RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/C/M/43
13 June 2000
(00-2333)
Council for Trade in Goods
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 5 April and 18 May 2000
Chairpersons:  Ambassador R. Farrell and Ambassador C. Pérez del Castillo
The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) was convened by WTO/AIR/1273.
The proposed agenda contained in document G/C/W/195 was adopted.
1. Status of notifications under the provi sions of the Agreements in Annex 1A of
the WTO Agreement (G/L/223/Rev.4) ....................................................................................2
2. TRIMS Agreement:  Requests for extension of the transition period pursuant to
Article 5.3.................................................................................................................... ...............2
3. Review of the operation of the TRIMS Agreement ...............................................................5
4. Customs Valuation Agreement: Request for a waiver by Uruguay.....................................55. Request for a waiver for the application of the EU autonomous preferential
treatment to the countries of the Western Balkans ...............................................................6
6. Request for a WTO waiver – new ACP-EC Partnership Agreement ..................................7
7. EC/France – Trading arrangements with Morocco.............................................................18
8. Market Ac cess ma tters ........................................................................................................ ...19
9. Free Trade Agreements........................................................................................................ ..20
10. Appointment of officers for subs idiary bodies of the Council ............................................21
11. Election of Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods ...............................................22
12. Other business.............................................................................................................. ...........23
The meeting was adjourned and reconvened on 18 May 2000 to finalize item 10
"Appointment of officers for subsidiary bodies of the Council".G/C/M/43
Page 2
1. Status of notifications under the provisions of the Agreements in Annex 1A of the WTO
Agreement (G/L/223/Rev.4)
1.1 The Chairman said that as indicated in the cover page to document G/L/223/Rev.4, the
Council had adopted, at its meeting of 15 October 1996, a recommendation by the Working Group on
Notification Obligations and Procedures to maintain on an ongoing basis the comprehensive listing ofnotification obligations under the provisions of th e Agreements in Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement
and the compliance therewith.  The latest update was contained in document G/L/223/Rev.4 and
included all notifications made up to and on 31 December 1999.
The Council took note of the information contained in document G/L/223/Rev.4.
2. TRIMS Agreement:  Requests for extension of the transition period pursuant to
Article 5.3
2.1 The Chairman stated that in addition to the request of the Philippines, introduced at the
Council's meeting on 15 October 1999, there were seven other requests, introduced at the meeting on
24 January 2000, from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan and Romania.  At the
end of the January meeting, the Council had arrived at the following conclusion:  first, that anyMembers making the requests who wished to initiate informal consultations with other Members
might do so with the blessing of this Council, and that any written exchange of questions and replies
should be submitted for the information of all Members;  second, the Chairman would hold informal
consultations of the Council for Trade in Goods as appropriate, bearing in mind related discussions in
the General Council, and with the understanding that in informal meetings of the Council for Trade inGoods, it was in the hands of all Members to decide the breadth of the discussion that should take
place. He recalled that, at the meeting of the General Council on 7 and 8 February, the Director-
General and the Chairman of the General Council were charged with conducting consultations
concerning, among other things, the matter of deadlines for transition periods.  Since these were still
in progress, he had felt that the time was not yet ripe to carry out informal consultations in the CTG.And third, the CTG would review progress on these requests at this meeting.
2.2 The representative of Pakistan stated that he was still of the firm view that the General
Council was dealing with issues relating to the extension of transition periods and was considering a
multilateral solution, an approach which Pakistan strongly supported and which was still awaiting an
outcome.  It was still premature to discuss the extension requests and consideration should be deferred
by the CTG until finalisation of the matter by the General Council.
2.3 The representative of the United States stated that she remained interested in resolving each
TRIM extension request through the Article 5.3 process;  such an approach would ensure that
individual needs of these countries that had made a request could be addressed.  Her delegation had
participated in the exchange of questions and answ ers and also in bilateral meetings with several of
the countries eligible for extension under Article 5.3, and was prepared to continue the dialogue with
the goal of finding a satisfactory solution.  Responses to the questions were needed because without
the input from the Member making a request, it was hard to make a sound judgement whether the
requirements of the agreements had been met.
2.4 The representative of Japan said that Japan had had successful discussions with several
requesting Members;  however he regretted to say that Japan had not received answers to the
questions it had submitted on 18 February 2000.
2.5 The representative of Romania stated that since the last formal meeting of the Council
Romania had received written questions from the United States, Japan and the European
Communities.  During the bilateral consultations held with these delegations, Romania had presentedG/C/M/43
Page 3
answers to the United States' and Japan's questions, the answers to the European Communities'
questions still being under preparation.  As already stated in Romania's request as well as in the last
meeting of the Council, Romania was facing a specific situation.  First, when addressing the
development needs of Romania it had to be mentioned that the overall economic deterioration in the
last years had led to increased difficulties for the Romanian economy.  The Government of Romaniawas committed to continuing privatization, strengthen ing structural reforms, maintaining a favourable
regime for investments as well as ensuring greater stability of policies in key business-related areas,
aiming mainly to moderate the risk of adverse effects on the development of economic operators'
activity with the accelerated process of transition.  Second, the Government of Romania had already
started in 1997 the preparatory legal process aimed at the elimination of TRIMs and the establishment
of a new legal investment regime, under which ne w investments in Romania made after December
1997 were no longer subjected to TRIMs.  The requested extension of the transition period concernedonly the investments made under the former law, which clearly established specific periods of
application for the respective TRIMs.  As emphasized in Romania's request as well as in the detailed
written answers provided by the delegation, Romania faced particular difficulties in eliminating the
TRIMs in question.
2.6 The representative of the Philippines updated the Council on developments regarding their
consultations pursuant to the Philippines' request for an extension of the transition period of its
notified TRIMs.  Since the last Council meeting, the Philippines had taken time and effort to respond
to questions from other Members and to continue bilateral discussions with interested Members on the
factors and elements in support of and necessary to the granting of the Philippines' request.  Through
this process, his delegation believed it had sufficiently demonstrated the particular difficulties the
Philippines' automotive industry had had to contend with over the last three years – factors which had
consigned the Philippines to seek recourse to this request for extension.  While his delegation was
certainly open to further questions from, and consultations with, interested Members, it was the
Council which had to take into account the individual development, financial and trade needs.
2.7 The representative of the European Community confirmed that since the last meeting of the
Goods Council his authorities had had fruitful di scussions with Romania and Argentina and had now
submitted questionnaires for five out of the eight cases and would soon supplement additional
questions or questionnaires for the remaining three countries.  The overall impression was that the
process was working well and that it would be possible to have conclusions on some of the cases in a
reasonable time period.  However he was fully aware that the process going on in the General Council
would also have to be taken into consideration.
2.8 The representative of Korea stated that his authorities were also in the process of reviewing
the answers presented by requesting countries and in particular appreciated the full and detailed
presentation by Romania.   He noted that the Romanian case, unlike any other countries requesting theextension, had already abolished TRIMs-related regulations and that this request was company-
specific.
2.9 The representative of Mexico said that this matter would be taken up in the General Council
consultations and therefore he would not go into any details in this meeting.  He wanted to reiterate
that Mexico had an interest in the establishment of multilateral guidelines which would assist in
treating the requests at the appropriate time and in the appropriate form.  Furthermore, Mexico also
was considering the possibility of submitting its own questions in order to clarify the questions it had
received or which might be submitted to it in the future.
2.10 The representative of Argentina wished to inform the Council that his delegation had replied
to all the questions that had been submitted to it by  some interested countries.  In some cases it had
replied to two sets of questions, including in some cases questions which referred to issues which
went beyond the TRIMs Agreement.  Furthermore Ar gentina was following w ith great interest theG/C/M/43
Page 4
consultations that were being held in order to find a multilateral solution to this issue.  It would
continue to hold consultations and answer any question put to it by any interested country.
2.11 The representative of Hong Kong, China reco gnized that informal bilateral consultations
played a useful role in helping the Council to identi fy practical solutions.  For transparency purposes
and to enable the Council to provide timely feed back, Members involved in informal bilateral
consultations should keep the Goods Council posted of developments.  His delegation was prepared to
give sympathetic consideration to those requests which were consistent with the TRIMs Agreement
and adequately justified and accompanied by a timetable to phase out the TRIMs in question.
2.12 The representative of Colombia hoped that some multilateral guidelines could be agreed upon
so that the matter could be resolved within the scope of the General Council.  In the meantime, his
delegation had been preparing replies to the questions that had been submitted by the US delegation.
2.13 The representative of Brazil believed that for systemic reasons, a multilateral decision
regarding those requests was the better approach.  Brazil was following, although not participating in,
the consultations.
