight two events that are taking place next week. 
First, at the request of Consumers International, the WTO will be facilitating a Trade Dialogue session 
with a number of consumer groups from around the world on Mo nday, 6 May. They have requested 
an opportunity to report on their conversation, particularly to the Group Coordinators and to the 
Members who represent economies where these consumers groups are based. Second, I am pleased 
to say that on Friday, 10 May, w e will be welcoming UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to the 
WTO. He will address a special meeting of the General Council in the afternoon. A notification of this 
session was sent to Members on Wednesday. I hope you will be able to attend.  
 
Now let m e turn to our negotiating work. You have heard directly from the Negotiating Group Chairs, 
so let me just emphasi se a few points. The first is to say that all Chairs remain available to meet 
with any delegation interested in advancing any negotiation. Seco nd, it is very positive that Members 
have continued to constructively engage and table new proposals, particularly on fisheries subsidies. 
I hope we will see papers put forward on other topics as well, as was the case for services recently.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, there is some genuine new engagement by a wide diversity of Members. We 
also have some new ideas that may help to work through longstanding divergences and blockages. 
However, the clock continues to tick toward the December deadline, and a great  deal remains to be 
done. We still don’t see tangible signs of convergence. These negotiations are technically complicated 
and there are many different views on how to deliver a result.  
 
What it clear is that this work matters for the world's fish stocks and fishing communities. It matters 
for achieving the SDGs. And it matters for the WTO itself. So I agree with Ambassador Zapata that 
the time has come for the Heads of Delegations to become substantively engaged. This is important 
both to raise the politi cal level and therefore the urgency of the work, and to bring their higher -level 
perspective to bear in the search for the workable compromises that we need to see.  
 
In this context, I am pleased to announce that the WTO fisheries trust fund has been creat ed in 
response to a request from LDCs. This fund will assist LDCs in bringing their capital -based 
                                                
1 Also issued as JOB/TNC/74.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 55 - 
 
  delegations to Geneva to participate in the clusters of fisheries subsidies meetings in 2019. Norway 
has pledged to donate one million Norwegian Kroner, which  is approximately 110,000 Swiss Francs 
to the Fund. So, thank you Norway for this generosity. I would also ask other Members to consider 
whether they can support this important initiative.  
 
One final point on this issue, Members will have seen the communic ation circulated last week by the 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures reminding us that the deadline for the 
submission of fisheries subsidies notifications is 30 June 2019. As you recall, at MC11 Ministers 
recommitted to implementing existi ng notification obligations in order to strengthen transparency 
with respect to fisheries subsidies. I encourage all of you to meet your notification requirements by 
the deadline.  
 
Moving on, let me say a word about agriculture. As highlighted by the Chair  of the Special Session 
in his report, it is important for delegations to use the May -June period to bring forward new inputs 
and contributions to prepare the negotiation phase that will start after the summer break.  
 
I hope that Members will make their best efforts to advance or even settle some aspects of the 
negotiations, taking advantage of CoA Special Session meetings as well as other high -level trade 
meetings in this period. In this context, I think Members should  keep in mind that not all topics can 
advance at the same pace, so it may be productive to focus engagement on those areas where 
progress seems most possible.   
 
Moving on, clearly development and LDC issues remain a pressing priority. I encourage the CTD SS 
chair to continue exploring with Members all possible approaches to find ways of breaking stalemates 
and making progress in the Special Session. I also encourage him to continue his efforts to advance 
the conversation on ways and means to ensure that de velopment remains effectively central to our 
work. So please be proactive, creative, open -minded and constructive as you interact with 
Ambassador Ngarambe.  
 
Of course, there are many other areas where we need to see progress. This includes those areas 
where we are already behind the schedule that Members set themselves, for example Public 
Stockholding.  
 
In each of these areas, let me once again reiterate that  the Chairs and I are available to assist you 
in driving things forward. But you – the Members – remain in the driving seat.  
 
Of course, some Members are also pursuing joint initiatives, outside the Negotiating Groups, on 
areas of economic interest. I lea ve it to them to provide updates on this work if they so wish.  
 
Let me turn now to the broader picture in global trade. On 2 April we published our latest trade 
forecasts. The numbers tell a clear story. In 2017 trade growth was 4.6%. In 2018 it underperf ormed 
with growth of 3%. The final quarter saw the biggest drop in 10 years. And the forecast for 2019 is 
just 2.6%. This reflects the realities of global trade today, with very high levels of uncertainty 
dragging down both global GDP and trade. While ther e is potential for a slight improvement in 2020 
– this is in part dependent on an easing of trade tensions over this period.  
 
It is therefore increasingly urgent that we resolve tensions and focus on charting a positive path 
forward for global trade which  responds to the real challenges in today's economy. As part of this, 
we must address the systemic issues facing the WTO – and this connects with the ongoing debate 
on WTO reform. While I think there is significant momentum behind the idea of reform, it is  clear 
that so far Members have been flexible in approaching this task.  
 
From my conversations with Members I think there are a few over -arching principles. First, whatever 
the precise steps Members wish to take, it is clear that the WTO has to be better, work faster, and 
be more responsive. Second, no one is talking about tearing apart what we have. Rather, the focus 
is on taking necessary, practical, concrete steps that can have a rapid impact in driving our work 
forward. Third, I have not heard any one t alk about bundling things up into some kind of new 
package. Instead, the focus seems geared towards harvesting what we can, when we can and 
moving on. So that's the broad approach.  
 
In terms of the substance, I think the conversations are falling into 3 br oad areas. The first is how 
to strengthen the work of the WTO's regular bodies and committees to improve areas such as WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 56 - 
 
  notifications and transparency and better utili se these bodies to address Members' trade concerns. 
The second area is how to improve the Dispute Settlement System and address the impasse in the 
appointments to the Appellate Body. I welcome the fact that Members remain engaged in the 
informal process on Appellate Body matters facilitated by Ambassador Walker, under the auspices 
of the Genera l Council Chair. I understand that so far, a total of eleven proposals have been 
submitted to the General Council by Members. This matter will be taken up in next week's General 
Council and I look forward to that discussion.  I am also continuing my own co nsultations.  And, as 
I said at our last meeting, we must start thinking about all possible options now, not in December. 
The third area is how to improve our negotiating work so that we can keep delivering new 
agreements with real economic impact. As I ha ve said before, we can’t allow multilateralism to 
become synonymous with paralysis. We have to find ways to reinvigorate our negotiating and 
deliberative work to deliver on issues of importance for members.  
 
The systemic threats we face demand action from  us all. I commend Members for the commitment 
and engagement that we have seen so far this year, and for your efforts to resolve these issues. But 
it is clear to me that we need to do much more if we are to truly rise to the historic challenge before 
us. O ur actions over the coming months will be crucial. So, we have to get it right.  
 
This concludes my report.  
 
Reports by the Negotiating Group Chairs  
1. Negotiating Group on Rules  
 
As I reported in February, the work undertaken by the Negotiating Group on Rule s in the last part 
of last year succeeded in completing the streamlining of the proposals received in the lead -up to 
MC11. The result of the streamlining process was a single working document (TN/RL/W/274/Rev.6) 
and a supporting room document (RD/TN/RL/72)  which includes all the different proposals, along 
with a number of alternatives. In addition, the Incubator Group process came to an end in December 
having generated many useful ideas and suggestions for new ways to approach old problems and 
the reports f rom the Groups along with an abstract were distributed to the Negotiating Group on 21 
December.  
At the December cluster the Group also agreed to a new work programme for the first seven months 
of this year with six clusters of meetings of one week each. Each cluster to be evenly divided, with 
time available for meetings delegations organi zed themselves and time for open -ended 
consultations.   
In addition, four facilitators were appointed, one each for IUU fishing, for overfished stocks, for 
overfishing an d overcapacity, and for cross -cutting issues. According to the mandate, special and 
differential treatment is integral to the negotiations, so this is being taken up under each heading 
and as a cross -cutting issue. Other cross -cutting issues include the sc ope of a WTO fisheries 
subsidies agreement, transparency provisions, institutional arrangements, and disputes and 
remedies.  
So far this year, the Negotiating Group has held three clusters of meetings and a fourth is going to 
be held next week. There has al so been a lot of activity between the clusters as delegations have 
met with each other and the facilitators. I have also held my own consultations with delegations and 
am continuing to do so. In addition, the Secretariat has been carrying out regional work shops on 
the fisheries subsidy negotiations with more planned in the near future.  
In addition to the compilation of existing proposals that resulted from the 2018 streamlining process, 
several new proposals have been prepared and distributed this year. To  date, the Group has 
received:  
• a proposal and its revision on subsidies for overfished stocks;  
• another proposal and revision on subsidies and overfishing and overcapacity;  
• two proposals on a capping limit to subsidies which the proponents say would work a longside 
other disciplines on subsidies; and  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 57 - 
 
  • suggested language on the scope of a fisheries subsidies agreement.  
There are different views on these proposals and some Members support some of them, or parts of 
them, others say they can work with them, and others prefer different approaches. However, in my 
opinion, each of them is an attempt to compromise, either by trying to find a middle ground among 
existing proposals or to present a new approach to avoid the known problems with those that have 
been discu ssed before.  
In addition to delegations negotiating directly with each other, the facilitators have been taking on 
an increasingly active role and that role has been expanding as we move on. At the start of the year, 
the facilitators were mostly responsiv e to requests from delegations for assistance and advice.   
Now, following requests from different groups of delegations, facilitators have organi zed several 
open-ended meetings, including making presentations and actively participating in the discussions.  
They also have been reaching out to delegations where they consider this to be useful. I fully expect 
their role to continue to expand and their participation to increase in scope and importance as we 
move forward.  
To summari se the positive aspects of the  past few months, there has been a lot of work, delegations 
have been fully engaged, all Members say they are committed to the deadline of the end of this year 
to complete the negotiations, the ambience at the meetings has been positive, and there have bee n 
several proposals which try to offer compromise solutions.  
But on the negative side, I cannot say that we are getting closer to an agreement.  
• On subsidies to IUU fishing. To many people this appears to be the most straightforward 
issue in the negotiation s. But, although I am aware that some delegations have been working 
on some ideas, we have not had any proposal so far this year;  
• On subsidies for fishing of overfished stocks. We have had a proposal which is a serious 
effort to find a compromise and which  has been revised. But there is no agreement that the 
negative effects approach used in this proposal is the right one, with some delegations 
preferring a list approach, a hybrid approach or some other approach;  
• On subsidies that contribute to overcapacity  and overfishing there is also a proposal which 
has been revised, and which is an attempt to offer a compromise among existing positions. 
In addition, there are two different proposals based on capping. But again, there is no 
agreement on what the basic ap proach should be, or if capping should be an additional 
discipline on top of other rules;  
• Finally, on cross -cutting issues, there has been an increase in activity as certain delegations 
and groups have engaged the facilitator to hold open -ended meetings t o discuss some issues 
in this area. However, work is still lagging behind other topics and the full implications of 
some of the basic approaches remain to be explored.  
Clearly there is a lot of work to be done, and a very limited amount of time in which t o do it.  
Therefore, I intend to ask for a meeting of the Negotiating Group at this, the Heads of Delegation, 
level. The meeting will be held in the week of 13  May, following next week's cluster. The aim will be 
to request strategic orientation through a s eries of simple, but difficult to answer, questions about 
the basic direction we should take in each area.  
Of course, I do not expect answers or consensus either in next week's cluster or in the Heads of 
Delegation meeting. I am not looking for a final ag reement on anything. I am only looking for an 
understanding that after the summer break, the negotiations can proceed based on a common 
approach for each area. To meet the mandate for a negotiated agreement by the end of the year, 
we need to move quickly, focus on the overall objectives and get down to work.  
2. Committee on Trade and Development – Special Session  
At the last formal Special meeting of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTDSS) held in 
early April, I was formally elected as the Chairperson o f that Committee.  In that meeting, I had WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 58 - 
 
  announced my intention to initiate a process of consultations with Members and I had told them that 
my objective for these consultations would be to get a better perception of Members' concerns and 
sensitivities in  the CTD SS work. In addition, I would like to hear Members' views and suggestions 
on what can be done differently to  achieve tangible progress in this area of our work.   
Accordingly, I started a bilateral one on one consultative process with key players representing all 
geographical regions, including with the Coordinators and development focal points of the G -90, the 
ACP, the African and the LDCs in my quest for seeking c larity on the way forward. I had invited 26 
delegations. Twenty -five delegations attended. My first round of consultations, primarily in a 
listening mode, has just been completed.   
Let me be honest in stating that I did not sense any shift in Members' pos itions so frequently stated 
in the past. There is no disagreement among Members on the centrality of development and the role 
WTO rules can play in harnessing it. However, fundamental conceptual differences continue to 
remain on how to achieve this objecti ve.  
Nonetheless, thanks to a very frank exchange of views during the course of these consultations, I 
find myself better placed where I have a better sense and appreciation of their positions. I also 
understood that the proponents were in the process of r eviewing their S&D proposals.  I hope they 
would soon be in a position to table revised proposals in the Special Session.  
It is also pertinent to mention that Members remain cognizant of the recent developments and the 
papers being submitted elsewhere in t he House in the context of broader trade and development 
debate and their possible bearing on the dynamics of the work in the CTD SS. I also heard some 
Members suggesting that it might be useful for us to explore different ideas on how to expand and 
deepen  the nexus between trade and development in our work.  
At this stage, I would rather refrain from drawing any conclusions from the consultations  
I have had. In the coming weeks, I intend to start a second round of consultations with a view to 
discuss and f ind ways that can facilitate initiation of substantive work in the Special Session.  
I will also keep on impressing the proponents on the importance of tabling their revised proposals 
as early as possible. I hope to be able to make a more substantive report  to you at our next meeting.   
3. Council for Trade in Services – Special Session  
The Special Session held its first meeting of the year on 8 April.   
The purpose of that informal meeting was to discuss a communication from Chile, Mexico, New 
Zealand and Pana ma, in which these delegations shared their views and interests on market access 
in tourism and related services.  
The discussion was useful, as many delegations intervened to provide their own opinions, share their 
interests, or communicate national exper iences.  Overall, different points of views were expressed.   
A number of Members placed significant value on the tourism sector, including for economic 
development, trade, and the attainment of various national objectives. The importance of the policy 
environment, including trade and investment policies, was underscored in that regard.  
In terms of market access interests, better sectoral coverage and improved commitments in the 
different modes of supply were mentioned.  Some Members also expressed interest  in a number of 
other sectors that were seen to impact tourism, including recreational services, transport of 
passengers, and construction services, among others.  
At the same time, a number of Members questioned the need for discussions, or had limited or  no 
interest in services market access, including because of concerns about lack of progress in other 
areas of negotiating interest.  
Some delegations said that they had interest in discussing other sectors, and a Member said that it 
intended to circulate a communication on another service sector.  In this regard, I would like to 
mention that I remain available for both bilateral and group -based discussions.    WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 59 - 
 
  Finally, with regard to Domestic Regulation, the Working Party held a meeting on 20 March to disc uss 
a revised proposal for disciplines on domestic regulation for Mode 4 that had been submitted by the 
delegation of India.  In addition, since my last report to the TNC, a group of Members has continued 
to hold open -ended meetings to work on the text of disciplines.  
4. Committee on Agriculture – Special Session  and Sub -Committee on Cotton2 
Since my last report to the informal meeting of the Trade Negotiation Committee on 27 February, I 
held two meetings of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session and back to back dedicated 
discussions on Public Stockholding for food security purposes and Special Safeguard Mechanism on 
14 March and earlier this week on 30 April -1 May.  
My introductory statement at the last CoA Special Session will be circulated soon as a  JOB/AG 
document.  
Alongside the CoA Special Session, I have also held more than 20 consultations with delegations 
and group coordinators. These have been very useful.  
As planned, the Members -led Working Groups process initiated at the beginning of the ye ar has 
intensified since we last met. In total, we have had 17 Working Groups meetings: 5 on Domestic 
Support, 3 on PSH, 2 on Market Access, 2 on SSM, 1 on Export Competition, 1 on Export Restrictions 
and 3 Cotton Technical Quad Plus meetings. I thank the Coordinators for convening and chairing 
these meetings and for the constructive manner in which they have carried out their tasks.  
The Working Groups process is generally considered positively by delegations and has thus far 
achieved its basic rationale, namely triggering more informal and candid exchanges between 
delegations on the series of questions posed by the coordinators.  
It has therefore been decided to continue this Working Groups process until the end of July, but 
importantly with some adjustment s aimed at addressing the comments and suggestions made by 
delegations, in particular the need to avoid an unnecessary multiplication of meetings and to move 
progressively towards a more focused and negotiation -oriented phase.  
In parallel, CoA Special Session meetings, which remain the central forum for the negotiations, will 
continue to be held on a monthly basis. I will complement this process with regular intensified 
consultations in various formats on which I will report at the CoA Special Session meetings.  
I have strongly urged Members to come up sooner rather than later with updated inputs, submissions 
and proposals to feed into the discussions we will be having in the coming weeks and the reaction 
has generally been very positive.  
As previously indicated, my objective is to have  an outline of possible elements and related options 
for delegations to reflect on during the summer break. The form or level of detail of such an outline 
will directly emanate from Members' contrib utions and should become clearer closer to July.  
Members should then engage after the summer break in a full outcome -oriented process and possibly 
use various High -Level meetings scheduled in the second half of 2019 as "stepping stones" to 
advance converge nce and facilitate the negotiating process.  
As I see it, based on all the deliberations thus far, one might envisage three possible non -exclusive 
outcomes of this whole process: i) A transparency outcome; ii) An incremental substantive outcome 
seeking bala nce but only on a limited scope of selected topics and iii)  an integrated substantive 
package that is a broader balanced multi -topic package that Members would agree on at MC12.  
On substance, Domestic Support, PSH and Cotton remain the most frequently ment ioned priority 
issues. Market Access is generally seen less as being more difficult by many delegations who consider 
that because of the complexity of the negotiating issues, much would have to be done if progress 
was to be achieved in this area in the cur rent outcome timeline. Tariff simplification, tariff peaks, 
                                                
2 The report was delivered by Deputy Director -General Agah, on behalf of the Chair of the Special Session 
of the Committee on Agriculture and Sub -Committee on Cotton.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 60 - 
 
  tariff escalation, TRQ administration, and SSG are mentioned by some as possible issues to focus 
on first, while some others caution against the temptation of cherry picking. Work and discussions 
will continue on SSM despite the worrisome challenges on this topic.  
For several Members, Export Restrictions would constitute a credible potential deliverable and some 
qualified Export Competition as having "unfinished business". Our engagement in both of  these areas 
will continue.  
The question of linkages, both within agriculture and outside, remains an issue. While some 
delegations cautioned against unwarranted linkages, others considered them as unavoidable.  
Several Members consider that priority shoul d be given to issues covered by past WTO Ministerial 
mandates which should be included in any incremental outcome.  
I am fully aware of the obstacles that we face but I remain more than convinced that we need to 
intensify our engagement to achieve our coll ective goal.  
Let me also note before I conclude that the introduction by the C4 at the CoA Special Meeting on 30 
April of the upcoming launch event for a World Cotton Day on 7 October 2019 at WTO  headquarters 
was well received and supported by the Membership.  
5. Council for TRIPS – Special Session3 
Let me briefly report on my recent activities as the Chair of the TRIPS Special session, and on the 
current situation in that negotiating group.  
As you know, despite various efforts, there has been little act ivity in this group for some time now. 
While there had been some signs of active reflection on the part of the 'demandeurs ' since MC11 – 
notably a workshop on the different aspects of the W/52 -proposal in 2017 – these reflections have 
not resulted  in any concrete  initiative  or declaration  in the negotiating  group.  I have also not been 
able to detect any movement in the periodic consultations that I have been holding from time to 
time. 
In my most recent  small  group  consultation  on 1 May, I once again  pointed  out that this lack of 
activity  in the TRIPS  Special  Session  stands  in stark contrast  with the dynamic  activity  on GIs in 
Bilateral  and Regional  Trade  Agreements  – which  create  multiple  new protection  regimes  for GIs. 
Unfortunately,  this outside  momentum  has not translated  into increased  initiative  in this negotiating  
group,  which  has not engaged  in the substance  of its mandated  work on a GI Register  for wine and 
spirit GIs for some  time now. I suggested  that an exchange  between  delegation  on relevant 
devel opments in recent bilateral trade agreements and domestic GI protection systems could be 
useful for the work in the TRIPS Special Session, where negotiating positions date from as far back 
as 2008.  
While all delegations promised to raise my suggestion with  their Capitals, their substantive positions 
remained the same. Delegations supporting the W/52 modalities proposal reiterated once again the 
importance they attached to the TRIPS issues and confirmed their view that the WTO was the right 
forum to discuss these questions. However, they judged that the current negotiating context was, 
in their view, not conducive to engaging substantively at this time.  
The delegations supporting the Joint Proposal reiterated their position that any activity in the TRIPS 
Special Session needed to respect the negotiating mandate that was limited to wine and spirit GIs. 
One delegation argued that the longstanding divergence of views meant there was little likelihood 
of an outcome, and it was therefore opposed to any intensificat ion of work.  
In light of the above,  I must once again  report  that there  is still no appetite  for substantive  re-
engagement  in the TRIPS  Special  Session  on either  side of the debate.  
Going forward, I am planning to call consultations again with key delegations in the coming weeks 
to see whether my suggestion to share experiences about GI developments outside the WTO – that 
are relevant to the TRIPS SS negotiations – has found any favou r with Members.  
                                                
3 The report was delivered by Deputy Director -General Yi, on behalf of the Chair of the Special Session of 
the Council for TRIPS.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 61 - 
 
  As in the past, I will stay in contact with delegations and remain available to help reinvigorate these 
negotiations whenever delegations choose to return to the table.  
6. Dispute Settlement Body – Special Session4 
The DSB in Special Session (DSB-SS) met on 27 March 2019. Members concluded focused work on 
3 issues, bringing the total number of issues discussed by the DSB -SS to 11. As for the only other 
remaining issue, Flexibility and Member control, no substantive discussions could be held. T his is 
because one of the co -proponents was still consulting internally and therefore unable to engage.  
 
