RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/82
13 November 2003
(03-6085)
General Council
25, 26 and 30 August 2003
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 25, 26 and 30 August 2003
Chairman:  Mr. Carlos Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Iran – Request for Accession ................................................................................................ ..2
2. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration – Recommendations of the
Committee following its meetings of 11 July and 14 August 2003 .......................................2
3. Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS
Agreement and Public Health..................................................................................................3
4. Preparations for the Fifth Sessio n of the Minister ial Conf erence ......................................22
(a) Attendance by International Intergovernmental Organizations as Observers –
Requests by the League of Arab States, Council of Europe Development Bank, North
American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, and United Nations Human
Settlements Programme .......................................................................................................... ..22
(b) Implementation and adequacy of technical cooperation and capacity-building
commitments in the Doha Ministerial Declaration –  Report by the Director-General
pursuant to paragraph 41 of the D oha Ministerial Declaration ................................................25
(c) Issues affecting least-developed countries – Report by the Director-General pursuant
to paragraph 43 of the Doha  Ministerial De claration ..............................................................27
(d) Draft Ministerial Text – Statement by th e Chairman................................................................27
(e) Administrative arrangements – Statement by the Chairman.....................................................99
5. Sixth Session of the Ministerial Conference – Communication from Hong Kong,
China ......................................................................................................................... ............101
6. Poverty reduction:  Sectoral initiative in favour of cotton – Joint proposal by
Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali..................................................................................102
7. Communication from th e Kyrgyz Republic ......................................................................103
8. Attendance of observers at the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference –
Requests by the Governments of Niue, Cook Islands and Afghanistan ..........................104
9. Chairmanships of the WTO bodies under the TNC – Statement by the
Chairman....................................................................................................................... ........104
10. Traffic congestion in  the WTO p remises ............................................................................105WT/GC/M/82
Page 2
ANNEX I: Item 3 - Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the
TRIPS Agreement and Public Health - Attachment to the General
Council Chairman's Statement - "B est Practices" Gu idelines ........................ 107
ANNEX II: Statements by delegations at the Informal Meeting of Heads of
Delegation on 29 August on Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the DohaDeclaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health................................. 109
ANNEX III: Opening and Closing Remarks by the Chairman of the General Council
at the Informal Meeting of Heads of Delegation on 25 August on the
Draft Ministerial Text........................................................................................... 117
ANNEX IV: Statements by delegations at the Informal Meeting of Heads of
Delegation on 25 August on the Draft Ministerial Text..................................... 125
1. Iran – Request for Accession (WT/ACC/IRN/1)
1. The Chairman drew attention to the communi cation from Iran in document WT/ACC/IRN/1
requesting accession to the WTO Agreement pursuant to Article XII, and recalled that the General
Council had last considered this matter at its meetin g in July and had agreed to revert to it at the
present meeting.
2. The representative of the United States said that the issue of Iran's accession to the WTO
continued to be under review by his Government, and his delegation had nothing to add to its
statement at the July meeting of the General Council.
3. The representative of Tanzania, on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries ,
said that these countries had taken note of the statement by the United States.  They hoped that the
United States would complete its review soon and would be able to provide a positive response on the
issue of the accession of Iran at the next meeting of the General Council.
4. The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.
2. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration – Recommendations of the
Committee following its meetings of 11 July and 14 August 2003 (WT/BFA/67)
5. The Chairman invited Mr. Law (Hong Kong, China), Chairman of the Committee on Budget,
Finance and Administration, to introdu ce the report in document WT/BFA/67.
6. Mr. Law (Hong Kong, China), Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Finance and
Administration, introducing the Committee's report, said the recommendations contained in document
WT/BFA/67 covered the meetings held on 11 July an d 14 August 2003.  Due to time constraints, the
full report on these meetings would be submitted to the next meeting of the General Council.  Herecalled the decision of the General Council in December 2002 on the review of the salary
methodology, in particular the “alpha” adjustment from 1 July 2003 to restore parity with equivalent
grades in the UN for all WTO employees in light of the results of a review of UN professional staff
salaries.  The “alpha” adjustment necessitated amendment to Annex 2 of the WTO Staff Rules.
Consequently, the Committee recommended that the General Council approve the amendments toAnnex 2 of the WTO Staff Rules in accordance with document WT/BFA/W/102.
7. He also wished to recall that at its meeting in December 2002 the General Council had taken
note of the Committee’s intention to study the feasibility of a move to biennial budgeting and to make
a recommendation in that respect to the General Council.  Since early 2003, the Committee had been
discussing the various implications and ramifications of such a move.  It was felt that biennialWT/GC/M/82
Page 3
budgeting would allow better planning and strategic thinking for the organization, and would provide
both Members and the Secretariat with greater predictability with regard to the financial requirements
of the organization.  At the same time, it was recognized that it would be necessary to address
questions of transparency, flexibility, and the provision of adequate resources in any move to a
biennial process. The Committee had subsequently reached a consensus on a biennial process whichwould meet the specific needs of the WTO.  This process was set out in detail in document
WT/BFA/W/105/Rev.1
8. The Committee recommended as follows to the General Council:  that the Director-General
be requested to present to the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration two estimated
budgets covering a biennial period, with effect from the time of the estimates for 2004 and 2005,
along the lines outlined in document WT/BFA/W /105/Rev.1;  that the General Council, in
consequence of the above, approve the revised Financial Regulations contained in the annex todocument WT/BFA/W/105/Rev.1.;  and that the Committee be requested to examine at the time the
budgets for the second biennium were to be considered, how the process had been implemented and to
determine whether adjustments should be introduced.  As appropriate, the Committee would make
relevant recommendations with respect to such adjustments.
9. The General Council took note of the statement, approved
 the Budget Committee's specific
recommendations in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the report in WT/BFA/67, and adopted the report.
3. Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and
Public Health
10. The Chairman invited the Chairman of the Council for TRIPS to report on this matter.
11. Mr. Menon (Singapore), Chairman of the Council for TRIPS, said that as delegations were
aware, and as he had informed the Council for TRI PS, since being appointed as Chair in February he
had remained in close contact with delegations on the issue of implementation of Paragraph 6 of the
Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.  His intention had been to resume
consultations as soon as there were indications that they would lead to positive results.  He had also
urged delegations to continue to dialogue with each other, so that a solution could be found on thebasis of the text circulated by his predecessor on 16 December 2002.  Furthermore, he had expressed
his hope that a solution could be found before the Cancún Ministerial Conference and preferably in
time for the present meeting of the General Council.  He was pleased to inform the General Council
that he was now in a position to make some suggestions as to how this difficult question might be
settled.  To this end, he was making available fo r delegations' consideration, in the three working
languages, a draft statement to be made by the Chairman of the General Council which he hoped
would enable all Members to join in a consensu s and adopt unchanged the proposed decision tabled
by his predecessor in December 2002.
12. Before being in a position to forward any re commendations in this regard from the TRIPS
Council to the General Council, he would need some  further time to consult with all Members of the
TRIPS Council on the proposal he was circulating, first in an informal context and then in a formal
meeting of the TRIPS Council.  An open-ended in formal meeting of the TRIPS Council would be
convened later that evening at the level of Heads of Delegation plus one, and it was his hope that the
proposal he was submitting would find favour w ith Members.  The TRIPS Council would then meet
in formal session shortly thereafter in order to approve these recommendations to the General
Council.  In the light of this situation, the Chairm an of the General Council might wish to propose that
the General Council suspend its present meeting and be ready to reconvene at short notice with a viewto taking action on the basis of any recommendations that would be forthcoming from the TRIPS
Council.WT/GC/M/82
Page 4
13. The Chairman thanked the Chairman of the TRIPS Council for his report and for all his
efforts on this issue.  In the light of the report by the Chairman of the TRIPS Council, he proposed
that the General Council suspend its discussion on this item and agree to reconvene at short notice
with a view to taking action on the basis of an y recommendations that would be forthcoming from the
Council for TRIPS.
14. The General Council so agreed.
15. At its resumed meeting on 30 August, the Chairman recalled that the General Council had
suspended its meeting on this item in order to allow time for consultations to yield results.  Since then,
in the Council for TRIPS as well as in the General Council, Members had held informal consultations
in order to consider a draft Decision resulting from the process of consultations.  He drew Members'
attention to the draft Decision which had been circulated as document IP/C/W/405, and invited the
Chairman of the Council for TRIPS to report on the Council's deliberations.
16. Mr. Menon (Singapore), Chairman of the Council for TRIPS, said he was pleased to inform
Members that, following renewed consultations, the Council for TRIPS had on 28 August approved
the draft Decision in document IP/C/W/405 and had agreed to forward it to the General Council for
adoption.  The TRIPS Council had also approved his forwarding to the Chairman of the General
Council the text of a Statement, contained in document Job(03)/177, to be read out by the latter priorto the adoption of the draft Decision by the General Council.  Furthermore, a number of delegations
had informed him that it was their intention to make statements regarding Paragraph 1(b) of the draft
Decision.  He wished to take this opportunity to put on record his appreciation of the constructive and
cooperative spirit shown by all delegations which had enabled him to be in a position to put these
recommendations to the General Council.
17. The Chairman thanked the Chairman of the TRIPS Council for his report and for all the work
the latter had done on this highly important issue.  This was a considerable achievement.  He was
aware that some delegations had felt that they had not been as fully consulted as some others in the
earlier phases of the consultations, and that this had left them with questions that needed clarification
before they could fully join the consensus, and w ith the need to consult fully their capitals.  He
believed that the consultation process that had taken place over the past 24 hours had enabled them to
seek the clarifications they needed and to fully join the consensus.
18. He wished to make clear that in the earlier informal discussions and consultations no
delegation had indicated any intention of preventing the adoption of the draft Decision of
16 December 2002 in the light of the proposed Statement by the General Council Chairman.  He
believed that Members had all been moved by the urgency of the needs of the African countries, in
particular, for an early resolution of the issue and had fully identified with the plight of Africa.
19. He added that one delegation had asked him to say that the Chairman's Statement was without
prejudice to the constitutional rights of Members.  Before reading out that statement, he invited
Members wishing to make statements with respect to Paragraph 1(b) of the draft Decision in
IP/C/W/405, on the use by Members of the system  contained in the draft Decision, to do so.
20. Delegations who made statements below, both with respect to Paragraph 1(b) of the draft
Decision as well as following adoption of the De cision, expressed appreciation to the current and
preceding Chairmen of the Council for TRIPS, the Chairman of the General Council, the Director-
General, and the delegations of Argentina, Brazil , China, EC, Canada, Cuba, El Salvador, Hungary,
India, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, Switzerl and, United States and Venezuela, among many
others, as well as to the Secretariat, for their commitment, contribution, determination and tirelessefforts in bringing the negotiations on this important political and humanitarian issue to a satisfactory
conclusion.WT/GC/M/82
Page 5
21. The representative of Israel said that although the process had been long and complex,
delegations had never lost sight of the final goal and the objectives behind it, while knowing always
the consequences of failure for the WTO and, more importantly, for those Members in need of access
to medicines covered by the draft Decision.  At Doha , Ministers had given clear instructions to find an
expeditious solution for WTO Members with insufficient or no manufacturing capacity in thepharmaceutical sector that could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing
under the TRIPS Agreement.  Israel had regarded these instructions as a positive step forward in
solving the specific humanitarian crisis in certain regions of the world.  His delegation had always
supported this initiative before Doha, and like others was satisfied with the final results that had come
out from Doha.  According to instructions received from Ministers it was clear that Israel, under
normal circumstances, would not use the solution agreed upon as an importing country.  From the
draft Decision before Members today, the situation had not changed.  Israel would only use thissystem as an importer in situations of national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency.
His delegation wished once again to stress the humanitarian importance of the draft Decision before
Members today and fully supported it.  It also wished to thank all Members for the flexibility they had
shown in reaching this solution, especially since this decision gave hope to many people around the
world.
22. The representative of Hong Kong, China said he sincerely hoped that the resolution of this
long-standing issue would contribute to the creation of a more conducive atmosphere for the Cancún
process.  He was pleased to confirm that his author ities had taken the decision that Hong Kong, China
would only use the system as an importer in situations of national emergency or other circumstances
of extreme urgency.
23. The representative of Chinese Taipei joined  others in welcoming the consensus on this
extremely important humanitarian issue.  With this decision, Members were entering a new era in the
multilateral trading system where international tr ade rules were humanized and trade negotiations
took on broader human concerns.  Members could now truly add the word "development" into the
Doha Round.  The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Peng hu, Kinmen and Matsu would  use the
system set up under the draft Decision as an importer in no more than situations of national
emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency.  His delegation sincerely hoped that all
Members would now be able to obtain in a timely  and cost-effective manner much needed medication
for their citizens.
24. The representative of Singapore said his delegation was pleased that the WTO had arrived at
this solution mandated under paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, and
was happy to join in the consensus to adopt the statement in document Job(03)/177 together with the
16 December text.  Singapore was the first developing country Member to indicate, in November
2002, that it would use the system in a restricted way as an importer under the eventual paragraph 6
solution.  This reflected its view that the system should be tailored to benefit those countries who
lacked the requisite means to respond effectively to public health problems.  His delegation wished to
reiterate its position and formally affirm that Singapore would only use the system as an importer insituations of national emergency or other circumst ances of extreme urgency.  He believed that the
solution gave real meaning to the DDA and had every confidence that it would provide an effective
mechanism in responding to public health problems facing many developing countries.
25. The representative of Mexico said his country wished to join in the consensus on this issue
and, as a token of its solidarity with the membership  of the WTO and in particular with its friends in
Africa, it agreed to make use of this system as an importing Member only in situations of national
emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency.
26. The representative of Turkey said that the reso lution of this issue finally manifested to the
outside world that the WTO was indeed capable of addressing problems affecting its developing and
least developed Members.  He was certain that this would also give the necessary impetus to theWT/GC/M/82
Page 6
ongoing DDA negotiations.   He confirmed that Turkey wished to be included in the list of eligible
importing countries which might partially opt out to utilize the paragraph 6 mechanism, as foreseen in
the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, under national emergency or other
circumstances of extreme urgency.
27. The representative of Korea said that the adoption of the draft Decision would represent a
major achievement for the WTO, not only in the sense of restoring global confidence in the
institution, but also in making a meaningful diff erence which would literally touch, and indeed save,
the lives of many millions.  His delegation was pleased to announce that Korea would use the system
as an importer only in situations of national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency.
This decision was being made on a voluntary basis, in view of the humanitarian purpose involved, and
in order to facilitate the adoption of the draft Decision before Members.
28. The representative of Poland, speaking also on behalf of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Slovak Republ ic and Slovenia, said that in full understanding
of the gravity of health problems arising in many countries and expressing great sympathy with them,
these countries particularly looked forward to the adoption of the draft Decision by the General
Council on the implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and
Public Health.  By doing so, they were making their contribution and demonstrating their flexibility.These countries agreed that they would only use the system as importers in situations of national
emergency and other circumstances of extreme urgency.  Furthermore, these countries agreed that
upon accession to the European Union, they woul d opt out of using the system as importers.
29. The Chairman then read out for the record the following statement, which had been forwarded
to him by the Chairman of the Council for TRIPS on the approval of the TRIPS Council:
"The General Council has been presented with a draft Decision contained in
document IP/C/W/405 to implement paragr aph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the
TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.  This Decision is part of the wider national and
international action to address problems as recognized in paragraph 1 of the
Declaration.  Before adopting this Decision, I would like to place on the record thisStatement which represents several key  shared understandings of Members regarding
the Decision to be taken and the way in which it will be interpreted and implemented.
I would like to emphasize that this Statement is limited in its implications to
paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.
"First, Members recognize that the system that will be established by the Decision
should be used in good faith to protect public health and, without prejudice to
paragraph 6 of the Decision, not be an instrument to pursue industrial or commercial
policy objectives.
"Second, Members recognize that the purpose of the Decision would be defeated if
products supplied under this Decision are diverted from the markets for which they
are intended.  Therefore, all reasonable measures should be taken to prevent such
diversion in accordance with the relevant paragraphs of the Decision.  In this regard,
the provisions of paragraph 2(b)(ii) apply not only to formulated pharmaceuticals
produced and supplied under the system but also to active ingredients produced and
supplied under the system and to finished products produced using such activeingredients.  It is the understanding of Members that in general special packaging
and/or special colouring or shaping should not have a significant impact on the price
of pharmaceuticals.
"In the past, companies have developed procedures to prevent diversion of products
that are, for example, provided through donor programmes.  "Best practices"WT/GC/M/82
Page 7
guidelines that draw upon the experiences of companies are attached to this statement
for illustrative purposes.1  Members and producers are encouraged to draw from and
use these practices, and to share information on their experiences in preventing
diversion.
"Third, it is important that Members seek to resolve any issues arising from the use
and implementation of the Decision expeditiously and amicably:
- "To promote transparency and avoid controversy, notifications under
paragraph 2(a)(ii) of the Decision would include  information on how the Member in
question had established, in accordance with the Annex, that it has insufficient or no
manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector.
- "In accordance with the normal practice of the TRIPS Council, notifications
made under the system shall be brought to the attention of its next meeting.
- "Any Member may bring any matter related to the interpretation or
implementation of the Decision, including is sues related to diversion, to the TRIPS
Council for expeditious review, with a view to taking appropriate action.
- "If any Member has concerns that the terms of the Decision have not been
fully complied with, the Member may also utilize the good offices of the Director-General or Chair of the TRIPS Council, with a view to finding a mutually acceptable
solution.
"Fourth, all information gathered on the implementation of the Decision shall be
brought to the attention of the TRIPS Council in its annual review as set out in
paragraph 8 of the Decision.
"In addition, as stated in footnote 3 to paragraph 1(b) of the Decision, the following
Members have agreed to opt out of using the system as importers: Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, The Netherland s, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.
"Until their accession to the European Union, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia agree
that they would only use the system as importers in situations of national emergency
or other circumstances of extreme urgency.  These countries further agree that upontheir accession to the European Union, they will opt out of using the system as
importers.
"As we have heard today, and as the Secretariat has been informed in certain
communications, some other Members have agreed that they would only use thesystem as importers in situations of national emergency or other circumstances of
extreme urgency.  These are the following:  Hong Kong, China;  Israel;  Korea;
Kuwait;  Macao China;  Mexico;  Qatar;  Singapore;  the Separate Customs Territory
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu;  Turkey and the United Arab Emirates."
30. The Chairman then proposed that the General C ouncil take note of the statements and, in the
light of the Chairman's Statement he had just read out, adopt the draft Decision contained in document
                                                     