2.14 The representative of Norway recognized the difficulties certain developing countries faced in
implementing the TRIMs Agreement, and Norway would for its part give positive consideration to the
requests which had been put forward.  He took note of the information provided by those Members
having carried out bilateral consultations regarding the individual requests for extension.  Herecognized the need for bilateral consultations with  Members having material trade interests in the
matter.  However, he emphasized that this process must remain a multilateral process, and that
Members involved in bilateral consultations should continue to provide information to the entire
Membership of the content of such consultations.  The possible decision to grant an extension must
solely be based on the merits of the individual requests, while assuring that all decisions on extensionswere subject to the same standard.  Such extensions should be granted for a limited period of time,
containing inter alia  a phasing-out plan.  Although Norway's trade interests were not directly affected
by the extension requests put forward by certain Memb ers, it had systemic interests in the matter, and
would continue to follow the process closely.  He encouraged the parties involved in bilateral
consultations to try to solve their differences as soon as possible, being mindful of the fact that they
were more than three months into the time by which developing country Members should have
implemented the TRIMs Agreement.
2.15 The representative of Switzerland looked favourably at the requests forwarded by those
developing countries demonstrating particular difficulties in implementing the provisions of the
TRIMs Agreement following Article 5.3.  In this respect, he was particularly pleased to hear from
various delegations that active informal consultations and exchanges had taken place since the lastCTG meeting and that positive results were in the making.  He encouraged all interested parties to
participate in this process as actively as possible in order to provide mutually satisfactory solutions.
2.16 The Chairman proposed that the Council take note
 of the statements made, and revert to this
issue at its next meeting on the same basis:  that is, first, that any Members making the requests who
wished to initiate informal consultations with ot her Members might do so with the blessing of this
Council, and any written exchange of questions and replies should be submitted for the information of
all Members; and second, that the Chairman of the CTG would hold informal consultations of the
CTG as appropriate, with the understanding that during informal meetings it would be in the hands of
all Members to decide the breadth of the discussion.  At its next formal meeting, the CTG wouldreview progress in all respects of these requests.
It was so agreed.G/C/M/43
Page 5
3. Review of the operation of the TRIMS Agreement
3.1 The Chairman recalled that at the meeting of the CTG in January, the Council had invited
Members to submit papers regarding the scope and format of the review at such time as they deemed
appropriate.  To date no submissions had been received.
3.2 The representative of Pakistan attached great importance to the Article 9 review of the TRIMs
Agreement.  This review should take into accoun t the problems encountered in the implementation of
the TRIMS Agreement by the developing countries.  The TRIMs Agreement was a part of a larger
package agreed at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round along with various other Agreements.  At that
time developing countries did not have enough experience to fully understand the developmental
implications of this Agreement. It was in this c ontext that he also wanted to remind the CTG of the
7 February 2000 decision of the General Council that in all mandated reviews developmental aspectswould be given due consideration.   His delegation also believed that the experience over the last five
years with respect to the operation of the TRIMs Agreement had provided some insight about the
effects of the Agreement on Pakistan's national economy. However, there were various dimensions
which his authorities needed to study further but due to capacity constraints had not been able to do
so.   He therefore suggested that the UNCTAD Secretariat be requested to carry out a detailed studywith a view to examine the soci o-economic implications of TRIMs based on the national experiences
of developing countries. This study could substantially help the developing countries to better
understand such implications for their national economies.  The study could encompass the following:
(i) whether TRIMS were helpful for development;  (ii) developmental implications of disciplining
other performance requirements;  and (iii) the importance of local content requirements indevelopmental  policies of developing countries.  The above suggestions were just a few parameters
which could help as a guide to the UNCTAD Secretariat in carrying out the study. His delegation
could add further indicators in this regard and was willing to consider further suggestions on these
lines by Members.
3.3 The representative of the United States  stated that the review should not be seen as an
opportunity to lower the standards outlined in the TRIMs Agreement.  Current commitments on
TRIMS, including the required elimination of notified TRIMs, must be maintained.  There was no
need to dwell on issues like competition policy that had their own programme of work in the WTO.
One possible topic for the review was the utility of additional principles on performance
requirements;  a study of this issue could be useful and the US would submit a paper in the near
future.
3.4 The Chairman proposed maintaining the invitation to Members to submit papers regarding the
scope and format of the review and to place the issue on the agenda for the next meeting.
It was so agreed.
4. Customs Valuation Agreement: Request for a waiver by Uruguay
4.1 The Chairman drew Members' attention to document G/VAL/W/55/Add.1/Rev.1 which
contained a draft decision for Uruguay's request for a waiver from its obligations under Article 7 of
the Agreement on Customs Valuation.  Specifically, Uruguay wished to retain a system of minimum
values for customs purposes for an additional year, beyond the date of application of the Agreement.
The Committee on Customs Valuation had taken note of this draft decision and passed it on to the
Council for Trade in Goods.  He proposed that th e Council take note of this Decision and agree to
forward it to the General Council for adoption under Article IX of the WTO Agreement.
The Council so agreed.G/C/M/43
Page 6
5. Request for a waiver for the application of the EU autonomous preferential treatment to
the countries of the Western Balkans
5.1 The Chairman drew attention to the communication from the European Communities
contained in document G/C/W/178 containing a reque st for a waiver.  A draft decision granting this
waiver had been circulated in the same document to assist the Council in its consideration of this
request.
5.2 The representative of the European Communities said the EC was seeking a waiver from the
provisions of Article I of GATT 1994 until the 31 December 2006 to allow duty-free or preferential
treatment for eligible products originating in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia who were not currently
WTO Members.  The object of the regimes for which the EC sought a waiver from Article I went farbeyond questions of market access. It was envisaged as a contribution to peace and stability in the
reconstruction of the social and economic fabric in the countries concerned.  His delegation was ready
to enter into consultations with any delegation having specific interests in any of the products covered
by the various trade regimes under consideration.  The representatives of Hungary, Slovenia
, the
Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic  supported the request of the European Communities.  The
representative of the Philippines said his delegation would take up the offer of the EC to consult
closely on this very vital issue.
5.3 The representative of Turkey said that his delegation would be putting forward a request for a
waiver with regard to trade preferences made to Bosnia-Herzegovina, which were similar to those
made by the EC.  This should be included in the agenda of the next meeting of the CTG.
5.4 The representative of the United States supported the aims of the EU programmes to provide
duty-free or preferential treatment for the western Balkan countries but noted that the non-paper
circulated with the communication from the EC referred to special provisions on agriculturalproducts, textile products, specific industrial products and other special agricultural products.  The
annexes, which contained the full listing of these products, had not been circulated.  She requested the
EC to circulate these lists as quickly as possible so Members could reach a more informed decision on
the question.  She was sure her delegation would have no objection but she wished to see the entire
package.
5.5 The representative of Canada said that for the three waivers requested by the European
Communities at this meeting, the date of the beginning of each of the waiver periods had already
passed.  Members should be in a position to consider requests for waivers before the beginning of the
proposed waiver periods.  Therefore, in future th e timing of submissions of relevant documentation to
WTO should take this fully into account in order to  allow the Council's examination of such requests
to be useful and meaningful.  Secondly, with regard to the Western Balkans, he took the same view asthe United States;  he called upon the European Communities to circulate the documentation as
quickly as possible so Members could make an informed decision.
5.6 The Chairman stated that it was important that the Council take note of the statements, in
particular the request that submissions were provided in a timely enough way to allow the Goods
Council to consider waivers in a meaningful fashion. There was no consensus at this stage and he
proposed that the CTG revert to this item at an appropriate moment and that informal consultations be
held by concerned delegations in the intervening period.
It was so agreed.G/C/M/43
Page 7
6. Request for a WTO waiver – new ACP-EC Partnership Agreement
6.1 The Chairman drew attention to document G/C/W/187 containing a request for a waiver in
order to allow the maintenance of preferential trade between the EC and the ACP countries;
G/C/W/187/Addendum 1 which contained pertinent pa rts of the new ACP-EC Partnership Agreement
for the information of Members;  and G/C/W/187/Addendum 2 containing a draft decision to grant thewaiver to assist the Council in its consideration of the request.
6.2 The representative of the European Communities said that the negotiations for a new
agreement had taken place over 18 months and were concluded on 3 February 2000.  Relevant
documentation was provided as soon as it was available, i.e. on 1 March 2000.  The EC had not been
in a position to provide the documentation 90 days before the previous waiver expired.  He did not
expect a decision at this meeting because this was a complex and delicate matter with a lot of interestsinvolved.  The new agreement, called a Partnership Agreement (PA), was different from what was
there before which was a succession of Lomé conventions (I, II, III and IV) covering 20 years.  The
purpose of the negotiation was to revisit the system under which the EC was giving preferential
access to ACP states who did not reciprocate.  The new PA continued the trade regime in order to
provide more time for the negotiation of arrangements which would be fully compatible with theWTO. That meant either a free trade agreement with  ACP States or groups of ACP States who might
also have free trade with each other, or if that was not possible, continuation of preferential access
through the GSP.  The end result of that process by the end of 2007, would be to achieve full
conformity of the PA with the WTO.  The EC and the ACP States had agreed on the principles of this
and now had to negotiate the substance, bearing in mind that this was an asymmetrical relationship:on the one hand, the European Community with 15 Members at a high level of development and
standard of living, and on the other, 71 ACP partners whose GNP per head ranged from the bottom
end of the scale to, in a few cases, fairly high levels where they had a good income from tourism and
services.  WTO Members would readily understand that it was not easy for the ACP partners to enter
into a full free trade agreement relationship with  the Community.  Therefore the timing had to be
progressive:  eight years for negotiation of the arrangements had been set aside and the waiver would
cover that period.  The PA had been initialled by negotiators and would be signed and therefore
formally concluded in early June 2000 in Fiji.  Because the previous waiver had expired at the end of
February 2000, the parties to the PA decided by common agreement that the previous trade regime
would be run forward from 1 March 2000 on a provisional basis until the new agreement was
formally concluded.  The waiver was therefore required for March to June 2000 as well as for the
period indicated for negotiations.  The trade regime currently applying was identical to  the earlierrégime;  there was no change, with the important exception that the future regime for imports of
bananas had yet to be defined. This change compared with the previous regime was designed to leave
matters open and not to prejudge in any way the ongoing discussions.