During the meeting, I recalled that this year I also serve as Chair of the United Nations Human 
Rights Council, and that in light of foreseeable challe nges in carrying out both chairmanships for an 
extended period of time, I had decided to step down as Chair of the DSB -SS. The General Council 
has already designated a new DSB -SS Chair – Ambassador Johnson from Togo – who will take up 
his duties following my departure.  
 
Before stepping down, I intend to prepare a report that will cover work undertaken by the DSB -SS 
since late 2016. I will circulate my report in advance of our next meeting so that Members will have 
the opportunity to comment. At the same mee ting, which is currently scheduled for late May, the 
DSB-SS will also be able to elect the newly designated Chair.  
 
_______________  
 
 
                                                
4 The report was delivered by Deputy Director -General Brauner, on behalf of the Chair of the Special 
Session of the Dispute Settle ment Body.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 62 - 
 
  ANNEX 3  
STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S AT THE INFORMAL TN C AND INFORMAL HODS MEETINGS 
HELD ON 3 MAY 2019  
Following the Director -General's statement at the above -mentioned meeting, the statements made 
by Canada (Ottawa Group); Jamaica (ACP); Panama (Article XII Members); Australia (Joint 
Statement Initiative on E -Commerce); Trinidad and Tobago (CARICOM); Japan ; Mexico; Angola; 
European Union; Colombia (Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development); 
China; Ghana; Cuba; Singapore; India; Peru (including the Lima Group) ; Argentina; United States; 
Egypt; Chinese Taipei; Barbados; Chad (LDCs); B razil; Chile; New Zealand; Thailand (ASEAN); 
Russian Federation; Republic of Korea; Paraguay; Norway; Pakistan; Turkey; Uruguay (Informal 
Working Group on MSMEs); Plurinational State of Bolivia; Switzerland; Benin (African Group and 
C-4); Sri Lanka; South Africa; Indonesia; Solomon Islands (Pacific Group); St. Lucia (OECS); 
Nigeria; Hong Kong, China; Malaysia;  and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela are included below as 
part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting. This also includes the remarks of the Director -
General at the end of that meeting . 
 
_______________  
 
1. Canada (Ottawa Group)  
 
I would like to briefly provide the Membership with an update on the work of the "Ottawa Group" 
WTO reform initiative. As Canada reported at our last Informal HODs meetin g in February, the 
Ottawa group will meet again in May 2019 on the margins of the OECD meeting to "check in" and 
review the status of the work done since Davos outlined and to provide guidance on next steps.  
 
In the past few weeks, the informal discussions  on the work of the four WTO bodies, the Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures Committee, the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee, the Rules of 
Origin Committee and the Council for Trade in Services continued to take place.  
 
On SPS, two meetings of informa l discussions were convened in March, on the 1st and on the 20th, 
in order to debate on possible improvements to the work of the SPS Committee, in particular with 
respect to its deliberative functions. Some useful ideas have been suggested by Members such as 
strengthening the specific trade concerns procedure, enhancing the reports presented to the CTG, 
identifying best practices, facilitating the access to the catalog of instruments (G/SPS/63) and to the 
existing mediation procedure (G/SPS/61). A list of t opics for discussion will be circulated shortly, 
and a third informal meeting will be organi zed in late May/early June.  
 
Singapore is continuing work on a discussion paper to identify the practices and tools that aid the 
work of the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade with a view to discussing how these can add 
value to the work of other WTO Bodies.  
 
Following constructive and inclusive informal discussions that started in 2017 in the context of the 
Committee on Rules of Origin, Switzerland and 12 co -sponsors submitted a proposal to the 
Committee aimed at enhancing transparency in non -preferential rules of origin. The proposal has 
gathered a broad level of support by Members, and proponents issued a revised proposal this week 
which took into account the  comments received. The revised proposal will be discussed again in the 
next formal Committee later this month with reasonable hope that it can be formally approved.  
 
Within the services space, Australia is continuing to explore ideas for strengthening the  WTO's 
monitoring and transparency function for services trade measures.  
 
These informal discussions are useful tools for the Membership in building trust and confidence 
amongst Members and we encourage all to engage in this spirit.  
 
2. Canada  
 
Canada is pleased to see efforts from the Membership to reflect further on the development 
dimension in WTO rule -making efforts. As such, Canada wishes to thank Norway for its valuable 
contribution and welcomes this pragmatic, perhaps more palatable way fo rward on the trade and 
development discussion. We think the discussion paper can help balance what has been expressed WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 63 - 
 
  in recent meetings. We look forward to engage with others on this to ensure that trade fulfils its 
objective of being an engine for develo pment and that the work of the organization can continue in 
a productive manner.  
 
On the fisheries subsidies negotiations, Canada welcomes recent efforts to develop creative ideas to 
address areas of persisting disagreement on the text of the disciplines. We look forward to working 
constructively on these new ideas to identify meaningful and realistic outcomes on which the 
Membership can achieve consensus. The matter is urgent for the WTO: not only due the limited time 
remaining before the end of the year, but also to demonstrate the continuing effectiveness of the 
WTO's negotiating function. Canada recogni zes that there may be need for appropriate Special and 
Differential Treatment but this must be tailored to the needs of particular Members and that does 
not undermine the effectiveness of the agreement.  
  
With respect to the agriculture negotiations, Canada's priority remains developing stronger 
disciplines on trade and production distorting domestic support that will reflect current trends and 
realities i n international agriculture markets. The starting point for new rules on domestic support 
should be that all Members make a contribution to reforming domestic support proportionate to their 
size and role in global agriculture trade and capacity to provide domestic support. Once there is a 
baseline, we can then look at flexibilities. On process, we support the CoA SS Chair's plans outlined 
earlier this week for the discussions between now and the end of July to focus engagement in the 
Working Groups. Canada will continue to play a constructive role in these groups and we plan to 
continue to make contributions to advance the agriculture negotiations in order to find outcomes for 
MC12 on new substantive rules, enhancing transparency and setting the stage for co ntinued 
liberalising agriculture reforms.  
 
Canada continues to appreciate the work on the joint statement initiatives launched at MC11 and it 
is important to maintain momentum. Building on the recent Joint Ministerial Statement announcing 
the intention to commence WTO negotiations on related aspects of e -commerce, Canada is looking 
forward to engage actively in this new phase of discussions and we encourage all Members to 
participate. Services Domestic Regulation is also another area where we have made mean ingful 
progress.  
 
Canada notes that the participating Members in investment facilitation continue to meet in structured 
discussions format every month and that Members are engaging constructively and submitting useful 
examples of elements of a framework fo r investment facilitation.  
 
Canada remains a firm believer in the WTO dispute settlement system as a key pillar of the rules -
based multilateral trading order. We regret that the Appellate Body selection process remains 
blocked. We note, once again, that th ere are a number of proposals currently on the table to address 
the concerns that have been raised by Members. The process that is being facilitated by Ambassador 
Walker will require meaningful engagement from all Members, but particularly from the United 
States, which raised many of the concerns.  
 
3. Jamaica (ACP)  
 
On behalf of the ACP Group, my delegation would like to join others in thanking the Director -General 
for his extensive report. We also wish to thank the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their r eports.  
 
Agriculture remains a critical part of the economies and livelihoods of ACP countries. The ACP 
therefore welcomes the steps which are being taken to achieve further progress in the negotiations 
on agriculture. We further wish to emphasise that the  current imbalance in entitlement to the use 
of domestic support provisions is having a serious negative impact on ACP countries' productive 
capacity and international competitiveness.  
 
We acknowledge that agriculture remains one of, if not, the most diff icult areas of the Doha Work 
Programme, and for this reason, we call on all Members to accord due priority to advancing the 
negotiations.  
 
It is important however to bear in mind that any outcome must be in line with the mandate of 
Paragraph 13 of the Doha Declaration and subsequent mandate issued by Ministers, especially as it 
relates to the special circumstances of developing countries and LDCs as well as NFIDCs. The WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 64 - 
 
  Working Group process must have this at the centre of its modus operandi. The task ahead is 
challenging but can be successfully realised through cooperation, dialogue and diplomacy.  
  
Regarding the fisheries subsidies negotiati ons, the ACP Group continues to work diligently on a 
contribution for this cluster in terms of sharing ideas in the informal text -based discussions.  We are 
also engaged in consultations with our capitals on texts shared by others in the last cluster, alth ough 
some have not advanced common interests. We also reiterate the importance of negotiations on the 
basis of TN/RL/ W/274/Rev.6.  
 
The ACP Group welcomes the active participation of various delegations and the facilitators in moving 
the negotiations forwar d and in that context would urge a return to the 5 -day format for informal 
discussions.    
 
We would also like to remind Members of the need to ensure that, in the enthusiasm to advance 
these negotiations, developing countries, LDCs and small island States  which are dependent on small 
scale and artisanal fishing and without much capacity to subsidise, do not become the targets of 
recent pressure to expedite notifications required under Article 25 of the ASCM.   
 
On Special and Differential Treatment, the AC P Group reiterates its concern that a discussion on 
development is taking place in the General Council instead of within the CTD SS. Further, these 
discussions are not taking place in accordance with the mandate of Paragraph 44 which is to review 
the S&DT provisions with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective 
and operational. The ACP is of the view that arbitrary classification of Members and the suggestion 
that some developing country Members are not entitled to S&DT or are ex cluded from claiming 
flexibilities, deviate from the S&DT provisions enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement. What could 
instead be proposed is that Members who so wish can self -declare or opt out if they do not require 
such S&DT flexibilities in the implemen tation of WTO Agreements.  
 
We firmly believe that in moving forward with the discussions, we should ensure that the basic 
principles of inclusivity, transparency, development and particularly S&DT for developing countries 
and LDCs are fully adhered to. We  should also seek to further the mandate of Paragraph 44 of the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration.  
 
As regards e -commerce, the ACP Group is now more than ever convinced that the work under the 
current mandate of the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce ha s not been exhausted 
and that there is much more that needs to be done under the development dimension. On the e -
commerce moratorium, the ACP Group recogni zes the concerns developing countries have with 
respect to the revenue implications and loss of polic y space and are reflecting on the way forward.  
 
As regards WTO Reform, the ACP Group reaffirms the paramount importance of preserving an 
independent, impartial and well -functioning dispute settlement system which is essential to 
preserving the legitimacy a nd credibility of the multilateral trading system, in all of its facets.  
 
We therefore welcome the continuing efforts aimed at unblocking the current impasse in the 
appointment of Appellate Body Members. The continuing impasse poses the real threat of erod ing 
the effectiveness of the WTO as a rule -making institution and undermines the adjudication function 
of this House. With this in mind, the ACP Group continues to urge all Members to work in a 
transparent and inclusive manner with the aim of finding viabl e solutions.  
 
The ACP Group notes the interests of some Members in enhancing monitoring and transparency 
measures. Members must be mindful however of the significant capacity constraints that some 
developing and least developed countries confront in meetin g notification related obligations and, as 
such, seek to ensure that solutions offered are positive and constructive, not punitive, and should 
not serve to further disadvantage developing country efforts to meet their implementation related -
commitments.  
 
In conclusion, the ACP Group reaffirms its full commitment to continue to play a constructive role in 
any discussion that seeks to make the WTO better serve the interests of all its Members.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 65 - 
 
  4. Panama (Article XII Members)  
 
I am speaking on behalf of the Gro up of Article XII Members.  
 
As we repeat often, we do not advocate for special treatment because of the time that we have been 
Members. We advocate for a more level playing field, asking that the original Members of the WTO 
assume significantly higher levels of commitments such as they required of Article XII Members.  
 
In the Committee in Agriculture in Special Session, our group has repeatedly pointed out that the 
average agriculture bound tariff of the original Members is four times higher than that o f the 
Article  XII Members. Imbalances are also present in Members entitlements in domestic support and 
commitments in export competition. Our Group has reiterated the need and our willingness to work 
towards substantive results on all 3 pillars of the Agri culture negotiations.  
 
Elsewhere, in Non -Agricultural Market Access, the average bound tariff of all original Members is 
three times the average of Article XII Members. Article XII Members have 100% bound coverage; 
original Members average only 74.5%, and  only 37 of the original Members have 100% coverage.  
In Services, Article XII Members on average have commitments in 107 sectors, whereas the average 
original Member has commitments in only 42. Article XII Members have also undertaken more 
commitments in virtually every subsector of the GATS.  
 
The data is clear: Article XII Members have made greater and more extensive commitments than 
the original Members. This difference has grown and will surely widen as each successive acceding 
Member is asked to leap over an ever -higher bar.   
 
We must continue our work to strengthen all sectors and pillars of our multilateral trading system. 
Addressing the imbalances in the commitments of Members is an important part of our work. We 
encourage Members to see the commit ments made by Article XII Members as benchmarks where 
WTO reforms should lead.  
 
I take this opportunity to reiterate our group's commitment to a successful outcome in the ongoing 
negotiations and to ensure a level playing field for all WTO Members.  
 
5. Panam a 
 
As regards agriculture, Panama supports and has actively participated in the expert groups convened 
by the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session. Panama considers that technical 
dialogue should continue to be strengthened to secure  a comprehensive reform that covers the three 
pillars of domestic support, market access and export competition.  
 
If we seek solutions for only one of these aspects, Members will simply focus on the pillar or issue 
for which they have to undertake fewer co mmitments, and exclude the others. As a result, we will 
not achieve the balance between issues required by other Members with other concerns and 
priorities.  
 
The negotiations on NAMA and services are a neglected part of the built in agenda. They are no les s 
important and no less of a priority than agriculture.  
 
Services play a key role in facilitating trade in goods, including agricultural goods which are so 
important for many Members. They help create global chains and generate value.  
 
The liberalization o f trade in services is a priority for Panama. In our statement as coordinator of the 
group of Members that acceded to the organization under Article XII, we drew attention to the 
significant imbalances between the commitments under the General Agreement on  Trade in 
Services. In our specific case, for example, our major trading partners and original Members have 
only undertaken 9 commitments, while others have undertaken 20. For this reason, among others, 
Panama, together with Chile, Mexico and New Zealand s ubmitted a communication requesting 
Members to examine sectors of interest for all Members, in order to explore and exchange viewpoints 
on market access. Such actions do not constitute new negotiation procedures or processes, but are 
rather a step towards the fulfilment of the negotiating mandate contained in Article XIX of the GATS.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 66 - 
 
  The negotiations on services must take place in parallel with and be given the same priority as 
negotiations in other areas, in order to ensure a balance in the interests of M embers and in the 
diversity of their economies. We reject any call to give higher priority to other negotiations. Work 
must be carried out simultaneously.  
 
With regard to the negotiations to eliminate fisheries subsidies, we have worked intensively, together 
with five other Latin American countries, to promote and enhance, in the Negotiating Group on Rules, 
discussions that are based on the text our Ministers instructed us to use as a basis for negotiations, 
and new proposals and other relevant inputs . We call on Members to show greater commitment to 
flexibility, and to put forward alternative and potential solutions that would enable us, before 
summer, to prepare texts that would give rise to an agreement in December.  
 
Panama is committed to participa ting actively in and contributing to any dialogue or initiative – 
preferably multilateral, but without excluding other formats – that would help us to adapt our 
organization to current trends and new challenges.  
 
6. Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on E -Commerce)  
 
I would like to report on progress in the Electronic Commerce Joint Statement initiative on behalf of 
the co -conveners – Australia, Japan and Singapore.  
 
As I noted at the February Informal HODs, in Davos on 25 January, 76 WTO Members, represent ing 
over 90% of global trade, released a Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce. In that statement, 
Members confirmed their intention to commence WTO negotiations on the trade -related aspects of 
electronic commerce with the objective of achieving a high st andard outcome that builds on existing 
WTO agreements and frameworks with the participation of as many WTO Members as possible.  
 
We are pleased to report that Benin has recently announced it will join the Initiative bringing the 
total number of signatories  to 77.  
 
Since the release of the Davos statement, and following open -ended consultations, an organizational 
meeting was held on 6 March. At that meeting the timetable and working methods up to the summer 
break were set out and a call made for text -based p roposals.  
 
To date we have received nine written proposals which have been made available to all WTO 
Members. They have been allocated an INF/ECOM document ID and are available on the online 
portal accessible by all Members.   
 
These proposals cover a wid e range of trade -related electronic commerce issues and we express our 
gratitude to the delegations that have submitted them. The proposals set a good foundation for our 
Member -driven work and provide a sound illustration of the strong interest in setting new rules on 
e-commerce in the WTO.  
 
The next meeting of the initiative will be held on 13 to 15 May followed by meetings from 18 to 20 
June and 15 to 17 July. As for previous meetings, all Members are invited to attend and Members 
can submit proposals at  any time.  
 
At the 13 to 15 May meeting, proponents of proposals will be given an opportunity to introduce their 
papers. We also intend to delve into greater depth on certain topics raised in the papers, following 
a thematic approach – with other topics co vered in the June and July meetings.  
 
Using the text proposals as a basis, our initial focus will be on identifying commonalities between 
different proposals and to build our understanding of the reasoning behind any differences.  
 
As mentioned in the Davos  Joint Statement, the unique opportunities and challenges faced by 
Members, including developing countries and LDCs, as well as by MSMEs, will be taken into account 
in the negotiations. It is our intention to address the development dimension of e -commerce  in an 
integrated manner across all topics. We will encourage delegations to elaborate on the specific 
challenges and opportunities they face with respect to each issue as it is discussed.  
 
We are looking forward to a productive meeting in May and encourage all Members to join.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 67 - 
 
  7. Trinidad and Tobago (CARICOM)  
 
This statement is being delivered on behalf of the Caribbean Community Group.  
 
We thank the Director -General for convening this meeting, for the report on his activities and for 
the reports pre sented by the Chairpersons of the Negotiating Groups. We are indeed grateful for the 
continued demonstration of transparency. As a Group, CARICOM wishes to reiterate its strong 
commitment to a rules -based multilateral trading system that is transparent, in clusive, and 
consensus -based.  
 
The CARICOM Group remains seized of matters concerning the functioning of the Appellate Body. 
The potential paralysis of the dispute settlement mechanism is a continuing cause for concern and 
we urge Members to work in a prod uctive manner to urgently resolve the crisis. We believe that a 
collapse of the dispute settlement system would further disadvantage the smallest and most 
vulnerable Members. We have noted the efforts of the facilitator, Ambassador David Walker of New 
Zealand, in driving the process of finding a solution forward, and we also acknowledge those 
Members that have put forward proposals. The CARICOM Group believes that Members need to 
engage deeply to ensure that this challenge is overcome.  
 
Regarding the issue  of Special and Differential Treatment, the CARICOM Group advances its voice 
on this critically important principle of our organization. In view of the importance of S&DT in 
economic development, particularly for the smallest and most vulnerable, we urge M embers to give 
priority to this area. Provisions for S&DT are an integral part of the WTO Agreements. The CARICOM 
Group does not believe that the right of developing countries to S&DT is an issue for negotiation or 
interpretation. The development dimension  of work at the WTO remains of the highest significance 
to the CARICOM Group. The Group believes that developing Members, especially small and 
vulnerable economies, and least developed countries are entitled to and should continue to have 
access to S&DT in  accordance with the Marrakesh Agreement.  
 
Our Group has noted the ongoing work in the fisheries negotiations. We note efforts at progress in 
the negotiations with a view to the finalisation of an agreement within the time limit agreed by our 
Ministers, bu t we also want an agreement that is sound and supports the needs of developing 
countries and LDCs. As an organization, we need to make optimal use of the remaining time. 
Meaningful and effective S&DT for developing country and LDC Members should be an inte gral part 
of the negotiations.  
 
In the area of agriculture, we have seen an increase in work and as we progress towards the Twelfth 
Ministerial Conference, it is envisaged that the negotiations will intensify. As our Group plays an 
active role in these neg otiations, we look forward to Members engaging positively to achieve results 
in agriculture. We support the continuation of agriculture negotiations in the context of addressing 
the needs of small, vulnerable economies.  
 
The CARICOM Group has taken note o f ongoing discussions and initiatives on WTO Reform. As 
previously stated, we call for a more inclusive and transparent approach. The discussions should not 
be exclusive to select Members, but should have the full participation of the Membership. 
Conversat ions on reform must take into account the concerns and contributions of all and must be 
aimed at protecting the development interests of all developing and LDC Members.  
 
In the area of Electronic Commerce, while we note the ongoing developments outside th e WTO, we 
remind Members of the decision taken by all of our Ministers, to reinvigorate the work under the E -
Commerce Work Programme. We must give our focus to this area of e -commerce work where there 
is multilateral agreement.  
 
The CARICOM Group remains committed to the multilateral trading system and is devoted to its 
success. We are willing to work to achieve the results that are necessary to achieve inclusive growth 
and development.  
 
8. Japan  
 
We have about a year left until MC12. Given the limited time remaining, we now need to consider 
how to address the issues on the table in a pragmatic manner. We should also be mindful of the fact 
that the current situation surrounding international trade h as started affecting the real economy. At WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 68 - 
 
  the G20 Osaka Summit next month, the G20 leaders will discuss various issues facing international 
trade, including the WTO reform. Japan hopes that the Summit will become an important opportunity 
to gain political support for the reform agenda, and to boost our discussions in Geneva in the second 
half of this year.  
 
As a first step towards the WTO reform, Japan attaches great importance to the proposal on 
enhancing transparency and notification. In this respect, it was encouraging to see the constructive 
engagements by the members at the CTG in April. Based on the concerns raised by the Members to 
date, the co -sponsors are now working intensively on the remaining issues in order to achieve a 
concrete outcome at an ea rly stage. Given its political importance as a litmus test for the WTO 
reform, Japan calls for general support from all the Members for enhancing transparency and 
notification.  
 
With regard to the rule -making function of the WTO, we are concerned that the existing WTO rules 
have failed to address today's trade issues such as market -distorting subsidies and forced technology 
transfer. With this in mind, together with the US and the EU, Japan is considering how to strengthen 
rules on industrial subsidies. Jap an hopes to discuss this issue with other Members in the not -too-
distant future.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we need to accelerate negotiations to generate a consensus by the deadline 
agreed by our Ministers which is the end of this year. The clock is ticking . We need to sort out the 
issues on the table and redouble our efforts to converge discussions.  
 