1 Reproduced as Annex I.WT/GC/M/82
Page 8
IP/C/W/405 in accordance with the Decision-Making Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the
WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93).
31. The General Council so agreed.2
32. The Chairman thanked all Members for having adopted this very important Decision.
33. The Director-General said that the Decision just taken was an historic agreement for the
WTO, and Members could now claim that the agreement reached at Doha on the TRIPS Agreement
and Public Health was complete and fully operational.  The final piece of the jigsaw had fallen into
place.  He found a special satisfaction in the fact that the Decision would be of particular value to the
smaller and poorer country Members of the WTO in Africa and elsewhere.  These were the countries
who most lacked domestic manufacturing capacity and in many cases were the most affected by the
public health problems recognized at Doha.  It woul d enable them to make full use of the flexibilities
in the WTO intellectual property rules in order to deal with the diseases that ravaged their peoples.
34. He also found a special satisfaction because Members' action today in completing the Doha
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health demonstrated for all to see that the WTO was
committed to pursuing its trade mandate in a way which fully respected and protected humanitarian
concerns.  He joined others in expressing his appreciation to the current and preceding Chairmen of
the Council for TRIPS and for the work they had put in which had enabled the General Council to
take this Decision.  He thanked the Chairman of the General Council and the Ambassadors of South
Africa, India and Kenya for their efforts to bring Members to this point.  A debt of gratitude was also
owed to the Ambassadors of the United States and Brazil, among many others.  The appeals from
many African Ambassadors the previous day had been particularly moving.  However, he wished to
go further and express his appreciation for the constructive and cooperative spirit which had beenshown by all delegations in enabling the WTO to reach this outcome on this critical issue.
35. He was aware that for many Members this had not been easy and success that day had only
been possible because of the quality of leadership Members had shown.  He believed this was
evidence that the WTO system was working, could produce important results on critical issues, and
would give Members confidence in dealing with challenges in other areas, both at the CancúnMinisterial Conference and thereafter.  He was sure that the momentum which this Decision had
generated would enable Members to tackle the challenges ahead with renewed vigour in the weeks
and months to come.
36. The representative of Morocco, on behalf of the African Group
, said that this was an historic
moment and would no doubt be an important step in the Doha process.  Like the Director-General, he
was very pleased to express the satisfaction of the African Group at the Decision that had finally been
taken on this important humanitarian issue.  He commended everyone for their efforts which, throughintensive consultations, had allowed this agreement to be reached.  He also thanked all for responding
to the appeal of the African Group to their humanism, solidarity, conscience and international
obligations.  He expressed the hope that this achievement might help open the way towards other,
even more important, achievements in Cancún for the international community, and in particular for
developing countries.
37. The representative of Mauritius said this consensus was a clear example of how Members
could all move together when a collective commitment to understand one another existed.  This
example being given to the international community should trigger a similar movement on all other
issues on which Members faced difficulties.  On several issues of interest to developing countries,
Members needed to exercise the same kind of understanding and compromise if they wished to movethe DDA forward.  This was an important trigger destined to solve not only the long-standing
                                                     
2 The Decision was subsequently circulated as WT/L/540.WT/GC/M/82
Page 9
problems of millions of people who were dying every day from deadly diseases on the African
continent, but also issues where the developmental dimensions were clearly visible.  He was referring
to S&D treatment, implementation-related and market access issues and hoped that this message sent
to the world was a harbinger which would make the Cancún Ministerial Conference a success.
38. The representative of Cuba said that with this Decision Members had come to the end of a
very long road.  It had been an arduous process which had revealed the lack of political will on the
part of certain highly industrialized countries to address and find a permanent and expeditious
solution to the problems facing developing countries.  It had also led to misinterpretations –
intentional or not – of quite legitimate positions held by some delegations, particularly in the final
phase, which had not been marked by either transparency or inclusiveness.  The process had also
shown that the interest of some highly develope d countries was to call into question what had been
proposed and agreed by all Ministers in Doha.  During the preparatory phase, proposals had beenmade undermining the Ministerial Declaration and even directed at adding new obligations to the
already burdensome obligations of the TRIPS Agreement.  All this had, of course, affected the
Decision just adopted.  Cuba was not entirely sa tisfied with this solution.  However, because it
supported the countries most in need, mainly in Africa, and in the hope of giving even the smallest
impetus to what had been achieved in Doha, it did not oppose its adoption.  Nevertheless, Cubawished to place on record its comments on certain aspects of the text of the Decision to which it
attached great importance.  As regards scope of diseases, Cuba believed that Paragraph 1 of the Doha
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health should be read and interpreted in the context
of the Declaration as a whole and especially in th e light of Paragraphs 4 and 5, which emphasized the
right of Members to protect public health and the flexibilities afforded for this purpose by the TRIPSAgreement.
39. Cuba deplored the limited definition of the term "pharmaceutical products" in Paragraph 1(a),
since it excluded vaccines, which inherently belonged in this category in view of their very nature and
the role they played when public health problems arose.  Cuba hoped that, under the definition of the
term "eligible importing Member" in Paragraph 1(b), the notification made by such a Member to theCouncil for TRIPS of its intention to use the system as an importer was solely for information
purposes, and that the same applied to the terms established in Paragraph 2(a).  Although the waiver
was not the permanent solution Cuba had hoped for, it considered that it should remain as it stands as
long as the appropriate solution was not found.  Finally, as regards Paragraph 11, the solution offered
did not correspond to the Doha mandate.  No one could expect the waiver solution, along with an
amendment without any specification of what was to be amended, to provide the best option.  This
was a solution that had been pushed through, and one that Cuba believed would give rise to differinginterpretations in the future.  His delegation reiterated that the only possible and correct solution in
this area had to be permanent, sustainable, secure and applicable in legal terms.  This had not been the
case with the present Decision.
40. The representative of Brazil said the General Council was finally in a position to abide by
Ministers' instructions in Doha regarding the implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Declaration on the
TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.  The Doha Declaration was a milestone.  By elevating
humanitarian concerns to the forefront, the adoption of the Doha Declaration had placed the WTO on
a high moral ground.  It was an extraordinary achievement for the WTO and Brazil was proud to have
played a pivotal role in that process.  The Doha Declaration had been and would continue to be a very
important instrument of Brazil's public health policy.  Its provisions guaranteed that all countries –those with manufacturing capacity, those with limited capacity and those with no capacity at all, or in
other words, potential exporters, importers or both – now disposed of further flexibilities in order to
face public health problems.
41. Brazil's experience was a case in point.  Its national AIDS program was a tremendous success.
Although Brazil believed that the Doha Declaration itself already provided all the necessaryflexibilities for countries to use it in a responsible manner, the approval of the Decision onWT/GC/M/82
Page 10
Paragraph 6 would further enhance Brazil's ability to cope with situations that existed or might arise
justifying its use for public health purposes.  He was pleased that Members had now been able to
fulfill the mandate given by Ministers on Paragraph 6 in a manner that was fully respectful of the
integrity of the Doha Declaration.  As Members adopted this Decision on paragraph 6, the
significance of the Doha Declaration was preserved and enhanced, and the success in arriving at aconsensus-based decision on this matter showed that the Doha spirit remained alive in the WTO.
42. The Doha Declaration fully and unequivocally recognized the rights of WTO Members to
grant compulsory licenses and to determine the grounds upon which such licenses were granted.  The
Decision just adopted would effectively enable all Members to use, to the full, the flexibilities
contained in the TRIPS Agreement to face public health problems, as reaffirmed by the Doha
Declaration.  The solution that had finally allowed all Members to accept the Decision – the
Chairman's Statement – had taken care of the concerns that had been expressed about the16 December text.  The Chairman's Statement was strictly limited in its implications to Paragraph 6
and did not in any way change, qualify or undermine the integrity of the Doha Declaration.  It was a
further restatement of Members' commitment to utilize the system in good faith to face public health
problems, as laid down in the Doha Declaration.  The Chairman's Statement was not intended to
overburden the operation of the Paragraph 6 mechanism, nor was it meant to place additional hurdlesin the way of countries who might find themselves compelled to use provisions of the TRIPS
Agreement to protect public health.
43. As recognized by the Doha Declaration, Members had the right to determine upon what
grounds compulsory licenses were granted.  Members also had a sovereign right to determine whether
they had insufficient or no manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector for the purposes setout in the Decision.  This should be done in good faith and in a transparent manner, as stated in the
Chairman's Statement.  This process should not constitute a burden for the importing countries under
the Decision.  With regard to the attachment to the Chairman's Statement on "best practices
guidelines" to prevent diversion of products, the examples set forth in the list did not correspond to
real Paragraph 6 situations, and were purely illustrative.  These were to be taken into account onlyinasmuch as they actually might apply to pertin ent Paragraph 6 situations.  The use of special
packaging, labelling and/or colouring should be feasible and not have a significant impact on price.
The mechanism set out in the Decision should operat e in a manner that was fully consistent with the
spirit of the Doha Declaration.  The serious public health problems confronting developing countries
should be squarely faced, otherwise Members would not be living up to the expectations of the
international community.
44. The representative of South Africa said that, despite Members' differences in economic
interests, they were willing and capable of puttin g these aside in the greater interests of humanity.
This Decision would begin the process of fully implementing Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on
TRIPS and Public Health, as Ministers had instructed in Doha.  Of the 30 million people affected with
HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa only 30,000 were being treated.  This Decision would contribute to
making pharmaceutical products more accessible and affordable and save many lives.  It was afundamental obligation of a government, and certainly a democratic one, to ensure the public health of
its people.  Multilateral agreements should support and facilitate this obligation.  He paid tribute to the
determination and steadfastness of his country's Minister and the intellectual and political energy the
latter had personally committed to this effort.  Great credit also had to go to a group of developing-
country TRIPS negotiators, notably those from the African Group, whose energy and passion hadfuelled his own commitment to work for a successful  resolution to this issue.  The words of the
Vatican representative at the 20 December 2002 General Council  meeting had inspired all.  He also
thanked participants at the previous day's informal  consultations.  He took some responsibility for
some delegations not having being fully informed and briefed on the issues where further clarification
had been needed.  The WTO should learn from this process and ensure that sometimes Membersmight need to go slower in order to go faster.WT/GC/M/82
Page 11
45. The representative of Djibouti said that he was not satisfied but very pleased that a Decision
had been taken.  This showed that the organization was capable of dealing with humanitarian
problems.  Members were in the WTO to discuss rules for the multilateral trading system, and yet
there was a sense of solidarity, and when a matter as urgent as the present one was involved, it was
clear that all were capable of finding solutions.  He paid tribute to all who had participated actively inthis important matter for the African countries.  In conclusion, he reiterated that he was not satisfied,
but still happy, and believed that this Decision woul d help Members find important solutions for other
matters still under discussion.
46. The representative of Barbados welcomed the adoption of the Decision that would allow
Members to implement and operationalize Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS
Agreement and Public Health after many months of delay and hard work.  This important and historic
Decision would help alleviate the dire health situation of millions of people in Africa and throughoutthe world.  The Caribbean countries could fully identify with the plight of Africa for many reasons,
but particularly because the Caribbean region had the second highest incidence of HIV/AIDS in the
world.  The populations of the Caribbean countries also shared other health problems, and within
CARICOM, they had been trying to devise regional approaches to the management of health scourges
afflicting their peoples.  Therefore, while warmly welcoming the adoption of the Decision indocument IP/C/W/405, she felt obliged to regist er Barbados’s disappointment and concern that
Paragraph 6 of the Decision would place restrictions on the ability of CARICOM – a regional
integration and trade arrangement -- to adopt a regional approach to the implementation of Paragraph
6 of the Doha Declaration.
47. The representative of Kenya said that the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health was
a major victory for all people of goodwill and conscience the world over, and had marked a turning
point in the work of this organization by putting a human face on it.  Her delegation was glad to have
been involved in the search for common ground to re solve this issue.  Members had come together in
solidarity to breathe life into Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration, which was intended to address the
concerns of the poorest countries with inadequate or no manufacturing capacities.  The Decision at thepresent meeting gave hope to those among her people that were ravaged by life threatening diseases
and who had asked only for the opportunity not to live forever but for just a little longer, to fend for
their infants and children, and perhaps long enough to see them through primary or high school, and
to mark some of the milestones in their children's lives that were so important to them and their
children as they were for all.  On behalf of all the people in Kenya who would benefit from this
Decision, she thanked those that had been involved, and paid tribute to those who late the previous
evening had patiently listened, contributed and constructively engaged in a lively discussion.  The testof the success of the Decision just taken would ultimately be the accessibility and affordability of the
medicines that her people needed.  That had always been, and remained, the common objective and
primary concern.  She asked that the statement by her delegation at the informal Heads of Delegation
meeting on 29 August also be reflected in the records of this meeting.
3
48. The representative of Argentina said that in Doha, while recognizing the serious public health
problems afflicting, and which still afflicted many developing countries and least-developed
countries, Ministers had agreed that the TRIPS Agreement should be interpreted and implemented in
such a manner as to support the right of WTO Members to protect public health and in particular to
promote access to medicines for all.  This affirmation was one of the most important political
definitions for WTO Members as regards access to medicines and to the implementation of publichealth policies.  Although the process of conver gence towards a solution to the problem raised in
Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health had been a very difficult one,
Members had finally been able to take a Decision .  At this important moment, Argentina wished to
join the expressions of satisfaction at this great achievement, and to thank all those who had worked
intensively to overcome difficulties.  Argentina wish ed also to state that the shared understandings in
                                                     
3 See Annex II.WT/GC/M/82
Page 12
the Chairman's Statement did not detract from the terms and conditions of the Decision that had just
been adopted.  In particular, the reference in the Statement that "any Member may bring any matter
related to the interpretation or implementation of the Decision, including issues related to diversion, to
the TRIPS Council for expeditious review, with a vi ew to taking appropriate action" was consistent
with footnotes 2 and 8 of the Decision.  Therefore, notifications referred to in those footnotes weremade only for transparency purposes and did not need to be approved by a WTO body in order to use
the system set out in the Decision.
49. The representative of Venezuela said that Members had to congratulate themselves for this
major example of collective leadership, as reflected in this shared understanding to guarantee health
as a universal right on a non-discriminatory basis and medicine as an input easily accessible to one
and all.  Members were thereby taking the first step towards achieving the social vision embodied in
the Doha Declaration and in its work programme, and demonstrating that trade could indeed go handin hand with development processes and, as in the case at hand, with the development of health as a
social right.  She asked that the statement by her delegation at the informal Heads of Delegation
meeting on 29 August also be reflected in the records of this meeting.
4
50. The representative of India said that his count ry had always been of the view that the Doha
Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health constituted a major landmark in the short history of the
WTO because it recognized the primacy of public health needs and the sensitivity of this organization
to the problems faced by the poor in the less developed countries.  It was unfortunate that it had taken
Members so long to reach a solution in respect of one segment of the Declaration, namely, the
mechanism to be put in place to meet the requirements of developing and least-developed countries
with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector.  He was pleased thatone was finally seeing the end to this problem.  The apprehensions of some sections of the
pharmaceutical industry had been largely misplaced.  The Declaration clearly indicated that it was
intended to address public health problems afflicting many developing and least developed countries,
especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics.  While it
recognized the importance of intellectual property protection for the development of new medicines, itemphasized the fact that the TRIPS Agreement did not and should not prevent Members from taking
measures to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.  The Doha
Declaration recognized the right of each Member  to grant compulsory licences, the grounds for
granting such licences and also the right to determine what constituted a national emergency or other
circumstances of extreme urgency.
51. There were no grounds for doubts regarding the manner in which the system established
under paragraph 6 of the Declaration would be utilized.  This system was intended for use by WTOMembers with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector to address
public health problems.  India had always maintained that countries with some manufacturing
capacity would resort to use of this mechanism onl y when their domestic industry was unable to meet
their needs.  There was already existing flexibility under the TRIPS Agreement for issue of
compulsory licences, and wherever the domestic indu stry could fully meet, at reasonable cost, public
health needs arising as a consequence of the kind of problems alluded to in the Decision, it would
make no commercial sense to import products.  However, such countries would need to use this
facility whenever their domestic industry was incapable of meeting their requirements at reasonable
cost or when it was found that domestic capacity was insufficient.  India was also of the view that
sufficient safeguards had been provided in the draft Declaration of 16 December 2002 to deal withproblems of possible diversion of products and the misuse of the mechanism, and that therefore there
was really no ground for any doubts regarding the operation of the system.  The 16 December text
was sufficient in itself to deal with all such problems.  He noted also that this was intended to be a
temporary mechanism until amendment of the TRIPS Agreement and that work on preparation of
                                                     