6.3 The representative of Jamaica said that recent data on the trade of developing countries
showed that the share of developing countries in world merchandise exports peaked in 1948.  Today
world merchandise exports were largely dominated by trade in manufacturers which now accounted
for 80 per cent of trade, but developing countries accounted for less than a quarter of this global trade
and Africa for only 3.5 per cent of developing countries share of global trade.  Forty nine LDCs, 39 of
which were members of the ACP group, accounted for about 0.5 per cent of world trade and less thanone per cent of world output.  This data provided a clear linkage between the Partnership Agreement
and the objectives contained in the Marrakesh Agreement and the recognition that there was a need
for positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries, and especially the least-developed
among them, secure a share in the growth of international trade commensurate with the needs of their
development.  The PA negotiated between the European Union and 71 African, Caribbean and PacificStates, 55 of which were WTO Members, responded in a comprehensive and integrated manner to the
challenge posed at Marrakesh.  An essential element of the PA was a trade regime between the parties
for which a waiver was sought.  The ACP/EU relationship under the Lomé Conventions had beenG/C/M/43
Page 8
much more than a trade agreement, encompassing cooperation in economic, technical, financial,
cultural and political fields and the PA followed fully in that tradition.  It provided for a financial
envelope of 15.2 billion Euros under the European Development Fund, a critical source of external
funding for ACP countries who sought to restructure and straighten their economies for the 21st
century.  The financial package included 2.2 billion Euros for an investment facility to strengthen the
private sector.  The Partnership Agreement also provided for human resource development, capacity
building and institutional strengthening, assistance to social sectors, particularly youth, and to cultural
development, cooperation on gender and on environmental issues and the strengthening of regional
integration and regional cooperation.
6.4 It was in respect of the trade regime that an Article 1 waiver was necessary.  The purpose of
ACP/EU trade cooperation was the smooth and gradual integration of the ACP states into the worldeconomy with due regard for their political choice s and development priorities thereby promoting
their sustainable development and contributing to poverty eradication in the ACP countries.  The
parties had committed themselves to establishing new WTO-compatible trading arrangements,
removing progressively barriers to trade between them and enhancing cooperation in all areas relevant
to trade.  Trade cooperation under the Partnership Agreement had been structured into two sequentialphases.  In the first phase or preparatory period, the non-reciprocal trade preferences which existed
under the fourth Lomé ACP-EC Convention, would be substantially maintained;  the conditions under
which existing preferences would be maintained were cited in Annex 5, which committed the
European Union to providing duty-free access to ACP imports in respect of agricultural products to
ensure more favourable treatment than that granted to  third parties.  In the case of bananas, the second
banana protocol no longer provided for preferenti al treatment that was guaranteed by the previous
protocol.  Under the previous protocol the Community undertook to ensure that in respect of banana
exports, no ACP states should be placed, as regards access to their traditional markets, in a less
favourable situation.  This undertaking was no longer given under the second banana protocol
contained in the Partnership Agreement;  preferential treatment for bananas would be provided in thecontext of the Communities' new banana import regime upon which consultations were now
proceeding with the relevant parties.  He believed that this approach ensured that the banana import
regime would be WTO-compatible.  The second banana protocol contained in the Partnership
Agreement fully respected the relevant panel and appellate body rulings.  Protocols on sugar, beef and
veal contained in the Lomé IV Convention had been rolled over into the Partnership Agreement.  All
this referred to a first phase, i.e. a preparatory period during which economic Partnership Agreements
would be negotiated and during which existing preferences will be substantially maintained.  Thispreparatory period would terminate at the latest by 31 December 2007.  The negotiation of these new
trading arrangements would commence in September 2002.  These economic Partnership Agreements,
which would take into account regional integration processes or other alternative trading
arrangements agreed by the parties, would be entered into by the non LDC ACP States.  In the case of
the LDCs, 39 of which were Members of the ACP, the Community undertook to provide by the end ofnew multilateral trade negotiations, or 2005 at the latest, duty-free access to all products building on
the trade provisions of the Lomé Conventions.
6.5 ACP/EU trade now took place within the transitional arrangements adopted by the ACP/EU
Council following the expiry of the Lomé IV  Convention on 29 February 2000 and pending the
formal signature of the new agreement which was to take place in Fiji on 8 June 2000.  The Lomé IV
Convention which preceded the Partnership Agreement had been the beneficiary of a waiver granted
by the WTO.  He believed that the continued marginalization of many developing countries,
particularly the least developed, made an equal or even more compelling case for a waiver than when
the Lomé Waiver was last granted.  Both in the GATT and now in the WTO, Member states hadunderscored the importance of trade cooperation between countries particularly between developed
and developing Member states as the effective means for the achievement of the objectives of the
multilateral trading system.  The ACP countries and the EU stood on the threshold of a new era in
economic and trade cooperation.  Given the unequal levels of development of Member StatesG/C/M/43
Page 9
involved, sufficient time was required both for the renegotiation of these new trading arrangements
based on the progressive removal of barriers to trade and for building capacity in the developing
countries.  The preparatory period during which existing preferences would be substantially
maintained and during which the Article 1 waiver was being sought was vitally necessary to ensure
structural adjustment, capacity-building and the modernization of productive structures in the ACPcountries.  He believed that in the circumstances an agreement that sought to promote the smooth and
gradual integration of ACP states into the multilateral trading system, deserved the unanimous
support of the WTO Membership.
6.6 The representative of the Solomon Islands said that the important changes taking place in the
international scene in the last few years made the ACP aware of the need to adjust to the new global
economic imperatives.  It was in response to this requirement that the ACP/EU PartnershipAgreement had established a new framework for economic and trade cooperation which should
culminate in trade arrangements compatible with WTO rules.  The objectives of the economic and
trade agreements were to reinforce the smooth and gradual integration of ACP countries into the
world economy, strengthen the production and supply cycle, create a new trade dynamic and stimulate
investment.  Successive Lomé Conventions between  the ACP countries and the EU had contributed
substantially to the process of economic development in the ACP countries and under the Partnership
Agreement the economic and trade cooperation between the parties was solely directed at enabling the
ACP states to manage the challenges of globalization and adapt progressively to the conditions of
international trade.  While successive Lomé Conventions had promoted the economic growth of the
ACP states, their present level of development required the continuation of preferential treatment inorder to allow for the improvement of the standard of living of the people and the development of
their economies, justifying the continuation of the waiver from the fourth Lomé Convention.  In the
light of the foregoing he appealed to all WTO Members to support the request for a waiver submitted
by the EU and the ACP.
6.7 The representative of Cuba said that his delegation, along with other developing countries in
the course of the preparatory process for the Seattle Declaration, had proposed a paragraph providing
for this type of waiver authorizing the application of certain preferences for developing countries.  His
delegation fully supported the granting of this waiver.  The new Partnership Agreement was the
outcome of very difficult negotiations and the purpose was to contribute to the economic development
of the ACP nations by means of various measures basically intended to improve access of their
exports to European Union markets.  He underscored the fact that ACP exports to the Europeanmarket represented 38 per cent of their total world exports, and that in the case of African countries
the figure was close to half of their exports.  He informed Members that Cuba had requested that it
become a member of this new Partnership Agreement.  This was endorsed  by the summit meeting of
Heads of State and Government of the ACP countries in the Dominican Republic in November 1999,
as well as the meeting of Ministers in February 2000 in Brussels.
6.8 The representative of Malaysia expressed appreciation of the initiatives of the European
Community to seek the further integration of developing countries, especially the least developed
among them, into the international trading community.   It was in this light that the ASEAN Members
of the WTO were considering the request of the European Community for a waiver from theprovisions of paragraph 1 of Article 1 of GATT 1994.  He acknowledged the need for a waiver as it
was intended to benefit the ACP states and hoped that the European Community would pursue similar
initiatives for the benefit of developing and least developed countries which were not ACP states.  He
believed Members needed time to analyse the request for the waiver and seek clarification on the
details of the Partnership Agreement.