On agriculture, Japan supports the working group process under the CoA SS and continues to engage 
constructively in the discussions.  
 
The momentum boosted by t he Joint Statement Initiatives should be sustained. Towards positive 
outcomes at MC 12, Japan expects to see further progress in the areas of e -commerce, domestic 
regulation of services, MSMEs and investment facilitation. Among other developments, Japan is  
pleased to see that Benin has recently joined the Joint Statement Initiative on E -commerce. Japan, 
as a co -convener of the initiative, will continue seeking to achieve a high standard outcome with the 
participation of as many WTO Members as possible. Japa n also anticipates that the G20 Osaka 
Summit will provide political impetus to the initiative.  
 
On the Appellate Body matter, Japan continues to support the Informal Process which is underway 
under the auspices of the General Council. Members have been eng aged in solution -focused 
discussions based on concrete proposals. For its part, Japan, together with other Members, has 
tabled a proposal. Through intensive discussions, we have confirmed certain common 
understandings as to the proper functions of the syst em under the DSU. It is time to explore 
practical, feasible and expeditious solutions. It is the Members' responsibility to restore the proper 
functioning of the dispute settlement system so that the system can fulfil its function of securing a 
positive so lution to a dispute.  
 
On the development aspect, Japan believes that S&DT should be granted to the Members who 
genuinely need such treatment to the extent necessary. Japan would like to call on the other 
Members to join discussions to promote a pragmatic a pproach that incorporates development 
aspects into each negotiation area based on each Member's developmental level.  
 
With about a year to go until MC12, Japan once again emphasises that a solution -oriented approach 
on the part of all the Members is key to  addressing each challenge we now face. Japan will continue 
to do its utmost to work in cooperation with the other Members.  
 
9. Mexico  
 
The multilateral trading system is facing serious challenges and at least two of these challenges 
need to be resolved befor e December this year, which, in practical terms, means within seven 
working months.  
 
The first of these challenges involves resolving the impasse in the Appellate Body concerning the 
appointment of its members. For any discussion on new rules, it is vital to have at least one 
guarantee that the outcome of these rules would be able to be put through all the stages of a dispute 
settlement proceeding.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 69 - 
 
  Furthermore, compliance with the current rules may be seriously affected, as the lack of a legal 
system for th e settlement of disputes will create greater incentives to depart from these rules.  
 
Despite this situation and the multiple efforts made, we have failed to launch the processes to fill 
the four vacancies in the Appellate Body. We must be aware that, while  we all have a share in this 
responsibility, some Members have a greater share than others. However, in the end, we will all 
have to face the consequences of no longer having this body of second instance.  
 
The second challenge involves reaching an agreemen t on fisheries subsidies in December, as 
indicated by our Ministers in Buenos Aires. For the next cluster, we will have various proposals, 
which is proof of the high level of interest and involvement of Members. However, we must ensure 
that this momentum g ives rise to greater understanding, which will allow us, after the summer 
break, to enter into genuine negotiations regarding specific approaches conducive to an outcome in 
conformity with the mandate of the Eleventh Ministerial Conference.  
 
Regarding othe r issues, transparency is a particular priority for Mexico. It is vital to have a system 
that not only ensures the settlement of disputes but also monitors the correct implementation of the 
commitments undertaken. The principle of transparency must prevail  for all commitments and 
without special treatment for certain issues. If we try to address the concerns of some Members, we 
will also have to envisage addressing those of other Members, which will dilute the objective of 
improving transparency.  
 
Similarly , we must renew our efforts regarding the domestic regulation of services, with the aim of 
achieving a concrete outcome for Nursultan.  
 
For my country, it is paramount to have an organization that can respond adequately to new ways 
of doing business. We ar e therefore pleased to be part of the group of Members which, in two weeks, 
will initiate negotiations on e -commerce. We will also continue to advance the work in areas such as 
investment facilitation and MSMEs.  
 
More broadly, we are committed to this orga nization's reform process, as part of our responsibility 
to ensure that we have a multilateral trading system which responds, from a trade economic 
perspective, to the current and future challenges faced by our societies.  
 
In May, we will have at least fou r Ministerial meetings in which the main subject or one of the main 
subjects will be this organization. Time is against us and we must make the most of every 
opportunity that presents itself to us, to ensure that the necessary political commitments are 
undertaken at the highest level, which would enable us to give considerable impetus to our work.  
 
Mexico will, without doubt, make use of these spaces to reiterate its firm support for the work of 
this organization.  
 
10. Angola  
 
My delegation aligns itself with t he statement made by Chad, on behalf of the LDC, by Jamaica, on 
behalf of the ACP, and by Benin, on behalf of the African Group.  
 
Regarding discussions on the WTO reform, we would like to emphasise that any proposal to 
restructure the functioning of this organization must take into account the development aspect and 
correct some imbalances from the previous rounds of negotiations.  
 
We also consider important that the reform proposals take into consideration development, financial 
or trade needs, as well as  administrative and institutional capacities of developing countries, 
particularly of LDCs.  
 
Furthermore, proposals should ensure more precise, effective and operational S&DT provisions; 
Special and Differential Treatment gives us the necessary political s pace in pursuit of our 
development goals and allow us to make the needed adjustments associated with the fulfilment of 
our obligations established in the WTO Agreements.  
 
The current impasse in the appointment of Appellate Body members is a matter of conce rn, as it 
weakens the multilateral trading system. The preservation of the rules -based system requires the WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 70 - 
 
  quickest resolution of the deadlock over the selection of Appellate Body members and the issues 
that the Dispute Settlement Body is currently facing.  
 
With regard to the Doha Development Agenda, we highlight the following elements:  
 
In Agriculture:  
 
• Negotiations should result in fair rules and address the systemic imbalances in the Agreement 
on Agriculture. Fairness will be driven by reform of domestic  support, by reducing drastically 
or eliminating subsidies that distort agricultural trade.  
 
• The green box support represents the largest volume of support in some of the major 
subsidiaries, hence the need for greater transparency in order to ensure that, in fact, it is not 
distorting trade.  
 
• S&DT, especially for LDCs, should be an integral part of any outcome in this area.  
 
• A permanent solution to the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes should 
include the following elements: (i) cover e xisting and future programs; and (ii) not impose 
onerous requirements of transparency.  
 
Regarding fisheries subsidies, it is important to fulfil the mandate of the Ministers to complete the 
negotiations this year. For Angola, negotiations in this area shou ld preserve the sustainable 
development of our fishing industry, mainly artisanal and for subsistence purposes; respect the 
rights of coastal States and not impose disproportionate burdens on developing countries, including 
LDCs.  
 
11. European Union  
 
Activitie s are ongoing, but the EU is far from convinced that this is a sign we are moving towards 
solving the current crisis.  
 
The EU remains concerned that the crisis is set to further deteriorate if we do not move from 
discussion to decision and we demonstrate t hat the rules -based multilateral trading system – with 
the WTO at its core – is the best trade regime to tackle current trade challenges.  
 
Still, global trade conditions have significantly changed since the creation of this organization. The 
WTO thus needs  to adapt and create a fairer and more level playing field. This requires updating, 
strengthening and creating rules while preserving the WTO dispute settlement system to enforce 
them.  
 
The EU is increasingly concerned that the WTO risks soon ceasing to fu nction in the same manner 
as we know it today. Despite concrete and constructive proposals addressing the concerns expressed 
on the functioning of the dispute settlement system, with recent proposals going even beyond the 
stated concerns, we do not see any  engagement from those who expressed such concerns and no 
sign that the blockage of the appointment of the Appellate Body members will be lifted.  
 
Looking outside of Geneva, and without prejudging the outcome of ongoing bilateral talks between 
two major Members, the EU is concerned that any arrangement between these Members might 
further undermine the WTO if implemented in a discriminatory manner, by setting a harmful 
precedent that undermines the basic tenets of a rules -based order. We should rather aim at resisting 
all forms of protectionism, including unfair practices. We should seek to abide by and enforce existing 
rules and work on designing rules that effectively tackle non -market oriented policies and practices 
adapted to today's economic reality.  
 
In that context, strengthening the rules on industrial subsidies remains the priority of the EU's 
agenda, as we believe that this is core to ease the current trade tensions in a lasting manner and 
preserve the WTO. We are also ready to work on the other st rands of the rule -making agenda. You 
can certainly count on the EU's commitment on this.  
 
We welcome the good start of negotiations on e -commerce with the submission of proposals ahead 
of the first substantive meeting. We look forward to engaging in compre hensive and ambitious WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 71 - 
 
  negotiations. The e -commerce process demonstrates that there is a way to move forward in 
negotiations of future WTO rules with those willing to advance.  
 
We believe that we should follow a similar open plurilateral approach on domesti c regulation in 
services. Work on the follow -up to the Joint Statement initiative launched in Buenos Aires has 
progressed well and bodes well for a negotiated outcome by the Twelfth Ministerial Conference.  
 
With regard to fisheries subsidies, we praise the  Chair's efforts to intensify work. However, we need 
a change in our collective attitude. The negotiators must be mandated to come to meetings in a true 
negotiating mode – ready to make compromises where their positions allow. Only if the attitude 
changes,  the deadline of 2019 will be achievable.  
 
Finally, a word on the reform of WTO regular work. First, I would like to thank Members for the 
useful discussions held at the last Council for Trade in Goods on the revised proposal on improving 
Members' notifica tion compliance. It is important to pursue this constructive process. Second, given 
the positive reception of our ideas on possible horizontal procedural guidelines to better equip 
Councils and Committees to deal with and resolve trade concerns, we are wor king on formalising 
these ideas in a draft proposal.  
 
The EU is appreciative of efforts of Members to advance work on a number of issues. However, we 
should not delude ourselves. The initial progress we are witnessing will not resolve the deep crisis 
that the WTO is confronted with. We all need to live up to our commitment to the multilateral trading 
system and ensure that we are not taking actions that are adversely affecting its survival but rather 
looking to find solutions within the system.  
 
12. Colombia (S tructured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development)  
 
I am pleased to update Members on the latest progress made by the Joint Initiative on Investment 
Facilitation for Development since my last report to the HODs in February 2019.  
 
As you may remember, the initiative has moved towards the development of the possible elements 
of the multilateral framework on investment facilitation for development, in line with the objective 
established in the Joint Ministerial Statement. For this purpose, the d iscussions in the first half of 
2019 have been based on concrete examples, including text -based examples or suggestions, 
submitted by Members on a 'no prejudice' basis – using the Checklist as a reference point. Members' 
examples have been complemented, as  appropriate, by examples from the Coordinator, drawing 
inspiration from WTO texts. The meetings have been organi zed thematically, as per the schedule of 
meetings for the period January -July endorsed by participating Members – and circulated to all WTO 
Members.   
 
Since my last report to the HODs, two meetings were held, in March and April, to address and further 
develop the elements of a framework on investment facilitation aiming at, respectively, improving 
the transparency and predictability of investmen t measures, and streamlining and speeding up 
administrative procedures and requirements.  
 
As usual, both meetings have been open -ended, and all Members were invited to participate.  
 
Both meetings were well attended, and participating Members engaged in v ery constructive 
exchange and discussions on both topics. Ahead of the meetings, several written submissions of 
textual examples were submitted – 14 submissions of examples on "transparency and predictability 
of investment measures", representing 45 WTO Me mbers, and 9 submissions of examples on 
"administrative procedures and requirements", representing 37 WTO Members.  
 
All the examples submitted at the meeting in March, on transparency and predictability of investment 
measures, were organi zed in a "Compendium", prepared under my responsibility [room document 
INF/IFD/RD/5]. The Compendium is a tool aimed at organising the examples submitted under each 
of the elements and related issues in a coherent and user -friendly manner. It also provides a cleare r 
sense of the many commonalities among the examples submitted. The purpose of the compendium 
is to facilitate open, transparent and inclusive discussions. At the last meeting, participating 
Members expressed their strong support for the compendium. Let me  clarify that the compendium 
in no way prejudges the position or views of Members on any of the elements and issues under 
discussion.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 72 - 
 
  The compendium is being updated to incorporate the examples submitted at the meeting in April. It 
will be circulated to al l Members in advance of the forthcoming meeting.  
 
As per the latest schedule of meetings [INF/IFD/W/3], I would like to draw Members' attention – 
and invite you – to the forthcoming open -ended meeting of the Structured Discussions to be held 
on Thursday, 16 May.  The main purpose of this meeting is to engage in example -based discussions 
on the possible elements of a multilateral framework aimed at enhancing international cooperation, 
information sharing, and the exchange of best practices, and the possible  elements related to the 
development dimension.   
 
In keeping with the open, inclusive and transparent nature of the initiative, I wish to invite – and 
encourage – all Members to participate in the forthcoming meetings. Participation is entirely without 
prejudice to Members' position on the Joint Initiative. I would also like to remind you that all 
documents are circulated in the INF/IFD series and available to all Members.  
 
Let me conclude by reaffirming my commitment as Coordinator to keep the process open, 
transparent and inclusive.  I wish to stress my full availability to receive any feedback or suggestions 
that you may have.  
 
13. Colombia  
 
We are approaching the end of the first half of the year, and Colombia considers that we need to 
increase our effor ts to move ahead with discussions on the future of the organization and the 
different negotiations under way.  
 
Firstly, we are concerned that the fate of the dispute settlement system, and specifically, the urgent 
solution required to overcome the impasse faced by the Appellate Body, has become tied to 
discussions on other issues. In our view, binding the stability and credibility of the system to the 
achievement of other negotiation objectives is a risky move that will be detrimental to us all.  
 
We are awa re of and share several of the concerns expressed regarding the functioning of the dispute 
settlement system, which these exchanges give us an opportunity to strengthen and improve. The 
proposals circulated recently seem to be a further step towards allayi ng the concerns raised by 
several Members, and we hope that they will enable us to resolve this impasse.  
 
Regarding negotiations, and specifically those on fisheries, we recogni ze the efforts made, which are 
reflected by the growing number of proposals put  forward, and which demonstrate the interest of 
Members in this issue. However, we are concerned that the large number of documents may hinder 
the successful conclusion of these negotiations within the agreed time frame. We have gone from a 
relatively simp lified outline in document TN/RL/W/274 to multiple texts, some of which contain 
elements that have not featured in the recent history of these negotiations.  
 
In this context, we welcome and support the role of the Chair and the facilitators, and the action  
that they have taken in coordination with Members to further refine the discussions and to step up 
the work to promote consensus texts that take into account the documents recently submitted, as 
well as document TN/RL/W/274, which contains the results of over three years of work in this 
organization.  
 
As regards agriculture, we draw attention to the working group process as a complementary forum 
for furthering discussions, and we welcome the exchanges that took place during the first meetings 
this year.  
 
Not only will the next Ministerial Conference be important in terms of making concrete progress 
towards eliminating distortions in agricultural markets, but it will also provide an opportunity for 
developing countries such as Colombia, for whom this issue i s of great importance, to express their 
concerns about the increase in the adoption by some Members of practices involving technical or 
sanitary restrictions that violate international standards such as the Codex.  
 
Lastly, concerning other areas of work, w e continue to note with optimism and express our interest 
in the progress made in the plurilateral work initiated in the areas of e -commerce and domestic 
regulation with a view to achieving concrete results for the next Ministerial Conference.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 73 - 
 
  14. China  
 
As we all know, the continuing impasse of the Appellate Body member Selection Process features 
the most severe crisis the WTO is currently faced with. Its possible paralysis is approaching for real. 
In China's view, for the sake of the dispute settlement mech anism and the whole system, Members 
should be fully engaged in the informal process under the auspices of the General Council in a 
constructive manner so that we could avoid the crisis by the end of this year. This is No.1.  
 
No. 2, we should also make sure  that, when it is operating, the dispute settlement mechanism should 
function in an impartial and independent manner. The Appellate Body Members as well as the 
Panellists should act and make their judgment without any external political coercion. Otherwise , 
their rulings will lose the credibility and cannot stand the test of history.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we call upon all Members to actively engage in the on -going process. As a 
matter of fact, China is flexible to the approach of negotiations, and we are  more than willing to do 
our due part. We are preparing and will submit our new proposal on the modality of the discipline 
soon. This shows China's constructive efforts in the collective vision to achieve the SDGs. Meanwhile, 
the capacity constraints and p ractical challenges of developing Members should be fully taken into 
consideration in any kind of approach.  
 
On transparency and notification, as a basic principle of the organization, enhancing transparency 
and improving notification are obligations of al l Members. China thinks the current discussion is 
meaningful. However, we also note that most Members are not supportive to the punitive approach, 
in particular the financial punitive measures, which should be fully respected and reflected in the 
following  discussions as well.  
 
On development, China's position is quite clear. We don't agree to continue the unproductive and 
polarised discussions on differentiation or graduation of developing Members. Nor will we accept the 
explicit or implicit case -by-case a pproach to erode the unconditional special and differentiation 
treatment for developing Members. The only pragmatic way out is to encourage developing Members 
to contribute according to their capacity to do so instead of requiring them to prove the case up front 
by themselves.  
 
Finally, China supports to make necessary reform to the WTO. In the days to come, we will table 
our proposal on WTO reform, which is drafted on the basis of the position paper released last 
November. The proposal will touch upon sever al specific areas and concrete actions, such as 
addressing the existential crisis of the WTO, increasing WTO's relevance in the global economic 
governance, improving the operational efficiency of the WTO, and strengthening the inclusiveness 
of the multilat eral trading system.  
 
Last but not least, China supports to advance discussions steadily on investment facilitation, e -
commerce and MSMEs, so that we could have some tangible outcomes at Nur -Sultan of Kazakhstan 
one year later.  
 
15. Ghana  
 
Ghana is optimistic about the resilience and prospects of the multilateral trading system and is 
committed to ensuring that the all -time principle of equity, transparency and inclusiveness are 
adhered to in all its deliberations.  
 
With regard to agriculture, my delegation re iterates the fact that, Ghana, like other developing 
countries, has been at the receiving end of the negative impact of domestic support measures of 
some developed country Members which has resulted in the reduction in food security and raised 
rural unempl oyment of its people.  
  
For instance, the once vibrant poultry industry that provided almost all the chicken and egg needs, 
and provided employment to many youth, has now become unattractive due to the excessive 
importation of poultry and its products from  developed countries who tend to provide subsidies to 
their farmers. Therefore correcting the existing distortions and systemic imbalances in agriculture, 
particularly through disciplines on domestic support is a priority.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 74 - 
 
  Ghana would also want to see pri ority given to finding permanent solutions to public stockholding 
for food security purposes, special safeguard mechanism and cotton as well as to seek balance in 
the rules in domestic support (i.e. elimination of AMS entitlements to have a level playing f ield). 
 
On fisheries subsidies, in line with the Ministerial Decision on Fisheries Subsidies adopted at Buenos 
Aires that gives a clear direction for our work on fisheries subsidies negotiations, Ghana is committed 
to engaging and deliberating constructively on discussions and proposals for a multilateral 
agreement on fisheries subsidies to be adopted in line with the MC11 decision.  
 
My delegation reiterates its call for disciplines on certain forms of subsidies that contribute to 
overfishing an d overcapacity as agreed in Goal 14.6 of the 2030 Agenda for development  
 
We also believe that meaningful and effective S&DT is a fundamental requirement of any fisheries 
subsidies outcome.  
 
On Development and S&DT, my delegation reaffirms that, continent al integration, structural 
transformation and industrialization remain an overriding priority following the launch of the 
Continental Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) in line with the "Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want".  
   
Ghana therefore supports the African Un ion Ministers of Trade in their call for the negotiations to be 
based on developmental objectives and principles of the DDA, including S&DT and less than full 
reciprocity in line with Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  
  
My delegation reiter ates its support for discussions and outcomes that would enable it to industrialise 
through its ten -point industrial transformation agenda.  
  
On Appellate Body reforms, concerns have been raised with regard to the continuous dysfunction of 
the Appellate Bo dy of the Dispute Settlement Body. Ghana welcomes the tabling of papers and 
proposals aimed at resolving the issue.  
 
My delegation will support and participate constructively in deliberations aimed at finding an 
expedited solution to end the impasse in ord er to revive the dispute settlement function of the 
multilateral trading system.  
 
On e -commerce, Ghana welcomed the decision taken at MC11 to strengthen the 1998 Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce.  
 
Undoubtedly, e -commerce has created new and exciting opportunities in global trade. However, it 
also poses significant infrastructural and regulatory challenges especially for developing countries 
like Ghana that can lose out on these opportunities due to the huge digital divide.  
 
We therefore believe in foc using the discussions and calling for further work/study to be done by the 
Secretariat on the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions which would ensure 
that issues of key importance to developing country Members are not left out but exami ned. 
 
In concluding, Ghana associates itself with the statement made by the ACP Group.  
 
16. Cuba  
 
There is no doubt that the organization is facing multiple challenges. Most of the mandates resulting 
from the Ministerial Conferences, and specifically the manda te from Nairobi, continue to be 
applicable and, to date, we have seen no developments indicating that any of them will be fulfilled.  
 
Much work remains to be done, although unfortunately, some key stakeholders do not seem to have 
the political will needed to achieve balanced results. Others are explicitly moving away from 
multilateralism and are embracing dangerous forms of nationalism and protectionism, contrary to 
the rules of this organization.  
 
Almost all Members are suffering the effects of the blockad e created by one other Member. We know 
from our own experience what this means.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 75 - 
 
  On several occasions, my delegation has denounced the imposition of unilateral trade measures. I 
am obliged to raise this matter given the escalation of aggressive actions and  new provisions of this 
type which are aimed at further impeding the social and economic development of my country.  
 
On 17 April 2019, the Government of the United States announced the adoption of new measures 
to tighten the economic, trade and financial b lockade that it has imposed on Cuba for almost 
60 years through the activation of the Helms Burton Act which runs counter to the principles and 
purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and international law including the rules of the 
multilateral trad ing system.  
 