4 See Annex II.WT/GC/M/82
Page 13
such an amendment was to commence by the end of 2003 with a view to its adoption within six
months.
52. With reference to the Chairman's Statement, India noted that in order to promote transparency
and avoid controversy, notifications under paragraph 2(a)(ii) of the Decision would include
information on how the Member in question had established, in accordance with the Annex, that ithad insufficient or no manufacturing capacity.  It had been clarified during the consultations that this
did not involve provision of a great deal of technical or other information but only the brief and
concise indication of the methodology for determination of insufficient capacity and the conclusions
that were drawn on the basis of available data.  With regard to the reasonable measures taken to
prevent diversion of medicines, special packaging, labelling and/or colouring should be used to
distinguish products under the Decision, provided such distinction was feasible and did not have a
significant impact on price.  With regard to packag ing of active ingredients, it had been clarified to
India that special labelling including indicati on of the destination country would meet the
requirements.  While this was essentially an attempt to respond to special circumstances, any
production process would necessarily have a commercial dimension since it involved buying and
selling of products.  India expected pharmaceutical companies in all parts of the world to contribute to
this noble cause by paring their costs and making available pharmaceutical products at the lowestpossible cost to their ailing brethren.  India also expected that the results accruing from this
mechanism would not be negated by the creation of  cumbersome systems that would lead to huge
delays in getting medicines across at reasonable cost to those that needed them or discourage
Members from using the system for the benefit of the people.  In order to make this system successful,
a sincere collective effort was required on the part of all Members and the entire pharmaceuticalindustry.
53. The representative of Jamaica said his delegation was pleased at the breakthrough on this
Decision.  Even though Members had missed the deadline given by Ministers to find a solution by
2002, a late Decision was better than none at all.  Jamaica was also pleased at the flexibility displayed
during consultations on the Decision, particularly si nce all had had to make compromises in the spirit
of accommodating the concerns of all.  Jamaica supported the Decision in IP/C/W/405 as the best
possible solution, even though there were aspects of the text with which it was dissatisfied, and which
were well-known to Members.  Jamaica was concerned that CARICOM was not covered under
Paragraph 6 of the Decision which related to RTAs.  The needs of the region in the area of access to
pharmaceuticals were considerable even though CARICOM only consisted of one LDC.  Despite the
concern that Jamaica was not covered by this provision, it supported the Decision in the spirit of
flexibility and with the understanding that the criteria under Paragraph 6 of the Decision would notprejudice the normal applicability of measures under a regional patent system.
54. The representative of Guinea said her delegation was pleased at the adoption of this historic
Decision, which would have an impact on millions of Africans and give them access to necessary
medicines.  She supported the statement by Morocco on behalf of the African Group.  This Decision
showed that the WTO was still a reliable system capable of finding solutions to problems facingdeveloping countries in general, and the most vulnerable Members of the multilateral trading system
in particular.  She thanked all those concerned for their efforts, and particularly the US Ambassador
who had spared no efforts in consulting with the African Group to explain the text to be adopted, as
well as South Africa and Kenya for having represented Guinea during the negotiations and having
defended its interests so well.
55. The representative of El Salvador welcomed that a solution had been found to an issue of
great importance to many developing countries with populations that were or could become seriously
affected by epidemics.  El Salvador hoped and believed that, in accordance with the rights and
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, the step Memb ers had just taken would enable them to strike
a proper balance between their trade and development pol icies, in particular with  regard to an issue asWT/GC/M/82
Page 14
critical as health.  He paid tribute to all who had endeavoured to pave the way for this successful
outcome.
56. The representative of Benin associated his delegation with the statement by Morocco on
behalf of the African Group.  In taking this Decision, Members had taken a major step forward
towards  finding appropriate solutions to the serious public health problems facing many developingcountries -- in particular the least-developed and African countries whose capacity to produce
medicines, including essential medicines, was either  insufficient or non-existent.  This was the first
piece of really good news that Members had sent out to the world before the Cancún Ministerial
Conference.  While the task had not been easy, the results were satisfactory.  Benin hoped that the
spirit of cooperation just witnessed would continue to prevail and contribute to the effective,
harmonious and consistent implementation of the provisions of this Decision in the field within the
affected countries.  He expressed gratitude to all who had worked so hard to achieve this result, andhoped that the positive momentum that had been initiated would continue on in Cancún so that
Members would be able to find appropriate solutions to other major problems of development and
survival facing certain WTO Members.
57. The representative of Nicaragua asked that the statement by his delegation at the informal
Heads of Delegation meeting on 29 August be reflected in the records of this meeting.5
58. The representative of Uganda recalled that, about three years earlier, Zimbabwe on behalf of
the African Group had tabled African proposals regarding TRIPS and Public Health.  At that time the
WTO, and the TRIPS Agreement in particular, was being perceived as part of the problem instead of
the solution to public health.  However, at Doha, Members had been able to adopt the Declaration on
TRIPS and Public Health which had clarified that the TRIPS Agreement could also be a facilitatorinstead of a problem.  He was pleased with the compromises that had been made at the time, and that
Ministers had instructed the TRIPS Council to find an expeditious solution to the problem of countries
with little or no manufacturing capacity and to repo rt to the General Council before the end of 2002.
Members had come a long way since then, and had been able now to adopt this Decision.  He
particularly welcomed Paragraph 6 of the Decision, which was intended to harness economies of scaleand enhance purchasing power for, and facilitating the local production of, pharmaceutical products,
as well as Paragraph 7 which paid special attention to transfer of technology and capacity-building in
this sector.  He was pleased with the Decision that had been adopted, and thanked all those who had
participated in building a consensus.  Although he had initially had misgivings about the secretive
manner of the consultations, success had been achieved and he commended all who had been
involved.  As he had argued previously, procedures could be very useful, but they could also become
a problem if the spirit was not willing.  However, where there was a will, the spirit could lead touseful solutions, and he hoped that the Decision would be implemented in spirit and not necessarily
following the letter.
59. The representative of Canada said he joined in the sense of pride that all felt that morning.  He
wished to reemphasize his thanks in particular to the current and preceding Chairmen of the TRIPS
Council, notwithstanding the fact that everyone in the organization deserved thanks.  Hindsight wasalways 20-20.  A number of colleagues had considered that the process could, and should, have been a
little better.  However, things often worked in ebbs and flows in this organization – they got off track
and then they got back on track.  So delegations should not charge the TRIPS Council Chairman's
enthusiasm, but rather thank him for wanting pragmatically to get the job done and to get it done
before Cancún.  Thanks were also due to the US, which had to build some important bridges at home,which was always complex and difficult, and then had to build bridges internationally with its
partners.  Credit was due also to a number of delegations who had responded to an appeal to share
their experiences and insights and to discuss with their colleagues how they had overcome their
concerns to support the text.  This had helped others overcome some of their concerns.  Finally, he
                                                     
5 See Annex II.WT/GC/M/82
Page 15
offered special thanks to Africa who had spoken with one voice, and who had been strong as well as
moving, and very patient over the past year in such life and death circumstances.  They had again they
demonstrated how some of the poorest, smallest and most troubled Members in the WTO could make
such a difference and impact on the decisions that Members made and also give this organization a bit
of heart and soul.  He asked that the statement by his delegation at the informal Heads of Delegationmeeting on 29 August also be reflected in the records of this meeting.
6
60. The representative of Indonesia welcomed the Decision just adopted, and hoped it would
contribute to more affordable-priced medicines and to relieving the suffering of millions of the
world's poorest.  The number of lives that had been uselessly lost in Africa due to the lack of access to
medicines had greatly undermined the fundamental human rights of the African people.  While fully
acknowledging that public health problems in Africa were critical and incomparable, Members could
not overlook the fact many people in Asia – where governments could only afford to spend less thanone dollar per capita on medicines – were also very susceptible to public health problems.  It was
Members' collective responsibility to ensure that this Decision was fully implemented, and one that all
were committed to.  While he understood that the Chairman's Statement represented some key shared
understandings of Members, it was without prejudice to the rights, obligations, and flexibilities that
Members had under the Decision on the Implementati on of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on
TRIPS and Public Health, as well as to the TRIPS Agreement itself.
61. Indonesia was fully committed to using the system established under this Declaration in good
faith, and acknowledged that the system should be used to pursue public health policy objectives and
not for industrial or commercial policy objectives.  While Indonesia recognized that safeguards were
needed to prevent diversions, they should however not have a significant impact on price and shouldnot be implemented in such a way as to discourage potential exporting Members from providing
needed pharmaceutical products to importing Members under the system.  Countries such as
Indonesia, with some manufacturing capacity, intended to use the system only when its domestic
industry was incapable of producing the needed pharmaceutical products at a reasonable cost.  In this
regard, the issue of assessment of manufacturing capacities was an important element of the Decisionfor his delegation.  It was his understanding that approval was not needed from any WTO body for
Members to use the system.  Finally, he thanked all those who had given his delegation
encouragement over the past few days, as well as those who had provided it with further clarifications
which had helped to ease its concerns.
62. The representative of Japan joined others in congratulating all those delegations who had
made this result possible, as well as the Chairman of the General Council who had been instrumental
in coming to this conclusion, and the Director-General and the Secretariat.  He also paid tribute to theAfrican delegations who had movingly appealed to everyone's conscience to respond to the critical
needs of their people and communities.  The African continent's plight and the appeal of its members
was one of the major forces that had driven this process, and it was this which had touched all
Members in a spirit of solidarity to move to arrive at this very happy result.  Japan was privileged and
pleased to be a part of this historic Decision.
63. The representative of China said the solution on this public health issue was not just a minor
success, but demonstrated that Members shared the common understanding that, while protection of
intellectual property rights was important, it could not be put ahead of fundamental humanitarian
considerations.  No one could tolerate seeing millions of patients in poorer countries suffering on the
verge of death while no action was taken to save their lives because of tight intellectual propertyprotection disciplines.  In this respect, China fully  concurred with the statements by Brazil, Argentina
and India on the implementation of this Decision.  China faced similar situations as those found in
Africa, with more than one million people who were HIV-positive, and had recently overcome the
serious attacks by the previously unknown SARS disease.  This Decision was a success for the WTO,
                                                     
6 See Annex II.WT/GC/M/82
Page 16
the peoples of developing countries and the whole of mankind.  It would certainly have a positive
impact on the ongoing Doha Development Agenda nego tiations, and he hoped that this spirit would
prevail in this organization for future work.
64. The representative of Norway welcomed the Decision just taken, which was timely, important
and of great humanitarian value.  Norway had follow ed this process closely.  Its point of departure
had been, and continued to be, that it wanted the WTO to contribute to solving the crucial health
problems in many parts of the world, in particular on the African continent.  The contribution from the
WTO at the present meeting was only one element in the efforts to solve the health crisis at hand.  It
was still an important factor both politically and as a practical tool.  Norway hoped that this Decision
would be a workable solution, and that it showed  that this organization had the ability to solve
humanitarian as well as development issues when faced with them.  He thanked all those who had
contributed constructively to this process.
65. The representative of Switzerland said his delegation was extremely pleased that Members
had taken a major decision for this organization and for multilateral cooperation.  He asked that the
statement by his delegation at the informal Heads of Delegation meeting on 29 August also be
reflected in the records of this meeting.7
66. The representative of Senegal associated his delegation with the statement by Morocco on
behalf of the African countries, and thanked all those who had participated in this historic Decision, in
particular the General Council Chairman and the current and preceding Chairmen of the TRIPS
Council.  He hoped that the Decision would be implemented collectively by Members, by the
pharmaceutical industry, by national administrations in both developed and developing countries, by
NGOs and the peoples concerned, and that it would be  implemented to the benefit of all.  He asked
that the statement by his delegation at the informal Heads of Delegation meeting on 29 August also be
reflected in the records of this meeting.8
67. The representative of Costa Rica said his delegation was very pleased that the General
Council had finally been able to adopt this Deci sion.  There was no question that this was, as the
Director-General had stated, a historic mome nt.  At Doha, Ministers had acknowledged the
seriousness of the public health problems faced by many developing countries, notably African
countries.  His delegation was satisfied that this acknowledgement had now been placed on a formal
basis, although this should not be taken to mean that  Members' intense discussions on this issue in the
interim failed to reflect its gravity.  He paid tribute to all delegations who, in one way or another, had
played a part in achieving a positive outcome on this issue, which was of such great importance on
both an individual and global level.  He paid tribute too to the current and preceding Chairmen of the
TRIPS Council, and to the General Council Chairm an for his final efforts and leadership.  In
concluding, he stressed the great significance to the organization of having resolved this issue prior to
the Cancún Ministerial Conference:  first, because it was a critical matter for developing countries;
second, because Members were thereby injecting momentum into the negotiations, which was vital in
view of their current status;  and, finally, because Members were helping to instil confidence in the
organization and preventing its reputation from becoming tarnished by showing that they could indeedresolve, albeit somewhat belatedly, a humanitarian issue and were thus doing their bit towards dealing
with such a serious problem.
68. The representative of Uruguay joined all those who had expressed their appreciation to the
current and preceding Chairmen of the TRIPS Council, the Director-General and the General Council
Chairman.  All delegations had also worked intensively in order to reach this compromise solution.Uruguay was very satisfied that at long last Members in this organization had been able to contribute
to a reply to the humanitarian problems afflicting so many.  The very fact that Members had reached
                                                     
7 See Annex II.
8 See Annex II.WT/GC/M/82
Page 17
an understanding before Cancún was a very important political signal which hopefully would have
positive repercussions on other aspects of the ongoing negotiations.
69. The representative of Ecuador expressed appreciation to the Chairman for his efforts in the
General Council, as well as to all those who had made it possible for Members to reach this Decision,
which he hoped would benefit the neediest of those w ho really needed these medicines.  He asked that
the statement by his delegation at the informal Heads of Delegation meeting on 29 August also be
reflected in the records of this meeting.9
70. The representative of the Philippines said that, while the mention of public health issues
would perhaps bring forth a general and universal concern, the massive deaths arising from the
scourge of HIV/AIDS and epidemics of a similar nature, afflicting Africa in particular, had deeper
human, personal and family implications.  The Philippines was deeply pleased and relieved to have
completed the present process with a successful conclusion so that Members could now fullyimplement the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and P ublic Health.  This was the embodiment of the
collective will and abiding concern of this organization, and its individual Members, to embrace the
nobler cause of humanity even as it struggled with commercial issues.  He asked that the statement by
his delegation at the informal Heads of Delegation meeting on 29 August also be reflected in the
records of this meeting.
10  However, he had particular instructions from his capital to reiterate that
upon further reflection, particularly on the moving plight of the African countries, and the deep
yearning that this solution would ameliorate the prolonged and continued health crisis with its
debilitating implications on a large part of this single universe, the Philippines fully supported the
consensus on this Decision and the Chairman's Statement without reservation.
71. The representative of Malaysia joined others in welcoming adoption of the Decision.  He was
pleased that Members had finally brought this exercise to a successful conclusion as this could only
contribute to complementary efforts under way to overcome public health problems.  He wished to
thank all those involved for their efforts in bringi ng this exercise to a successful conclusion, and in
particular the current and preceding Chairmen of  the TRIPS Council, the General Council Chairman,
the Director-General and the Secretariat.  In addition to expressing appreciation to the keyAmbassadors who had assumed a proactive role in this exercise, he wished to commend also the
efforts of all Members in exercising flexibility and compromise.  This was an example that all should
try to emulate in dealing with the othe r issues of the Doha Work Programme.
72. The Decision was a very carefully crafted document that operationalized paragraph 6 of the
Doha Declaration, allowing the issue of compulso ry licences to third countries for the manufacture
and export of medicines, yet containing sufficient safeguards to contain diversion and misuse.
Malaysia recognized that the Chairman's Statemen t was meant to provide a certain level of comfort
needed for a consensus on the Decision, and welcomed the assurance in the Statement that it was
limited in application and implication only to the paragraph 6 solution under the Doha Declaration on
TRIPS and Public Health.  Malaysia also recognized that the Chair's Statement was without prejudice
to Members' rights under the Decision, or the rights provided under the TRIPS Agreement and the
Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.  This had also been highlighted in paragraph 9 of the
Decision.  It was a sovereign right of Members under the TRIPS Agreement to decide on the grounds
to issue a compulsory license as well as to make a self-determination that it had no or insufficient
manufacturing capacity.  It was also understood that a notification which contained information on the
intention to use paragraph 6, as well as on how insufficient manufacturing capacity in the
pharmaceutical sector was established, did not need to be approved by any WTO body in order for thesystem to be used.  This was clearly reflected in footnotes 2 and 8 of the Decision.  Further, the Annex
to the Decision clearly stated that examination of capacities undertaken by the Member concerned and
the information to be provided could be concise.  In Malaysia's understanding, the Chair's Statement
                                                     