6.9 The representative of the United States said that the US supported the aim of the recently
concluded EU/ACP Partnership Agreement because preference programmes could facilitate
developing countries' export opportunities.  The problem was that no draft waiver decision had beenG/C/M/43
Page 10
circulated by the EU, a text that was important to start the formal process of consideration of the
request.  This process required that Members have the opportunity not just to see the waiver but to
understand the scope and context of the underlying Partnership Agreement including the particular
obligations for which a waiver was sought.  Her analysis indicated that the agreement contained
provisions that were quite different from the text of the Lomé Convention and so assumed that theCommission was ready to work with the US to ensure  that a waiver decision did nothing to reduce the
EU's obligations to implement existing DSB rulings and recommendations on bananas.  Any WTO
waiver should not absolve the EU of its dispute settlement obligations.  She intended to circulate a list
of questions about the agreement itself and look ed forward to receiving answers from the EU.
6.10 The representative of Panama  said that his delegation had always recognized that preferences
granted under the last waiver for the ACP countries were not only appropriate and necessary but also
fair.  He could in principle give his support to the efforts and commitments undertaken by the EC in
favour of ACP countries to facilitate their prompt and full integration in the multilateral trade system.
He was concerned that as regards bananas the language in the exemption should not be so
broad-ranging that it would enable the Commission to sidestep its obligations or the rulings of panels,
appellate bodies or various forms of arbitration.  As the agreement was drafted, what the Commission
and the ACP countries were requesting was that Panama would agree to granting a waiver on the basis
of preferences which the Commission would draw up and communicate in the future.  Panama could
not do that.  He noted the comments by Jamaica that th e banana protocol no longer referred to the fact
that ACP countries would be given a better treatment than third parties and that ensured that a future
regime would be compatible with WTO provisions.  However he was not convinced by this argumentand he needed to analyse carefully, and with enough time, the full scope of the Partnership
Agreement, not just that portion which had been distributed by the requesting parties.  This implied
that before Panama could undertake a study of this it had to have the full text in the three working
languages of the WTO.  He also needed to have at least a draft of the decision for the waiver which
was being requested as well as the cooperation of the requesting parties allowing for a very carefuland detailed examination.  This agreement was complex and the 90-day examination period could not
start until such a time that Members had the full agreement in all languages and not just a translation
of a small part, as well as a draft decision.  The final decision in the WTO must be taken by consensus
as a vote would be counter-productive.  An additional concern which had to be overcome in the future
review or analysis was that the Partnership Agreement was not just an extension of unilateral
preferences;  there were certain portions where the language was very similar to that of a trade
agreement with mutual commitments for granting pref erential treatment.  In other words it would
seem that Members were being asked to grant a waiver which granted preferences, not only to the
ACP countries but also to the European Communities.  This was unusual and in this regard he
believed that the request for a waiver was not only to maintain ACP preferences but rather to include
some additional ones.  Members should consider very carefully the impact of the preferences on
markets for those countries, particularly other developing countries, which would not have theequivalent benefits.  It should not be the intention of a development policy to sacrifice some
developing countries in order to benefit others.  As regards procedure he did not have any preference
as to whether the examination should be carried out in the course of informal meetings, special
sessions or within a working group.  It was necessary nonetheless that the process be carried out under
the chairmanship of the CTG and that it be carrie d out with a sufficient number of meetings and
sufficient time to allow for a detailed analysis.  There had to be a final report or at least a record of the
process if no report could be agreed to.
6.12 The representative of Honduras said that Honduras, as a developing country with a similar
economy and in some cases a more vulnerable economy than some ACP countries, had no objections
to preferences as such.  In the request in document G/C/W/187 it was stated clearly that the European
Communities and the ACP countries had concluded a Partnership Agreement in which they would
maintain preferences amongst the parties of the Agreement.  Quite obviously not only was this a
waiver which granted preferences on a one-way basis but such preferences would in fact be two-wayG/C/M/43
Page 11
preferences.  Regarding the fact that this request should be examined within 90 days and subsequently
recommendations should be made to deal with the waiver, the full text of the Partnership Agreement
and the draft decision should have been submitted.  Any Member of the WTO had the right to receive
a full copy of the PA in their own language, but to date it was not available in Spanish.  The request
did not say exactly what the waiver applied to because it constantly referred back to the PartnershipAgreement which could not be fully assessed because of its complexity.  For developing countries
excluded from the preferential treatment for which a waiver was requested, it was necessary to
analyze in a detailed manner the repercussions not only for a broad range of products where they were
competitive but also in other sectors and other ag reements.  Furthermore, the Partnership Agreement
was a document which was a proposal since it had not been adopted by the countries concerned;  the
CTG would be discussing a document which could still be modified.  With regard to the regime for
the importation and distribution of bananas, according to the EU, preferential access of bananas wouldbe granted in accordance with the general principles of the Partnership Agreement and in the context
of a future import regime.  Members were being asked to approve a priori the terms of a new import
regime for bananas.  Her delegation could not blindly renounce the hope to reach a solution to this
trade dispute in compliance with the rulings and recommendations adopted by the Dispute Settlement
Body.  She stated that the possible waiver that might be granted for these tariff preferences did not inany way imply the renouncing or abandoning Honduras' justified claims.  Her delegation was well
disposed to work together with the parties concer ned in any forum established in order to guarantee
the security and predictability of the multilateral trade system.
6.13 The representative of Guatemala said that he fully understood the importance of preferences
that were granted to developing countries in the c ontext of a waiver but that the terms of the waiver
had to be clear and precise.  In this respect he was concerned to see the way in which this waiver had
been put forward.  The article under which the request for a waiver had been put to the Council was
Article IX of the Agreement establishing the WTO, which gave a  90-day period for consideration of
the request.  However that period could not start until certain basic prerequisites had been met.  First,the request made on 2 March 2000 stated that this was an extension of a previous agreement but even
his preliminary analysis had made it clear that the parties to the PA had negotiated a new agreement
whose terms differed from the previous agreement.  Secondly, the complexity and extensiveness of
the Partnership Agreement required a study in detail by capital of all the sectors that might be affected
including quotas for sugar and beef.  However, the agreement was only available in English and
therefore Guatemala considered that it was not possible to approve a waiver if not all the basic
elements were available to begin discussion of it, in  other words a definitive text in its full structure
which could not be a vehicle to avoid implementatio n of decisions of the Dispute Settlement Body.
The third requirement, which was the draft decision, had not been officially submitted nor had it been
available in all the official languages of the WTO, so it was unclear what Members were supposed to
approve.  As a Member who at the time joined in a concensus to approve the Lomé Waiver,
Guatemala could assure that the third banana dispute would not have been necessary if the EuropeanCommunity had not given a rather extensive interpretation to what was required under the Lomé
waiver.  No WTO Member wanted to be forced to put to the test what in effect should be clearly
comprehensible from a reading of the Partnershi p Agreement.  Responsible behaviour by Members
would avoid in future having to have recourse to special consultations or having this matter taken up
with the General Council which was not a legal forum.  Also it was valid to ask whether this wasactually a waiver or a means to try to facilitate a future approval of the Partnership Agreement as a
Free Trade Agreement.  There had to be an extens ive analysis of the proposed Partnership Agreement
in the broadest possible forum such as in the context of a Working Party.
6.14 The representative of Argentina said that in general he did not share the underlying
philosophy of preferential agreements, but he could not ignore the importance that developing
countries benefit by such an agreement.  However, he was concerned by the prolonged period of
application for this agreement and from what was evident in many of its clauses, a number of
negotiations were provided for as well as subsequent modifications to the scope of the agreement.G/C/M/43
Page 12
These modifications could introduce a degree of uncertainty regarding the scope of the waiver
Members might adopt.  Secondly, in view of the scope and the complexity of this agreement, he
wanted to have an assurance that this agreement,  through the time of its application, would not affect
any bound concessions made in the framework of the General Agreement negotiated in the context of
the Uruguay Round.  Both of these concerns would suggest that it would be appropriate to holddetailed consultations with the countries involved  in the agreement and in particular with the
European Union.  We feel that these consultations should be held in a limited period of time and of
course not beyond the 90 days counting from the official distribution of all the documents that would
be necessary to be able to give consideration to th is waiver.  As to the most adequate way to conduct
these consultations, he was open either to the possib ility of consultations in informal meetings of the
CTG or in the context of a working party which could analyse the agreement and the waiver being
requested in a more detailed way in view of the complex elements that the agreement contained.