These measures involve the authorization of lawsuits in US courts against Cuban and foreign entities 
outside the jurisdiction of the United States and the increase of prohibitions on the entry into the 
United States of directors of foreign ent erprises and their families who invest in property that was 
legitimately nationalised by the Cuban Government, in accordance with international law. This 
constitutes a legal aberration, and no US Government, from the adoption of the legislation in 1996 
until now, including President Trump in his first two years of office, has applied it.  
 
All these provisions and those that also form part of the tapestry of regulations of the economic, 
trade and financial blockade that the United States is applying against Cuba, are hindering the 
normal operation of trade in my country, all of this in flagrant violation of the rules established in 
this organization, and are causing damage to third party countries wishing to trade with Cuba. They 
are also an affront to the in ternational community that, for 27 years in a row, has condemned almost 
unanimously the blockade by the United States against my country, including the Helms Burton Act, 
and has called for it to be brought to an end, through successive United Nations Gener al Assembly 
Resolutions and statements made at summits of heads of State and/or Governments of the European 
Union, Latin America and the Caribbean, the African Union, the Community of Latin American and 
Caribbean States (CELAC), the Group of 77 and China, and the Non Aligned Movement, among other 
organizations.  
 
The WTO has already partly addressed this case.  
 
At a meeting held on 20 November 1996, the Dispute Settlement Body established a Panel at the 
request of the European Communities. Canada, Japan, Mal aysia, Mexico and Thailand were third 
parties. On 21 April 1997, at the request of the complainant, and as a result of the agreement 
reached with the United States not to apply the extraterritorial measures of the Helms Burton Act, 
the Panel suspended its work.  
 
In 1996, Cuba adopted Law 80, the "Law on the Reaffirmation of Cuban Dignity and Sovereignty", 
approved by the VII Period of Sessions of the IV Legislature of the National Assembly of People's 
Power, which states in Article 1 that the Helms Burton A ct is unlawful, inapplicable, and lacking any 
legal value, and which establishes that the Government may adopt any necessary provisions to apply 
Law 80 and ensure legal certainty for foreign investors and trading and economic partners.  
 
Cuba will guarantee  legal conditions and will honour all of its economic commitments to its 
international partners. Foreign entrepreneurs in Cuba are supported by Cuban law, international law 
and the legislation of their own countries.  
 
We will not stop defending the princip les of multilateralism, and will advocate for a rules based 
multilateral trading system that respects the sovereign decision of each State to choose its own 
economic and social development system. We therefore call on Members to halt this irrational 
escala tion and this policy of hostility and aggression that has turned into an economic and trade war 
not only against my country but also against others.  
 
We will not allow for multilateralism to continue to be hijacked and for the law of the jungle to be 
re-imposed.  
 
17. Singapore  
 
It has been 11 weeks since I joined the WTO family, and this is my second Informal TNC meeting. 
Allow me to share three observations from a new comer's perspective.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 76 - 
 
  First, contrary to what some pundits have said, the WTO is far from dying or dead. For example, a 
senior fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations pronounced that the WTO "has been dying a slow 
death for a long time". In fact, he even declared that "8 March 2018 was the day the WTO died". I 
will leave it to you to find ou t what happened on that day. But based on my limited experience over 
the past 11 weeks, the WTO is far from dead. This is evidenced by the fact that various Members 
have tabled numerous proposals since our last meeting on 27 February with the aim of moving  
discussions forward on a number of important issues. This is a welcomed development and we 
encourage Members to continue coming forward with constructive proposals. The proposals that 
have been tabled cover a wide spectrum, ranging from those under the fi sheries subsidies 
negotiations and the Joint Statement on E -Commerce Initiative, to Norway's paper on development, 
as well as additional proposals by Japan, Brazil, Chinese Taipei, and Thailand on the Appellate Body. 
These are clearly vital signs of life i n the WTO.  
  
But not being dead is quite different from being "alive and well", which is my second point. For the 
WTO to advance from being merely alive to regaining its vigour and vitality, the entire WTO 
Membership must play its part. In this connection,  every Member, in particular those that had raised 
concerns which led to some of the proposals being tabled, must shift gears and begin to engage 
constructively. It is only through constructive engagement that is geared towards strengthening the 
ability of  the WTO to negotiate, monitor and adjudicate that the organization can revitalise itself.  
 
Third, if our common desire is for the WTO to be "alive and kicking", we must, as the Director -
General have said, step up the pace of work, given that the Twelfth M inisterial Conference in 
Kazakhstan is barely twelve months away. As such, we must begin to engage in serious 
conversations about what we want to achieve at MC12 and more importantly, how we are going to 
get there. Achieving concrete outcomes at MC12 will require a concerted effort by the entire WTO 
Membership to find constructive solutions. It will require Members to engage constructively in order 
to achieve compromise, cooperation and consensus. While every Member will naturally be driven by 
national inte rests, we must avoid pursuing our narrow national interests at the expense of the WTO, 
so that we can achieve progress in important areas such as agriculture, fisheries subsidies and E -
Commerce. Equally important, we must continue to uphold the inclusive c haracter of the WTO, by 
paying special attention to developing Members and LDCs, as well as conducting outreach to key 
stake holders. In this context, Singapore will be hosting the 10th RSIS -WTO Parliamentarian 
Workshop from 11 to 13 June 2019. This is the  tenth anniversary of the Workshop which is intended 
to enable regional legislators to deepen their understanding of the WTO and engage in international 
trade issues. We will be happy to provide an update on the workshop at the next Informal TNC 
meeting in  July. 
 
To close, I reiterate my wish for the WTO in 2019, which is that amidst the heavy calendar of 
activities and meetings, we will not lose sight of our common objective, which is to use the WTO to 
sort out trade problems, to promote trade and developm ent to improve the lives of our people and 
to ensure that the WTO does not lose its relevance by being able to address new challenges.  
 
18. India  
 
State of Play  
 
It is a matter of concern that since March 2019, there is little progress and the organization is 
heading towards a crisis.  We are disappointed at the absence of active engagement of the Member 
holding appointments to the Appellate Body hostage on proposals for resolving the Appellate Body 
impasse. Further, the attack on the right of developing countr ies to special and differential 
treatment, and efforts at differentiating amongst them can further erode trust and push the 
organization into a deeper chasm.   
 
In this background, let me share my thoughts on some important issues.  
 
WTO Reforms  
 
We would l ike to reiterate that while there is a need to make the WTO more effective, it is equally, 
if not even more important, to take everybody along. Therefore, there has to be a balance in the 
reform agenda by addressing some of the longstanding demands of deve loping countries. We stand 
ready to work with other like -minded Members to make specific proposals to facilitate this. Further, WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 77 - 
 
  we would like to emphasise that getting the Appellate Body on its feet and preserving the 
independent dispute settlement system of the WTO needs to receive urgent and undivided attention.   
 
Negotiating Agenda  
 
Agriculture can be the engine of progress if mandated issues like finding a permanent solution for 
public stockholding for food security are taken forward with focus and determination. On the other 
hand, burdening the CoA SS with growing demands for additional information and endless debates 
with the objective of wriggling out of past commitments, is clearly a recipe for failure.  
 
We are committed to working for a fair and  equitable agreement on disciplines on fisheries subsidies.  
However, we need to be mindful that any solution which rewards Members, who are major 
subsidizers and are largely responsible for the current state of affairs will be self -serving and 
unacceptabl e. The MC11 decision on fisheries subsidies clearly mandates that there should be 
appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing countries. This needs to 
be honoured in letter and in spirit. We will be introducing a proposal sh ortly to carry forward the 
work on this issue.  
 
Electronic Commerce  
 
We already have a multilateral programme on e -commerce agreed to by Ministers at MC11 which 
we will pursue. In our view, going against this exploratory mandate and starting negotiations o n e-
commerce strikes at the very roots of the multilateral system. Further, most developing countries 
are not ready for binding rules in this area. India is preparing by drafting a national e -commerce 
policy which seeks to use India's data for its own deve lopment rather than allow its value to be 
appropriated by others. It also proposes to preserve our flexibility of imposing customs duty on 
electronic transmissions to protect domestic industry and leverage technology for creating jobs and 
wealth, by ensuri ng competition and a level playing field. We are also keen to assess the extent of 
sacrifice of revenue involved and the distribution of this loss among Members when new technologies 
like additive manufacturing will result in electronic transmissions casca ding and many dutiable goods 
being manufactured by digital printing. Further, we fear the impact of some of the e -commerce rules 
being proposed under the Joint Initiative on e -commerce, on existing trade rules, particularly the 
GATT tariffs which protect o ur industry and GATS schedules that provide us useful flexibilities. Both 
the GATT & GATS could wither away due to the onslaught of the so called 'high standard' e -commerce 
elements.  
 
Conclusion  
 
The topmost priority has to be a reform agenda that is bala nced and inclusive, solves problems that 
we face in the WTO rather than that which imposes additional burdensome obligations. At the same 
time, we need to protect and preserve the dispute settlement system at the WTO. Moreover, 
preserving special and diffe rential treatment for all developing countries and LDCs which is a core 
principle of the WTO as well as addressing the asymmetries in Uruguay Round Agreements should 
be an over -riding priority.  
 
19. Peru  
 
This is my first statement at a Trade Negotiations Comm ittee meeting, as I only recently took up 
my duties. I therefore wish to express my own personal willingness and that of my delegation to 
work with the Director -General and all the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups.  
 
Just over 15 days ago, it was the 25th a nniversary of the WTO's founding agreements, which include 
20,000 pages that were negotiated over several years. Therefore, with the uncertainty threatening 
the future of the multilateral trading system, I consider it appropriate to highlight the value of this 
organization by recalling part of the statement made by Mr. Peter Sutherland, Director -General of 
the GATT and the first Director -General of the WTO, in the Trade Negotiations Committee meeting 
held on 12 April 1994 in Marrakesh when he submitted his report to the Ministers for the adoption 
of the WTO's founding agreements.  
 
In this statement, Mr. Sutherland underscored that the establishment of the WTO together with the 
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund created the stability and balance n ecessary for a 
structure fit to bear the weight of the future. He also emphasised that the WTO must take a lead in WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 78 - 
 
  setting the trade policy agenda and specified that the active role adopted by the WTO did not mean 
the imposition of one point of view or ano ther. 
 
Mr. Sutherland highlighted that the WTO must not merely wait for crises to prompt action after the 
event and that the organization could only succeed if it based its work on consensus and respected 
the fundamental principle of non -discrimination. At  the end of his statement, Mr. Sutherland said 
that the achievement of the Uruguay Round could be summed up by the word "opportunity", and 
explained that the WTO agreements represented opportunities to expand trade, economic growth 
and employment. More imp ortantly, these agreements meant opportunities to promote sustainable 
development and global economic cooperation.  
 
I have recalled part of the statement delivered by Mr. Sutherland as I consider that his vision 
continues to be relevant when it comes to va luing the potential of this organization despite the time 
that has passed. The full statement by Mr Sutherland can be found in document 
MTN.TNC/MIN(94)/4.  
 
Twenty five years ago, Peru and many other Members, inspired by the WTO's founding principles 
and ru les, implemented reforms to liberalise trade and establish ourselves in international markets 
as a means of achieving higher levels of development. Since then, the challenges that we face in 
pursuing trade opportunities still outweigh the significant benef its obtained. We therefore continue 
to believe in the objectives and founding principles of the WTO.  
 
However, we must recogni ze that, in the last 25 years, major and dramatic changes have occurred 
at the global level, which have transformed the way in whi ch we trade, as well as the economic 
situation of Members. The WTO cannot ignore this reality and must adapt in order to fully achieve 
its objectives without giving up on its principles.  
 
In the highly integrated world in which we live, protectionist or unilateral trade measures, however 
legitimate they may be, and trade distorting national policies and government practices that support 
the competitiveness of domestic industries in order to capture markets, clash with the objective of 
consolidating a mult ilateral trading system that contributes to the creation of economic prosperity 
for all.  
 
This being said, I would like to highlight a few considerations on constructing the path ahead.  
 
First, the strengthening and improvement of the WTO is the responsibi lity of all Members, not only 
of those with a high economic or trade capacity.  
 
Second, we consider that discussions on the challenges faced by the multilateral trading framework 
must be held within this organization even as part of informal processes prov ided that they are 
conducted in a transparent and inclusive manner without prejudice to efforts made outside the WTO.  
 
Third, we need to improve or create the mechanisms necessary to ensure the full implementation 
and monitoring of the commitments made.  
 
Fourth, we must encourage informal and flexible formats of work in order to step up the negotiations 
on priority issues for Members. Fisheries subsidies, agriculture and domestic regulation of services 
must be a part of these efforts.  
 
Fifth, it is necessar y to agree, as soon as possible, on an agenda of emerging issues that includes 
the valuable efforts made regarding e -commerce, the integration of micro, small and medium sized 
enterprises into international trade, the facilitation of investment for develop ment, and trade and 
women's economic empowerment.  
 
Sixth, the path ahead must include, as a matter of extreme urgency and high priority, the restoration 
of the Appellate Body to full operative capacity, through the appointment of the missing members. 
Peru therefore thanks the Members that have submitted proposals to address the functioning of the 
Appellate Body and encourages Members to increase efforts to respond to these proposals and reach 
agreements to overcome the impasse as soon as possible.  
 
Lastly, I reiterate my own personal willingness and that of my delegation to move forward with our 
work and Peru's commitment to the strengthening and improvement of the WTO.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 79 - 
 
  20. Argentina  
 
We consider that the most pressing situation is that of the Appellate Body. We  appreciate the efforts 
and dedication of Ambassador Walker and we congratulate Members on their involvement as 
reflected in the proposals circulated and the discussions held. We trust that we can achieve concrete 
results before our organization loses an e ssential piece of its structure. The scenario in world trade 
becomes more complex and challenging every day and this is why we insist on strengthening its 
mechanisms that are operating.  
 
Another deadline that is rapidly approaching is the one relating to f isheries subsidies. There is no 
need to elaborate on this. The fact is that, as the recent meeting of the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures showed, almost half the Members are behind in submitting their 
notifications for 2017. Having clari ty on programmes under way is a necessary first step if we are 
truly committed to reaching an agreement on new rules dealing with subsidies that are harmful to 
the sustainability of fisheries resources.  
 
The above aspects are part of the reason why Argenti na, together with other co -sponsoring 
Members, continues to work actively on the proposal on transparency submitted to the Council for 
Trade in Goods.  
 
No less important for a net exporter of agricultural products such as Argentina is the agricultural 
reform process. The subject is of vital interest for the majority of Members and regions. An 
incremental agreement on the domestic support pillar, with the emphasis on the most distorting 
subsidies, and on other spheres has been long awaited and could even  have a positive impact on 
other discussions.  
 
Lastly, we are grateful for the communications that have been circulated recently in the context of 
the Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce. Argentina understands that working together is the 
best way to ad dress such a rapidly growing global phenomenon.  
 
21. United States  
 
I want to thank the Director -General for reminding all of us of the re­commitment our Ministers 
made during MC11 to our existing notification obligations under the Subsidies Agreement.  
 
The su bsidy notification that Ministers re -committed to provide is due by 30 June which is less than 
two months away.  
 
While these subsidy notifications represent one of the most fundamental transparency obligations 
that we as Members have. Unfortunately, almost  half of all Members did not submit their subsidy 
notification in 2017.  
 
One Member recently pointed out at the Subsidies Committee meeting that there is no WTO 
requirement that such notifications be complete. This view is unfounded. Timely and complete 
notifications are a fundamental obligation of WTO Membership.  
 
Transparency is an important area for improvement across the board, but these subsidy notifications 
are particularly critical for the fisheries subsidies negotiations – the WTO's only ongoing mul tilateral 
negotiation.  
 
If a Member cannot submit basic information on its fisheries subsidies programs, it raises significant 
questions as to how that Member would be able to effectively implement any new disciplines on their 
fisheries subsidies.  
 
We urge  all Members to take this Ministerial recommitment seriously and submit complete 
notifications in the coming weeks. We view this upcoming notification deadline as an important 
litmus test as to whether Members truly want a WTO that can negotiate new outcom es. 
  
We also want to draw Members' attention to the upcoming notification deadline contained in the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement that affects developing countries seeking to utilise the special and 
differential treatment contained in Section II of the Agr eement.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 80 - 
 
  Notifications of developing country Category C commitments, those establishing the self -determined 
implementation timeframes for TFA provisions, are due no later than 22 August 2019.  
 
The Agreement does not provide for any overdue or late status f or these critical notifications and 
therefore we urge all Members to remain mindful of the approaching deadline and the consequences 
for failing to notify.  
 
The Trade Facilitation Committee has been tracking the progress of Members' compliance with both 
Section I and Section II TFA notification commitments. Unfortunately, the number of missing 
submissions remains unacceptably high.  
 
The TFA Agreement calls for the WTO Secretariat to remind Members of this deadline no later than 
22 May 2019 and we urge the Secretariat to undertake its responsibility expeditiously. But ultimately 
it is the responsibility of Members to ensure that the TFA works as it was envisioned and negotiated.  
 
The United States appreciates the renewed focus across the WTO on how all Membe rs can better 
fulfil their existing notification obligations.  
 
We believe that improving transparency through existing WTO notification requirements is the kind 
of institutional reform that is necessary to facilitate future negotiations across negotiating topics, 
and is a worthy and desirable outcome in the near term.  
  
To advance this work, the United States and other proponents are continuing discussions with all 
interested Members on further improving the current proposed General Council Decision on 
Notifications.  
 
We look forward to constructive Member engagement in the near term. I remind all that we are 
discussing existing WTO obligations, not new commitments. Fulfilling these commitments can help 
put the WTO on a path towards a more successful and sus tainable future.  
 
22. Egypt  
 
As the countdown for MC12 has started, we remain concerned by the fact that little progress had 
been achieved. We urge the entire Membership to work constructively and collectively in order to 
achieve credible outcomes.  
 
In this v ein, I would like to briefly address the following issues:  
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, we believe that priority should be given to the following points:  
 
• Identifying the scope of the ongoing negotiations to ensure that subsidy prohibitions do not 
apply to: aq uaculture fisheries activities; and inland fisheries.  
 
• Appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed 
Members shall be an integral part of these negotiations.  
 
• Identifying the possible options for the incorp oration of fisheries subsidies disciplines into the 
WTO legal system. I would like to highlight that Egypt has recently introduced the different 
approaches and the specific options regarding cross -cutting issues that we have in this regard 
in order to illu strate the legal value of each option and its relationship with the DSB besides 
the procedural aspects pertaining to it.  
 
On Agriculture, we appreciate the information exchange and technical discussions taking place on 
the margins of the CoA SS. However, we reiterate our position that efforts in the upcoming period 
should be focused on addressing the domestic support pillar a s the main source of imbalance in the 
AoA as well as the specific elements for which there are clear Ministerial mandates including PSH, 
cotton and SSM, with a view to deliver concrete outcomes by MC12. Egypt also remains of the view 
that NFIDCs should be given specific measures especially flexibilities within agriculture negotiations 
in order to tackle their food security concerns.  
 
On reform, we would like to underline the following points:  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 81 - 
 
  • Regarding improving transparency, we believe that the proposed approach by some Members 
in the CTG is not the best way to deal with this complicated issue. In our view, following a 
more cooperative & gradual approach is the way forward as many developing countries 
struggle to comply with their notification obligations  mainly due to the institutional challenges 
and capacity constraints related to their level of development. To better formulate this 
approach, the following elements, amongst others, need to be considered:  
 
– A comprehensive review of the notification requir ements in all the WTO agreements by 
the respective committees to ensure they are not unnecessarily complex or 
burdensome.  
 
– A comprehensive assessment of the current notification -related technical assistance and 
capacity building schemes.  
 
• The improvement o f the WTO and preserving its core values and principles will benefit the 
entire Membership of this organization and the global economy. Therefore we believe it is 
important to set up priorities in the reform process and to have consensus among Members 
on how to arrange them. We also believe that the reform process should be gradual, 
transparent and inclusive.  
 
• I would like to express our deep concern regarding the huge number of proposals and 
initiatives under the reform agenda. My delegation, like many ot her delegations from 
developing countries and LDCs, face a big challenge, given our limited resources in Geneva 
and in Capitals, to follow the regular work of the organization committees in addition to the 
work of Negotiating Groups. Hence, we call on the entire Membership to give this important 
issue due consideration.  
 
Finally on Accessions, we invite all Members to support African countries in the process of WTO 
accession, and urge Members to desist from making unreasonable requests on African acceding 
countries to extend any commitments made as a result of their Membership to the AfCFTA or that 
are inconsistent with their levels of development.  
 
23. Chinese Taipei  
 
I will refrain from taking the time to repeat our own particular views on aspects such as the Appellate 
Body, transparency, e -commerce, domestic regulation and fisheries subsidies. We have already 
expressed these on multiple occasions and they remain uncha nged since the last TNC. What I want 
to focus on here is the big picture – the holistic issue of WTO reforms.  
 
The subject of WTO Reform has been high on the agenda for a very long time and yet – and I am 
sorry to say this – relatively little has been ach ieved. Despite the worthy attempts of some Members 
to explore various possible ways forward, the fact is that a huge diversity of views on key issues still 
remain.  
 
When we look more deeply into the potential issues before us, our observations are as follo ws: 
 
Some Members may hold the view that the existing WTO rules cannot sufficiently address the new 
challenges, and anyway some of the issues have persistently existed for so many years. As a result, 
whether intentionally or unintentionally, some Members d o take advantage of the loopholes of our 
existing rules. Take notification for example: one of the most basic obligations. Although every 
Member recogni zes the importance of notification in strengthening transparency, the actual 
compliance with notificatio n requirements is inadequate. Another example: government subsides. 
Our existing rules on SCM may not be sufficient to deal with modern -world subsidies that are not 
directly related to exports or imports. So, if such loopholes exist that consistently allow  some 
Members to take advantage, and some systematic unfairness therefore arises, then we can probably 
all agree that some reform of the rules is needed.  
 
However, even if we all agree that rules reform is necessary, some will always insist that Member -
specific dimensions need to be taken into account in deciding what kind of reforms should be made. 
In particular, special consideration should be given to the diversity and complexity of the whole 
Membership. We recogni ze Members' rights to introduce measures  that address their own domestic WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 82 - 
 
  challenges or achieve their own domestic goals. This kind of complexity and diversity is also 
legitimate.  
 