9 See Annex II.
10 See Annex II.WT/GC/M/82
Page 18
would not contradict the Decision just adopted, and it was very pleased to have joined in the
consensus to accept the Chair's Statement and to adopt the Decision.  In concluding, he hoped that the
same spirit and consideration as was shown in dealin g with this issue would also be shown on other
issues that also constituted the heart and soul of many developing countries.
73. The representative of Chile joined others in expressing satisfaction that consensus had been
reached on this matter.  There had been many heroes in this long journey, and he shared in the tributes
expressed in this regard by Canada.  He was pleased too that the previous TRIPS Council Chair's
name would be associated with this success.  While Members had been successful, they had to
recognize that this solution had been late in coming, and that this was because of the ways in which
they worked.  While Members might get things right, they were sometimes too late and this could
undermine their credibility as well as the political and public support they needed throughout the
current negotiations and beyond.  They therefore had to reflect on the ways in which they madedecisions.  It was satisfying to see that even though Members had not been able to reach a consensus
in December 2002, they had never lost the will nor sight of the need to act, and had kept a high sense
of the need to make good public policies at the global scale.  He trusted this political will and
momentum would be maintained into Cancún to face  other trade issues.  He expressed disappointment
at some of the reactions to this Decision from some NGOs.  They seemed to understand little, andtheir positions did a disservice to the interests of the poor whom they professed so much to protect.
74. The representative of Australia joined others in welcoming this historic Decision.  He
welcomed too that the WTO had been able to send this important signal of its determination to assist,
in areas within its competency, the grave situation faced in Africa and other parts of the world
afflicted by AIDS and other serious epidemics.  He thanked all those who had been closely involvedin this matter, including the current and preceding Chairmen of the TRIPS Council, the US, as well as
the Members of the African Group for whom this Decision and outcome was of such significance.  It
had been said many times that resolving the TRIPS and Public Health issue was a vital first step to
ensuring a successful Cancún meeting.  Having now achieved this, Members moved forward to
Cancún in the hope that a similar spirit of good will and cooperation would ensure a successfulmeeting there and the realization of the other Doha goals that were so vital to future world economic
growth and development.
75. The representative of Bangladesh said he was delighted at the adoption of this Decision by
consensus in the light of the Chairman's Statement.  He congratulated all, including the Secretariat,
whose efforts had contributed to this process, and in particular the current and preceding Chairmen of
the TRIPS Council for their outstanding contributions.  Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on
TRIPS and Public Health was designed to address the problems of those with insufficient or nomanufacturing capacities.  He hoped a solution had now been found to meet the needs of the
particularly disadvantaged countries, and that Members would cooperate to make the Decision and the
accompanying Chair's Statement operational, th ereby making the Declaration adopted at Doha
effective.  He asked that the statement by his delegation at the informal Heads of Delegation meeting
on 29 August also be reflected in the records of this meeting.
11
76. The representative of Colombia said the Decision just adopted was of great importance for
humanitarian and systemic reasons.  From the humanitarian standpoint, his delegation would have
wished to see a decision reached some months earlier.  However, he welcomed the fact that Members
had managed to conclude an issue that was of such importance for many Members.  From the
systemic standpoint, the Decision was also very important because it showed that this organization,despite the fact that it sometimes had difficulties taking decisions, was able to respond positively to
the needs of developing countries.  With this  Decision, Members had ensured that the Doha
Development Agenda was not just a name but also one which reflected real decisions.  The Decision
would also be very helpful in creating a good atmosphere for discussions at Cancún, and he hoped
                                                     
11 See Annex II.WT/GC/M/82
Page 19
that Members would actually be able to make the decisions necessary at that meeting on a number of
different trade issues which required completion.  He thanked all colleagues who had taken an active
part in this process, and in particular the current and preceding Chairmen of the TRIPS Council, as
well as the General Council Chairman and the Director-General.
77. The representative of Rwanda welcomed the Decision, which represented a milestone in the
history of multilateral trade.  Indeed, the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health was a
political interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement, desi gned to enable poorer countries to resolve grave
public health problems by circumventing the patents system.  In particular, paragraph 6 of the
Decision afforded special treatment for Africa, which was beset by grave public health problems on a
scale unacceptable in the 21st century.  She thanked all Members for making this solemn
commitment.  The Decision showed that delegations had finally heeded the African delegations, who
had spoken loudly and clearly in describing the disastrous realities facing their countries.  Rwanda,which was recovering from the aftermath of genocide, intended to make proper use of the Decision in
order to forge ahead with its development plan, for without health there could be no development.  In
this regard, she expressed renewed gratitude to the US for undertaking to assist Africa in overcoming
grave public health problems, in particular those related to HIV/AIDS.  This Decision should be
viewed as a stage in a process. While Africa indeed enjoyed a form of special treatment underparagraph 6 of the text, it was also true that the appropriate response should come from the effective
implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agr eement on the transfer of technology which her
continent so sorely lacked.  That being said, the step just taken was already highly significant.  She
extended her thanks to all those who had made every possible effort to ensure the successful outcome
of this final phase.  With this historic Decision, the WTO had given new meaning to multilateraltrade, and she trusted that the spirit in which it had been adopted would guide all at Cancún and
beyond.
78. The representative of Zambia expressed gratitude to all those who had made it possible to
arrive at this historic Decision, including the current and preceding Chairmen of the TRIPS Council,
the General Council Chairman and the Director-General, as well as to the representatives of a numberof key delegations for their commitment to the cause of Africa and the world at large.  He hoped that
the spirit of understanding and the commitment to humanity shown by all WTO Members in arriving
at this Decision would continue at Cancún and beyond.
79. The representative of Czech Republic said that this was an important day for all, and in
particular for those who had struggled.  The WTO had shown once more that it was not only sensitive
to the needs of its Members but could also provide them with the appropriate tools to pursue their
legitimate policy concerns and address the major problems they faced.  Members had been striving forsome time to have an institution that was sufficiently responsive to the pressing challenges of the
present world and could contribute to the search for global solutions to global problems, and were
trying to promote freedom, growth and development through multilateral cooperation and through the
Doha Development Agenda.  He expressed gratitude  to all those who had shown sufficient good will
and a sincere desire to find a solution to this important humanitarian issue.  Without the greatflexibility demonstrated by everyone, Members could not have had any convergence towards an
agreement.  Like others, he thanked the current and preceding Chairmen of the TRIPS Council, the
General Council Chairman and the Director-General and his staff for their great work.
80. The representative of Sri Lanka said this Decision was a historic one which fulfilled a key
element of Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public H ealth.  It would facilitate and ensure affordable
medicines to millions of needy people in Africa and elsewhere.  His delegation therefore joined others
in thanking the Chairman of the General Council and the current and preceding Chairmen of the
TRIPS Council, as well as all other delegations who ha d contributed to this exercise, in particular theWT/GC/M/82
Page 20
untiring efforts by the US delegation.  He asked that the statement by his delegation at the informal
Heads of Delegation meeting on 29 August also be reflected in the records of this meeting.12
81. The representative of the United States said she was pleased that all Members had come
together to resolve this very complex and important issue.  Over the past eight months, many
participants from her Government, other countries and the pharmaceutical industry had workedtogether to find a constructive balance that ensured access to medicines by those most in need, while
not undermining intellectual property rights that fostered the research and development necessary to
produce life-saving drugs.  The Decision just adopted struck that appropriate balance, and would
ensure that patent rules did not prevent a country the lacked capacity to produce medicines itself from
obtaining them from abroad.  At the same time, it would put appropriate safeguards in place to ensure
that the solution would be used only for its intended purposes.  The United States recognized the
leadership and diplomatic skills that the current and preceding Chairmen of the TRIPS Council hadshown, as well as the support and counsel provided by other representatives with whom her
delegation had worked closely to devise this solution.  They all richly deserved the praise and
gratitude they had received from all delegations earlier in the week as well as that day, and that
appreciation was especially heartfelt from herself.  Members had travelled a long road together from
the pre-Doha discussions on this subject to the conclusion at the present meeting, but none had lostthe vision of the original concerns in responding to the horrific ravages that HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis,
malaria and other epidemics had brought to the world, and particularly to the continent of Africa.  All
had been touched the previous day when African delegations had reminded them of how this Decision
had been all about their urgent needs, and she was pleased that they had all found the means to reach
out and help address those needs.  She thanked them personally for their understanding and support.The action at the present meeting demonstrated how WTO Members could and did come together to
promote the greater good.  She could think of no finer way to finish work in Geneva as Members
prepared to head off to the Cancún Ministerial Conference.
82. The representative of the Slovak Republic said that a day before the informal TRIPS Council
meeting, he had been struck by the constructive positive atmosphere among delegations, which had
been missing throughout the past several months.  He was happy to be present at this historic moment,
and joined other in expressing appreciation to those who had participated most, in particular the
current and preceding Chairpersons of the TRIPS Council and the General Council Chairman, who
had shown almost unlimited optimism and a commitment to seek a solution.  Their efforts had been
complemented by the tireless engagement of the US Ambassador and others to convince those who
had been most concerned.  He also paid tribute to the many others had also contributed to this
successful result, but who were less often mentioned.  This Decision was hopefully the breakthroughfor building bridges for Cancún, and he hoped this spirit would be ever present.
83. The representative of the European Communities joined others in welcoming this Decision.
He recalled that his delegation was one of those which had contributed actively to the work that had
led to the text of 16 December 2002.  He thanked all those who had made great efforts in the past few
weeks leading to adoption of the present Decision, and wished to underscore, like others, that thisDecision was an excellent signal for the Cancún Ministerial Conference.
84. The representative of Mexico said the Decision just taken had been a difficult one to reach,
and showed a great commitment to flexibility by all delegations in this organization.  Members were
thereby sending a very important signal to the worl d – a signal that they were all committed to the
multilateral trading system.  They were also sending a very important signal to those countries ingreatest need, particularly the countries in Africa.  He believed that now that the Decision had been
taken, it was the obligation of Members to defend it.  It would certainly be attacked on all sides
outside the organization, by pharmaceutical companies, NGOs and many sectors of society, and he
believed Members now had a collective responsibility to defend it.
                                                     
12 See Annex II.WT/GC/M/82
Page 21
85. The representative of Nigeria joined others in thanking all those who had made this Decision
possible.  With it, Members had collectively succeeded in resolving a key issue on their agenda.  He
hoped that the positive spirit which had made the Decision possible would continue to guide Members
so they could make breakthroughs in other areas.  Nigeria was pleased with this Decision.
86. The representative of Panama wished to re iterate Panama's statement to the Council for
TRIPS on 27 August in which it had expressed Panama 's strong support for the adoption of the draft
decision in IP/C/W/405, and for the Statement by the Chairman of the General Council in
JOB(03)/177.  By that support, Panama's Government confirmed its contribution to solidarity with
and responsibility vis-à-vis  the international community.  In a small country such as Panama, with a
population of just under three million, they were aware of and distressed by the fact that millions of
people suffering from harmful diseases around the world – more than the entire population of Panama
– died each year.  Consequently, Panama had called on delegations concerned to agree to adoption ofthe draft decision by consensus in order to send a strong signal to the international community and to
provide a constructive framework for the negotiations ahead in Cancún.
87. The representative of the Holy See, speaking as an observer
, expressed her delegation's
congratulations and gratitude to the organization, the Director-General, the Chairman of the General
Council, the current and preceding Chairmen of th e TRIPS Council, as well as to all the political
leaders in Geneva who had unstintingly worked to find a Decision that was acceptable and viable for
all.  This was an historic turning point and a de cisive sign showing the world that trade could open
itself to the needs of humanity and respond to the broadest well-being of the individual.  The Holy See
sincerely hoped that this realistic and historic turning point would be a promise of success for the very
hard work ahead in Cancún.
88. The Chairman of the Council for TRIPS said that the Decision just taken was the outcome of
months of intensive and difficult negotiations since Doha.  He was pleased that Members had arrived
at this solution as mandated under paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.
It would send a strong message to the international community that this organization was willing and
able to respond effectively to the health problems faced by many countries.  He hoped that thissuccess would generate confidence in and add momentum to negotiations in other areas.  Many had
paid tribute to him for this success.  In expressing  his thanks, he believed that the credit should rightly
go to the entire membership.  All had shown flexibility, and had helped him in one way or other.  He
was particularly grateful to colleagues from the African Group for their staunch support throughout
the difficult process and for their solid endorsement of this consensus.  He was also grateful to the
Ambassadors of South Africa, India, Kenya and Brazil, all of whom he had used as a sounding board
in preparing the General Council Chairman's statement.  They had been extremely patient and haddisplayed remarkable negotiating skills throughout the process, and he thanked them for their political
courage and flexibility, especially in making every possible effort to overcome differences and work
out an outcome acceptable to all.  He paid special tribute to the US Ambassador for her tireless and
constructive efforts in forging this consensus.  It was no secret that her role had been critical in
bringing her Government and industry on board, and her commitment to the issue, her tireless effortsin reaching out to various delegations, and the patience she had displayed throughout the negotiations
had been exemplary.  Ultimately, Members owed their success to the foundations laid down by his
predecessor, and without the latter's immense contri butions to the negotiating process they would not
be where they were.  His predecessor's commitment to work of the TRIPS Council needed no further
elaboration.  Credit was due to the latter for the draft text of 16 December 2002, which had served asthe basis for Members to bring their work to a successful conclusion at the present meeting.  For
many, the 16 December text that had just been adopted would always be known as the "Motta" text, in
honour of his predecessor's name.  The latter's skill and leadership had been instrumental in narrowing
differences and helping Members make significant progress in 2002.  He owed his predecessor a
personal note of thanks for the valuable advice the latter had provided since he had taken over theTRIPS Council Chair.  His gratitude went also to  the Secretariat for their unwavering commitment
and professionalism.  He also wished to thank th e Director-General, as well as the General CouncilWT/GC/M/82
Page 22
Chairman for the latter's support and confidence in him.  He hoped also to be able to speak to as many
delegations as possible following the meeting to th ank them personally for their role in this success.
89. The General Council took note of the statements.13
4. Preparations for the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference
(a) Attendance by International Intergovernmental Organizations as Observers – Requests by the
League of Arab States, Council of Europe Development Bank, North American Commission
for Environmental Cooperation, and United Nations Human Settlements Programme
90. The Chairman recalled that at its meeting in February, the General Council had agreed that in
keeping with past practice and the agreed Guidelines for observer status for IGOs in Annex 3 of the
General Council's Rules of Procedure, the Organizations invited to attend the Doha Ministerial
Conference would also be invited to attend th e Ministerial Conference in Cancún.  The General
Council had also agreed that consultations would be held on requests for observer status at the CancúnMinisterial Conference from any other IGOs that were not already observers at the Doha Ministerial
Conference, and who were neither observers in the General Council nor in other WTO bodies.
91. He recalled that the request from the League of Arab States had first been considered at the
May General Council meeting, where he had proposed that the General Council proceed in exactly the
same way on this request as it had in the past with regard to requests for observer status at MinisterialConferences from IGOs who were neither observers in the General Council nor in other WTO bodies.
Accordingly, he had proposed that, unless any objection was received by the Secretariat from any
Member by 15 June 2003, the League of Arab States be granted observer status to the Cancún
Ministerial Conference, and that he would, as in the past, inform the General Council at its next
meeting of the situation with regard to this request.   However, in the light of a reservation expressed
by Egypt to following past practice in regard to this request, the General Council had agreed to revert
to the request by the League of Arab States at its meeting in July.  At the July meeting, the General
Council had again considered this request, and had agreed to revert to it at the present meeting.  He
asked if delegations were in a position o approve the request for observer status from the League of
Arab States.
92. The representative of Israel said that his delegation was unable at the present time to agree to
the participation of the League of Arab States at the Fifth Session.
93. The representative of the United States said that his delegation was also not in a position to
agree to the request by the League of Arab States.
94. The representative of Egypt, on behalf of the Arab Members , expressed disappointment over
the previous two interventions that would in effect not allow the League of Arab States to attend the
Fifth Session for merely political considerations.  As he had stated on previous occasions, the requestby the Arab League was based on economic and trade grounds, in conformity with existing WTO
rules, and hence it should have received a positive response from the General Council.  At a time
when most Members were striving to find a solution to the overall issue of observer status for IGOs, it
seemed that this goal was not shared by all Members.  He regretted this, and hoped that there would
be a positive attitude during consideration of the League's pending request for observer status in sixstanding bodies of the WTO.
95. The representative of Jordan regretted that the request from the League could not be granted
given that it was the body that monitored and administered the free-trade area among all countries in
the region and all of the economic relations and cooperation among the Arab countries in the region.
                                                     