6.15 The representative of Ecuador  expressed his satisfaction at the negotiations being held
between the European Union and some developing countries including least developed countries be
they Members or not of the WTO.  He had taken note of the fact that these negotiations would
culminate, in the best possible case, in June 2000  with the signature of a Partnership Agreement
amongst the parties involved that would make it possible for the granting of non-reciprocal tariff
preferences by the European Union up to 2007.  In addition, the instrument to be officially signed
provided that counting from the year 2008 an undetermined number of developing countries who
were within the preference scheme would then implement reciprocal trade agreements with the
European Union.  Given the duration of the waiver, he saw the need to establish a process to evaluateand review the implementation of the waiver prior to the expiry of the eight-year period, in order to
take into account the effect of any adaptations in the course of this preliminary period from
2000-2007.  These effects referred to the European Union's commitments made in the context of the
Uruguay Round.  The text had not yet been signed by these parties and seemed to constitute an
agreement for economic cooperation which was very broad and complex with significant implicationsfor trade relations between the parties to the agreement as well as implications for the EU's
multilateral commitments under the WTO system.  This request for a waiver had been submitted after
29 February 2000 i.e. after the previous waiver had expired.  Ecuador wished to place on record that
the Lomé Convention waiver was submitted to careful scrutiny in several dispute settlement
proceedings with the conclusion that the waiver had been applied in a way different to what was
agreed to by the WTO Members.  This finding was corroborated and approved subsequently by the
Dispute Settlement Body and the Appellate Body.  In the light of the difficulties that wereencountered in the application of the Lomé waiver, he recommended that the new waiver be reviewed
with the necessary attention and that the parties submit all the documentation pertaining to the
agreement.  This would allow the Ecuadorian authorities to issue the necessary instructions to his
delegation on how to proceed in these negotiations.  For Ecuador it was important to take a close look
at what was required under the relevant provisions of the Partnership Agreement, particularly theimplications of the preferential scheme and the new structure of the Banana Import Regime;  the latter
piece was lacking and was important in his delegation's view.  As the document on the banana regime
was lacking as was the draft decision of the waiver itself, it was debatable that the 90-day period
could begin or could have begun on the date of this Council meeting.  The fact of not having all the
elements in hand for an analysis of the requ est which was distributed on 17 March 2000 would only
delay the normal starting up of the necessary procedure to deal with concerns of WTO Members
regarding the scope of preferences and agreements covered by the instruments and annexes which
would be signed in June in Fiji.  For these reasons he stressed that it was in the interest of the
Members involved in requesting this waiver that th ey rapidly provide all the necessary elements so as
to start the formal process of consideration of this request in the CTG.  Once all the documentationwas available, and with a view to starting off the process of discussing substantive issues involved in
the request for a waiver, the CTG would need to address procedural considerations such as a
definition of documentation that should be made available to Members, the establishment of a
mechanism to conduct this analysis, and the determination of the terms of reference for the analysis,G/C/M/43
Page 13
i.e. to define the subject matter to be analyzed, the results to be obtained and when the CTG should
submit its report to the General Council.
6.16 The representative of Brazil said that Brazil was fully conscious of both the importance and
magnitude of the agreement which the ACP and the European Union had reached, and that it was
obvious that an agreement which had taken about 18 months to be negotiated and had more than 600
pages was something which would need time for Members to fully digest.  His delegation would be
seeking clarification on many of the points which had been raised regarding the documentation such
as the need to have the full text of the agreement and the draft decision.
6.17 The representative of India said that India firmly believed that it was critical for developed
country Members to take initiatives that served the development needs and provided a legitimate
framework for the integration of developing countr y Members, including the least developed, into the
global trading system.  India also appreciated the special circumstances that had led to the decision of
the EC to put in place, in a time-bound manner, WTO-consistent trade arrangements with the ACP
countries and to seek in the interim a waiver from WTO obligations for the transitional trade
arrangements with these countries.  India, and so me other non-ACP developing and least developed
country Members of the WTO, had some benefits accruing to them from the GSP Scheme of the EC
under the enabling clause.  He trusted that the EC had taken care to ensure that the interests of these
developing country Members were also protected. He would participate constructively in the
discussions that would be undertaken on the request of the EC  for a waiver for the trade preferences
granted to the ACP countries.
6.18 The representative of Colombia said that Colombia gave its support to any initiative in favour
of developing countries and least developed countries whose objectives were the improvement of the
standard of living of the inhabitants, economic development and the increase of their opportunities in
the global economy.  Support schemes based on unilateral preferences constituted a valuable elementin promoting exports from developing countries.  The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, a preferential
regime, would be substituted by a free trade agreement compatible with WTO provisions.  He hoped
that as in the case of the preferential regime for ACP bananas, the EC would fully respect the rules
and principles of the WTO;  this should be reflected in the future in a single banana regime which
would replace the present system bearing in mind the comments made by non-preferential banana
suppliers from Latin America.  Colombia was willing to give consideration to the requests for a
waiver of Article 1 of GATT submitted by the European Communities to this Council as long as thisexemption did not impair the ruling of the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO regarding bananas
now or in the future.  Members had to have in the three working languages the draft decision, the text
of the agreement, as well as the guidelines to be used in writing on the future single banana regime of
the EC.  He also urged the EC to show the flexibility to arrive at a negotiated solution which was
acceptable to all parties and which will include the allocation of banana import licences, a definitionof a reference period for this allocation, and use of non-discriminatory methods for allocation of
licenses for preferential and non-preferential bananas.  He considered that the evaluation of this
waiver should be done in the most transparent and open way possible with the participation of all
WTO Members.  In this respect, a Working Party with a precise mandate and a determined period for
work would be the most appropriate scenario.
6.19 The representative of Costa Rica said that Costa Rica recognized the importance of this
agreement for many developing countries, in particular for the least-developed countries and was
prepared to examine this agreement in a constructive sp irit.  He shared the concerns with regard to the
documentation and awaited informal consultations, a Working Group or any other type of mechanismwhich would be established for the purpose of the examination.  He stated his interest in taking part in
these consultations.G/C/M/43
Page 14
6.20 The representative of Australia recognized the important development changes faced by ACP
countries and supported efforts to strengthen the contribution which trade could make to their
economic and social development.  She supported the Council giving careful but sympathetic
consideration to the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and the request for a waiver.  From an
agriculture trade policy perspective she welcomed the intention in the agreement that future EU-ACPtrade relations be fully integrated into the multilateral trading system.  She retained some concern at
aspects of the commodity protocols which had the potential to distort international markets, depress
world prices and lock recipient countries into patterns of development which prevented them from
promoting more diversified patterns of trade.  Sh e looked forward to a reform of these protocols.
6.21 The representative of Sri Lanka viewed the new ACP-EC Partnership Agreement as an
important agreement with broad objectives aiming at improving living standards and economic
development of 71 ACP countries, in particular 39 least-developed countries.  Sri Lanka also firmly
believed that it was critical for developed country Members to take initiatives that served
development needs and provided a legitimate framework for the integration of both developing and
least developed countries into the global trading system.  In this context, having taken into account the
special circumstances that led to the decision by the EC to put into place a Partnership Agreementwith ACP countries, he acknowledged the need for a waiver for the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement
from WTO obligations.  Sri Lanka believed that the new Partnership Agreement would impact on the
trade preferences currently being enjoyed by non-ACP, developing and least-developed countries.  He
expected that such concerns would be constructively addressed and measures taken to protect the
interest of these developing countries in the consultation process to be undertaken on the request ofthe EC for a waiver.
6.22 The representative of Barbados saw no link between the resolution of the banana dispute and
the waiver request.  The 71 ACP countries and the 15 EU countries had committed themselves to
ensure that the successor agreement to Lomé IV had to be WTO-compatible.  There were substantivedifferences between the Lomé Conventions and the new Partnership Agreement such as the fact that
the transitional mechanisms in the Partnership Agreement would provide for the evolution from a
non-reciprocal arrangement to a reciprocal arrangement.  The waiver was key to this transition and to
facilitating the smooth integration of the developing country partners into the multilateral trading
system.  Members of the WTO should not be denied their rights as provided under the WTO
Agreements;  for example Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement allowed for a vote if consensus
could not be reached.
6.23 The representative of Bolivia said that Bolivia welcomed any effort aimed at applying the
principle of S&D treatment.  The request for a waiver which had been put before the CTG, because of
its scope and coverage which was very broad-ranging, needed to be studied in detail in order to assess
how it might affect market access for countries like his own.  In this regard, he expressed interest inparticipating in the consideration of this request once all the documentation was available and in
particular the draft decision.  He also said that the mode of work on the basis of a working group,
which could produce minutes, would be the most appr opriate forum in which to consider this request.
Informal consultations would not guarantee full and adequate transparency.
6.24 The representative of St. Lucia said that the Partnership Agreement between the EC and the
ACP States was a binding Agreement which provided inter alia  a measure of stability and security in
trading relations between the EU and ACP States.  It was designed to promote the sustainable
development of ACP States and facilitate their smooth and gradual integration into the multilateral
trading system.  The WTO recognized that relations in the field of trade and economic endeavourshould be conducted with a view to raising standards of living, allowing for the optimal use of the
world's resources, in accordance with the objective of sustainable development, seeking both to
protect and preserve the environment and to enhance the means for doing so in a manner consistent
with their respective needs and concerns and differ ent levels of economic development.  The PA wasG/C/M/43
Page 15
a tool towards this end.  The benefits of the UR Agreements had not been equally felt in all segments
of society.  Paragraph 6 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration affirmed that WTO Members remained
deeply concerned over the marginalization of least-developed countries and certain small economies
and recognized the urgent need to address this issue.  Thirty-nine ACP States were LDCs and many
others were small and vulnerable economies.  The 55 ACP/WTO Members accounted for only1.14 per cent of global trade.  Some suggested that preferential trading arrangements generally should
be assessed on the extent to which they represent building blocks or stumbling blocks to multilateral
free trade.  The small world market share of the 71 ACP States benefiting from the trade regime of the
PA, particularly given the limited scope of the arrangement, not extended to certain sensitive
products, and not providing for a derogation from WTO rules other than trade in goods meant that the
PA was not significantly trade-distorting.  The histor y of the past 25 years had proven that preferences
to ACP countries had not distorted world trade;  all they might have done was slow downmarginalization.  In the 25 years of Lomé benefits, ACP States' share of world trade had actually
declined, which was not to suggest that preferences were useless, but that structural constraints had
limited the ability to take advantage of market opportunities.  The unfortunate reality was that the gap
continued to widen between ACP States and other c ountries.  The constraints of small size and other
factors of vulnerability had made integration into the multilateral trading system that much moredifficult.  The PA was a significant building block for a number of developing countries.  Concerns
had been raised with regard to differentiation be tween developing countries, possibly establishing a
parallel system of benefits.  A multi-layered system of preferential access already existed.