So reform -concerns and diversity -concerns are both sensible but this does not mean that we have 
to be stuck on those  points. We must not lose sight of the big picture. Members should bear in mind 
that the WTO is established to facilitate fair and free trade, according to the Marrakesh Agreement. 
Thus, sustaining a level playing -field and a fair and free trading environm ent in our opinion is the 
real bottom -line of this organization. So, while there may well be a huge diversity of domestic 
concerns across the whole spectrum of Members, the bottom -line is that the variety or diversity 
argument cannot justify measures that lead to persistently unfair trade. For instance, if "all other 
Members except X notify their regulatory measures, so that X takes advantage of all the other 
Members' self -restraints", this would not be fair or right and should not be justified by the diver sity 
excuse.  
 
Basically, what we are saying is that we believe it is in every Member's interest to think hard about 
the balance between the reform argument and the diversity argument right now. Perhaps this might 
just help us to move forward in a more cons tructive manner.  
 
I do hope you will see this as a practical way of pondering the WTO's present problems (as it is 
intended), rather than just some philosophical narrative.  
 
24. Barbados  
 
It is clear that although there appears to be work ongoing in some negot iating bodies, the negotiating 
pillar continues to be the victim of paralysis in other bodies.  
 
Despite this, our resolve for multilateralism and this organization's ability to deliver on multilateral 
outcomes, particularly in areas of critical interest to  small vulnerable developing countries, remains 
firm. The issue of development both as an overarching principle and as embodied in the notion of 
special and differential treatment for developing countries and LDCs is sacrosanct to the foundation 
of the WTO  and therefore for us is paramount to the conclusion of any outcomes in this organization.  
 
As we continue to reflect on what elements we may wish to insert under any package called WTO 
reform, we take pause to reiterate a few cardinal principles which are  core to our future work. For 
us, our work must be transparent and inclusive. It must also ensure that the rights and obligations 
of countries like Barbados are not undermined or threatened. Additionally, we must seek to ensure 
that levelling the playing f ield rises above the theoretical and demonstrates a real and lasting 
commitment which ensures that the vulnerable amongst us are fully integrated into the multilateral 
trading system. This is particularly important today as technological advancements evolv e the way 
and the substance of what we trade and redefines trade in itself.   
 
We took careful note of the discussions within the WTO over the last few months and as recent as 
this week. What remains clear to us is that in the course of our work between no w and December, 
it will be important to take the necessary actions to ensure that we reinvigorate our work within the 
context of the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and that we place specific emphasis 
on the development component. This will requ ire us to move beyond mere rhetoric and to engage 
in discussions on substantive issues of interest to developing countries. It must however be a 
Member -driven process, in other words, the onus is on those who consider there to be value in the 
discussions u nder the Work Programme to ensure that these issues are placed on the table for 
discussion. It will also mean that there must be meaningful engagement in these discussions from 
all WTO Members if we are to remain faithful to what was multilaterally agreed to by our Ministers 
on the Work Programme at MC11.  
 
Barbados is disappointed that we must again express our concern about the situation in the Appellate 
Body. We therefore continue to urge all Members to employ the requisite political will to find a 
soluti on to unblock the impasse on the selection of Appellate Body members and to launch the 
selection process to fill Appellate Body vacancies. Barbados is committed to continuing the 
discussions on this matter in a solutions -finding mode.  
 
In closing, Barbados  supports the statements delivered by Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica on 
behalf of the CARICOM and ACP Groups respectively.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 83 - 
 
  25. Chad (LDCs)  
 
I am taking the floor on behalf of the LDC Group. Firstly, I would like to thank the Director -General 
for convening th is meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee and for presenting us his report on 
the status of the negotiations under way.  
 
The LDC Group would like to thank all the Chairpersons of the various Negotiating Groups for their 
reports on the trade -related to pics that they address. The discussions in progress on various subjects 
of importance for the LDCs have intensified in recent weeks – since the start of the year.  
 
In particular, on the question of agriculture, several technical sessions have taken place i n the 
context of working groups on the various pillars relating to agriculture. We would like to take the 
opportunity to thank the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session for the initiatives 
which he has taken to achieve progress on this m ajor issue. However, it is clear that despite the 
richness of the exchanges and technical quality, the respective positions of the parties remain the 
same overall. Given the little time that remains before the Twelfth Ministerial Conference and wishing 
to avoid the mistakes of the past we should seek to focus our efforts on the results that can be 
achieved in 2020.  
 
Hence, in the LDCs' view, priorities should include the substantial reduction of trade distorting 
domestic support in agriculture generally and  in cotton in particular. The focus should be on 
eliminating the aggregate measurement of support in the domestic support pillar.  
 
In addition, it is essential to find a permanent solution to the issue of public stockholding for food 
security purposes. Pri orities should also include a decision to be taken on the special safeguard 
mechanism. It should be recalled that these last two points raised in the context of the reform of 
trade in agriculture are the subject of Ministerial mandates.  
 
Hence, we urge Mem bers to engage fully and constructively in the process of achieving results on 
these aspects.  
 
Lastly, the LDC Group awaits an appropriate response to the concerns raised by our Group – at the 
last CoA SS held this week regarding the overlap of meetings of  the working groups on agriculture 
with other meetings – in order to facilitate greater participation in discussions.  
 
Regarding the question of negotiations on fisheries, the LDC Group reiterates its goal of reaching a 
decision by the end of the year that  solves the problem of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, 
taking account of the importance for us to develop artisanal and subsistence fishing, and sustainable 
exploitation of our fisheries resources. Moreover, the LDC Group welcomes the active e ngagement 
of all Members in the negotiations on fisheries subsidies.  
 
In this context, we are awaiting the next session, which will take place next week, to further explore 
opportunities for convergence on the texts being drafted. The LDCs' text forms an i ntegral part of 
the sixth version of document TN/RL/W/274. We are going to consider the possibility, as are other 
Members, of making additional contributions in respect of the informal process and that of the 
facilitators.  
 
Furthermore, the LDC Group would  like to express its deep gratitude to the WTO Secretariat, the 
Rules Division, and in particular Ms Clarisse Morgan, as well as to the other departments of the 
Secretariat, for the work done with our Group aimed at establishing a fund enabling officials f rom 
our capitals to come and participate in the negotiations on rules. In this regard, we would like to 
express special thanks to Norway and New Zealand whose delegations are the first to have 
committed to contributing to the fund. We would also take this opportunity to appeal to other 
Members to make contributions to this fund dedicated to LDCs.  
 
We hope that after your official launch of the fund, we will be in a position to mobilise the Secretariat 
to enable our officials to participate for the first tim e next June.  
 
As regards the issue of services, the LDC Group wishes to thank the Members that gave their support 
for holding a session next October dedicated to the implementation of the LDC services waiver. We 
will pursue the consultations launched with the various Members that have notified preferences.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 84 - 
 
  Regarding the question of WTO reform, the discussions have greatly intensified with a multitude of 
proposals tabled. We have duly noted the recent submissions and we thank those who have 
continued to dis cuss the question with LDCs in particular at the recent LDC retreat. Examination of 
this issue is continuing within our Group.  
 
That said, we reiterate our call to find a solution as quickly as possible concerning the appointment 
of judges to the Appellate  Body in order to avoid obstructing what constitutes the relevance and 
uniqueness of the WTO and of the multilateral trading system.  
 
The issue of special and differential treatment is of vital importance for the LDC Group. It represents 
a pledge to build our capacity for becoming more integrated in world trade, for achieving our 
development goals, for benefiting more from our rights and for meeting our obligations. Special and 
differential treatment within the WTO is a key component of a system that is mor e just, equitable, 
inclusive and transparent.  
 
All S&DT provisions must also have the capacity to become more operational and effective – in 
accordance with Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration – in continued observance of the WTO's 
founding principles. Th e LDC Group would like in particular to commend the commitment of the 
Chairperson of the Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session and we give him our 
full support for the resumption of negotiations in this Committee.  
 
Regarding the issue of el ectronic commerce, it is essential to follow the instruction given by the 
Ministers in 1998 as part of the establishment of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce to 
continue discussions on the issue taking into account the economic, financial and devel opment needs 
of developing countries and to produce a report on the progress of the work programme and any 
recommendations for action.  
 
LDCs are sensitive to the issue of electronic commerce in that the potential advantages for 
strengthening the performanc e of our enterprises and our participation and integration in world trade 
are recogni zed. 
 
The LDC Group constantly aspires to speed up the economic and social development of its Members 
– through trade – in order to overcome the situations of poverty that  affect the majority of our 
populations.  
 
We therefore need a WTO that serves this objective and we need the full support of its Members to 
ensure that the drafted texts help us to graduate from LDC status and that we can receive flexible 
support until we are able to establish sound and sustainable development for the well -being of our 
societies.  
 
26. Brazil  
 
Let me start with the AB process. There have been intense discussions under the Walker process in 
the last few months. A total of four new proposals on gu idelines have been presented and discussed. 
They are welcome additions that show the commitment of Members in trying to find a way out of 
the current deadlock. We need now to turn this commitment into action.  
 
Brazil has circulated a proposal – co-sponsor ed by Paraguay and Uruguay – which will be discussed 
at the next General Council meeting next week. We believe it sets a path that can lead to the timely 
resolution of the issue – that is, before December 2019. It deals with the practice rather than the 
rules themselves and only to the extent that they are hampering the effectiveness of the dispute 
settlement system.  
 
On the broad WTO reform process, we remain committed to engage constructively. As we have been 
making it clear in these last few months, we a re ready to contribute ambitiously to all aspects of the 
WTO reform. There is one point however that must be reiterated – a WTO reform that does not 
include agriculture is unacceptable to Brazil. This is clearly the most obvious unfinished business of 
this organization.  
 
The test will be Nur -Sultan next year. We cannot envisage an outcome at MC12 that does not include 
agriculture. Brazil has discussed with a number of Members the idea of plurilaterals in SPS or in 
specific agricultural sectors. Domestic sup port should also be considered as a possible deliverable. WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 85 - 
 
  There has been a lot of debate on subsidies in the industrial sector but we have to keep in mind that 
subsidies in agriculture particularly AMS and de minimis are equally distortive subsidies that s hould 
be discussed horizontally.  
 
Finally, regarding e -commerce, Brazil has circulated its proposal for the discussions under the Joint 
Declaration on E -Commerce as document INF/ECOM/27. The proposal states our commitment to a 
free, open and trade enhancing Internet. We hope that it will contribute to a constructive discussion 
on 13 May.  
 
27. Chile  
 
We have already entered the fifth month of this year. Time presses on relentlessly and today we 
find ourselves once again at a General Council meeting taske d with reviewing the WTO agenda which 
contains a number of reoccurring issues to which we have yet to find solutions.  
 
Major challenges lay ahead of us, most of which involve improving our capacity for understanding 
and, in particular, agreeing on tangible  outcomes in areas of international trade.  
 
Chile reiterates its trust in multilateralism and the multilateral trading system with the WTO at its 
heart.  
 
At this stage of the year, we have already received a number of proposals on WTO reform in the 
areas o f notifications and transparency, and mediation and rules of origin, and particularly 
concerning the reform of the dispute settlement system. Chile thanks all the proponents of proposals 
and welcomes the concern expressed for the improvement of our Organiz ation.  
 
We also welcome the major efforts made by Ambassador David Walker, who is leading the 
discussions in the special sessions of the General Council regarding the reform of the dispute 
settlement system. Chile has decided to co -sponsor the proposal put  forward by Japan in document 
WT/GC/W/768/Rev.1, together with Australia. We hope that more Members will fully understand 
this proposal and will add themselves to the list of co -sponsors.  
 
We consider that the process led by Ambassador David Walker already  provides a good basis for 
consensus. We hope that we will see new developments concerning the course and future stages of 
this process.  
 
The delegation of Chile will never lose its spirit of cooperation or give up on its search for consensus. 
We are true friends of the system and we have demonstrated our belief in the WTO not only in our 
statements but also in our attitude and tangible commitment since the establishment of the 
organization.  
 
This month, the meeting of APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade k nown as APEC MRT will be held 
in Chile. We are making all the arrangements to ensure the success of this meeting which has always 
had a prominent place on the multilateral trade agenda. We draw attention to and welcome the 
presence of the Director -General at the 2019 APEC MRT meeting which will take place in Viña del 
Mar, Chile.  
 
On 20 February, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand and Panama in the context of our proposal to hold 
exploratory discussions on market access for services contained in document JOB/SERV/28 2 
circulated a communication on tourism and related services at the Special Session of the Council for 
Trade in Services in document JOB/SERV/286. We invite everyone to participate actively in the 
discussion on this issue which is of interest for a great m any Members – developed and developing 
countries alike. We also encourage all delegations to circulate documents on certain areas of interest 
regarding market access for services.  
 
Similarly, we continue to enthusiastically support the negotiations on e -commerce based on the joint 
statement issued in Davos.  
 
As regards agriculture, we wish to express our support for the work carried out by the Chair of the 
Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, the Ambassador of Guyana, John Deep Ford, who has 
made a dedicated effort to move this process forward. We consider that setting up small thematic 
groups will bring greater dynamism to the negotiations on domestic support, market access and WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 86 - 
 
  export competition with a view to achieving an outcome at the next Minis terial Conference. In light 
of the foregoing, I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of the agricultural 
negotiations in the multilateral trading system and also the importance of ensuring that the entire 
Membership contributes c onstructively to these negotiations.  
 
Concerning fisheries subsidies, we would like to express our country's interest in making further 
progress in this important negotiating process. We observe that much remains to be done to fulfil 
the mandate of our Ministers who called upon us to agree on comprehensive and effective disciplines 
that prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, to 
eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unregulated and unreport ed fishing and thus to meet 
Target 14.6 of the Sustainable Development Goals in December 2019.  
 
Lastly, with regard to development, we support the joint declaration that will be made by several 
Latin American countries at the General Council meeting next T uesday.  
 
28. New Zealand  
 
Thanks to Members for their condolences for the terror attacks in Christchurch. I understand that 
overnight a victim of the attacks died of his wounds bringing the death toll to 51. We also extend 
our sympathies to the people of Sri L anka following the terror attacks that took place.  
   
Collectively, we have spent quite a lot of time in this room over the past couple of years talking 
about the systemic and existential challenges facing our organization and the multilateral trading 
system.  This of course is appropriate. The challenges are real and the consequences if we fail to 
adequately address them are significant.  
 
The consequences of failing to resolve the Appellate Body impasse in particular are well known, and 
I would not canvass  them here. Like others, New Zealand is focused on the urgent need to identify 
solutions to the issues at hand.  
 
But the opportunities facing us are equally significant.  
 
Firstly, we have an opportunity to collectively act and work towards meaningful WTO r eform that 
benefits all Members, not just a select few.  We are starting to see tangible ideas emerge. All of us 
have a stake in this and all of us need to be invested in improving how the organization does its 
business.   
 
Secondly, the negotiating agenda  presents opportunities for us to show that we can still deliver on 
issues that matter for our stakeholders.  
 
Fisheries subsidies present the most immediate and significant of these opportunities. Some 
progress has been made in terms of ideas and proposal s being put forward but as the Director -
General and the Chair have urged, we need to accelerate our work. We have less than seven months 
left to meet Ministers' expectations. We need all proposals on the table so we can consolidate and 
move towards intensi ve negotiations before summer. Achievement of an outcome in line with SDG 
14.6 will send a strong message of our commitment to keeping this organization relevant.  
 
We also have an opportunity and an obligation to deliver a meaningful and substantive outcom e on 
agriculture at MC12. For New Zealand, that means a focus on removing harmful trade and production 
distorting subsidies. We must seize the opportunity. A failure to achieve an agricultural outcome at 
MC12, particularly when we did not at MC11, would im pact the credibility of the WTO. A substantive 
reform outcome to allow producers everywhere to compete on a more even basis is vital to enhance 
the sustainable development prospects of all Members and would help build confidence in the 
continuing importanc e and benefits to the system.  
 
Joint Statement Initiatives, particularly on e -commerce and services domestic regulation, are gaining 
momentum and provide an important opportunity for the WTO show its relevance and 
responsiveness to real 21st century issue s.  
 
From the e -commerce process, we expect resulting disciplines to build trust and facilitate digital 
trade, enhance regulatory coherence and lower barriers thereby making it easier for Members of all WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 87 - 
 
  sizes to take advantage of the opportunities offered by digital trade while safeguarding the interests 
of consumers.  
 
The domestic regulation disciplines under consideration for services will help provide certainty for 
providers entering markets and reduce barriers to trade with benefits for service provide rs and 
consumers alike.  
 
The opportunities are clearly in front of us. We must not allow the systemic challenges facing us to 
detract from our continuing efforts to demonstrate the relevancy of this organization and our 
commitment to delivering for our stakeholders.  
 
29. Thailand (ASEAN)  
 
Thailand delivers this statement on behalf of ASEAN.  
 
ASEAN recogni zes the various challenges currently being faced by the WTO, leading to the 
questioning of the relevance of the organization in global trade. We also note t he increasing 
discussions and calls for the reform of the WTO including the relevant proposals that have been 
circulated on this matter.  
 
In this regard, ASEAN would like to share our views on some key issues being discussed with regard 
to the WTO Reform a s follows:  
 
We believe that the issue regarding the impasse on the Appellate Body selection process is the most 
critical and in need of an expeditious solution. ASEAN will continue to be supportive of the Informal 
Process on matters related to the Function ing of the Appellate Body led by Ambassador David 
Walker. We also thank all proponents of the various proposals and reiterate our willingness to play 
a constructive role in pushing for concrete outcomes to address the concerns raised. We reiterate 
the need  to launch the Appellate Body selection process as soon as possible.  
 
On the issue of trade and development in relation to the WTO's rule -making efforts, we reiterate 
that the development dimension is a core principle of the WTO and urge Members to avoid p olarised 
debates and take up constructive and pragmatic approaches to tackle the issue of S&DT in a 
thoughtful and holistic manner.  
 
On matters related to transparency, ASEAN fully supports the objective to enhance transparency 
and notification records in the WTO. However, we recogni ze the wide divergence with regard to the 
approach to achieve such objective. We therefore urge Members to find creative and pragmatic 
approaches that reinforce trust amongst Members and enhance positive engagement in this area,  
and to arrive at a consensus.  
 
ASEAN strongly believes that it is a collective responsibility of all Members to help WTO remain 
relevant and effective. We therefore look forward to engaging actively and constructively on the 
issue of WTO Reform.  
 
30. Thailan d 
 
Thailand believes that achieving a meaningful outcome on our negotiations would be imperative for 
the WTO and the multilateral trading system.  
 
We remain committed to deliver negotiated outcomes on Fisheries Subsidies by the end of this year, 
and welco me the recent submissions of new proposals as well as increased engagement from 
Members in this area as reported by the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules. In this regard, we 
look forward to positive developments in the fisheries subsidies negotiation  in next week's cluster 
meetings.  
 
We also view Agriculture as an issue of utmost importance and that meaningful outcomes in this 
pillar should be an important part of our package at MC12. With approximately one year until MC12 
in Nur -Sultan, we support a ll efforts to move quickly into negotiation mode.  
 
On the WTO Reform, Thailand reiterates its views on key discussions in line with the statement that 
we have just delivered on behalf of ASEAN.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 88 - 
 
  Nevertheless, we would like to highlight that the critical issue on the appointment of the Appellate 
Body members needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency.  
 
Thailand therefore supports the informal process led by Ambassador Walker. We also note with 
appreciation the efforts by Members in coming up with concrete proposals in this area. In the spirit 
of contributing to the process, we have also contributed in the form of the proposal WT/GC/W/769 
and would like to thank all Members for their interests in o ur proposal. Thailand will continue to play 
a constructive role in the discussions as we press for a concrete outcome on this critical issue.  
 
Lastly, Thailand would like to express that we welcome the progress in the discussion on E -commerce 
Joint Stateme nt Initiative and look forward to constructively participating in the upcoming 
negotiations.  
 
31. Russian Federation  
 
The organization we belong to is one of the key institutions of global economic governance. It is the 
cornerstone of the global trading system . In Russia's view, the WTO provides the best framework to 
tackle systemic trade issues in a transparent and fair manner. This also relates to the dispute 
settlement system of the WTO which we can potentially improve having in mind that it has no viable 
alternative.  
 
Russia is deeply concerned about the current trade tensions and damaging effects of unilateral 
measures. The greatest threat to the multilateral trading system comes from Members losing faith 
in it as a valuable and time -proven instrument regul ating international trade and settling trade 
disputes for the benefit of all, not just a select few.  
 
It is impossible to predict all the risks and calculate all the damage caused by the collapse of major 
international trade pacts. One thing is clear: if w e allow the WTO to fall victim to the current crisis 
of multilateralism, global trade governance will be set back by almost 25 years. Without clear rules 
established and upheld by this organization, history suggests that international trade could easily 
break down, paving the way for rampant protectionism.  
 
We live in very turbulent times. Figures published recently show that trade fell by 1.8% in the first 
three months of the year compared to the previous 3 -month period. This is the biggest quarter -to-
quarter plunge since May 2009. If we allow the risks to the WTO materialise, these negative trends 
could lead us directly to the most profound economic crisis since the US Great Depression.  
 
The WTO is not without flaws. The organization should adapt to the ch anges in the world economy 
to stay effective and relevant. We once again call upon all Members to work together to support the 
system we have.  
 
Let me now give the Russian assessment of the current state of play in key negotiating areas.  
 
In fisheries subs idies negotiations, we note a positive movement towards intensification of flexible 
working formats with the help of facilitators. At this stage, Members have to engage in a creative 
mode and realistically adjust their ambitions. In particular, due conside ration should be given to 
situations where domestic policies in the fisheries sector may require adjustment of current levels 
of support under proper fisheries management.  
 
In agriculture, we welcome the increased Members' participation. However, the proce ss should not 
become an academic information -building exercise. We hope to see Members' substantive 
engagement through their contributions. For Russia, domestic support remains one of the priorities 
as we move towards MC -12. We need more creative and innov ative ideas on this way.  
 
We are also very encouraged to see the progress made so far on MC11 joint initiatives such as e -
commerce, investment facilitation, MSMEs and women's economic empowerment.  
 