13 Including the statements reflected in Annex II.WT/GC/M/82
Page 23
96. The representative of Cuba said her delegation too regretted that it was not possible to reach a
positive solution to this matter, and supported the st atement by Egypt.  Cuba regretted that elements
of a political nature were being brought into the organization.
97. The General Council took note of the statements.
98. The Chairman then recalled that at its meeting in July, the General Council had considered
the requests from the Council of Europe De velopment Bank, North American Commission for
Environmental Cooperation and United Nations Human Settlements Programme for observer status at
the Cancún Ministerial Conference.  In keeping with customary practice, he had invited delegations
wishing to consult the communications sent by these organizations to contact the External Relations
Division of the Secretariat, and had proposed that unless an objection was received by the Secretariat
from any Member by 15 August, these organizations be granted observer status to the Cancún
Ministerial Conference.  He had also proposed that , as in past, he would inform the General Council
at its next meeting of the resulting action with re gard to these requests.  However, the delegation of
Egypt had suggested that it would be more appropriate to deal with all pending requests in the same
manner, and the General Council had agreed to revert to these requests at the present meeting.  He
asked if delegations were in a position to approve the requests for observer status from these four
organizations.
99. The representative of Egypt, on behalf of the Arab Members , expressed these countries' wish
to see all IGOs which had an interest in the WTO's work attend the Ministerial Conference.  However,
they were not in a position to agree to a selective approach in agreeing to the pending requests from
IGOs.  They stood ready to engage constructively in any further discussion on this issue.
100. The representative of Kenya expressed her delegation's full support for the request from the
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat).  This was a UN agency with
headquarters in Kenya and with a mandate to promote the sustainable development of cities and other
human settlements in an increasingly urbanizing world.  Examples of specific programmes undertaken
by UN-Habitat included monitoring urban economic development, employment, poverty reduction
and urban investment.  It also helped strengthen rural-urban linkages, infrastructure development, andpublic services delivery.  In this respect, the ac tivities of UN-Habitat had relevance to the wider
perspective of the Doha Development Agenda.  In fact, UN-Habitat's functions were more supportive
of trade than some of the organizations that already had observer status in the WTO.  As a UN
agency, UN-Habitat could not be placed at the same level of regional organizations.  It was therefore
important that its request be granted, in order to enable it to follow events at the Ministerial
Conference as well the outcome and the implications for its work programme.  Kenya urged Members
to fully support the request and not to treat UN-Habitat in the same way as the other threeorganizations requesting observer status at Cancún.
101. The representative of Egypt said that her delegation agreed in principle on the importance of
UN-Habitat, but could not take a selective approach.  Egypt wished to highlight the importance it
attached to the attendance of UN-Habitat as well as other regional organizations at the Cancún
Ministerial Conference.  The requests before Members were confined to that Ministerial Conference,which could be considered as just a mid-term revi ew of the Doha agenda.  Egypt remained ready to
work with other delegations, especially Kenya, in order to find an appropriate solution to the overall
issue of observers that would respect the existing rules of the WTO.
102. The representative of Canada said that his delegation respected the huge sensitivities involved
in this issue.  At some point in the future, the issue of observership perhaps merited greater reflection
and political consideration.  The current treatment of the broad issue of observership in the WTO was
seen outside the organization as childish and amateurish, and the organization did not gain anything
from this.  While Ministers got together to launc h, move forward and conclude trade rounds, at some
point they should also reflect on the way the organization dealt with issues like observership, theWT/GC/M/82
Page 24
budget, and governance.  While Ministers should not be burdened with day-to-day issues, some of
these issues – if not attended to at a political level – could begin to corrode the effectiveness and
image of the organization.  A number of issues could be bundled that Heads of Delegation, or even
Ministers, could reflect on.  In the long term, these issues were ignored to the peril of the way the
organization operated, particularly as the membership and the agenda grew.
103. The representative of Morocco supported the statement by Canada regarding observership and
fully endorsed the view that it was high time for the organization to show political maturity and to
finally settle this matter by agreeing on a certain number of principles that would govern observership
matters, particularly for regional and international organizations.  As things currently stood, a certain
number of organizations had been taken hostage by highly political considerations.  A number of
organizations had been left outside WTO activities when they could have given logistical and
intellectual support as well as research and analysis support for delegations.  This matter should eitherbe sent on to Ministers or looked into by the Secretariat and delegations together so that certain
principles and rules of conduct could be set down on paper.  Observership, particularly as Members
reached certain milestones such as Cancún, should have been dealt with to the satisfaction of all
organizations wishing to participate.  In a number of countries, particularly in the Arab world, it could
not be understood why an Arab organization representin g tens of millions inhabitants and that had a
role to play and a contribution to make, should be left outside unable to participate and to transmit the
economic concerns and interests of the countries it included.  Morocco had always agreed that the
WTO was an economic negotiating body that should prepare rules and support liberalization for world
trade.  However, political aspects had slipped in and were hampering Members' work.  Morocco
hoped this issue could be resolved as soon as possible and placed its trust in the Director-General andthe General Council Chairman that this matter would be dealt with squarely.
104. The representative of Kenya supported the statement by Canada.  It would be pointless to ask
the WTO to work with relevant organizations if it continued to block their observership, and UN-
Habitat was a clear example of the type of organi zation the WTO should work with.  UN-Habitat was
an agency of the UN, in which many if not all WTO Members were members.  Therefore, it shouldnot be accorded the same treatment as other organizations.
105. The representative of Djibouti agreed with the statements by Canada, Morocco and Kenya.
The WTO worked on the basis of consensus, and if political considerations were allowed in, this
could hamper its proper functioning.  IGOs seeking observership should be dealt with on an equal
footing and Members should avoid politicizing this issue.  As Canada and Morocco had said, if
Members allowed politics to infiltrate the organization, this would harm its functioning.  No
distinctions should be made among organizations that wished to be observers in the WTO in order tomake a contribution in the economic and development areas.
106. The Chairman said that on the issue raised by Canada – which he personally also considered
important since Members had been pursuing this issue without resolution for some time, and which
had an impact on the functioning and credibility of the organization – there was no time prior to
Cancún to devote to it the time and attention that it de served.  However, he intended to reflect with the
Director-General as to how best to deal with this issue after Cancún and would report to Members on
their thinking as soon as possible.  He proposed that , in view of the present situation and the fact that
it had not been possible to reach a consensus on any of these requests, the General Council take note
of the statements and revert to this issue in the broader context of its implications in the near future.
107. The General Council so agreed.WT/GC/M/82
Page 25
(b) Implementation and adequacy of technical cooperation and capacity-building commitments in
the Doha Ministerial Declaration –  Report by the Director-General pursuant to paragraph 41
of the Doha Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(03)/3)
108. The Chairman recalled that paragraph 41 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration called on the
Director-General to report to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference on the implementation
and adequacy of the commitments on technical cooperation and capacity building identified in
paragraphs 16, 21, 24, 26, 27, 33, 38-40, 42 and 43 of th e Doha Declaration.  At the General Council
meeting in July, the Director-General had informed Members that his report in WT/MIN(03)/3 would
be circulated shortly, and had made a substantive oral presentation highlighting the main elements of
the report.  The General Council had taken note that delegations would have an opportunity to
comment on the written report at the present meeting.
109. The representative of the United States asked that before the document was forwarded to
Cancún it be updated to reflect contributions that had been received since it was circulated.
110. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDCs, said that as a preliminary reaction
these countries wished to state that they welcomed the contents of the report which contained many
paragraphs that were extremely well written and many excellent elements.
111. The representative of Mauritius welcomed the report and wished especially to thank the
Director-General and his staff for translating the requirements of paragraph 41 into reality.  However,
while the report focussed on this collective undertaking involving the WTO and other partner
institutions of international organizations as well as regional development banks, he wished to
underscore the collective contribution of his country's partner Members who had helped make it
possible to proceed with this implementation programme.  In his delegation's view the programmehad been quite balanced, although there were still some shortcomings that were unavoidable in
programmes of such breadth and scope.  Mauritius could only hope that useful lessons would be
drawn that would guide the course of future delivery of such programmes with greater efficiency.  He
also wished to underscore that in Mauritius's view , the interests of all Members had been taken into
consideration, particularly the LDCs, the small, vulnerable and transition economies, as well as non-resident Members and Observers.  The WTO had continued to innovate and improve on its operation
of these programmes with the establishment of the Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation,
and there were possibilities for further progress.  The Secretariat had recently announced its intention
to introduce the trade policy clinics, and Mauritius hoped that this programme would fulfil all its
promises to truly bring Members concerned to grapple with the complex issues on the WTO agenda.
The Technical Cooperation Audit should remain an integral part of the technical assistance
programme as it would ensure that quality and efficien cy were maintained in the delivery of technical
assistance, that slippages would be avoided, and that the lessons drawn from past errors and
shortcomings would lead to further improvement.  The programme should continue on its useful
course and note should be taken of what the Secretariat had already earmarked in terms of product
development, quality and sustainability of activities.
112. The representative of Kenya welcomed the report and congratulated the Director-General and
the Secretariat for the excellent work carried out t hus far in the delivery of technical assistance and
capacity building and wished to encourage them to cont inue to provide this very useful service.  Like
Mauritius, Kenya too felt it would have been appropriate to include a short line in the report
commending donor countries for their contributions.  Given that continued support was being sought,
perhaps there should be a sentence to the effect that countries were very grateful for what had beenreceived thus far and commended the donors for that support.
113. The representative of Canada said his delegation agreed with the sentiments expressed by
Bangladesh and others who had welcomed the report and who felt it was a very solid report that spoke
to the increase in activities, energies and time that Members had collectively devoted to technicalWT/GC/M/82
Page 26
assistance since Doha.  Canada also felt that the WTO-OECD database in and of itself was a huge
accomplishment.  This was a very good new story that Members should promote and ultimately build
upon.
114. The representative of Djibouti said that this area was very close to his delegation's heart, and
he could only express appreciation for the way this report had been drafted, and also wished to
express thanks to the donor countries.  The programme would evolve over time depending on the
needs of countries.  As an African LDC, Djibouti could only congratulate the Director-General.  After
Cancún, there would be other events that had to do with technical assistance, and his delegation
welcomed this.
115. The representative of South Africa said his delegation wished to add its voice to the support
for the report of the Director-General, and wish ed to encourage the inclusion in the section on
technical cooperation the increased collaboration that countries had begun to develop, particularlywith sister institutions such as the ITC and UNCTAD.  Although the IF and JITAP programmes had
been mentioned, his delegation would suggest men tioning the progress made in building joint
programmes with UNCTAD on a number of the capacity-building programmes and ITC, particularly
regarding training and capacity-building in collaboration with the private sector in a number of
countries throughout the world.  This should be mentioned in order to build on it and to begin to worktowards a much broader integrated programme building on the coherence mentioned in paragraph 27
in order to begin to tackle some of the deeper problems of capacity building in developing countries.
116. The representative of Barbados said that in his delegation's view, the WTO had taken a
serious and positive approach to the implementation of the Doha mandates on trade-related technical
assistance and capacity building.  The Secretariat had worked assiduously to develop and deliverinnovative and appropriately tailored programmes.  It should also be recognized that the membership
had made great efforts to make available the funding that would be necessary to meet the objectives
identified.  His delegation was happy to note that these two elements complemented each other well.
Barbados thanked the Director-General, the Secretariat, the donors and the institutional partners for
their efforts and contributions.  Based on the positive results to date, Barbados was hopeful that itsexpectations for the implementation of the Doha t echnical cooperation mandates would continue to be
met.  These expectations were simple:  Barbados ex pected that the priorities outlined in paragraph 38
of the Doha Ministerial Declaration for the delivery by the WTO of technical assistance and capacity
building activities would continue to be respected, that no new conditionalities would be applied to
the use of technical assistance funds, and that the Secretariat would continue to exhibit flexibility and
responsiveness to the needs identified by developing countries.
117. The General Council took note of the statements and of the report by the Director-General in
document WT/MIN(03)/3, which would be updated and forwarded to the Ministerial Conference.
118. The Director-General expressed his appreciation for the remarks and thoughtful
recommendations made regarding the execution of the trade-related technical assistance programme.
He had taken note of these and would certainly follow up on the recommendations that had been
made.  One could not thank enough the donor countries who had so generously and consistentlycontributed to the Global Trust Fund.  At the same time, he wished to thank the recipient countries for
their understanding and cooperation in the kinds of programmes jointly executed with them.  These
programmes could not have been carried out without the donor and recipient countries working
closely with the Secretariat.  He also wished to pass on the thanks from Members to the staff for their
efforts in implementing these programmes, particularly Deputy Director-General Mr. Rana and histeam.  He had taken note of the need to work as closely as possible with other related international
organizations.  The Secretariat had been working with an array of such organizations and had signed
Memoranda of Understanding with a number of th em, and would be signing others so that the
Secretariat could deliver these programmes in the most efficient manner in future.WT/GC/M/82
Page 27
119. The General Council took note of the statement.
(c) Issues affecting least-developed countries – Report by the Director-General pursuant to
paragraph 43 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(03)/1)
120. The Chairman recalled that paragraph 43 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration called on the
Director-General, following coordination with Heads of the other Agencies in the Integrated
Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to LDCs, to provide a full report to the Fifth
Session of the Ministerial Conference on all issues affecting LDCs.  At the General Council meeting
in July, the Director-General had informed Members that his report in WT/MIN(03)/1 would be
circulated shortly, and had made a substantive oral presentation highlighting the main elements of the
report.  The General Council had taken note that delegations would have an opportunity to comment
on the written report at the present meeting.
121. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDCs, said that these countries welcomed
the report by the Director-General, which took a comprehensive look at WTO activities in favour of
LDCs and also the needs and concerns of LDCs in the face of their growing marginalization in the
WTO system.  There was a recognition of the special needs of the LDCs, and there were many
initiatives that the Director-General had himself taken, for example the establishment of the LDC Unit
within the Secretariat, which was now regularly assisting LDCs in their work on coordination in theWTO within the LDC Consultative Group.  The review  of activities was balanced, comprehensive and
took on board many of the concerns expressed by LDCs from time to time.  The section on
developments since the Fourth Ministerial Conference was good, because it reflected correctly, in the
LDCs' view, the major events that had taken place.  The LDCs hoped that Members had noted the
message in the report, which was pro-development and sought an outcome in the current process ofnegotiations that was pro-development.  The report also called upon Members to give real meaning to
the Doha Development Agenda.  The LDCs thanked the Director-General for his report and for his
special attention to the participation of the LDCs in the trade negotiations.
122. The representative of Djibouti expressed his delegation's sincere appreciation to the Director-
General.  What was important was that he had understood the needs of the LDCs when he became
Director-General and, as Bangladesh had said, had endeavoured from the outset of his term to set up a
special unit dealing with LDCs.  His delegation also wished to thank Deputy Director-General
Mr. Rana and his staff.  Djibouti felt that gradua lly the LDC Unit would be expanded and would have
more staff dealing specifically with the needs of the LDCs.
123. The representative of Burkina Faso said his delegation wished to endorse what Bangladesh
had said and to join in thanking the Director-General and his staff for their attention to the needs of
LDCs and for their enlightened leadership.  He pa rticularly wished to thank the 28 Members who had
taken specific measures to promote market access for products exported by LDCs.  This was a clear
sign of solidarity and was the right path to take.  Burkina Faso hoped that in the months and years to
come other countries would follow this example so that the LDCs would be fully integrated in
international trade.
124. The representative of Zambia thanked the Director General for his report and said that his
delegation appreciated the Director-General's work.
125. The General Council took note of the statements and of the report by the Director-General in
document WT/MIN(03)/1, which would be forwarded to the Ministerial Conference.
(d) Draft Ministerial Text – Statement by the Chairman
126. The Chairman drew attention to the draft Ministerial Text that had been circulated in
document Job(03)/150/Rev.1.  A corrigendum to this text had also been circulated earlier that day toWT/GC/M/82
Page 28
reflect an involuntary omission in the text of the chapeau Annex A regarding non-trade concerns.  In
introducing the text for discussion, he recalled the opening remarks of both the Director-General and
himself in presenting this text for consideration at  the Informal Heads of Delegation consultations the
previous day.  These remarks, as well as his closing remarks, had both been circulated for the
information of delegations in documents Job(03)/174 and Add.1.  He would not recall all the points hehad made the previous day.  Delegations had had quite a full discussion on the text the previous day –
and in his view, an extremely useful one – and it would make little sense to repeat the same
statements in the General Council.  Delegations who so wished could request the Secretariat to
include their statements at that informal HODs meeting in the records of the present General Council.
He would do the same with his remarks from that meeting.
14  He wished to listen to delegations, and
considered that the focus of the present meeting should be to try to seek as much common ground as
possible on the key issues of divergence, as a means of assisting Ministers in their heavy tasks atCancún.  It had been with this in mind that he had announced at the close of the HODs discussion that
he was going to leave delegations additional time be fore the present meeting, in order to enable them
to receive instructions, to continue consultations among themselves, and to reflect on the different
positions expressed.  He hoped, therefore, to hear some progress towards convergence.
127. All delegations who spoke thanked and comme nded the Chairman, the Director-General, the
Friends of the Chair, the Chairpersons of the Negotiating Groups and the Secretariat for their hard
work and dedication.  They particularly thanked the Chairman for his considerable effort in preparing
the draft Ministerial text, and expressed appreciation for the positive contributions of the Director
General and others who had assisted him in this process.
128. The representative of the Philippines commended the Chairman for his courage, decisiveness
and persistence in pursuing certain options against others.  Despite his delegation's worst fears that a
viable draft could not arise from a time- and transparency-constrained process, the Chairman had
produced a draft no one could reject outright and which, in the Chairman's judgement, came nearer to
the four-fold objective of (i) adherence to the Doha text, (ii) full account of the development
dimension, (iii) overall balance, and (iv) a successful Cancún Ministerial, to which the Philippineswas fully committed.  His delegation would work closely with the Chairman to achieve this four-fold
objective.  However, his delegation was of the view, in all candour, that with the current draft text
Members were no closer to the Doha mandate now than they had been immediately after the Doha
Ministerial Conference.  To explain this he would address four issues.  First, on agriculture the draft
text did not capture the ambitions of the Doha mandate.  The Chairman had opted to follow the
structure and substance of the joint EC/US paper a nd therefore had placed the interests of these two
superpowers in the forefront of the negotiations.  While it was essential for these two Members toprovide the momentum for these negotiations, it was a reality that they had conspired to a lower level
of ambition on all pillars of the reform mandate.  The draft text left vague the objective and timeframe
for elimination of export subsidies, and left open the amount of reduction in trade-distorting domestic
support through the re-instrumentation of these policies in the form of a new category of such support
measures.  The disciplines on Green Box measures were not fully addressed.  The text resurrected thedebates on such non-negotiating issues as the Peace Clause and geographical indications, which were
not contemplated in the Doha mandate.
129. It should be of concern to Members that the European Communities and the United States had
chosen to take the road of lower ambitions.  More ambitious alternatives had been provided by the
Group of 17 developing countries – now consisting of 20 Members and a large number of supporters.For the Community to complain that these submissions disturbed the relationship forged between the
Community and the United States was very disturbing.  His delegation hoped it would not hear any
more of this, and that the Chairman would consider the G-20 paper, as the Philippines firmly believed
that this brought Members closer to the Doha mandate and reflected the development concerns in this
negotiation and in the organization.  On NAMA, what the United States had said in the HODs
                                                     