Developing countries did not access developed countr y markets at the same preferential rate under the
various GSP schemes now in place, and differentiation was not limited to LDCs versus otherdeveloping countries.  General GSP schemes, incl uding the EC's GSP, targeted specific developing
countries which benefited from special preferential access.  Indeed, on the basis of an EC Commission
recommendation, on the need to do more for Central American and ANDEAN Pact countries, the EC
GSP scheme had provided special preferential schemes specifically for them.  Several questions had
been raised on the scope and coverage of the PA.  Preferential treatment in derogation of WTO ruleswas limited to trade in goods.  Many of the queries raised with respect to the PA were really not about
the waiver at all, but were strategic attempts to exert pressure on the EU banana regime.  To take the
issue of the language on bananas in the text:  if the waiver was granted before the EU implemented
the PA, that provision would have to be in accordan ce with the provisions of the waiver.  If the waiver
was limited to Article 1 of GATT 1994, then the EC would not be able to provide quotas in breach of
Article XIII. Suggestions that the entire PA be translated into all official languages of the WTO and
circulated to the Membership before the 90-day period began to run were unreasonable.  The pertinentsections of the PA which were necessary for the consideration of the waiver request were before the
Council.  The PA was not conferring any benefits which were not conferred by the previous waiver
for the Lomé Convention.
6.25 The representative of Paraguay said that Paraguay was a developing country with an
agricultural production, putting it within the category of those countries which were to receive S&D
treatment.  There were some products of particular interest to Paraguay, for example meat and sugar.
He therefore wanted to study very carefully the implications of the PA to make sure that there would
not be market distortions for these products.  Joining the GATT and subsequently the WTO was done
in order to broaden Paraguay's markets, but over the last years, instead of broadening the range ofmarkets, access to the markets in the area of Paraguay's agricultural products, was becoming narrower
and closing down.  His authorities in capital had not yet had an opportunity of receiving the relevant
documentation and he hoped they would be able to receive it before the CTG initiated any
consultations.  He expressed his readiness to do everything to ensure that the PA was then properly
considered.
6.26 The representative of the  Dominican Republic said that the documentation had not been
made available because the negotiations only concluded recently and the request for the waiver had
had to be made urgently before the expiry of the previous waiver.  This was limited to Article 1,G/C/M/43
Page 16
paragraph 1 of GATT 1994 for a period of eight years until 31 December 2007, and would ensure that
products from the ACP countries would continue to enjoy tariff preferences over a transitional period
of time, leading to free-trade agreements compatib le with the WTO.  He recognized the rights of
trading partners to protect their legitimate interests and was ready to initiate the necessary
consultations to answer the concerns or questions raised by countries affected.  The PA did not seek inany way to reduce or diminish Members' rights wi thin the WTO or in any way sidestep ACP or EU
obligations.  He hoped that no link would be establ ished between this waiver and the banana dispute,
which was being dealt with and examined in the DSB.   In this regard those colleagues who had taken
the floor requesting additional documentation and proposing stringent procedures or referring to other
products covered by the new agreement should give serious thought as to whether this was in line
with need to provide S&D treatment for a larg e number of ACP countries including the poorest
countries in the world.
6.27 The representative of Venezuela said that he welcomed any preferential scheme aimed at
contributing to the integration of small economies and less-developed countries into the multilateral
trading system.  This type of initiative was in keep ing with the general approach of calling for special
and differential treatment to facilitate the adjustment of the more vulnerable countries and enablethem to abide by the disciplines of the WTO.  The participation of the delegation of Venezuela in the
deliberations with regard to this request would be held in a constructive and positive frame of mind.
He wanted to be fully familiar with the different char acteristics of this agreement to ensure that it was
fully beneficial to the ACP members and that it was not an instrument for reciprocal benefits in trade.
The benefits of the PA should not be converted over time into a mechanism in contradiction with thegeneral disciplines and obligations of WTO Agreements, both on the part of the countries granting
these preferences as well as those benefiting from them.
6.28 The representative of Haiti said that in the PA the private sector had been given greater
responsibility and the facilities to enable them to increase production and competitiveness.  This new
PA did not in any way infringe WTO rules or have a dramatic impact on other countries.  Bananas
were being dealt with in the framework of a separate discussion which was not yet completed, and
therefore it was not possible to make a request for a waiver on an issue which was not yet concluded.
While he could understand that everybody wanted to have as much documentation possible available
in order to make up their minds for or against the request, the ACP countries would, with the EC,
make the missing documentation available to the WTO Members that had not yet received it.  He said
that the 90-day period began on 1 March 2000 in principle.  The PA was going to be signed in June2000 and without breaking any rules or bringing any extra pressure to bear on the tremendous amount
of work the CTG had, it should be borne in mind that the 90 days were not elastic.  The ACP group of
countries would have preferred therefore that this issue remain within the purview of the CTG rather
than sending it for discussion to a working group.
6.29 The representative of Mexico said that the request under consideration was extremely
important for many developing countries and in particular for the ACP Member States.  Mexico
would look favourably on the fact that at the end of the period for which this waiver was being
requested the intention of the parties would be to create one or several regimes that would be fully
compatible with the WTO.  Two of the alternatives presented would be, on the one hand, free-tradeagreements and, on the other hand, the continuation of GSP preferential access to the EU.  Of these
two options, Mexico's view was that the best option would be free trade agreements.  Obviously each
country had its own characteristics and it would be up to each and every one of the ACP members to
decide for themselves what was most appropriate for them.  Mexico had no problem in maintaining
the preferences that the ACP countries had under the Lomé Convention.  Nor did Mexico wish toreduce what had already been granted under the previous waiver which expired on 29 February 2000.
His position, which was still under consideration in the light of the study of the documents, would be
based on the merits of this request without any linkage to any other topic in the WTO.G/C/M/43
Page 17
6.30 The representative of Trinidad and Tobago said that the Lomé conventions had been noted for
their comprehensive approach to the development objectives of developing countries encompassing
political, cultural, financial, economic, developmental aspects. The developmental aspects
incorporated provisions for human resource development, capacity building, infrastructure
development, and promoting South-South cooperation.  Further, the conventions were unique becauseof  the sheer number of developing countries involved in the agreements and because the preferential
treatment  accorded, although unilateral, was not a dictat of the European countries, but the result of
tough and often difficult negotiations between the parties.  The EU-ACP Agreement went beyond
bananas and very few countries of the ACP were banana-exporting countries. It would be tragic if
there was a strategy aimed at holding the waiver request hostage until the resolution of the banana
regime was adopted.  The issue for consideration in this Council was a waiver request for
maintenance of the preferential trade aspects of the agreement, not, as some delegations seemed tothink, the entire agreement with its multi-faceted provisions. Indeed, if this was a new approach to
waiver requests with linkages, whether valid or not, being made to outcomes on other issues, it did not
augur well for the organization nor for developing country solidarity.  He thanked those delegations
that acknowledged the critical role that preferential schemes can play in enabling developing countries
to integrate into the world economy and who expressed their willingness to consider the waiverrequest sympathetically and with the attention it deserved.  He repeated the assurance that the
successor agreement would be fully WTO-compatible.  The waiver was critical to the transition to this
WTO-compatible agreement.  Although consensus was the preferred way of functioning, and the way
in which the ACP countries would wish to see a decision on the waiver adopted, Members should
remember that the WTO Agreements provided for decisions to be taken by means other thanconsensus.
6.31 The representative of the European Communities said that there might be a misunderstanding
concerning the status of the text:  the text was final and the fact that it had not been signed did not
mean that anything would change in that text.  The substance of the text had been agreed and wouldnot change, so the CTG had a solid basis from which to start.  Secondly, he would bring forward the
text of the draft decision as soon as possible but noted that Article IX of the WTO Agreement spoke
of requests and not of draft decisions.  The agreement in full was available in English at the
Secretariat, and could be provided in electronic fo rm to anyone who wanted the full English version.
The full set in three languages of the agreement was 1,800 or so pages and having that circulated for
all delegations would be difficult.  On how to proceed from here, he was satisfied with an informal
process to clarify the issues, deciding what documentation was necessary, or discussing the timing.Members might want to reflect after that whether they really needed a formal working party which
might take away some of the flexibility.
6.32 The representative of Jamaica said that some states had raised the absence of the full text of
the PA in all three languages, meaning that the documentation before the Council was incomplete.  He
urged Members to be reasonable in this and not se t precedents that would come back to haunt them.