I would like to encourage Members to engage constructively  and pragmatically. Only solution -
oriented approaches will support our efforts to strengthen the WTO that we value so much.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 89 - 
 
  32. Republic of Korea  
 
As I emphasised at the last meeting held in February, the WTO has a lot of work at hand this year. 
Without a dou bt, the Members worked actively to make progress and Korea engaged constructively 
with other Members in this regard. Let me briefly touch upon such efforts.  
 
First, regarding the fisheries subsidies negotiations, I believe the Members made best efforts to 
achieve positive progress through the three cluster meetings held this year. However, the differences 
in positions are still at large while the timeline is edging in closer. In this context, Korea duly takes 
note of the call from the Chair of the Negotiati ng Group on Rules at the last cluster meeting that the 
time is passing and inter -sessional work would need to be intensified. Korea would also like to urge 
Members to provide up -to-date notifications of fisheries subsidies as re -committed by the Ministers 
at the MC11.  
 
Second, regarding negotiations on trade -related aspects of electronic commerce, a number of 
proposals were submitted by various Members. I believe these proposals will work as good discussion 
starters. And I hope that they will be discussed in a constructive manner in the meetings to be held 
until July. As we stated in the past, Korea expects a high standard outcome in e -commerce. I would 
like to re -emphasise that Korea is willing to take an active and constructive role in relevant 
discussion s. Korea is in the process of preparing a proposal and looks forward to sharing this with 
broader Membership in the near future.  
 
Third, CoA SS recently wrapped up its first round of scheduled work for this year. I would like to 
send my appreciation for t he efforts put forth by the CoA SS Chair and the coordinators for the seven 
Working Groups. Korea hopes to see this type of open and frank discussions continue so that 
confidence can be built among the Members.  
 
Last but certainly not least, the lingering  question of prolonged vacancy in the Appellate Body still 
remains to be answered. The informal General Council process on Appellate Body issue is entering 
its sixth month of operation and many proposals were submitted by the Members during this time. 
Howe ver, it would be much more encouraging if all Members could actively participate in this 
discussion and converge on possible solution and options. Preparing a compilation that sums up the 
proposals submitted by the Members could be considered.  
 
We do not h ave much time on our hands, whether it is for producing negotiated outcomes for MC12 
or for saving the Crown Jewel of the WTO from paralysis. I urge all Members to work actively and 
constructively with each other in a realistic, pragmatic and balanced appr oach as if the time has 
already reached the eleventh hour.  
 
33. Paraguay  
 
Paraguay firmly believes in the multilateral trading system. We are aware that this is the time to 
find concrete solutions and intensify efforts to achieve results at the next Ministerial Conference. In 
this regard, allow me to express the following priorities and concerns:  
 
With regard to WTO reform, Paraguay considers that discussions on possible reform must be 
inclusive and transparent and that the development component must be respected as a fundamental 
principle and right of Members. We must preserve special and differential treatment for Members 
who really need it.  
 
With respect to the functioning of this organization, we repeat our profound and systemic concern 
regarding t he current situation of the Appellate Body and we support the process led by Ambassador 
Walker to find a negotiated solution. The priority of the entire Membership must be to restore the 
Appellate Body to its full capacity and launch the process for select ing its members without further 
delay. In this regard, we have co -sponsored WT/GC/W/767/Rev.1 – "Guidelines for the Work of 
Panels and the Appellate Body" – with Brazil and Uruguay. This document has been circulated and 
will be presented at the next Genera l Council meeting. We consider that this proposal contains 
interesting elements for drawing positions closer and overcoming the current impasse.  
 
With regard to the agriculture negotiations, we would like to thank Ambassador Ford for his efforts 
in driving  the technical discussions in the Working Groups – enabling more dynamic exchanges 
between Members – but there is still a long way to go.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 90 - 
 
  My delegation is convinced that the best option for an agreement must be in the form of a package 
since a comprehensiv e result is the way to ensure that the agreement is satisfactory for everyone. 
We want an ambitious result in domestic support that envisages a ceiling for trade distorting 
domestic support and greater liberalization of agricultural markets – issues that h ave remained 
outstanding since the Uruguay Round. Market access is the pillar of agriculture negotiations with the 
greatest potential for creating benefits for all Members of this organization especially developing 
countries that are agricultural producers . 
 
With regard to the participation in the various joint initiatives, as a landlocked developing country, 
we view with great enthusiasm the WTO's potential for contributing to the regulation of cross -cutting 
components of trade facilitation which will make  it possible to design a set of rules and instruments 
to facilitate the integration of our MSMEs, small producers, women entrepreneurs and creative 
industries in international trade.  
 
As a signatory to the second joint statement on electronic commerce sign ed in Davos on 25 January 
2019, we reaffirm our commitment to supporting the process of negotiation regarding trade -related 
aspects of electronic commerce. Our experience at the national level has taught us to find 
mechanisms to overcome the challenges tha t we face as a "digitally landlocked" as well as a 
geographically landlocked developing country. Electronic commerce is the future of trade and a 
fundamental tool for facilitating it. Let us participate constructively in designing rules that make it 
possib le to spread its benefits and to integrate our MSMEs, women and young entrepreneurs in the 
global economy. In this regard, we hope to make an active contribution in the initial substantive 
discussions that will take place in mid -May and in successive worki ng sessions.  
 
In conclusion, Paraguay is a resolute defender of the multilateral trading system. We consider it 
possible to overcome this systemic crisis with a strong political will combined with technical work by 
us all and to envisage a stronger and mor e efficient WTO, one that is capable of achieving better 
results for the whole Membership while ensuring that international trade flows in the smoothest, 
most predictable and most open way possible.  
 
34. Norway  
 
The various reports paint a relatively modest, i f not bleak picture of the state of play in the 
negotiating pillar of this organization. Prospects for progress in most files are limited.  
 
Fisheries subsides represent a significant exception. Members are actively engaged and committed 
to finding multilat eral results. We have a strong political mandate and an ambitious deadline at the 
end of 2019.  Now is the time to agree on a common approach to designing the various disciplines.  
We support the intention of the Chair of the Negotiating Group to involve H eads of Delegations to 
provide direction, and Norway stands ready to engage constructively.  
 
Furthermore, we expect to receive valuable political guidance from upcoming meetings at Ministerial 
level in different configurations. Let us join forces and look for ambitious and meaningful solutions 
that implement SDG 14.6 in the WTO. An important immediate step is for all Members to adhere to 
the Ministerial Decision from MC11 by submitting complete and timely notifications of fisheries 
subsidies by 30 June.  
 
The CoA SS had useful discussions this week but we believe more time and discussions are needed 
before Members have a common understanding on the best way forward towards incremental 
progress.  
 
Activities under the various joint initiatives also represent e lements of optimism. The upcoming start 
of negotiations on e -commerce is an important step in making this organization more relevant to 
the challenges of today's world economy. We are grateful to the co -conveners Australia, Japan and 
Singapore for their re lentless efforts.  
 
On a more general level, Norway believes that our ability to achieve multilateral outcomes would be 
significantly enhanced by a more solution -oriented and practical approach to trade and development, 
inspired by the many different ways development concerns have been addressed in the past. We 
will come back to this issue next week as we have submitted a paper to the General Council with 
the document symbol WT/GC/W/770.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 91 - 
 
  Prospects for progress in the negotiating pillar cannot be seen in is olation from what is happening 
in other pillars. We are encouraged by the active engagement of many Members in efforts aiming at 
making this organization more effective. The rules -based multilateral trading system is worth 
safeguarding. And the best way to  safeguard it is to improve it – constantly.  
 
Furthermore, we are supportive of efforts aimed at strengthening Members' compliance with agreed 
rules. Transparency is fundamental and delivering on notification requirements is indispensable for 
the follow -up of existing agreements but also as a basis fo r negotiating new rules – for instance on 
fisheries subsidies.  
 
It should however be noted that transparency and notifications are not the only principles and 
obligations that need to be respected. Norway remains concerned about the current trade tensions , 
the lack of respect for fundamental principles and the potential damaging effects of protectionism 
and unilateral measures.  
 
Many Members have engaged actively in the search for a sustainable solution to the current crises 
related to the dispute settleme nt system. It is our belief that this response deserves recognition and 
that the process to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body should be initiated without further delay.  
 
35. Pakistan  
 
Pakistan appreciates the efforts of all colleagues aiming to preserve  and strengthen the multilateral 
trading system.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, Pakistan believes that there now remains a very small window in which 
Members can achieve transformative change for the world's oceans and the livelihoods of many 
coastal communitie s. If negotiations reach a successful conclusion, Members will reignite confidence 
that multilateral cooperation can achieve global outcomes. We are happy with our progress so far 
but we also believe that we need to shift gear to a more focussed text -based  negotiation since the 
deadline is fast approaching. We welcome the effort put in by Members in submitting new 
submissions and will continue to participate constructively in upcoming discussions.  
 
We would like to express our satisfaction over the process  being followed by the Chair of the CoA 
SS in Agriculture negotiations. The working group process was helpful in triggering technical 
discussions in a frank manner among the delegates. We support the continuation of this 
configuration but would like to dee pen the discussions in a problem -solving mode. We are hopeful 
that such focused discussions will in turn help generate new solutions and ideas.  
 
Pakistan has strongly and consistently been calling for an end to the Appellate Body deadlock. We 
have engaged actively in the process led by Ambassador Walker and indicated our willingness to 
consider proposals that are made in a good faith effort to resolve the impasse. However, considering 
the urgency of the matter, it is high time we move towards achieving an o utcome through that 
process. To reiterate our stance, any proposals that compromise the independence and integrity of 
the AB cannot be supported. Linking the resolution of the deadlock to conversations about the overall 
reform of the WTO would also not be helpful as it will only delay this urgent matter.  
 
On the larger issue of reform, it has been our consistent view that, any reform should have 
developing countries at its centre and must be geared towards addressing their needs. Reform 
should not, at any c ost, alter the fundamental principles of the WTO. It is unfortunate that the 
concept of development has come to be questioned. Insofar as trade and development are crucially 
linked, questioning this fundamental concept cannot lend to positive progress.  
 
36. Turkey 
 
On the current situation at the WTO, since the last TNC and General Council meetings, there has not 
been positive signs of easing tensions and finding a way forward that will be conducive to overcome 
the current overall deadlock at the WTO.  
 
Just li ke some others, Turkey is also following the bilateral efforts by Members. Bilateral 
arrangements may contribute to ease tensions to some extent. But we need sustainable solutions 
for the multilateral system.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 92 - 
 
  As we said before, Turkey recogni zes that the WTO and its agenda should be able to adapt to the 
changing realities. We also recogni ze that this will be a very comprehensive discussion. The issues 
are contentious.   
 
There are some proposals and initiatives on improving the effectiveness of the WTO thr ough reform.  
 
However, there is not a common understanding on how they all come together or how we should 
move forward. We are concerned that this may set the stage for further polarization.   
 
The integral parts of what was agreed in 1994 is now coming t o the table as separate issues. We 
should recogni ze that many countries become nervous in the face of this momentum for a variety 
of different reasons.  
 
Current agenda of the WTO as mandated by Ministers should not take a back seat. A genuine attempt 
to arrive at an understanding on how we should move forward with these discussions will be 
important.  
 
We remain seriously concerned about the Appellate Body. The urgency is on overcoming the crisis 
at the Appellate Body. We must start the selection process f or the vacancies of the Appellate Body 
without further delay. The current process and the proposals serve as a good basis on resolving 
certain issues concerning the functioning of the dispute settlement system.  
 
Commencing the Appellate Body selection pro cess should not be linked to resolving other matters. 
We should ensure the functioning of the Appellate Body. We stand ready to do our part and invite 
all to do the same.  
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, the clock is ticking. The working group meetings have provi ded valuable 
opportunities to overcome divergences. Technical discussions are definitely at a better place. 
Through this process, if we are to meet the deadline, compromise will be the key determining factor. 
We are ready to achieve a balanced outcome in t he end taking into consideration different needs of 
Members especially developing countries.  
 
On Agriculture, we truly appreciate the efforts of the Chair to further intensify discussions. This 
process helps maintain the discussions on key negotiating top ics alive and mitigate the divergences.  
A development -oriented and fair outcome in agriculture negotiations that will address the existing 
imbalances and level the playing field in agriculture trade will contribute to the effectiveness of the 
multilateral system.  
 
Regarding the Joint Statement Initiative on E -Commerce, we welcome the progress registered and 
the text -based proposals with varying levels of ambition. We urge Members to engage with a view 
to finding a common ground with in -built flexibilities that will enable Members with different levels 
of development to participate in the process.  
 
Turkey will be an active participant. What we seek is mainly a "balanced outcome" that provides for 
comprehensive provisions that affect both trade in goods and services.   
 
Briefly on Domestic Regulation, we are also very pleased with the work that has been undertaken in 
developing disciplines. As a staunch supporter of good regulatory practices and bearing in mind the 
trade restrictive effects of domestic regula tions, we invite all Members to take part in this process. 
We attach great importance to have a deliverable at MC12. We call on all Members to focus on 
solving all remaining issues.  
 
Furthermore, we would like to reemphasise that the issue of movement of natural persons is as 
important as other areas that need new disciplines. Mode 4 is an essential component of services. 
It should not be neglected at a time when mobility issues are high on the global agenda.   
 
37. Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs)  
 
Since the first meeting of the Informal Working Group on MSMEs on 22 February, that was reported 
in the last TNC -HODs meeting, we have organi zed a Workshop on Cybersecurity on 26 March and 
several meetings of the working groups, specially addressing two is sues: (1) a better way to WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 93 - 
 
  systemati se the information provided on MSMEs by Members on their TPRs, on a voluntary basis, of 
course and (2) how to build an electronic platform with useful links and information on MSMEs.  
 
I would like to remind the Membership  that on 16 May we will have a workshop organi zed by the 
Mission of Romania titled "SMEs digitalization and global e -commerce from a business perspective".  
 
Let me recall once again that on 27 June we will be celebrating MSMEs day. While we are still 
plann ing activities with the cooperation of some Members, we already have an event in the morning 
co-organi zed by the Federation of Small Businesses of the UK and the Informal Working Group on 
how to facilitate trade for MSMEs.  
 
In the afternoon, the Informal W orking Group on MSMEs, the Republic and the State of Geneva, the 
Sustainable Finance Geneva and the ITC will mark MSMEs day with an event on "Big money for 
Small Business". The agenda will be circulated soon.  
 
38. Uruguay  
 
Uruguay would like to thank Ambassado r John Deep Ford for his continuing efforts to advance the 
negotiations in agriculture. In this regard, we express our support for the continuation of the working 
group process, and also for the idea of increasing the pace so as to move on to the negotiati on stage 
as soon as possible.  
 
Recalling Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture which recogni zes that "the long term objective 
of substantial progressive reductions in support and protection resulting in fundamental reform is an 
ongoing process", furth er to the adoption of the Nairobi Package in 2015 and the absence of progress 
at the last Ministerial Conference, we should not allow two Ministerial Conferences to happen without 
achieving results in agriculture. We therefore urge Members to make every ef fort to achieve concrete 
results in this extremely important sector with the aim of greater liberalization of trade in agricultural 
products during the next Ministerial Conference in Kazakhstan.  
 
39. Plurinational State of Bolivia  
 
The paradox of globalization  in the 21st century is that despite all that is said about its flexibility, 
effectiveness and competitiveness, advanced economies and developing countries are more fragile, 
slow and fractured. The delegations talk about a reform process which formally has  never started 
nor has it been discussed. If a reform is necessary at the WTO, it should be a reform to see its 
Members reach a new multilateral agreement aimed at ensuring greater democratic, fair and 
sustainable international economic integration.  
 
In this regard, the Doha Declaration provides the roadmap and S&DT should belong to the elements 
that underpin the work of our organization. S&DT is not fully implemented. When looking at the 
proposals, it is clear that the Membership is far from endorsing com mitments on S&DT. We believe 
that it is necessary to highlight documents that run counter to the right to development. We must 
unite efforts which would allow us to see how, in concrete cases, we can make things fairer and 
more just for everybody without l eaving anybody behind as we committed ourselves to do.  
 
Landlocked countries, for example, face the challenge of increasing trade costs which undoubtedly 
compromises their participation in world trade. For landlocked countries, transport costs and the 
digital divide are greater. They depend on their neighbouring countries with coastline for broadband 
connection. The transport costs for landlocked countries is two -fold as compared to the costs of 
countries with a coastline.  
 
As we have said at the February meeting, there were two challenges to the current multilateral 
trading system which could lead the WTO to institutional irrelevance: the threat to the existence of 
a solid dispute settlement mechanism that is based on rules and the threat of not strongly r esponding 
to the needs of developing countries in this organization.  
 
Solving the dispute settlement problem is essential. We cannot continue going closer to the brink 
without devising a solution. We have seen all the proposals which are currently on the table and we 
have witnessed the efforts of all the protagonists involve d including Ambassador Walker to try and 
find a solution. However, it is difficult to envision a real solution without the political will of the 
country that has put us in this situation.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 94 - 
 
  The Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO and th e first objective of the SDG, 
amongst many other relevant mandates, set clear guidelines on the direction of the multilateral 
trading system. These are elements which must be considered if we want to move forward in the 
different areas of the negotiations such as agriculture, fisheries and cotton.  
 
In agriculture, we agree to continue the negotiating processes. But as we said at the last meeting 
of the CoA SS, work must be inclusive, open and participative to achieve a comprehensive package 
for the coming Ministerial Conference and not only involving transparency provisions which put 
greater onus on developing countries and can jeopardise their Membership. The problem in this area 
lies on the lack of political will. We must therefore address this issue so t hat all will benefit from the 
multilateral trading system.  
 
We do not want to believe that there were flexibilities and exceptions for many countries and that 
rules were more rigorous for just a small number of countries. Maybe we should look at the povert y 
indices to understand that greater flexibility and more solidarity are absolutely essential.  
 
Finally, we are concerned by the unilateral trade restrictive measures imposed by certain Members. 
Economic and commercial vetoes run counter to international l aw and we must not accept this in 
this organization.  
 
40. Switzerland  
 
2019 is a critical year fraught with many challenges. Increasing trade tensions have the potential to 
affect global trade. Negative effects on growth and jobs could already be noted. It is therefore crucial 
to address and solve current problems and challenges through enhanced cooperation and dialogue. 
At the same time, it is positive that many Members are getting engaged in discussions on WTO 
modernization or reform. This is an important and  welcome development even if the approaches 
may vary.  
 
In our view, the WTO is facing five main challenges:  
 
• First and foremost concluding the negotiations on fisheries subsidies by the end of the year  
 
Here, the WTO is tasked with making an important cont ribution to the SDGs. The credibility 
of the organization will be measured by its capacity to deliver on this clear mandate. The state 
of negotiations is unfortunately unsatisfactory and efforts must be stepped up if we want to 
meet the deadline set at MC1 1. 
 
• The second challenge is to safeguard and strengthen the dispute settlement system  
 
A robust dispute settlement mechanism is crucial for the WTO. As many other Members, 
Switzerland has acknowledged concerns raised about the functioning of this mechanism . 
Several proposals have been made to address these concerns. It is now high time to work out 
together what would constitute efficient and mutually agreeable solutions.  
 
• The third challenge consists in adjusting trade rules to reflect 21st century realities and in 
addressing long -standing issues  
 
What is at stake here is the relevance of the WTO. Multilateralism remains paramount and 
multilateral solutions shall be sought wherever possible. Nevertheless, we should be open to 
new ways of making progr ess that allow Members to pursue initiatives of interest to them.  
 
We therefore appreciate and support the ongoing work through the Joint Statement Initiatives 
on Investment Facilitation, MSMEs and in particular on e -commerce as the rise of data and 
digita l technologies calls for an update of global trade rules.  
 
We also welcome progress made in the field of services domestic regulations. Regarding the 
latest discussions in the CTS SS, we are encouraged by the interest shown by many Members 
to discuss touri sm. 
 
On agriculture, Switzerland continues to participate constructively in the work of the 
Negotiating Group.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 95 - 
 
  • Another challenge is to improve the efficiency of the WTO monitoring function  
 
In this regard, we welcome the initiatives aimed at improving core  features of the WTO such 
as transparency, notifications and the functioning of WTO Committees. Switzerland has 
recently initiated an informal process to discuss possibilities of establishing a mediation 
framework to address specific trade concerns.  
 
• Finally we will have to agree on a new approach to trade and development  
 
In order to drive forward multilateral negotiations, a constructive conversation among 
Members is needed about how the development dimension can best be pursued in WTO rule -
making efforts . We welcome and support the paper prepared by Norway as it offers a good 
basis for a solution -oriented debate among Members.  
 
Switzerland stands ready to devise actions for improving the system under the WTO umbrella. This 
is however a task of importance to all Members. We hope that all the protagonists will join this 
endeavour to safeguard and strengthen the system and its credibility for the future.  
 
41. Benin (African Group)  
 
I am making this statement on behalf of the African Group.  
 
This meeting comes at  a crucial moment given that we are only about a year away from the Twelfth 
Ministerial Conference – and less than a year to meet our obligations and commitments before the 
end of 2019. Therefore, the process leading up to all Ministerial Decisions should be predictable and 
reflect the guiding principles of the WTO in particular full participation, inclusivity, transparency and 
using the bottom -up approach, the importance of rules -based negotiations and a fair and just 
multilateral trading system as enshrin ed in the Marrakesh Agreement and the centrality of 
development in the work of the WTO and in all results.  
 
The African Group would like to share with the Membership its proposals and expectations in the 
current negotiations.  
 
A. Agriculture  
 
The African Grou p urges Members to work decisively to achieve the following results, with a view to 
the necessary reform of agricultural policies around the world:  
 
• Substantial reduction, with a view to eventual elimination, of domestic support that distorts 
international  trade in agricultural products (t otal aggregate measurement of support , de 
minimis, blue box, product -specific ceiling, increased transparency and monitoring of support 
in the green box);  
 
• Special and Differential Treatment Provision for developing and LD C Members, and net food -
importing developing countries, in particular;  
 
• Obtaining a permanent solution in public stockholding for food security purposes;  
 
• An outcome on the special safeguard mechanism for developing countries that covers the 
triggering of the price or volume based mechanism without complicated requirements.  
 