14 See Annex III.WT/GC/M/82
Page 29
meeting about the text being replete with S&D and less-than-full-reciprocity provisions was true.
However, the real operational part of these provisions – paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 on the formula and
sectoral initiatives – would require developing countries to submit to sweeping and very ambitious
levels of tariff liberalization beyond what their trade, financial and developmental capacities could
sustain.  On the other hand, developed countries with already relatively low duties would contributevery little.  In contrast to the shortfall on the agricultural reform mandate, developing countries
viewed with the deepest concern the imbalance created by open markets in industrial goods through
the following three particular objectives in NAMA:  the use of the non-linear formula in paragraph 3 –
a simple, single, harmonizing coefficient which would uniformly bring developed and developing
countries' tariffs to a common range at a low level and eventually to zero;  the lack of differential base
rates, or a differential methodology for determinatio n thereof, for unbound tariff lines – the technical
assistance component of the formula;  and the sectoral approach which developed countries wanted tobe mandatory.  In the meantime, continued domestic support and export subsidies nullified the
striving for competitiveness of developing countries in global agricultural trade.
130. Regarding S&D and less-than-full reciprocity, developing countries were still fighting for
clear, precise and really operational provisions in the area of NAMA.  Regarding the S&D portion of
the text on agriculture, his delegation welcomed the inclusion of the S&D submissions of the G-17paper, which were present in all three pillars, although some of these still needed to be enhanced and
negotiated.  However, viewed in tandem with the lo w level of ambition on the three reform pillars, it
was doubtful whether the S&D elements would translate into meaningful flexibility and address the
developmental concerns of developing countries.  He wished to stress that no amount of S&D would
be effective if the necessary substantive reforms were not delivered.  On trade and environment, hisdelegation was glad that the text had put to rest those long-lived proposals of the Community that had
continued to appear in different forms, at different levels of discussion, and lately in different
dressings.  He was referring to the issues of  observership, information exchange and voluntary
labelling.  While one could never be sure that the Community would not raise these issues in Cancún,
his delegation hoped this would not be the case, as they distracted Members from more fundamentalwork.
131. On the Singapore issues, the Philippines welcomed the two options in the main text, and
clearly preferred the second option.  However, it objected to the Annexes pretending to be modalities
on all four Singapore issues, which had no basis for existence because they had been pulled out of thin
air.  This was the first time his delegation had seen the modalities on trade facilitation, and on
transparency in government procurement the modalities had apparently been drafted by the Friends of
the Chair without any consultation or consensus.  On investment, the modalities had been introducedby the Chairman of that Working Group only at the HODs meeting the previous week and had been
soundly rejected by a large number of developing countries.  On competition policy, they had been
introduced  by the Chairman of that Working Group as one of three options.  He asked whether the
General Council Chairman, having opted to append all of the four modalities, honestly thought they
conformed to the expectations of Ministers at Cancún on the modalities mandated at Doha to be abasis for decision by explicit consensus.  This situation left a continuation of the ongoing work as the
only viable alternative, if the proponents of these issues wished to see them kept alive in the WTO.  In
order to achieve balance in the draft Ministerial text, he asked whether the Chairman could agree to
include a submission currently being prepared by more than a dozen developing countries and with a
large number of supporters, that listed the elements these countries believed were still open forclarification and study.  His delegation urged the Chairman to consider this submission as a fair and
equitable presentation of the state of play of work in these areas.  The Philippines did not link the
Singapore issues to any part of the negotiations.  These were not negotiating issues and were not part
of the single undertaking, but the draft text gave the impression that, in a worst-case scenario in which
Ministers agreed by explicit consensus to start negotiations on these issues after Cancún, they wouldimmediately fold into the DDA negotiating schedule with the same date for completion.  His
delegation could not assume this to be the case.  The Philippines would continue to work with the
Chairman and other delegations during the remaining days in Geneva, in Cancún and thereafter, toWT/GC/M/82
Page 30
achieve the Doha development objectives and to have a truly balanced and equitable outcome.
Members owed this to themselves, to the organization and to its various stakeholders.
132. The representative of Mexico asked that his delegation's statement at the informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.15
133. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDCs, said that from the perspective of the
LDCs, the revised text was a considerable improvement over the earlier text.  Attempts had been
made to develop convergence by narrowing down the differences.  However, as the LDCs were
painfully aware, much more work was necessary to achieve the unanimity required.  He would limit
his comments to only those issues of direct interest to the LDCs.  Before commenting on those
specific issues, he wished to highlight some general perspectives as Members went to the Cancún
Ministerial.  Successive rounds of trade negotiations had tried to address the needs of LDCs.  This had
been done in recognition of the special concerns of this group of countries, and to prevent their furthermarginalization in world trade.  The WTO membership recognized that the fruits of trade
liberalization had to be equitably shared by the LDCs.  The membership could not allow a situation
where trade liberalization benefited one group or another, without commensurate benefits to the
weakest Members.  It was precisely in recognition of this need that special measures were provided
for the LDCs, who did not look upon such measures as a derogation from the rule-based system.Rather, if special measures could help this disadvantaged group, and their trade expanded
appropriately, the world as a whole would benef it and the multilateral system would be further
strengthened.  His delegation's comments should be interpreted in the context of these special needs.
134. Agriculture was fundamental to all LDCs.  An  overwhelming proportion of people in LDCs
were dependent on agriculture for their survival.  When these countries saw the context of thenegotiations, they could not but be aware of the manner in which the changes would affect the LDCs,
and others who were the major players.  The LDCs deeply appreciated the acceptance by Members
that they should not have to make any reduction commitments in agriculture.  But this was valid only
for market access.  LDCs had not been able to contemplate the luxury of export subsidies or domestic
support.  What deeply worried the LDCs was the weakening of the text in regard to duty- and quota-free market access.  The text in the draft produced by the Chair of the Special Session of the
Committee on Agriculture was good, on the understanding that the acceptance of the word "shall"
would make such facility binding.  In the negotiatio ns, either in the open-ended meetings, or in small
groups, there had not been a single comment that any Member opposed that text – in fact, there had
been explicit statements of support.  Unfortunately, the text had been weakened.  The revised draft
text was not acceptable to the LDCs, and they would like a reversion to the earlier text on this issue.
Two other issues were of great interest to the Group.  On cotton, where subsidies in the developedcountries were adversely affecting the growth prospects of some LDCs, the concerns of the cotton
growing and exporting members of the Group had to be attended to.  In a similar vein, the LDCs also
supported measures to help countries dependent on one or a few commodities for their exports and
livelihood.  The secular deterioration in the terms of trade of commodities was one of the main causes
of the LDCs' marginalization in trade, and this issue needed to be addressed.
135. On NAMA, the Group thanked the Chair of this Negotiating Group for being sensitive to the
LDCs' concerns.  The text of the framework pr oposed by the Chair, in cooperation with the
membership, was acceptable.  The Group urged the membership to grant duty- and quota-free
treatment to LDCs at an early date.  Very soon, with the lowering of tariffs and the removal of quotas,
this demand would have little meaning.  The LD Cs urged the membership to help them avail
themselves of this limited period to develop their industries.  It also urged that the issue of erosion of
preferences for LDCs be tackled meaningfully, in the WTO as well as in other relevant organizations.
There were many measures the WTO itself could take to address this issue, and the membership
should not shy away from them.  In the services negotiations, the Group's primary goal had been to
                                                     
15 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 31
establish the modalities for the special treatment of LDCs.  The Group appreciated the efforts of the
Chair of the Special Session of the Services Council to conclude this work prior to Cancún.  The
LDCs had the General Council Chairman's commitm ent that the paragraph on services would include
a suitable text, instead of what was currently shown in italics.  Services was one of the most important
subjects before Members.  All knew that the potential for gain from complete liberalization in serviceswas much greater than the gain from complete liberalization of all trade in goods.  This was one area
where the LDCs had something to offer, in the form of less-skilled service providers under Mode 4.
136. On S&D treatment, the new paragraph 11 in the draft text was an improvement over the
earlier version.  The Group noted the desire for an early harvest.  The LDCs have to had an acceptable
package that was of economic value.  Even if all proposals could not be resolved prior to Cancún,
there had to be an explicit understanding on how these issues were to be dealt with.  For this purpose,
the LDCs considered that Annex C was still open  and subject to further improvement.  The LDCs
were prepared to work with the Chairman and with other delegations to finalize a package that would
be meaningful for the LDCs.  In their view, a packag e of proposals that did not have real value would
not help them and would create misunderstanding.  On the Singapore issues, despite the
preponderance of views expressed by the membership, the draft text tended to tilt in one direction.
While two diametrically opposed options were presented, one version had an annex.  In some cases,these annexes had not even been considered by the general membership.  If the LDCs were to be
confronted with such stark options, they had no choi ce but to opt for the text stating that the situation
did not provide a basis for commencing negotiations.  Th ey had an interest in each of these issues and
would like the process of further clarification to be accelerated.
137. On TRIPS and Public Health, the LDCs wished to see a decision taken prior to Cancún.
Affordable medicines were essential for LDCs.  Furthermore, this issue had high political visibility,
and Members could not delay settling it.  On accession, the Group was happy with the prospect that
two LDCs might become Members in Cancún.  This  was an important step, but much more remained
to be done to facilitate the early accession of remaining LDCs that had applied.  It was vital that these
countries got the technical assistance they required in the accession process.  Paragraph 24 was themost important paragraph in the draft text for LDCs.  This paragraph should reflect the sum total of
the views of the membership regarding the LDCs.  This paragraph was not part of the single
undertaking, and provided a general direction in which the membership would focus attention.  At the
same time, it should provide guidance for the work elsewhere embodied.  From this perspective, the
text was a greatly watered-down version of the language the LDCs had submitted.  The LDCs
would not accept any further weakening or dilution of this language.  Existing brackets should be
removed, and the language within them should become part of the text.  On the other hand, theLDCs would welcome constructive suggestions.  They were currently working with some of their
development partners to strengthen the language in regard to the operation of the Integrated
Framework.  The LDCs were prepared to work under the Chairman's leadership and to build on the
revised text, and hoped the membership would address their needs and concerns.
138. The representative of Argentina asked that his delegation's statement at the informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.16  Beyond the comments of a
more general nature that his delegation had made at the informal HODs meeting, Argentina wished to
refer more specifically to some aspects of the draft text.  On domestic support in agriculture, since no
modalities would be agreed in Cancún, Members had to be more specific on certain parameters.
Argentina, as a member of the G-20, had detected some issues.  First, there had to be product-specificreduction commitments.  The possibility of Members concentrating their resources in any particular
product had to be foreclosed, as otherwise this process would provide distorting market signals.
Second, since domestic support was provided to products that were exported, it was critical to have
stronger reduction commitments on support of the so-called “subsidized export products” which
currently disrupted international markets.  Third, products with increasing levels of support – that is,
                                                     
16 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 32
with a higher level of support than the average in re cent years – needed to be subject to deeper cuts.
On the Blue Box, Argentina proposed eliminating Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
However, this did not imply that it was requesting elimination of those disbursements.  In Argentina's
view, these would be included in the Amber Box a nd subject to cuts to be determined in the
negotiations.  Summing up, he said that the only sure footing Members had were the base levels of theAmber Box of the Communities and the United States of US$72 billion and US$19 billion per year
respectively.  Adding a new Blue Box would imply increasing those numbers by around US$10
billion.  Moreover, the draft text did not provide significant reductions of support in terms of applied
support, but dealt only with bound levels.  This was why it gave the appearance that something had
changed, but in fact, nothing had changed.  The opportunity left for box shifting in the draft also
called for the need for capping in the Green Box.  Domestic support was one of the crucial issues of
the mandate.  Unless Members generated a real impact on the current status of this issue, agriculturaltrade would continue to be very distorted.  Argentina's constituency would not permit it to accept an
agreement that implied this reality would remain unchanged.
139. On market access, Argentina wished to stress that its objective was to achieve a substantial
improvement.  Nevertheless, he wished to point out that paragraph 2.4. of the draft text indicated that
the use of the special agricultural safeguard remained under negotiation.  He recalled that thisinstrument had been created in the Uruguay Round as a transitional measure to address the concern of
the elimination of non-tariff barriers that might have caused significant import surges affecting
production or internal prices.  This mechanism had been used only by a small number of developed
Members, mainly the US, EC and Japan.  Based on this experience, there was no justification for its
continuation.  On export subsidies, there was enough ambiguity to allow Members to avoid the Dohamandate.  The partial reforms on domestic support would still leave excess production that needed to
be placed in foreign markets.  Clear market signals should be given.  In addition, paragraph 6 of the
draft text was unbalanced, because it  implied an invitation to discuss issues outside of the mandate,
such as geographical indications and the Peace Clause.  Any reference to non-trade concerns had to be
quoted in accordance with the Doha mandate, that is, by adding the phrase “as provided for in the
Agreement on Agriculture”.  Since there was substantial disagreement on positions in agriculture, in
Argentina's view the G-20 submission continued to be on the table.
140. Regarding NAMA, the framework in Annex B of the draft Ministerial text fell short of the
Doha mandate with respect to the principle of “less than full reciprocity”.  In particular, the proposal
on mandatory sectoral initiatives was clearly in opposition to that mandate.  Sectoral agreements
could only be a supplementary approach.  They had to be voluntary and agreed only after consensus
was reached on the core modality for tariff reduction.  The approach of making this kind of initiativemandatory implied ignoring structural problems of developing countries and putting at risk the
industrial capacity of these countries.  In the same way, the option of a formula, as set out in
paragraph 3, did not contemplate the concept of less than full reciprocity, and resulted in tariff
reductions by developing countries much higher than those of developed Members.  For this reason,
any proposal for a non-linear formula should include what was proposed in documentWT/GC/W/35/Rev.1 as the basis fo r continuing the work in this Negotiating Group.  Even without
concrete figures, the combination of paragraphs 3 and 6 reflected a much higher level of ambition in
this area than in the negotiations on modalities in agriculture.  For that reason, Members had to avoid
including specific figures, particularly in paragraph 7.  The level of flexibility in the application of the
formula that Argentina would request would be related to results in the other areas of the negotiation.As his delegation had already said, the concept of parallelism should be applied.
141. There had been references to the need for a high level of ambition and in favour of
harmonizing industrial tariffs.  In the context of this negotiation, Argentina was also ambitious.
However, its desires were determined by development goals.  Although he was personally in favour of
tariff harmonization, he had to say that the only clear mandate was for “less than full reciprocity” inthe reduction commitments and for S&D treatment.  These two elements had to be built in as integral
parts of the process.  Regarding the Singapore issues, Argentina considered that each of these issuesWT/GC/M/82
Page 33
had to be assessed on its own merits.  For that reason, it understood that decisions and final outcomes
in Cancún should not necessarily be the same for all of these issues.  Taking into account that each
issue dealt with different matters and that they had different implications for developing countries, the
possibilities of achieving convergence varied, depending on the merits of each issue.  Regarding
modalities on the issue of investment, as proposed in Annex G of the draft text, paragraph 4 merelylisted the elements contained in paragraph 22 of the Doha Declaration.  This approach did not allow
an evaluation of whether the general architecture of a multilateral framework would preserve
sufficient room for the implementation of developmen t policies at national level.  The text equated the
concept of flexibility to that of S&D treatment.  Argentina considered that such an approach was
inadequate.  The experience arising from the implementation of the TRIMS Agreement showed that
transitional periods were insufficient to allow developing countries to achieve developmental goals in
order to provide answers to the challenges of a dynamic international economic environment.  The
text did not contain any reference to the “developme nt provisions”, as provided  in paragraph 22 of
the Doha Declaration.  In addition, his delegation noted that the concept of investor obligations had
been omitted.
142. Regarding the issue of trade facilitation, Argent ina recognized the case for further expediting
the movement, release and clearance of goods, including goods in transit.  This was a valuableobjective that would benefit all.  Nevertheless, his delegation was concerned about the possibility that
an agreement on trade facilitation could only result in obligations for developing countries.
Developed Members already had the infrastructure, mechanisms and technologies that would be used
as reference points to establish the standards of an agreement.  In order to resolve these asymmetries,
a non-binding agreement had been proposed.  The debate on this issue had been probably the mostintense in the Council for Trade in Goods, and rema ined unresolved.  The possibility of a two-stage
approach emerged as a clear alternative.  In the first phase, Members should agree on a set of non-
binding guidelines, together with a technical as sistance programme, so as to allow developing
countries to acquire the capabilities needed to accept binding rules in a second phase.  Argentina
recognised that any possible modalities should include considerations on implementation, with specialattention to the legal implications that emerged from these commitments.
143. Regarding the issue of competition policy, Argentina regretted that the current draft text did
not include a third, intermediate option, as suggested by the Chairman of the relevant Working Group.
In the context of scarce ambition in key areas of the negotiations, such as agriculture, it could be
useful to have this third alternative available, i.e. the option of having modalities oriented towards an
agreement of limited scope, encouraging voluntary c ooperation and establishing a peer review system.
Such a system would entail a review of national competition policies and the exchange ofinformation, and would not include binding obligations or dispute settlement.  In addition, this
alternative seemed to command an important degree of convergence of views among developing
countries that still had doubts with respect to elements mentioned in paragraph 25 of the Doha
Declaration, and which would not otherwise agree to negotiations on this issue.  Regarding
transparency in government  procurement, as on the other Singapore issues, Argentina considered thatthe modalities in Annex F were insufficient because they were only procedural in nature.  This
situation precluded a clear appreciation of the scope of any possible commitments.  In particular,
Argentina was concerned about the scope of the concept of  transparency, and was not convinced
regarding the implications this concept could have in terms of market access.  His delegation
considered that any agreement on this issue had to preserve Members' capacity to administer nationallegislation and procedures.  There was merit in the argument against the applicability of the DSU in
the framework of a possible agreement on this issue.  Argentina considered that the launching of
negotiations on the Singapore issues should be based on a decision to be taken by explicit consensus
on the modalities of such negotiations.  His delegation was ready to continue working on such
modalities as far as there was also substantive progress in the overall negotiations, and was preparedto continue working constructively, as it had been doing.  However, the outcome of Cancún would
require that Argentina's considerations be adequately reflected, in order for his delegation to be able to
join any consensus.WT/GC/M/82
Page 34
144. The representative of the European Communities asked that his delegation's statement at the
Informal HODs meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.17  A
tremendous amount of work had been accomplished over the past several weeks.  This had led to the
emergence of new ideas, new approaches and, in at least a few cases, to compromises between
previously apparently irreconcilable positions, that had led to the emergence of new alliances andalignments.  Some of these were undoubtedly of a short-lived character, while others were based on
fundamentally shared values and problems.  All of this was perfectly healthy and useful to help
Members move their work ahead.  For its part, the Communities had contributed, for example, on
agriculture by abandoning, at least for the time being, previously intransigent positions – to put it
frankly and openly – on all three pillars of market access, domestic support and export subsidies, and
called on others to demonstrate their capacity to move away from their intransigent positions.
However, his delegation regretted that there had been little sign of this yet.  All movements, includingthose that the Communities had demonstrated, and proposals, including those it had made, had a
certain shelf life, a certain "to be agreed by" date, until they were challenged or invalidated or
withdrawn for external or internal reasons.  His delegation sensed that the possibility of a major
positive breakthrough at Cancún on the DDA in the inte rests of all might be within reach.  What was
potentially doable was the adoption of concrete ambitious frameworks, modalities for negotiationsthat would definitively unblock negotiations on agriculture and NAMA and would lead to truly
comprehensive results across the board.  However, it took two to tango.  Most, or many, delegations
had made proposals on the key issues over the past several weeks or months, orally or in writing.
These proposals and their discussion had led the Chairman to distil from them what he considered to
be a useful basis for Ministerial discussion, negotiation and decision-making.  His delegation saw noviable alternative to the draft text presented by the Chairman.  However much Members disagreed,
sometimes vehemently, as had been seen the previous day, the Communities considered that all
contributions by Members in the preparatory process, including its own, were still – in practical terms,
and he assumed even in formal terms – on the table and would provide Ministers with a full range of
views.  He said that while normally his delegation did not speak about internal EC matters, he wished
to inform Members that this position, stated at the informal HODs m eeting the previous day,  had been
unanimously supported by all 25 current and future member States of the European Communities.
145. The representative of Bulgaria said that his delegation understood the difficulties which had
had to be overcome in order to reach a result that was acceptable to all Members.  He regretted to say
that like other delegations, Bulgaria was not able to accept the revised draft text as a basis for work at
Cancún, and did not agree to have the Chairman send it, on his own responsibility, to Ministers.  To
do so might be interpreted as implying some status of this text, which had not been agreed to byMembers and would therefore be, in Bulgaria's vi ew, an attempt to undermine the Member-driven
character of the WTO.  Ministers would be informed by their own delegations on the draft text
prepared by the Chairman of the General Council, so  there was no need to formally send this text to
Ministers.  The views expressed at the HODs meeting the previous day could be summarized in a
report to the General Council which would be at the disposal of delegations, together with the minutesof the present meeting, so that delegations could inform their Ministers about the positions of
participants throughout the preparatory process in Geneva.  Bulgaria believed that the text to be
adopted in Cancún had to be acceptable not just to the majority of Members, the major participants in
world trade or the most important groupings of coun tries, but also to each individual Member.  This
meant that an overall balance could not be constructed to the detriment of the interests of any singleparticipant in the negotiations.  From the point of view of Bulgaria's own interests, his delegation did
not think the draft text in JOB(03)/150/Rev.1 was balanced, and his delegation could not, therefore,
agree that it fulfilled the criteria for overall balance.
146. One issue to which Bulgaria attached particular importance was the extension to all products
of the additional protection for geographical indications (GIs) under Article 23 of the TRIPSAgreement.  The way this issue was treated in the draft text was in evident contrast to the excessive
                                                     