The waiver being sought was in regard to the trade regime contained in part 3, title II of the PA, this
being on economic and trade cooperation.  The remainder of the PA dealt with issues and matters
regarding which no waiver was necessary or indeed sought.  Part 3, title II, was available in all three
languages for the consideration of the Council.  What was necessary for the examination wasdocumentation on the matters for which the waiver was being sought, and that was the goods trade of
the parties, as set out in G/C/W/187 and Add.1.  The simple fact was that the WTO had no
competence in other areas of ACP-EU cooperation.  He did not deny the desirability or even the
usefulness of providing the entire PA for informa tion, but for some Members to maintain that the
document in its entirety was necessary to the waiver request and to the commencement of the 90-dayclock was surprising.  On the question of the absence of the draft decision, he accepted the concerns
expressed by Members and agreed that the draft decision should be made available as soon as
possible.  ACP States believed that the 90-day clock must begin as soon as all necessary and relevant
information was before Members.  A few Members seemed to wish to impose a requirement thatG/C/M/43
Page 18
waiver requests in the WTO be approved by consensus.  ACP States wished for a consensus on this
request but he did not believe that Member states would relinquish their legal rights under the
decision-making procedures that were agreed to by all Members at Marrakesh.  It had been suggested
that the waiver being sought seemed to be not just a waiver for unilateral preferences, but a waiver in
respect of preferential arrangements.  It was clear that unilateral preferences were obtained during thepreparatory period and it was for these preferences to apply during the period that a waiver was being
sought.  The new reciprocal trading arrangements would come into being only after 2007 and the
WTO was not being asked to take a position on these arrangements.  Concerning the relationship or
lack of relationship between the waiver request and the banana dispute, negotiators were very careful
to ensure that the second banana protocol did not prejudge the outcome of the discussions on a new
banana regime.
6.33 The representative of the United States expressed caution concerning suggestions of voting.
Any resort to questions of voting might compromise  the expeditious approach to resolving some of
the questions that she had concerning the arrangement for which a waiver was sought.  She would not
accept any situation where US rights were undermined.
6.34 The Chairman stated that there was evidence of different thinking among delegations on the
way to proceed.  The focus had been on the question of when the 90-day time-period cut in, and
related to that, the sufficiency of material available to Members in the three official WTO languages.
In this connection, the entire 650-page PA had been mentioned and also the importance of the draft
waiver decision and its availability.  At the same time others had stressed that in their view all theinformation relevant to trade in goods had now been made available to Members in all three
languages.  His proposal was the following:  the 90-day period would start from the date when the EC
was able to circulate to all Members in all three languages a draft decision on the waiver.  As soon as
possible after that time, the Chairman of the CTG would convene open-ended informal consultations
to allow questions to be raised, additional material to be requested as necessary and appropriate, andreplies to be provided.  Building on the outcome of these consultations, the CTG would revert to this
item at its next formal meeting.  In the interest of launching this important process, he requested
agreement to his set of proposals.
It was so agreed.
7. EC/France – Trading arrangements with Morocco
- Request for extension of the waiver
7.1 The Chairman drew attention to the communication from the European Communities
contained in document G/L/357 containing a request for an extension of a waiver.  Pursuant to
Article IX.3(b) of the WTO Agreement, this request for a waiver extension was before the Council for
its consideration;  a draft decision granting this waiver extension had been circulated in document
G/C/W/194 to assist the Council in its consideration of this request.
7.2 The representative of the European Communities said that the new agreement which
superseded the EC-France trading arrangement had entered into force on 1 March 2000 and the
waiver for that arrangement had expired at the end of 1999, so there were two months in which the
EC was not  legally covered.  The only intention of presenting this retroactive request was to assure
Members that the Communities and France were at all times fully in line with their obligations under
the WTO Agreement.
7.3 The representative of the United States appreciated the response given by the EC concerning
the retroactive request, but was not able to go along with the proposal, needing more time to consult
on this matter.G/C/M/43
Page 19
7.4 The Chairman proposed that the Council revert to this item at its next meeting, and that
informal consultations be held by concerned delegations in the intervening period of time.
It was so agreed.
8. Market Access matters
- Sub-item (A): Committee on Market Access
-  Periodic Report of the Committee
8.1 The Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Market Access introduced the report contained in
document G/MA/107.  He said that in accordance with the agreed procedures of the Committee on
Market Access regarding the transmission of factual data related to requests for extension of waivers,a draft report was circulated in document G/MA/SPEC/14 and was examined by the Market Access
Committee at its meeting of 23 March 2000.  Following that meeting, the report was revised taking
into account the discussions that took place at that meeting and issued as document G/MA/107.  The
report summarized the activities of the Committee since its last report to the Council made on
15 October 1999 and reflected in Annexes I and II the reasons why certain Members whose waiversexpired on 30 April 2000 had requested a further extension of their waivers.  This was mainly to
conclude ongoing consultations or to finalize the preparation of the required documentation.  In this
connection, the Committee took note of document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.21 setting out the status of
submissions of Harmonized System 1996 documentation.  He also provided a report to the Committee
on the consultations that were ongoing on the Harmonized System 1996 transposition exercise.  Thereport gave a summary of the activities carried out in the context of the modalities and operation of
the Integrated Data Base (IDB).  At the meeting of 23 March, the Secretariat provided a report on the
status of processing of IDB submissions, the st atus of software development and the technical
assistance activities that had been carried out thus far.  The Committee began its review of the
operation of the IDB and IDB technical assistance activities on the basis of documentG/MA/IDB/W/5.  The Committee agreed that the Chairman should hold informal consultations on
this subject.  It was also agreed that the Secretariat organize a seminar on the IDB for representatives
of developing country Members based in Geneva.  On the review of paragraph 1 of the Understanding
on the Interpretation of  Article XXVIII of GATT 1994, the Committee agreed to revert to this item at
its next meeting.  The Committee took note of the report presented by the Secretariat on the progress
of work on the Consolidated Tariff Schedules Database Project.  It was agreed that informal
consultations would be held to consider some questions that had arisen in this connection.  Finally,under "other business", the Committee took note of statements made by the US and EC on future
Harmonized System 2002 changes;  it took note that  informal consultations on a request by the
International Cotton Advisory Committee for access to the PC IDB CD-ROM Release 3 had revealed
that a consensus would not be possible to grant this request; and the Committee also took note of
document G/MA/TAR/3/Rev.5 and Corr.1 which contains an updated list of national tariffs in theSecretariat.
The Council took note of the report.
- Sub-item (B): Harmonized System – Requests for extensions of waivers by
Nicaragua and Sri Lanka
8.2 The Chairman drew Members' attention to the communications from Nicaragua and Sri Lanka
containing requests for an extension of waivers which were going to expire on 30 April 2000.  These
requests for waiver extensions had been made in the context of the transposition of these Members'schedules into the Harmonized System, and in accordance with paragraph 1 of the Understanding in
respect of Waivers of Obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.  TheG/C/M/43
Page 20
request from Nicaragua had been circulated in document G/L/351 and a draft decision in document
G/C/W/189.
8.3 The Council agreed to approve an extension of the waiver for Nicaragua until
31 October 2000, and recommended that the draft decision contained in document G/C/W/189 be
forwarded to the General Council for adoption.  The request from Sri Lanka had been circulated in
document G/L/350 and a draft decision in document G/C/W/188.  The Council agreed to approve an
extension of the waiver for Sri Lanka until 31 October 2000, and recommend that the draft decisioncontained in document G/C/W/188 be forwarded to the General Council for adoption.
- Sub-item (C): Zambia – Renegotiation of Schedule LXXVIII
-  Request for an extension of the waiver
8.4 Regarding the request by Zambia circulated in document G/L/295 for an extension of a
waiver granted to it in connection with the renegotiation of its schedule, and to a draft decision in
document G/C/W/190, the Chairman requested that the Council approve an extension of the waiver
for Zambia until 31 October 2000, and recommends that the draft decision contained in document
G/C/W/190 be forwarded to the General Council for adoption.
It was so agreed.
- Sub-item (D): Decision on the Introduction of the Harmonized System Changes
in WTO Schedules of Tariff Concessions on 1 January 1996
-  Extension of the time-limit
8.5 The Chairman recalled that the General Council had adopted successive decisions, thereby
suspending the application of the provisions of Article II of GATT 1994 until 30 April 2000, for the
purpose of enabling Members to implement the recommended amendments of 1996 to the
Harmonized System nomenclature.  The draft decision, contained in document G/MA/W/22/Rev.1,
proposed to extend this time-limit until 31 October 2000.  The annex to this draft decision listed
Members who had requested this extension or who had requested to be covered by the decision.  The
purpose was to give Members more time to proceed with consultations or possible Article XXVIII
negotiations.  Since the issuance of this document, Guatemala had requested to be included in the
Annex.  The Annex would therefore be revised to include Guatemala.
8.6 The representative of Japan expressed serious concern as the waivers had been repeatedly
granted now already for more than four years.  Believing that through the efforts made by Members
concerned this six-month extension would be the last one, his delegation could join the consensus to
approve the request.