The African Group also wishes to emphasise the following:  
 
• It is almost a year before MC12. It is therefore essential to manage our time effectively in 
order to achieve the desired resu lts. 
 
• The Working Group process should be evaluated in light of its ability to bridge existing gaps 
in the negotiations.  
 
• From our point of view, this work will have to be undertaken mainly within the framework of 
the CoA SS with a view to introducing real reform in the Agreement on Agriculture, as WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 96 - 
 
  stipulated in Article 20 of this Agreement, and to achieve the Ministerial man dates that are 
set for us.  
 
• The importance of completing all technical work in Geneva before MC12.  
 
• The African Group believes that efforts in the coming period should be focused on domestic 
support given that it is the main source of imbalance in the AoA and unpredictability in 
international markets, as well as specific elements for which there are clear Ministerial 
mandates, including Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, Cotton and the Special 
Safeguard Mechanism, with a view to obtaining concr ete results on those matters at MC12.  
 
B. Cotton  
 
The African Group reaffirms the need for concrete and measurable results for cotton, the leading 
sector of economic and social activities, and an instrument for combating poverty in several 
countries.  
 
The Gro up welcomes the initiative to organi ze on 7 October in the WTO the First World Cotton Day. 
We hope that Members will fully participate and contribute to this event.  
 
C. Fisheries Subsidies  
 
In line with the mandates of Doha, Hong Kong and Agenda 2030 SDG 14.6 , the African Group 
pursues an ambitious outcome in the various disciplines on fisheries subsidies (i.e. IUU fishing, 
overfished stocks and overcapacity and fishing effort) with the objective of eliminating harmful 
subsidies for the management and sustaina ble conservation of fisheries resources. This result will 
have to take into account the needs for the development and modernization of fisheries in African 
countries, as well as the contribution of this sector to their food security, nutrition and economic  and 
social development.  
 
The African Group has repeatedly expressed concern about the lack of clarity about the scope and 
implications for the ongoing negotiations and its various pillars. We have also made it clear in our 
long-standing position that the scope of the fisheries subsidies prohibitions does not apply to 
estuaries and inland waters and aquaculture activities.  
 
The African Group supports the proposals contained in TN/RL/W/274/Rev.6 reflecting these 
objectives.  
 
At the same time, we are concerned about proposals and approaches to capping and potentially 
reducing fishing subsidies, regardless of their nature and impact, as well as those aimed at subjecting 
fisheries management to higher disciplines. These approaches do not only reduce the level of 
ambition in the negotiations but are also a source of inefficiency on fisheries subsidies  disciplines.  
 
The Group will continue its constructive engagement towards a result in this area by the deadline 
set by our Ministers in Buenos Aires.  
 
D. Specia l and Differential Treatment  
 
The African Group reiterates its commitment to advance the work of the Committee on Trade and 
Development in Special Session and reaffirms, in accordance with Paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration and the Decision a dopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, that all 
the provisions of Special and Differential Treatment should be reviewed, with the aim of 
strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and operational.  
 
The African Group and the G90 pla n to submit to Members a revised text on the agreement -specific 
S&DT proposals as soon as possible.  
 
We would like to focus on achieving what we expect to be a significant Ministerial result for these 
proposals at MC12, and we commit to working with Member s to make it a reality.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 97 - 
 
  E. Appellate Body  
 
The African Group stresses the urgency of relaunching and completing the process of selecting 
Appellate Body members so that this central pillar of the WTO dispute settlement system can 
continue to play its integral  role. In this regard, the process should be carried out expeditiously.  
 
We reaffirm our proposals on the reform of the DSU and emphasise the need for any reform to 
integrate the interests of developing countries in accordance with the WTO's Development Ag enda 
in order to address the concerns of capacity and development of African countries, and address 
structural differences, with a view to facilitating the participation of African countries in the dispute 
settlement system while preserving its integrity.  
 
With regard to the various ongoing discussions on the Appellate Body and the DSU Reforms at 
regular and special sessions, the Group recogni zes their importance and is ready to engage in further 
discussions on the above issues to facilitate effective funct ioning of the dispute settlement system.  
 
Indeed, the dispute settlement system remains the pillar of the multilateral trading system. We 
therefore encourage all Members to use a solutions -based approach to resolve the impasse in the 
Appellate Body.  
 
With regard to the ongoing discussions on the reform of the Appellate Body, the Group would also 
like to point out that useful proposals are made by Members and groups of Members on some 
important aspects of the provisions of the DSU. The DSU, which will need t o be improved to allow 
the better functioning of this body, ultimately determines the compliance of Members' trade practices 
with the rules, principles and disciplines of the WTO.  
 
F. Electronic Commerce  
 
With regard to e -commerce, the African Group supports the reinvigoration of work under the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce and requests Members to continue to address e -commerce 
issues comprehensively within the WTO framework in its current non -negotiating context. We 
emphasised the need for Members, es pecially those who have become global digital leaders, to share 
their policy ideas and specific government measures used to support the development of e -
commerce in their countries.  
 
We are particularly interested in learning the anticompetitive practices of technology companies and 
digital platforms that can cause market distortions, restrictive business practices and tax evasion; 
the challenges facing sellers, innovators, producers and consumers in the e -commerce space in 
developing countries; and regiona l efforts among Members including development -related issues 
such as digital infrastructure, payment instruments and policies related to innovation, research and 
development including data flows and data localization systems.  
 
We take note of the recent wo rkshop on the Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic 
Transmissions and encourage Members to continue discussions on this issue in the light of the 
unanswered concerns raised during the workshop. In this regard, we have shared with Members and 
the Gener al Council the elements to be taken into account in the revision of the analytical note or a 
new note by the Secretariat on the economic and financial implications of the Moratorium.  
 
G. Accessions  
 
The African Group calls on all Members to support African co untries in the process of accession to 
the WTO and urges them to refrain from any unsustainable demands that they make to African 
accession candidate countries to go beyond any commitments made by virtue of their Membership 
in the African Continental Free Trade Area or which are inconsistent with their levels of development.  
 
H. Services  
 
We invite Members to address the growing knowledge gaps and challenges faced by African countries 
in their effort to strengthen their national capacity for services in all mo des of supply.  
 
The African Group remains engaged in the ongoing negotiations.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 98 - 
 
  42. Benin (C -4) 
 
I am making this statement on behalf of the C -4. The C -4 aligns itself with the statements made by 
the ACP, the LDCs, the G -33 and the African Group.  
 
We like to highlight that in recent days, important work has been done for statistical analysis as well 
as simulations which have been carried out for cotton in the Quad+ configuration. The C -4 would 
like to thank Ambassador Ford, Chair of CoA SS, and the Chair of the Working Group on Cotton, Mr 
Daniel Costa Figueiredo  who has led consultations for the production of statistical data and 
simulations on the basis of trade information and data provided or collected via the questionnaire 
produced in July 2018 b y the C -4.  
 
This important work will be able to help Members to evaluate the possible effects of different 
proposals and determine the possible outcomes and solutions. The C -4 recommends that statistical 
data collected, the data and information and the re sults of the simulation should be communicated 
to Members in order to gather their observations and comments. Members who are yet to do so are 
encouraged to communicate the information requested and to participate actively in the work of the 
Working Group on Cotton in the Quad+ format and in other configurations.  
 
The C -4 encourages Members to continue and to expedite the work of the Working Group on Cotton 
and within the CoA SS as well in the same spirit of sharing and transparency and with the same 
level of commitment in order to find approaches that could lead to concrete and measurable solutions 
for the issue of cotton between now and next June.  
 
The C -4 is pleased to announce that the first edition of the World Cotton Day will take place in 
Geneva on 17  October. As we all know, cotton plays a key role in many countries in the world – the 
majority of which are present here: Australia, Zimbabwe, Brazil, Bangladesh, China, Greece, India, 
Pakistan, Turkey and Viet Nam, just to cite a few. We can also add the  more than thirty African 
Cotton producing countries also present today.  
 
Cotton provides means of subsistence to millions of people throughout the world with direct 
economic and social impact particularly on poverty reduction, economic growth and economic  and 
social development. All of this is clearly in line with the UN SDGs. The first edition of the World 
Cotton Day is being prepared actively with the engagement of bilateral and multilateral partners. 
We thank them all whole -heartedly.  
 
The WTO in coordi nation with the FAO, the UNCTAD, the ITC and the ICAC has been assisting the 
C-4 in its preparation for this important event. This event will take place at the WTO Headquarters 
in Geneva. We would particularly like to thank the Director -General who has fac ilitated the 
organization of this event. We would also like to thank the FAO, the UNCTAD, the ITC and the ICAC 
as well as DDG Alan Wolff and Ambassador Ford for their support and their commitment in favour 
of this important initiative.  
 
It is timely to hi ghlight that the month of October was chosen to have the World Cotton Day because 
it corresponds to the beginning of the cotton harvest in Western African countries and also because 
it is the birth month of Mahatma Gandhi  for whom the importance of cotton was made clear. The 
participation of several Heads of State and Ministers responsible for Cotton and Agriculture and other 
government officials will be representing the highest levels of this important event in the interest of 
all. We also are hoping for t he participation of several international organizations and NGOs relevant 
to the field – representatives from academia, research sector and the private sector.  
 
In addition to the opening plenary session, there will also be stands and an exhibition on cott on as 
well as a roundtable on five topics: trade, development, sustainability, technological innovation and 
market perspectives. Organizations representing producers around the world will be involved with 
partners sharing their technical experience specifi cally looking at the implementation of new projects 
for technology transfer for the development of value chains for cotton product derivatives for African 
producers.  
 
The World Cotton Day will be the day for all of those who produce, process or invest in a ctivities in 
the cotton value chain. We are counting on the support and cooperation of all Members in order to 
ensure that this event – to launch the World Cotton Day in October – will be a huge success meeting 
our expectations.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 99 - 
 
  43. Sri Lanka  
 
First, let me si ncerely acknowledge and appreciate the messages of condolence extended to the 
families of the deceased and to the wounded, who are still recovering from the severe blows that 
struck the entire nation as whole on Easter Sunday, 21 April 2019. As we all know , terrorism in 
different manifestations, where no one is immune, does not have any colour or nationality. It cannot 
be justified, hence will need to be defeated yet again in Sri Lanka. The incidents brought massive 
blows to our people and the vibrant econo my, but as shown in the past, we are resilient and trying 
to rebuild the confidence of the people and the economic sectors, such as tourism and its related 
services which are likely to affect in the short and medium term.  
 
We tend to concur with what the Director -General has recently stated at a joint event organi zed by 
the WTO, World Bank and the IMF, that the current trade tensions could undermine recent progress 
in tackling poverty. Trade indeed has created opportunities for a billion people to lift the mselves out 
of extreme poverty. However, the current circumstances we experience have put this progress at 
risk, undercutting the potential of trade.  
 
As Sri Lanka has repeatedly mentioned in this House, in a scenario of great uncertainty, the smaller 
players stand to lose the most. The spill -overs of a potential trade war would affect everyone, 
particularly the small and vulnerable economies like us.  
 
On the other hand, there is a risk that current events will weaken the multilateral trading system. 
Most of the existing rules and disciplines that we have at the multilateral trading system provide the 
level playing field into a certain extent on which the small economies rely. However, the poorest still 
face numerous challenges in joining global trade flow s. It is therefore the role of each Member of 
this House to find ways to overcome these challenges and ensure that trade is playing its full role.  
 
The updates as expected are projecting somewhat slow processes which are still moving in very 
difficult pat hs, signifying that all Members collectively need to ensure that the next Ministerial will 
not be yet another Ministerial meeting without much substantial outcomes.  
 
Though some discussions are moving forward, we are still sceptical whether the respective 
Negotiating Groups carrying out their discussions under different files have time to exhaust all 
complex issues within the remainder of the period. This is based on t he ability of many key players 
to demonstrate their flexibility in the key areas of negotiations. The more the WTO deviates from 
the original negotiating mandates established by the past Ministerial meetings, the more we get in 
the mess. This signifies tha t we need to focus on the negotiating mandates rather than re -writing 
them for the purpose of certain objectives which may not have much future.  
 
Therefore, it is my delegation's expectation that Members continue to engage constructively in the 
upcoming t welve months so that we could achieve meaningful results at the next Ministerial 
Conference in Astana.  
 
We also note that some proposals are being discussed at major WTO Committees posing undue 
burden on most of the developing countries in particular the Members with small delegations in 
Geneva and a limited number of experts on WTO issues back in capitals.  
 
On the transparency and notification surveillance, it is not that we are ignoring the notification 
commitments under various WTO agreements purposefu lly but we are genuinely struggling to cope 
up with the need for such commitments against our capacity constraints. In this context, it will not 
be seen reasonable if these Members are confronted with severe punitive actions as proposed in 
some proposals o n the table at present.  
 
On negotiations, in Agriculture, we need to undertake a serious evaluation on the work progress 
carried out in the working groups in terms of its substance and level of convergence rather than on 
the number of meetings held or inte rventions made by the delegations or the number of technical 
papers presented.  
 
The Chair's report notes that the level of ambition on different files differ. Members therefore need 
to focus only on the issues which demand more attention. This approach wi ll result in further division 
among the Membership and aggravate more disparities – deepening the existing ones in the world 
trading system. Discussion on all pillars including market access covered under the Doha Declaration WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 100 - 
 
  should therefore continue to b e on the table until we find a common ground where we can converge 
the negotiating positions.  
   
With regard to ongoing negotiations on fisheries subsidies, as my delegation and many others have 
repeatedly stated, it is important to design simple, clear a nd implementable disciplines, providing 
due consideration to build appropriate and effective special and differential treatment provisions for 
developing countries. SDG 14.6 itself has recogni zed S&DT for developing countries as an integral 
part of any out come on fisheries subsidies. Further, we should seriously engage in negotiations 
identifying ways and means for ensuring the confidence of small countries such as ours without 
leaving it to happen at the last stage of the negotiations.  
 
We are a fishing n ation which has taken drastic steps through an array of measures to combat IUU 
fishing by its fishing community and is working very actively and closely with the regional fishery 
monitoring bodies to bring disciplines on over -fishing of certain depleting f ishery specifies. Similar 
to recently acceded countries which claimed to have taken onerous commitments, we are concerned 
that countries such as ours who have taken similar steps in the recent past would also be subjected 
to take additional commitments in disciplining the support being currently made available to our 
resource poor and artisanal fishing community.    
 
On the E -Commerce Moratorium, we thank the Secretariat for the recently organi zed workshop 
which provided certain clarifications on the revenu e implications on the moratorium decision. 
Countries like Sri Lanka who depend heavily on collection of indirect taxes to generate government 
income may have to be mindful of this implication when formulating its negotiating position on the 
moratorium.  
 
44. South Africa  
 
We align ourselves with the statements delivered by the African Group and the ACP Group.  
 
We recogni ze the important role that Chairpersons play in the WTO's negotiating and regular bodies. 
We would like to urge Chairpersons of all negotiating bodies to act in accordance with TN/C/1 which 
sets out the principles and practices on the role of Chairpersons of the TNC and Negotiating Bodies. 
All Members views should be respected and the principle of consensus must be adhered to at all 
times.  
 
Parag raph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration remains the sole basis for discussion and 
negotiation in the CTD SS. It is ironic that the issue of development and special and differential 
treatment is discussed everywhere else except in the mandated body. Alr eady, the narrative on 
S&DT is running ahead of the CTD SS process – and we cannot support views that S&DT should not 
apply to current or future negotiations or on a case by case approach. Such approaches would 
undermine the systemic treatment of S&DT unle ss a comprehensive understanding and clarification 
of S&DT is achieved in line with the Ministerial mandate.  
 
We would thus have to prioritise mandated negotiations on S&DT in the CTD SS. It is also important 
to return to the G90 proposals and to ensure t hat an effective discussion is initiated before the 
summer break since this can further the objectives to render S&DT provisions more precise, effective 
and operational.  
 
On WTO reform, there has been an enthusiastic call for the modernization of the WTO. However, 
despite a plethora of proposals some Members continue to advance reforms only in one direction. 
Many of the proposals dealing with monitoring and transparency, th e WTO's negotiating function 
and development have serious implications for developing countries including punitive measures 
that tend to target countries that do not have capacity to address existing obligations, let alone take 
on additional ones. The prem ise of these proposals fundamentally alters the balance of rights and 
obligations enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement and cannot be accepted. Nowhere in this debate 
do we hear even a vague reference to the Doha Development Round. Unless and until developi ng 
country -issues are addressed, there will be no consensus or acceptance of any of these proposals.  
 
On Agriculture, addressing and advancing issues, notably in the areas of domestic support, PSH, 
cotton and SSM remain a high priority for many Members. A s we approach MC12, it would be 
important to capture the special needs and circumstances of developing countries and LDCs in this 
regard.  WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 101 - 
 
  South Africa registers its concern with the lack of progress in the fisheries subsidies negotiations. 
Here we are, al most half -way through the year and no significant progress has been made. New 
proposals advanced by proponents are unbalanced and do not cater for developing country concerns, 
while the issue of S&DT is largely forgotten and underplayed. We need to get bac k to balanced 
discussions on the basis of TN/RL/W/274/Rev.6. Whereas bilateral discussions have been useful, a 
return to full plenary mode will ensure the necessary inclusivity and transparency as we move 
forward.  
 
South Africa is of the view that negotiat ions on e -commerce are premature. The importance of 
developing digital industrial policies should be a first priority for developing countries to enable such 
Members to make holistic policy choices with respect to the digital economy that supports inclusiv e 
growth and development. With respect to the moratorium, the implications for revenue loss and 
challenges with schedules and tariff policy are still being assessed. These considerations far outweigh 
the question about its extension.  
 
On Services, we remai n opposed to exploratory work on market access negotiations. With no 
progress in Agriculture, it is not possible to see any positive progress in this area.  
 
In closing, we note that the December deadline for the Appellate Body is fast approaching, despite  
the informal process conducted under the auspices of the General Council, little or no progress has 
been registered. We remain concerned and sceptical that current efforts to address this crisis will be 
successful unless all Members start to engage in goo d faith.  
 
45. Indonesia  
 
My delegation reiterates its concern over persisting difficulties that this House has endured. Amongst 
the obstacles to advancement in our work is setting correctly our priorities.  
 
With this backdrop, my delegation reemphasises the ne ed for us to achieve significant progress in 
the Doha Development Agenda and in breaking the impasse of the selection process of Appellate 
Body members.  
 
My delegation wishes to remind us all that development elements have always been an integral part 
of various WTO Agreements. Development elements assist developing and LDC Members among 
others to integrate and reap equitable benefits from the multilateral trading system.  
 
We observe that the evolving discussion on this matter in all negotiating fronts has  been frantic and 
divisive as well as failing to associate with the history on why Members insisted back then to have 
in place the development elements and hence on why we need to implement the Doha Development 
Agenda and on why the S&DT becomes one of the  main features of the multilateral trading system . 
 
Our current negotiations in Agriculture reflect that behaviour of deviating away from the 
implementation of Doha and S&DT. For that purpose, my delegation continues to stress the need 
for a meaningful neg otiation on SSM and PSH. This House needs to work together in removing 
additional barriers that hinder progress in the Agriculture negotiations and address the imbalances 
and inequities inherited from the Uruguay Round.  
 
While we endure receiving empty pr omises in Agriculture, we continue to push the finalization of 
fisheries subsidies prior to MC12. This House has moved and has negotiated the importance of 
fisheries sector to secure sustainable development, food security and livelihood of the people. But 
we fall short to do the same in agriculture.  
 
Our push to finalise the process to prohibit fisheries subsidies in 2020 shall not forget the importance 
to put in place appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and LDC 
Members as underlines by the SDGs. S&DT shall help the shortcomings of developing and LDC 
Members in balancing its obligation to contribute to sustainable fisheries and its right to develop. 
Moreover, lest we remiss that our goal to attain sustainable life  below the water must not work in 
contrary with the attainment of the whole SDGs and its ultimate objective to end poverty once and 
for all.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 102 - 
 
  We continue to raise concern over the impasse of the selection process of Appellate Body members. 
We highly apprec iate Ambassador Walker's leadership in the Informal Process and welcomes many 
proposals put on the table by Members.  
 
However, my delegation believes that the end goal of the process shall be directed efforts made to 
select the new AB members as this Hous e is heading close towards dysfunction. We call on Members 
to renew its political will and address this problem with a sense of urgency to safeguard an open, 
predictable and rules -based multilateral trading system.  
 
Finally, Indonesia would like to reiter ate its readiness to be actively and constructively engaged in 
any necessary process particularly in finding acceptable solutions that will address everybody's 
interest and concerns.  
  
46. Solomon Islands (Pacific Group)  
 
I am delivering this statement on beha lf of the Pacific Group.  
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, the Group commends the progress of work in the Negotiating Group on Rules 
including the Facilitator -led discussions to explore ideas and deepen understanding on technical 
issues. We thank Members that have  submitted proposals which have generated intense discussions.   
The Pacific Group has been actively participating in the ACP group work on the fisheries subsidies to 
ensure that our interest in fisheries subsidies are reflected with a view to submitting p roposals in 
the future.  
 
Fisheries is a key sector for the livelihood security as well as the economic and sustainable 
development of the Pacific Islands. In fact, fisheries is a pillar of longstanding regional cooperation 
over the years and since 2015 rem ains as a regional priority of the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders' 
agenda. Underlying this agenda is our Leaders' objective to strengthen the management of the 
region's fisheries resource as well as to increase the economic returns of this resource to the r egion.  
The Pacific Group therefore considers that the WTO Agreement on fisheries subsidies, if appropriately 
designed, would complement the region's management efforts.  
 