17 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 35
levels of ambition in other areas of negotiation.  On this issue, which he said was the only
implementation issue explicitly noted in the Doha Declaration, the draft text did not fulfil the mandate
established for implementation issues by Ministers in paragraph 12 of the Doha Declaration, i.e. to
address these issues "as a matter of priority", to "find appropriate solutions to them", and to take
"appropriate action" by the end of 2002.  Bulgaria could not accept any substantive package to beagreed in Doha that did not contain adequate substantive treatment of the issue of extension to all
products of the additional protection for GIs under Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement.  The merely
procedural provision in paragraph 12 of the draft te xt – that the Director-General would continue his
consultations on this matter – was clearly insufficient.  Instead of this text, Bulgaria supported the
drafting suggestions submitted by Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe on paragraph 12, which provided for the setting up of a
negotiating group on implementation.  On the issue of extension of GIs, his delegation proposed theinclusion of the following text:  "We agree to extend the additional protection for geographical
indications under Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement to all products.  Possible exceptions under
Article 24 of the TRIPS Agreement and other details shall be negotiated in the Negotiating Group on
Implementation by March 2004."
147. Agriculture was a particularly sensitive area for Bulgaria.  The draft text did not take into
account Bulgaria's particular concerns or the specificity and vulnerability of its agriculture, and did
not reflect the proposals it had formulated, jointly with others, in its position paper in document
JOB(03)/167.  The text in Annex A of the draft Ministerial text was very far from the absolute
maximum of reduction commitments Bulgaria was prepared to undertake and which were contained
in its position paper.  Therefore, Bulgaria could not agree to the inclusion of that Annex in the drafttext.  More specifically, in market access a reduction formula, or a combination of formulae, on its
own could not guarantee improved market access for Bulgaria's products and would result in an
unbalanced outcome.  His delegation could not, therefore, agree with a blended approach if it did not
contain an adequate possibility for negotiated elements on non-trade concerns, in particular the
possibility to negotiate improved market access for products of particular export interest to Bulgaria,e.g. for products protected by GIs.  Any blended approach should also provide sufficient flexibility, so
that each participant could be in control of the balance between the tariff reductions to be undertaken
and the benefits from improved access to the markets of other participants.  Bulgaria could not accept
a mandatory application of the Swiss formula, mandatory tariff rate quota increases and mandatory
reductions of tariffs to zero.
148. On the issue of domestic support, Bulgaria did not agree on reductions from base levels and
capping the Blue or Green Box, or a combination of boxes.  If some participants were allowed to use aparticular instrument, like the Blue Box, Bulgaria too should be allowed to use that instrument, even if
it had not been able to do so to date.  The reductions of domestic support from base levels could put
some Members in a disadvantaged position, compared to that of others, and were therefore
unacceptable.  Reductions of the de minimis  levels were also not acceptable.  Regarding the legal
form of reduction commitments, as a matter of principle these should be reflected in nationalschedules only, and not through changes in the Agreement on Agriculture.  Therefore, Bulgaria could
not accept any provision for modifying the Agreement on Agriculture, such as the one on Article 6.5
in paragraph 1.3 in Annex A of the draft Ministerial text.  Regarding the status of the Revised First
Draft of Modalities (TN/AG/W/1/Rev.1) referred  to in paragraph 6 of Annex A of the draft
Ministerial text, it had not been possible to achieve consensus on these, and it would therefore beinappropriate for them to be the only source of reference mentioned in the framework text.  Bulgaria
could agree to a reference to these draft modalities only together with inputs by Members.  If there
were no consensus on the text of Annex A, his delegation would be prepared to accept that it be used
in the negotiations after Cancún as a working document, together with the inputs by Members.
149. The representative of India said his delegation appreciated the difficulties the Chairman had
faced in trying to bring together different strands and viewpoints of Members in the key areas.  He
would concentrate on the proposed framework for establishing modalities in agriculture and onWT/GC/M/82
Page 36
NAMA, and would also cover the Singapore issues and touch on services, S&D treatment and
implementation issues, as well as a few of the other paragraphs in the draft text.  On agriculture,
Ministers at Doha had highlighted their commitment "to establish a fair and market-oriented trading
system through a programme of fundamental reform encompassing strengthened rules and specific
commitments on support and protection in order to correct and prevent restrictions and distortions inworld agricultural markets."  They had further agreed that S&D treatment for developing countries
"shall be an integral part of all elements of the negotiations ..., so as to be operationally effective and
to enable developing countries to effectively take account of their development needs, including food
security and rural development."  It was quite clear from these statements that the three pillars of
domestic support, export subsidies and market access were closely interlinked.  If substantial
reductions in domestic support did not take place and if export subsidies were not eliminated, the
distortions in international agricultural trade could not be removed.  Unfortunately, the revised draftMinisterial text did not provide the necessary levels of comfort for developing countries to be in a
position to make major contributions in market access.  India, along with the Group of 17 – now 20 –
developing countries in their paper on the framework to be adopted for agriculture, had clearly
indicated the level of ambition regarding the reduction required in both these areas.  On domestic
support, these included product-specific reduction in the Amber Box, elimination of Article 6.5,capping of Green Box direct payments, and incor poration of additional disciplines, among others.
These elements had not been included in the revised draft Ministerial text.  On export subsidies, India
did not have much confidence in the formulation provided – that export subsidies would be
eliminated soon or in the near future.  It was further concerned that the peace clause, which was
not even under negotiation and was set to expire on 31 December 2003, had been listed inparagraph 6 of Annex A as one of the issues for consideration.  He asked how, if the sum of
developed countries were not in a position to have a high level of ambition in the reduction of
subsidies, they could expect the developing countries to ambitiously reduce the levels of their
tariffs, which was the only instrument available to them to protect their farmers.
150. For India, with over 650 million people dependent on agriculture for their livelihood, it
became all the more important that the agricultural negotiations did not become a tool to impoverish
them further.  In their statement, some Member s had mentioned the two categories of commitments
being taken by Members on market access.  It should be realized that in any case, there were two
categories of Members – one category which had deep pockets and which subsidized its agriculture
heavily, leading to trade distortions, and the other category which had no financial resources to
provide support to its farmers even when required.  Moreover, the framework for tariff reduction
worked out by the Community and the United Stat es was tailor-made to suit those two Members'
particular tariff structure and enable them to make minimal contributions to market access, while on
the other hand, this would place an inordinately high burden on many developing countries.
Therefore, a different structure of tariff reduction for developing countries was absolutely essential.
His delegation understood that the revised draft text  provided that developing countries could choose
one of the two options provided under paragraph 2.6 (ii) and (iii) of Annex A.  India wished to addfurther that paragraph 2.6(i) indicated that a proportion of tariff lines to be subject to an average cut,
with a minimum cut for import sensitive tariff lines under which the market access increase would
result from a combination of tariff cuts and tariff  rate quotas (TRQs).  With regard to TRQs for
import-sensitive tariff lines, his delegation noted that import sensitive tariff lines in developed
countries generally had  high tariffs.  Therefore, developed countries could improve market access for
these sensitive products by introducing new, or increasing existing tariff quotas while reducing tariffs
by the minimum.  On the other hand, he stated that sensitive tariff lines in developing countries were
generally subject to low tariffs and, therefore,  the possibility of creating new TRQs did not exist.
Thus , there should be no obligation to create new TRQs for import-sensitive tariff lines in developing
countries.
151. On S&D treatment, the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, in
his First Draft of Modalities for the Further Commitments of 17 February 2003 and an initial limited
revision of certain elements of 18 March 2003, had covered the different elements for developingWT/GC/M/82
Page 37
countries.  A number of these elements were covered in the draft Ministerial text, and India expected
that these, along with the elements mentioned in the above Chairman's text, would ultimately form a
part of the modalities.
152. On NAMA, India appreciated the efforts made by the Chairman of the relevant Negotiating
Group to come up with a fair and balanced draft text to accommodate the interests of the developingcountries.  However, India still had concerns with both paragraphs 3 and 6 of the draft text.  On the
issue of the non-linear formula referred to in paragraph 3, his delegation's understanding was that
further negotiations would take place on the basis of  the formula put forward in document
TN/MA/W/35/Rev.1.  On the sectoral tariff negotiations, India recognized that paragraph 6 had been
drafted after several rounds of consultations.  Many Members had serious reservations on a mandatory
approach to sectoral negotiations.  India's understanding was that the developing countries would have
adequate provisions for flexibility in this respect, in  line with the concept of less than full reciprocity.
On services, India expected to submit its offers very shortly, and was looking for substantial
improvements from its trading partners in Mode 4, which was of substantial commercial interest to
the developing countries.  His delegation hoped for active engagement after Cancún at both the
bilateral and multilateral levels.
153. On the Singapore issues, India appreciated the text presented by the General Council
Chairman which portrayed the reality of the discussions on these issues.  India believed that the
second option was the best option.  However, his de legation was constrained to point out that it was
premature for the draft modalities on each of the four issues to be annexed to the draft Ministerial text,
when the clarification process was not yet over.  India considered that these Annexes, which reflected
only the proponents' position, would prejudice the position at Cancún of  those Members holding a
different view.  In this respect India, along with a number of  other countries, would be submitting
shortly a detailed list of issues for further cl arification in the respective Working Groups and the
Council for Trade in Goods.  His delegation requested  that these be annexed to the draft Ministerial
text, as had been done for the proposal submitted by some other Members.  On the issue of S&D
treatment, Ministers had agreed at Doha that all S&D provisions shall be reviewed with a view tostrengthening them and making them more precise, effective and operational.  Further, Members were
to identify those they considered should be made  mandatory and to report to the General Council with
recommendations for a decision.  A deadline of July 2002 had also been agreed.  However, despite
repeated extension of the deadline, Members were nowhere near completing the work on S&D issues.
He recalled that what was being addressed were existing provisions in the current WTO agreements,
and not new rules that might be agreed at the end of the Doha work programme.  There had to be a
clear understanding and explicit provision that the remaining agreement-specific proposals would beaddressed as a matter of priority after Cancún, and recommendations for decision should be submitted
to the General Council by March 2004.
154. On the issue of implementation, it had been agreed in Doha that negotiations on outstanding
implementation issues shall be an integral part of the Doha work programme.  India was surprised that
some Members seemed to attach a different meaning to the word "negotiations" in paragraph 12 of the
Doha Declaration than they did to the same word in the rest of that work programme.  It was
necessary to put in place a suitable mechan ism to address all the remaining outstanding
implementation issues and to report by a specified deadline, with recommendations for decision.  His
delegation was surprised that the paragraph on implementation issues had been relegated to a lower
spot in the draft text, and strongly urged that the order of the work programme, as reflected in theDoha Declaration, be followed for the Cancún text as well.  For his delegation, all outstanding issues
were equally important, and disproportionate importance should not be given to any one issue.  On
TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity, in the hectic activities in which the Chairman had
been engaged, he seemed to have overlooked the requirement to report to Ministers under
paragraph 52 of the Doha Declaration in respect of the progress made on issues contained inparagraph 19 of that Declaration – in other words, the progress made under the mandate given to the
TRIPS Council to pursue its work programme, inter alia, under the review of Article 27.3(b) and theWT/GC/M/82
Page 38
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the
protection of traditional knowledge and folklore, and so on, which should be reported to Ministers in
order to enable them to give suitable directions for accelerating this work.  The Community had talked
about alliances and their nature.  Whether an alliance was short-lived or not, and which alliance was
short-lived and for what reason, only time would tell.  There could be alliances that served only therespective Members' interests and were formed only to strike at others, particularly the poorest and the
weakest.  His delegation had no doubt that there would be a firm determination on the part of
developing countries to ensure that the development dimension was not cast aside in this process of
negotiations.  India would continue to engage constructively to move the process forward both at
Cancún and beyond.
155. The representative of Malaysia asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.18  On agriculture, his
delegation wished to highlight one point with respect to export credits – to stress the need to provide
flexibility to developing countries to provide export credits for their exports to other developing
countries.  On the Singapore issues, Malaysia supported India's proposal that annexes listing elements
for further clarification be attached to a revised draft Ministerial text.  This was a fair and reasonable
proposal, as it would help establish the appropriate balance in respect of those Members opting forOption 2 in the current draft text.
156. The representative of Indonesia said that his delegation had been guided by the spirit and
effort to agree on the draft Ministerial text on the basis of Ministers' instructions from Doha, the
development issues and the overall balance of the negotiations.  The revised draft text covered a range
of issues which tracked with the Doha work programme.  That work programme in itself provided forearly action on such development-related issues as implementation, agriculture, non-agriculture
market access, strengthening S&D, and addressing the difficulties faced by Members with insufficient
or no manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector in making effective use of compulsory
licensing under the TRIPS Agreement.  As all were fully aware, none of these issues had yet been
resolved.  This was a cause for serious concern among Members, who had contributed in the best waythey could to the ongoing negotiations, including reaching an understanding on the draft Ministerial
text.  Regarding domestic support in agriculture, while his delegation appreciated the Chairman's
serious effort in providing a draft framework, Indonesia was deeply disappointed that there were no
commitments for developed countries to reduce their overall support.  In fact, the Blue Box subsidies
had been extended, and there was no discipline whatsoever on Green Box subsidies.  The road was
thus open for continuation of, or even increases in, overall domestic support
  in developed countries.
With regard to export competition, his delegation was deeply disappointed by the lack of commitmentfor developed countries to eliminate their export subsidies and export credits.  It was regrettable that a
deal had been struck that both export subsidies and export credits could continue in parallel to each
other for the same products.  Members should revert to the Doha mandate and ensure that all export
subsidies were eliminated within a very few years, and that likewise, concessional export credits were
similarly disciplined.
157. He then made the following comments on behalf also of Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago,
Dominican Republic, Honduras and Panama.  These countries recognized the difficulties the
Chairman had encountered in producing a text that accommodated the various needs and interests
of all Members, whose differences of view on the pace, depth and scope of further commitments in
agriculture continued to be significant.  The results of the agriculture negotiations would impingeon the living conditions of millions of farmers in developing countries that depended on agricultural
production for their subsistence income and basic food needs.  On this basis, these countries had
insisted that developing countries be allowed enough flexibility in the negotiations to participate in
the reform process in a way that did not jeopardize the livelihood of their vulnerable and poor
farmers, their food security or their rural development.  These countries appreciated the Chairman's
                                                     