8.7 The Council took note of the statement made and agreed  to approve the extension of the
waivers until 31 October 2000, and recommended that the draft decision granting an extension of
these waivers, contained in document G/MA/W/22/ Rev.1, be transmitted to the General Council for
adoption.
9. Free Trade Agreements
9.1 The Chairman drew Members' attention to th e two Agreements that had been notified under
Article XXIV:  (A) Free-Trade Agreement between Bulgaria and the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia - Communication from Bulgaria (WT/RE G90/N71, WT/REG90/1);  and (B) Free-Trade
Agreement between EFTA and Morocco - Communication from the parties to the Agreement
(WT/REG91/N/1, WT/REG90/1).G/C/M/43
Page 21
9.2 As there were no comments, the Chairman proposed that the Committee on Regional Trade
Agreements carry out the examination of the cited agreements in accordance with the following terms
of reference:  "to examine, in light of the relevant provisions of the GATT 1994, the Free Trade
Agreements just referred to  and to submit a report to the Council for Trade in Goods".  He
understood that the understanding read out by the Ch airman of the Council for Trade in Goods under
item 7 of the agenda of the meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods on 20 February 1995, as
contained in document WT/REG31/1, would apply mutatis mutandis  to the examination of the
agreements.  It was also understood that, during the examination, due account will be taken of the
intrinsic differences between customs unions and free-trade areas.
It was so agreed.
10. Appointment of officers for subsidiary bodies of the Council
10.1 The Chairman recalled that the "Guidelines fo r the Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies",
contained in document WT/L/31 and approved by the General Council on 31 January 1995, provided
that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods conduct consultations on the appointment of
the Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies of the Coun cil for Trade in Goods.  He was not in a position
to propose to the Council an agreed slate of names for the Chairs of the subsidiary bodies.  For the
time being he proposed that the current Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies carry on in their
functions as the most practical alternative before the CTG.  He therefore proposed to suspend this
meeting after the items on Other Business and the election of the Chairman of the CTG and reconvene
it as soon as practically possible.
10.2 The representative of Mexico said that the decision that the current Chairpersons of the
subsidiary bodies carry on in their functions should apply for only one meeting of any of the
subsidiary bodies.  He said this with the purpose of being practical but also he did not want to give the
CTG too much time, as by the end of the year Members would be already looking for the Chairmenfor 2001.
10.3 At the reconvened meeting of 18 May 2000, the Chairman said that Ambassador Farrell had
been able to finalize consultations according to  the "Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to
WTO Bodies", contained in document WT/L/31 and approved by the General Council on 31 January
1995, which provided that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods will conduct
consultations on the appointment of the Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies of the Council forTrade in Goods.  Those consultations led to the fo llowing slate of Chairpersons as announced in the
General Council on 8 May 2000:
Committee on Agriculture
Chair:
Vice-Chair:Ambassador Jorge Voto-Bernales (Peru)
Mr. Yoichi Suzuki (Japan)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Mr. Yair Shiran (Israel)Committee on Customs Valuation Mr. Remo Moretta (Australia)Committee on Import Licensing Mr. Albert Wright (Denmark)G/C/M/43
Page 22
Committee on Market Access Mr. Christophe Kiener (Switzerland)
Committee on Rules of Origin Mr. Sándor Simon (Hungary)Committee on Safeguards Mr. Joshua Phoho Setipa (Lesotho)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary
MeasuresMr. Shishir Priyadarshi (India)
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing
MeasuresMrs. Usha Dwarka-Canabady (Mauritius)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Mr. John Adank (New Zealand)
Committee on Trade-Related Investment
MeasuresMr. Oscar Hernández (Venezuela)
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises Mr. Breffini Carpenter (Ireland)
10.4 The Chairman noted that while all the other subsidiary bodies of the Council had provisions
in their respective Agreement or in their rules of  procedure requiring them to elect Chairpersons,
Working Parties did not have any procedural rules and provisions on election of Chairpersons.  As aresult, in the case of the Working Party on State Tr ading Enterprises, he proposed that the Council
appoint the nominated Chairperson, i.e. Mr. Carpenter.  In the case of all other subsidiary bodies, he
proposed that the Council take note of his proposals for Chairpersons.  Furthermore, he had not
addressed the question of Vice-Chairpersons.  It was his understanding that it would be for the
subsidiary bodies to decide if they needed a Vice-Chairperson in cases where the option existed under
the respective Agreement and/or rules of procedure,  and for the respective Chairperson to hold the
necessary consultations.
It was so agreed.
11. Election of Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods
11.1 The Chairman said that the Chairman of the General Council had carried out informal
consultations on a slate of names for appointment as Chairpersons to the different WTO standing
bodies in accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers and as announced
at the General Council of 8 February 2000.  On the basis of the understandings reached, he proposed
that the Council for Trade in Goods elect H.E. Ambassador Pérez del Castillo of Uruguay as
Chairperson of this body by acclamation.
The Council so agreed.G/C/M/43
Page 23
12. Other business
Date of next meeting
12.1 The Chairman said that text meeting of the Council was scheduled to take place on Friday,
7 July 2000.  The agenda would close by close-of-business on Friday, 23 June 2000.
Trade Facilitation
12.2 With respect to trade facilitation, the Chairman recalled that the mandate given by Ministers
in Singapore, "to undertake exploratory analytical work on the simplification of trade procedures to
assess the scope for WTO rules", was given without a termination date.  The programme of work
culminated in a report by this Council to the General Council on the status of the work inOctober 1999.  At the time, the Council for Trade in Goods did not address the question of work
beyond the end of 1999 and this was an opportune moment to state that the mandated exploratory and
analytical work on trade facilitation should be continued under his successor as Chairman of the
Council for Trade in Goods.  In this context, he suggested that an informal meeting be convened in
June to continue the work where it was left when this Council made its status report in October 1999.
12.3 The representative of the United States welcomed the opportunity for the Council to continue
its work in the area of trade facilitation as the case for further WTO efforts in this area was
compelling.
Electronic Commerce
12.4 The Chairman said that with respect to electronic commerce, the CTG might in the future, as
appropriate in light of developments regarding so me of the issues of cross-cutting nature in the
General Council, continue its discussions on certain elements of the work programme on electroniccommerce.
12.5 The representative of Mexico took note of what the Chairman had said on electronic
commerce on the understanding that in the CTG Members were not taking any decision.  He did not
want to prejudge the situation in terms of agreements already made or with regard to the 1998
Ministerial Declaration on the topic of electronic  transmissions.  His delegation was purely taking
note without this giving rise to any interpretation regarding the 1998 Ministerial Declaration inGeneva.
Item 6 of the agenda
12.6 The representative of Guatemala reverted to item 6 for a clarification.  Although the
discussion was closed, his delegation had a concern regarding the translation of the relevant
documentation.  His concern was that his authorities needed the necessary documents to conduct an
in-depth analysis which required that the documentation be in Spanish.  He was not requesting the
whole 600 pages of the PA but at least those compone nts of the whole text which involved the waiver.
12.7 The representative of Honduras said that it was of great importance for his delegation to state
that when the Chairman was giving his final conclusions under item 6, the interpretation into Spanish
had not finished when the Chairman put down his gavel.  He appreciated the opportunity to revert to
this issue.  He wanted to place on record that Honduras wanted to examine the documentation
pertaining to the EC's waiver request.  As a country that had an official language in the WTO herequested translation of the documentation into Spanish.G/C/M/43
Page 24
12.8 The Chairman said that he did not want to reopen Item 6, on which a Council decision had
been reached.  The important element was the comment by the European Communities delegation
where they said they could appreciate that there could be areas of the larger document which some
delegations would wish to pursue and he recalled that the EC had invited delegations to approach
them in that instance.  The statements were noted and he sought on behalf of Guatemala andHonduras the cooperation of the European Communities in providing the maximum assistance in that
respect.  The Chairman felt that it would be a problem if delegations tried to reopen other items under
Other Business.  He did not see how he could entertain further debate on Item 6 at this stage.  He hadhoped that all other matters of concern could be ad dressed in the context of informal consultations
that the CTG had arranged to be undertaken as expeditiously as possible.
12.9 The representative of Honduras said that the topic under discussion was very important for his
delegation.  He recalled that when the Chairman had given his final conclusions under Item 6 he was
still listening to the Spanish interpretation of the Chairman's conclusions when the Chairman had
already put down his gavel.  There had been a certain time lapse before he had heard the conclusions
in Spanish and so he was grateful for the opportunity to revert to this point.  He placed on record that
his delegation wanted to work in Spanish and requested the cooperation of the Secretariat in thetranslation of the documentation.
12.10 At the reconvened meeting of 18 May 2000, the representative of Colombia, supported by
Panama, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras and Guatemala, requested that concerns expressed by those
delegations in an informal meeting on the waiver concerning the new ACP-EC Partnership Agreement
be included in the minutes of this meeting.  Following a discussion in which the request was opposed
or queried by the European Communities, as well as Jamaica, Mauritius, Haiti, Zimbabwe, St. Lucia,
Barbados, Argentina and Australia, the representative of Colombia withdrew his request.  The
Chairman then closed the meeting.
__________