In this regard, the Pacific Group remains committed to delivering on the MC11 mandat e to conclude 
an Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies in 2019 in order to meet the deadline of the SDG 14.6. We 
have limited time left, with divergences on many issues still remaining. The Pacific Group will play 
its part and continue to engage constructively with Members in order to successfully conclude an 
agreement.  Given the significant importance of the fisheries sector to small island developing States 
like us, we reiterate as we had done in previous HOD meetings, that for our Group, a successful 
agreeme nt must deliver the two aspects of SDG 14.6 and MC11 mandates. These are to provide 
strong disciplines that target those that cause overfishing while at the same time provide appropriate 
and effective special and differential treatment including for small island developing states and LDCs.  
The latter in our view includes preserving the sovereign right of coastal States over their national 
jurisdictions ensuring that Members who currently have little or no capacity are provided room for 
growth in the future  and above all must support the development of fisheries in small island 
developing States and LDCs in line with SDG 14.7.  
 
On Agriculture, the Pacific Group supports an outcome on domestic support that removes the existing 
imbalances in agricultural trade  and that enables small Members like us to effectively access 
markets.  
 
The issue of Development also remains a priority for our Group. The Pacific Group remains in the 
margins of the global trading system given our small share of world trade. As co -propon ents with 
the ACP Group on the G90 proposals, we stress the importance of finding practical solutions in 
supporting our efforts to diversify, industrialise and thereby increase our share of trade.     
 
Finally, the Pacific Group remains committed to the mu ltilateral rules -based system of the WTO, 
which provides predictability and certainty for all Members. We note the proposals that have been 
submitted on the WTO reforms that aim to improve the functioning of the WTO. We thank those 
Members that have come t o explain their proposals to the Pacific Group. While we understand the 
rationale behind those initiatives we would like to underline that discussions should take into account 
the different capacities of Members, especially very small Members. We therefore  call for genuine 
and inclusive dialogue to ensure that small Members like us are not made worse off or left behind.    WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 103 - 
 
  Our Group also supports the statements made by the ACP and the LDC Groups.  
 
47. St. Lucia (OECS)  
 
This statement is being delivered on behalf of the Member States of the Organization of Eastern 
Caribbean States. Allow me to associate my delegation with the statements already delivered by 
Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of the CARICOM Group and Jamaica on behalf of the ACP.  
 
As small, vulner able economies, the Member States of the OECS continue to demonstrate an 
enduring commitment to the multilateral trading system as we believe the system provides a 
platform for countries like ours to unlock our development potential through trade particula rly in a 
context where we are faced with sustained challenges associated with climate -related risks as well 
as other structural constraints.  
 
It is against this backdrop that we note with regret the fragmentation of negotiating approaches 
between plurilate ral or less than plenary approaches and the multilateral process. While we will not 
stand in the way of progress however achieved, our delegation wishes to affirm the centrality and 
primacy of rules -based multilateralism.  
 
On Agriculture, we commend the Co A SS Chair, Ambassador Deep Ford, for his dedicated leadership. 
We also support the working group process adopted as a mechanism to unblock the negotiations. 
Agriculture remains a vital economic sector for the Member States of the OECS given its contributi ons 
to gross domestic product, employment and rural livelihood. Agriculture will also continue to be 
central to unlocking the development potential of the developing and LDC Members.  
 
With these accepted understandings, we must ensure that the modalities for small economies with 
respect to market access and domestic support remain conceptually consistent with the 2008 
modalities. Therefore, it is critical that any approaches considered allow for flexibilities for small 
economies. Moving forward, we must co llectively have a duty to ensure that we address preference 
erosion from the point of view particularly of developing countries and small economies.  
 
Regarding the negotiations on fisheries subsidies, allow me to share some procedural and 
substantive refle ctions. Procedurally, we must restate our preference that the Negotiating Group on 
Rules convenes at a time that does not conflict with other Negotiating Groups given the critical 
importance that we attach to our participation in negotiations on fisheries subsidies. The small size 
of our delegation does not allow us to cover multiple Negotiating Groups simultaneously.  
 
On substance, we note the progress being made towards achieving the mandate of our Ministers as 
well as Target 14.6 of the SDGs ahead of the  end of the 2019 deadline. However, we urge Members 
to take a realistic and constructive view that will satisfy the main objectives of Members namely, 
preserving and sustaining marine ecology and fish stocks while harnessing the economic potential 
of our m arine resources.  
 
With respect to reform, we welcome the leadership of Ambassador Walker of New Zealand and we 
appreciate his commitment to securing a favourable outcome. Notwithstanding considerable efforts 
deployed, discernible progress remains elusive. The good functioning of the multilateral trading 
system depends on a fully operational dispute settlement system. Therefore, OECS Member States 
urge all Members to work in a solutions -focused manner to unblock the impasse. In this regard, any 
updating of t he dispute settlement system must preserve the independence and impartiality of the 
system.  
 
On development, development remains a sine qua non for a multilateral outcome and a fundamental 
tenet of WTO for developing and LDC Members. Therefore, no effort should be spared to ensure that 
Members deliver on the legitimate development aspirations of all Members. There can be no real or 
meaningful progress on market access or rules without a sensible conversation on development. We 
can no longer ignore the elep hant in the room.  
 
Finally, we urge all Members to take positive, purposeful and outcome -oriented steps to overcoming 
the challenges that face this institution. We further urge Members to consider the special and unique 
circumstances of small economies as a key to overcoming the existential question facing the WTO.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 104 - 
 
  48. Nigeria  
 
As a stakeholder in the multilateral trading system, Nigeria believes that efficient and equitable 
functioning of the system will foster inclusive economic growth and generate producti vity gains for 
all regardless of current level of development. In the light of the foregoing, we would like to share 
our views on the ongoing negotiations as follows:  
 
Regarding the Agriculture Negotiations, the sector is in the heart of Nigeria and indeed  most 
developing countries' strategy for economic transformation. It is therefore in our interest that the 
outcomes of the ongoing Agriculture negotiations are such that they address the apparent imbalance 
in the current rules and promote equitable and sus tainable growth of the sector. Therefore, we wish 
to urge Members to:  
 
• As a first step work towards eliminating Aggregate Measurement of Support other than the 
de-minimis; and  
 
• Work towards addressing mandated issues such as PSH for food security purposes, and SSM 
that are of critical importance to developing countries so as to ensure meaningful and 
measurable outcomes.  
 
Care must also be taken to ensure that the outcomes of the ongoing negotiations does not undermine 
the S&DT provisions of Article s 6.2 and 6.4 of the AoA.  
 
On Cotton, Nigeria wishes to congratulate the proponents of the World Cotton Day initiative. We 
believe this initiative will further draw global attention to the challenges of poor cotton farmers in 
developing countries and the d istortionary effects of subsidies. These subsidies continue to 
undermine the competitiveness of developing countries particularly LDC cotton producers. We look 
forward to meaningful and quantifiable outcomes that will not only curb cotton domestic support but 
will also spur the development of the sector in developing countries' economies.  
 
On the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations, Nigeria wishes to state that small scale and low technology 
fishing is a lifeline for a good number of households and communities  in Nigeria and indeed most 
developing countries. These developing countries even in the presence of subsidy window lack the 
capacity to grant effective subsidies. We therefore urge Members to engage constructively to achieve 
a balanced outcome that takes into account the development needs of developing countries. In order 
to achieve a focused and balanced outcome, we wish to propose that discussions should focus on 
TN/RL/W/274/Rev.6 as mandated by our Ministers at MC11. We stand ready to engage on proposal s 
and initiatives that seek to address the differences in TN/RL/W/274/Rev.6.  
 
On S&DT, we take note of the various proposals on special and differential treatment by some 
Members. However, we wish to emphasise that S&DT is a right of developing countries enshrined in 
the Marrakesh Agreement. We reaffirm our position tabled at the last General Council meeting that 
S&DT should continue to be an integral part of all WTO Agreements so as to provide requisite 
flexibilities for developing countries to achieve th eir developmental objectives.   
 
As a party to the Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce, Nigeria believes that e -commerce is an 
economic reality that is unlocking the potential of economies by triggering growth and creating 
wealth and jobs. However, we a re mindful of the supply side constraint undermining the gains of 
developing countries from e -commerce. Consequently, we are in favour of a more robust dialogue 
on e-commerce that takes into account the development needs of developing countries without 
prejudice to individual Members' position on this issue and the 1998 E -Commence Work Programme.  
 
Nigeria wishes to seize the opportunity to underscore the importance of ensuring the effective 
functioning of the dispute settlement system. On the issue of the Appellate Body impasse, we call 
on Members to cultivate a solution -based approach to this matter with a view to uphold the integrity 
of the rules -based multilateral system. We are ready to engage other Members constructively 
towards finding harmonious solu tions to the Appellate Body impasse in order to promote a 
sustainable dispute settlement system.  
 
We wish to associate ourselves with the statement made by the African Group and the ACP.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 105 - 
 
  49. Hong Kong, China  
 
During the past months, we have seen heated discussions on the reform of the WTO taking place on 
various fronts. Hong Kong, China welcomes the reform proposals by Members to facilitate the 
discussions in improving transparency and monitoring functions of WTO Committees, pursuing the 
development dime nsion in WTO's negotiations and addressing concerns about the dispute settlement 
system. Hong Kong, China is committed to taking an active part in these discussions.  
 
On the reform of the dispute settlement mechanism, Hong Kong, China appreciates the good faith 
as reflected in all reform proposals for improving the DSU and stands ready to discuss the 
imperfections of the WTO. We are committed to working with all Members constructively to find 
ways to address the concerns but we do not consider it justifiabl e to attach pre -conditions to the 
launch of selection of Appellate Body members and would urge all Members to lift the blockage to 
the AB appointment so as to preserve the integrity of this important function of resolving trade 
disputes among Members. The attempts to reform and improve the WTO and to negotiate new rules 
should move forward in parallel.  
 
Turning to the joint statement initiatives, Hong Kong, China will continue to support the initiatives 
on e-commence, investment facilitation and services do mestic regulation which are making steady 
progress since the beginning of this year. We will participate actively in the discussions and would 
encourage more Members to join. We hope that the work in these areas will bear fruit in the coming 
year and lay a  solid foundation for possible multilateral outcome at MC12.  
 
50. Malaysia  
 
At the outset, Malaysia associates with the ASEAN Statement delivered by Thailand. We also thank 
the various Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their updates.  
 
As we move into the s econd quarter of 2019, various efforts and initiatives have taken place to bring 
the House into order. The Informal WTO Ministerial Gathering in Davos saw the Ministers expressing 
the need to address the various challenges with a view to strengthening the multilateral trading 
system.  
 
On dispute settlement, Malaysia would like to re -emphasise that the effective functioning of the 
dispute settlement system is a fundamental aspect of this institution. As we approach the second 
half of the year, there is a ne ed for constructive engagement to address the impasse in the Appellate 
Body selection process.  It is the collective responsibility of all Members to identify potential solutions 
to address the issue pertaining to the selection process of Appellate Body me mbers.  
 
It is crucial that Members exercise flexibilities to resolve the pending issue to ensure that the 
credibility of the multilateral trading system is not undermined. We welcome the various proposals 
in addressing the issue. In this context, we take the opportunity to record our appreciation to 
Ambassador David Walker in his leadership to steer the discussion at the Informal Process on matters 
related to the functioning of the Appellate Body. We reiterate the need to launch the Appellate Body 
selectio n process as soon as possible.  
 
On development, on the call for strengthening and modernising the system, let us not forget that 
most Members within the system are developing countries and LDCs. While we move towards 
improving the system, development is a crucial component to ensure that all Members are able to 
reap the benefits. We welcome Norway's contribution in paving the way forward on the development 
issue that will be introduced and deliberated at the General Council Meeting later.  
 
On transparency, we value the objective to enhance transparency and notification records in the 
WTO. However, in improving the mechanism, there is a need to acknowledge the fact that technical 
assistance and capacity building are vital for developing Members to comply with  such obligations.  
 
On other issues, we acknowledge the active engagement on fisheries subsidies but there is a need 
for convergence to ensure that an outcome can be achieved.  
 
We also welcome the various on -going discussions on MSMEs and on Investment F acilitation and 
welcome the progress in the discussion on the Electronic Commerce Joint Statement Initiative and 
encourage other Members to be part of the engagement. The progress of e -commerce negotiations WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 106 - 
 
  will provide a significant signal that the WTO is  moving in tangent with the development in the real 
world.  
 
51. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
We recogni ze the efforts made by the Chairs to maintain the rhythm of the negotiations while valuing 
the efforts of many Members to table new proposals in an attempt to advance both in the negotiating 
issues and in cross -cutting themes to ensure the smooth functioning of the organization.  
 
My delegation would like to reiterate its concern at the serious situation faced by the Appellate Body 
despite the number o f existing proposals and the goodwill of the vast majority of Members.  
 
I will now move on to the topic that is the highest priority for my delegation.  
 
As is well -known, Venezuela requested the subject of the establishment of a panel against the United 
States to be placed on the agenda of the regular meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body that, in 
principle, was due to be held on 26 March 2019.  
 
The legal provisions in question relate to certain coercive and trade restrictive measures concerning 
goods of V enezuelan origin and the prohibition on the provision and receipt of services which have 
been included in various statutes, regulations and executive orders enacted by the United States 
since 2014.  
 
This meeting was not held because its agenda was blocked by the United States and the self -
proclaimed "Lima Group" as part of a wider plan of action undertaken by these countries to obstruct 
our diplomatic efforts in multilateral forums.  
 
Sound judgement prevailed in the analysis conducted by our authorities on the best way to respond, 
and we are currently evaluating the options offered by the system for defending our legitimate rights 
without this affecting the day to day activities of the organization.  
 
As everyone knows, the argument that the United States is using to justify these unilateral coercive 
measures is the national security exception provided for in Article XXI of the GATT.  
 
Even though it is true that this exception, in principle, would allow any Member to adopt measures 
contrary to the Agreement it self, this exception is not a blank cheque. Nevertheless, the position 
repeatedly adopted by the United States is that the concept of national security must be self -
determined by each Member.  
 
Even though the serious international tension that exists betwe en the Governments of Venezuela 
and the United States is beyond doubt today, it is important to place on record that the measures 
in question go back to 2014, in other words, long before the escalation of the conflict.  
 
Five minutes are not enough to expla in the disastrous commercial and social effects of these 
measures. For this reason, we have circulated an explanatory note verbale to Members.  
 
In conclusion, allow me to leave you with the following thought. Today the prime victim of the 
unilateral coerci ve measures imposed by the United States is Venezuela, as the continuation of a 
historical pattern, in which Cuba is an emblematic example. But it is fitting that we point out that it 
could be any other country tomorrow.  
 
The way in which the multilateral trading system addresses the subject of Venezuela could prevent 
the United States from continuing with this pattern of conduct or could result in case law contrary 
to the interests of the next country or countries concerned.  
 
The multilateral trading syste m is the most appropriate channel for working together to rectify the 
existing imbalances in world trade so that it can truly be an instrument for the development of all 
peoples and not an instrument for repression and/or subjugation. Accordingly, we are p repared to 
continue working constructively to strengthen the multilateral trading system.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 107 - 
 
  52. Peru (Lima Group)  
 
I am making this statement on behalf of the delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and Peru, which are Members of 
the Lima Group.  
 
The Governments of the aforementioned WTO Members support the functioning of the Trade 
Negotiations Committee and the work ahead.  
 
For the record of this meeting, it is important to indicate that our  Governments do not recogni ze the 
legitimacy of Nicolás Maduro's regime in Venezuela or that of his representatives.  
 
53. Nepal  
 
I wish to align myself with the statement delivered by Chad, the LDC Group Coordinator.  
 
Strengthening the fundamental objectives of the Marrakesh Agreement particularly in terms of 
raising the standard of living and safeguarding multilateralism should be our shared responsibility.  
Nepal is a strong supporter of the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
 
Revitalising and making a ll pillars of the WTO system fully functional – namely dispute settlement 
pillar, trade negotiations pillar and transparency pillar – is absolutely necessary. In this regard, WTO 
reform is more urgent than ever. The reform process should be Member -driven a nd participatory. 
The reform outcome should reflect inclusiveness and sustainable development through a more 
functional and effective WTO system. We underline the importance of filling up the vacancy at the 
Appellate Body without any further delay.  
 
A WTO Secretariat report noted a less than 1% share of LDCs' exports in global market and that 
trade preferences schemes granted by developed and developing members to LDCs are mostly 
underutilised. We urge Preference Granting Members and the WTO Secretariat to undertake a study 
so as to identify and then address fundamental causes of the underutilization.  
 
Because of subsidies in the agriculture sector in large economies, imposition of several NTMs and 
limited productive and competitive capacity of LDC Members, most LDCs have turned into import 
markets and also into Net Food -Importing Countries.  
 
Achieving global targets and commitments including in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 
Development and the Istanbul Programme of Action for the LDCs require enhanced pro ductive 
capacity, diversification and structural transformation of LDC economies. In this context, we 
underline the need for meaningful and sincere implementation of all the past decisions made in 
support of LDCs.  
 
Graduation of an LDC to a developing -country status is not a one -time affair. Rather, it should be a 
continuous process for ensuring post -graduation sustainability. We wish to thank the Members 
extending support to the LDC proposal circulated in WT/GC/W/742 concerning Annex 7 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. In this regard, we would appreciate the 
Members sharing us in writing their further queries and concerns if any.  
 
Effective implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement benefits all Members. This reduces cost 
and time of cross -border trade through reforms in customs governance. My delegation would like to 
request the developed Members to notify their Technical Assistance Plan in a comprehensive way 
aiming to support the implementation of Category C notification s of LDC Members in a predictable 
and results -oriented manner.  
 
We have been witnessing ICT revolution in full swing around the globe. Nepal is working on to 
address its challenges pertaining to policy and strategic front, digital and physical infrastructu re, as 
well as payment solution in the e -commerce sector. In this regard, international support mechanisms 
including Aid for Trade and EIF need to be leveraged in a demand -driven way. Furthermore, we 
emphasise that rule -making on e -commerce should follow t he existing mandate.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 108 - 
 
  54. Russian Federation  
 
I ask for the floor to invite attention of the Membership that the issues raised by the delegate from 
Peru fall far beyond the WTO Agreement – our negotiation mandate and well established way of 
conduct – and shoul d be deleted from the minutes. The very attempt to bring bilateral political 
sympathy and antipathy into the WTO TNC HODs meeting is unacceptable in this House. We do 
believe that only the people of a certain sovereign nation State and not someone from abr oad should 
decide who should represent them in this international trade organization.  
 
55. Cuba  
 
At this time, we would like to reiterate that, as stated this morning by my delegation, our country 
will not give up defending the principles of multilateralism an d the rules -based multilateral trading 
system respecting the sovereign decisions of each State to choose their economic and social 
development models. As such, we reiterate our full support to the only legitimate and democratic 
government existing in the B olivarian Republic of Venezuela – that led by the Constitutional President 
Nicolás Maduro . We also reiterate our support to the delegation here present and call on this House 
to focus on the multiple challenges that lie ahead avoiding the politization of o ur debates.  
 
56. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
The small group of countries from Latin America are seeking to unduly politicise this forum. This is 
not strange as these are countries that recently supported a military coup which led to bloodshed, 
with mil itary action seeking to overthrow the constitutional and democratic government of Nicolás 
Maduro . Happily, the majority of countries of the world condemned this criminal coup. As it is known, 
the Government of Nicolás Maduro  is the only one recogni zed by t he United Nations.  
 
57. Plurinational State of Bolivia  
 
We have been stuck and we hope that the Chair and the leadership of the WTO will maintain 
neutrality that should characterise this kind of session. We consider that we cannot overstep the 
mandate that the  WTO has and we support that stated by the delegation of Russia with regard to 
the intervention made by our colleague from Peru. We hope that our deliberations in principle will 
observe the sovereign equality of States. The floor should be given in terms o f equality. We see 
priority might be given, as was in the case of Peru, when other delegations were on the speakers' 
list following Venezuela. This might risk this organization assuming a non -neutral function which 
would exceed its mandate and is not the a ppropriate forum to decide on recognition. The WTO 
cannot lend itself to this kind of political game.  
 
58. Director -General  
 
I would say that I take exception with the inference that the Chair is taking sides. The two 
delegations asked for the floor. The momen t that Venezuela asked for the floor, Peru also asked for 
the floor and they were in a sequence. It was not by accident that that had happened. The Chair 
and the Secretariat are simply following the rules of the organization. There was one more delegation 
after that which was Nepal that took the floor and we are following scrupulously the order that the 
flags are being raised.  
 
59. Brazil  
 
It is an honour and a privilege to sit in a meeting chaired by the Director -General. I would like to 
raise a point of order. A suggestion was made to the intervention made by Peru – that be not included 
in the report of the session. I strongly oppose that. It is a legitimate delegation. It took the floor 
under the rules so should we play this game of deleting things – either we play broadly and nothing 
is going to be included or we play broadly and everything is included. As for the delegations of the 
Russian Federation and Cuba, which we recogni ze here, I do not need to say that I strongly disagree 
with their views on the  process but I do agree with them that this is not the place to discuss that. 
But one of the beauties of working at the WTO is that the use of politically charged adjectives is not 
well seen here. I just think that this is rhetoric which is better we keep at bay.  
 WT/GC/M/177  
 
- 109 - 
 
  60. Director -General  
 
Let me just say a few things. We will see each other next week under the aegis of the General 
Council. All of the statements have been taken note. Unless a delegation requests it otherwise, they 
will be included in the minutes of  the General Council as it always has been. I also want to say that 
I appreciate the effort of delegations to comply with the time limits. There were few slips here and 
there. There was a big slip which I hope we will not see again. And I emphasise once ag ain to group 
coordinators the need to be absolutely disciplined in trying to adhere to the time limits that we all 
have agreed.  
 
I understand that issues have been raised which are of a highly political nature and very sensitive 
to all parties involved. I do not want to downplay that whatsoever. All I would like to request is for 
all parties involved, Members of this organization, that they please try to ensure that the regular 
work of the organization is not affected by that. We are, of course, in difficul t times. We understand 
that. This is a trade organization. Let us try to maintain the conversation along those lines. I am not 
criticising anybody. I am just asking for the understanding of the parties so as not to disrupt the 
work of the organization and I ask for the understanding of everyone.  
 
61. Argentina  
 
This is just to support what Brazil stated – that the different interventions should be reflected 
appropriately – both of our own and those made by other Members . 
 
 
__________  