18 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 39
efforts to reflect some of their concerns in the draft Ministerial text, and especially welcomed the
provisions on Special Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism for developing countries.
158. However, they were concerned by the approach proposed on Special Products, which seemed
very restricted, in particular considering that Members were currently working on just a framework to
be further developed into detailed modalities at a latter stage.  On this basis, these countriesconsidered that modifications needed to be introduced in the Chairman's draft framework on
agriculture before this was forwarded to Ministers at Cancún.  Special Products should constitute a
stand-alone category, which developing countries should self-designate according to their
food/livelihood security and rural development needs.  Regarding the proposed treatment for Special
Products, it was a matter of great concern to these delegations that tariff reductions were envisaged for
these products.  They strongly insisted that Special Products be exempted from tariff reductions and
from new commitments on TRQs.  These countries were of the view that Special Products should notbe subject to tariff ceilings, and therefore encouraged the Chairman to delete paragraph 2.7 of
Annex A of the draft text regarding tariff ceilings for developing countries.  Special Products were
fundamental not just for food security and rural de velopment, but also to the continuing existence of
these countries' small and vulnerable resource-poor  farmers.  While they viewed the inclusion of
Special Products in the current draft Ministerial text as a positive step forward, they were aware thatthis would only be useful if it constituted true flexibility for developing countries to address their food
security and rural development concerns.  In this regard, these countries encouraged the Chairman to
reflect their concerns and take them into account in the current draft text.
159. Speaking again for Indonesia, he thanked the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on NAMA
for his tireless effort in trying to develop framework for establishing modalities for these negotiations.
The Doha mandate in this area contained clear flexibility for developing and least-developed
Members.  All Members were bound to implement this mandate.  However, Indonesia was concerned
that this flexibility had been questioned and scrutinized by some Members.  The framework as it
currently stood still contained some divergent views among Members, especially in paragraphs 3 and
6.  In addition, his delegation was  not comfortable with the listing of elements in paragraph 4, whichit found too detailed at the present stage.  Indonesia would prefer to leave this issue in the context of
negotiation in Geneva.  With regard to paragraph 3 on the formula approach and paragraph 6 on the
sectoral approach, his delegation appreciated the Chairman's effort to strike a balance.  However, this
should be improved, since paragraph 3 left ope n whether Members would follow the Chairman's
formula or another non-linear formula.  Paragraph 6 prejudiced Member's ability to implement the
sectoral approach as part of the core modalities.  To create a more balanced approach, Members could
either fix paragraph 3 by adding the words "linear formula", or delete the words "non-linear formula",
or adjust paragraph 6 by removing the phrase "participation by all participants".  If the latter was
done, the question of participation in the sectoral approach would be subject to further negotiation in
the post-Cancún period.
160. Regarding the Singapore issues, the revised draft text provided two options in brackets.  The
first option endorsed the launch of negotiations and, on each issue, the relevant Annex on modalitieswas referred to.  The second option reflected developing countries' position that the situation did not
provide a basis for commencement of negotiations and that clarification should continue.  The
problem, however, was that the text, while fleshing out the vague modalities of negotiations in
separate annexes for each of these issues, did not elaborate in equal detail on the second option.  If
Ministers arriving in Cancún were to be put on an equal footing, it was important that developingcountries' positions also be elaborated in the draft text.  Much of the discussion on this matter could
be found in the minutes of the respective Working Group meetings.  He noted that in recent weeks, a
significant number of developing countries had jointly made it clear that there should not be any
launch of negotiations on the four Singapore issues.  For his delegation, the modalities contained in
Annexes D through F were too vague.  Indonesia had already said that any discussion on modalitieshad to be detailed, so that it would be known from the outset what the demands would be in the course
of the negotiations.  Indonesia supported the statement by the Philippines that it would be desirable ifWT/GC/M/82
Page 40
the concerns by developing countries, as stipulated in Option 2, would also be fully reflected in
Annexes.
161. Regarding the services negotiation, paragraph 6 of the revised draft text did not fully respond
to the appeals expressed by developing countries during the consultations.  A group of developing
countries had conveyed the concerns they wished to be incorporated in the draft text.  However, thishad not been fully reflected in the draft text.  His delegation was critical on this issue because the
services negotiations were of little value to developing countries, since the latter – apart from Mode 4
which was fraught with non-transparent barriers in the developed countries – had no export capacity.
On the issue of paragraph 12 on implementation, his delegation believed that Ministers in Doha had
considered all implementation issues as being of utmost importance.  While they had created two
categories of implementation issues, they
 had not highlighted some issues as being more important than
others.  In this regard, the issue of the extensi on of the protection of GI s should not be specifically
mentioned in paragraph 12 of the draft Ministeria l text, and thus had to be deleted.  On the
implementation issues, developing countries had been promised that their implementation issues –
righting the imbalances of the Uruguay Round – woul d be addressed if developing countries entered
into a new Round.  Almost two years after Doha, wo rk on a solution to these pending implementation
matters was still very slow.  During the discussions  of these issues, his delegation had observed that
developed countries had shown a lack of interest , even though developing countries had repeatedly
appealed to them to show political will in these areas.  The draft Ministerial text asked Members to
agree to the establishment of another work programme and deadline on implementation issues.  The
proposal submitted by a group of devel oping countries could be used as the basis for further discussion
on this issue.  In this regard, Indonesia agreed w ith the deadline proposed and strongly hoped that all
Members would intensify their efforts and political will to reach a prompt resolution of all
implementation-related issues.
162. Among the highly important but less contentious issues facing Members in Cancún were
those stipulated in paragraphs 8 and 21 on TRIPS negotiations, and paragraphs 9 and 20 on
environment.  While his delegation had strong views on these issues, it was willing to go along withthe current draft text for these paragraphs.  However, it should be kept in mind that Ministers would
still have to fill in the dates.  This flexibility in  Indonesia's position reflected its effort to ensure that
Cancún was a success.  Indonesia did not want to jeopardize the success of Cancún or further burden
Ministers with issues on which the draft text gave a fair picture of current developments.  With the
current polarization of positions on agriculture, NAMA, and the Singapore issues, Indonesia
envisaged that Ministers in Cancún would spend much of their time trying to resolve the current
deadlock on these issues.  In this connection and without undermining the importance of the issues inparagraphs 8, 9, 20 and 21 in the draft text, his delegation encouraged all Members to show flexibility
and to accept the balance the General Council Chairman had struck.
163. The representative of Ecuador said he wished to record his country's position in the
negotiating process leading up to Cancún, which reflected a commitment to make progress on the
matters agreed at Doha.  Ecuador recognized that despite the General Council Chairman's tirelessefforts to produce an operative text containing a balanced and harmonious presentation of the main
aspects of the negotiations, the present situation was still marked by conflicting positions which
prevented preparing a consensus text for consideration by Ministers in Cancún.  Areas of dispute were
commonly found in any negotiating process.  Hence, the importance of establishing agreements that
reflected substantive progress on critical issues of vital importance to the majority of Members, inorder to obtain concessions that would facilitate the achievement of results beneficial to all WTO
Members.  In this connection, Ecuador considered agriculture to be the most crucial aspect of the
negotiations, the results of which held the key to the convergence of positions in other areas of
negotiation.  The new commitments on agriculture, given all their implications for Ecuador's
development and the well-being of its population, could not be a secondary element in thenegotiations, nor be limited to a text which, like the one contained in the draft Ministerial text, did not
include relevant aspects raised by a significant number of countries which together accounted forWT/GC/M/82
Page 41
more than 60 per cent of the global population dependent on agriculture.  Ecuador's participation in
the WTO accession process and the level of its income in 1996 had given rise to significant
concessions in the area of trade liberalization, with wide-ranging domestic effects.  Consequently, any
call for further trade liberalization by his country, unaccompanied by substantial progress in the field
of agriculture, was difficult to accept.
164. His delegation wished to make the following comments on the revised draft text.  Regarding
agriculture, the revised draft text circulated on 25 August still contained many elements his delegation
found difficult to accept.  In this connection, Ecuador maintained the view that the text submitted by a
group of countries – which was now supported by 20 Members – constituted a sound basis for
negotiation.  Furthermore, as was well known, that text already contained a set of concessions that
would make it acceptable to various countries.  For these reasons, the text in question, of which
Ecuador was a co-sponsor, was an important element that could not be left aside and had to remainunder consideration in order to achieve the Doha Ministerial objective of negotiating modalities and
not reducing the levels of ambition.  Consequently, his delegation hoped the Chairman would be able
to transmit the text of this proposal to Cancún, in the form deemed most appropriate.  He added that it
was highly irregular for elements that were assumed not to form part of the negotiations to be
included in the text of Annex A, for example points 2.9 and 6.  Regarding NAMA, Annex Bconcerning the structure of future modalities could constitute the basis for these negotiations,
inasmuch as it established a frame of reference whose different elements were to be adjusted by
Ministers in Cancún.  On the basis of the cross-cutting principles specific to this negotiation, the
formula approach should be the chief overall modality of negotiation, while the sectoral approach, as
had been reiterated on various occasions by a large number of countries, should be a voluntarycomponent supplementary to the formula approach.  The level of ambition and flexibility in these
negotiations should provide for the principle of less than full reciprocity and should necessarily be
linked to the levels achieved in the agriculture negotiations.  The revised draft Ministerial text clearly
provided for unequal treatment in the agricu ltural and NAMA negotiations, and significant and
balanced progress would have to be made on these commitments in order to ensure the integrity of themultilateral trading system.
165. Regarding services, the current text was an im provement over the original text.  In this
connection, his delegation considered that before setting a deadline for improved offers, priority
should first be given to the establishment of clear rules on safeguards, subsidies, national regulations
and government procurement.  This would enable the specific commitments agreed by Members to
have a clear and substantive commercial value based on knowledge of the precise definition of the
rules of the game.  Concerning Mode 4, taking into account the provisions of GATS Article IV,Ecuador considered that the Chairman's text should explicitly state that this was a mode of service
supply of particular interest to developing countries, and not merely take note of that interest.  It
would also be necessary to establish mechanisms for compliance with paragraph 15 of the Guidelines
and Procedures for the Negotiations (S/L/93), which was also mentioned in the Doha Declaration.
Regarding the reference in the text to TRIPS and Public Health, his delegation was unaware of any
consultations or negotiations having been carried out for the incorporation of a text of the type
indicated by the square brackets inserted for that purpose.  To his delegation's knowledge, there had
been no discussions designed to resolve the problem raised in paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on
public health.  The proposed compromise of 16 December 2002 had not received the necessary
support, although it could possibly be improved.  Nevertheless, any new element introduced on thistopic would need to be discussed in the same way as had been done for other topics.  His delegation
wished to be included in such consultations and possible negotiations.  Solutions to health problems
affecting vast groups of poor people were of crucial importance to countries like Ecuador.
166. Regarding non-violation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement, the relevant paragraph in
the draft text did not come close to meeting Ecuador's wishes.  As other countries, particularly in theAndean area, had shown, these questions were clearly not applicable to the TRIPS Agreement.
Ecuador had demonstrated great flexibility and noted that there had been a gradual reduction in theWT/GC/M/82
Page 42
levels of ambition.  However, Ecuador had joined the consensus on this issue on the understanding
that recommendations were to be made in the context of the Ministerial Conference.  Regarding trade
and environment, his delegation had participated constructively in these negotiations with the aim of
fulfilling the objectives of paragraph 31 of the Doha Declaration.  The criteria and scope of
participation in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and information exchange should beestablished in the negotiations to be conducted by the Committee on Trade and Environment, as
should the definition of the categories of environmental goods and services, before these negotiations
were resumed.  Regarding paragraphs 32 and 33 of the Doha Declaration, Ecuador considered it
necessary to continue the balanced treatment of these important topics, without prejudice to their
relevance to other WTO Committees.  Regarding S&D treatment, a more forceful and reinvigorated
approach to these provisions would greatly benefit the developing countries.  It was necessary to
establish clearly the importance of this subject and the need to give new impetus to the work, toreinforce the tasks carried out by the Committee on Trade and Development, and to set a deadline
facilitating the speedy achievement of definitive results conducive to development, consistent with the
aims of this Round of negotiations.
167. Regarding implementation-related issues, in terms of extent and form, the necessary progress
had not been made, given all the hopes placed in these matters before and during the DohaConference.  Unfortunately, this subject had been hijacked by the obstinate search for a convenient
single topic, which was of rather little interest to developing countries, as in the case of the extension
of GIs to products other than wines and spirits – a hobby horse of European countries.  Other subjects
of vital interest to developing countries should not be held hostage by this approach.  Therefore,
Ministers should clearly stress the need for progress on this matter in order to meet the real andgenuine aspirations of developing countries.  Regarding the Singapore issues, Ecuador noted that the
Chairman had prepared two texts reflecting the current conflicting positions on each of these issues.
On investment, Ecuador had maintained a flexible position with regard to the progress of the
negotiations, but this – like the issues of competition, government procurement and trade facilitation –
would be subject to the progress made on matters of interest to the developing countries, particularlyagriculture and NAMA, as well as S&D treatment and TRIPS and Public Health.  His delegation also
considered that each of the Singapore issues should be dealt with separately on its own merits, and not
as a single negotiating package.  Regarding Annexes D through G attached to the revised draft
Ministerial text, Ecuador was surprised that these had been included despite the lack of agreement on
modalities, as in the case of investment, or without prior discussion by Members of the texts
concerned relating to competition, government procurement and trade facilitation.  In the
circumstances, his delegation proposed that these discussions be suspended at Cancún, subject to aprior analysis of the impact on developing countries of the possible adoption of such multilateral
agreements.  While it was true that the fundamental objective of the current Round of negotiations
was the further reform and liberalization of global trade policies, it was also true that one fundamental
principle, among others, as ratified by all Members, was the recognition that the requirements and
interests of developing countries were the main focus of the negotiations and should therefore besafeguarded during the conduct of the negotiations.  Ecuador would continue to support all efforts and
initiatives to ensure that the Doha work programme met the objectives outlined by Ministers, and that
the Cancún Ministerial Conference yielded the expected results.
168. The representative of Morocco, on behalf of the African Group
, said that the revised draft text
unfortunately was not the kind of text these Members had hoped to be able to send to Ministers.
However, the situation being what it was, and in view of the enormous differences between
delegations on key issues, the text could not go beyond the necessary threshold that would facilitate
work for Ministers in Cancún.  While some comments had been reflected faithfully in the draft text,
others had been left aside.  The African Group nevertheless recognized the difficulty of the
Chairman's job and the Herculean mission he had had to accomplish.  However, the revised draft textat first sight did seem to have major imbalances regarding the ambitions in various areas.  In NAMA,
the level of ambition was much higher than in agriculture.  For the African Group, it was fundamental
to reflect the Doha mandate, and in the light of the difficulty in responding to the requests of someWT/GC/M/82
Page 43
delegations who wanted to delete the Annexes and keep only the main part of the draft text, the
African Group proposed that the draft  text be improved upon by including other annexes, in order to
better reflect the spirit of the work and the intensive consultations that had been going on for several
weeks.
169. Regarding specific comments on the draft text, on agriculture he had already, in the HODs
meeting the previous day, expressed this Group's general views on Annex A where elements of S&D
treatment were included.  These were positive elements and needed to be followed up and considered
further by introducing other components, such as erosion of preferences.  These matters had been
dealt with appropriately in the Revised First Draft of Modalities, and the African Group would have
liked the revised draft text to have used a differen t basis for work than just the joint EC/US text, on
which he had given the Group's comments the previous week.  Paragraph 25 of the draft text
regarding the proposal by Benin, Chad, Burkina Faso and Mali on cotton should refer to the draftdecision submitted to the Secretariat.  This draft decision took into account substantial elements to
solve the problem faced by cotton producing LDCs affected by cotton subsidies.  This text should be
annexed to the draft Ministerial text, as this was the best way to faithfully reflect the spirit of the
debate and the support many Members had given to this proposal.  On NAMA, the text had a higher
level of ambition than the agriculture text, but the African Group was still concerned that its views oncertain areas which were important for the African continent were not reflected.  This concerned
mainly the tariff reduction formula and the sectoral approach, as well as the matter of preferences.
The Group did not see a reflection of the debates held in these areas.  On S&D treatment – and while
thanking the Chairman sincerely for his efforts a nd commitment to facilitating consensus on most of
the proposals – the Group noted that paragraph 11 of the draft text did not take into account the viewsof many developing countries, and particularly of the African group, regarding the timeliness of
taking a decision in Cancún for an early harvest.  On TRIPS and Public Health, the African group had
earlier that day met with the Chairman of th e TRIPS Council and the United States, who had
communicated to the Group information which was very promising regarding an imminent consensus.
The African Group therefore hoped that the long-awaited solution would materialize before the end ofthe week and thus open the door to the unblocking of other areas in Cancún.  The African Group
reaffirmed its confidence in the Chairman and would support his untiring efforts to ensure the success
of the draft Ministerial text.
170. The representative of Botswana, on behalf of the 
ACP Group, acknowledged the particular
difficulties the Chairman had faced in view of the disparate positions of delegations on many of the
subjects being negotiated.  At the outset, he wished to draw attention to the ACP Declaration on the
Fifth Ministerial Conference of the WTO, which had been circulated in document WT/MIN(03)/4.During the Group's Ministerial meeting held in Brussels on 31 July and 1 August 2003, the ACP
Ministers of Trade had adopted this Declaration, which detailed the ACP's position on the various
issues to be tabled at Cancún.  The Declaration highlighted priority issues for the ACP Group, which
included among others, agriculture, NAMA, trade preferences, implementation issues, S&D
treatment, TRIPS and Public Health, and regional trade agreements.  On substantive issues, ACPdelegations had reviewed the revised draft Minister ial text and on the whole found it an improvement
over the initial draft text.  The text and anne xes concerning agriculture and NAMA had undergone
significant modification, especially regarding the inclusion of Annexes A and B.  The lack of certainty
in those provisions was a cause for concern for ACP delegations.  It went without saying that
agriculture was an area of fundamental importance to the ACP Members, who would like to seeprovisions in the draft modalities that addressed such issues as preferences, the Special Safeguard
Mechanism, Special Products, and the special n eeds of Net Food Importing Developing Countries,
among other things.  The final text on NAMA should allow developing countries to choose their own
rate and extent of future import liberalization, so as to minimize the adverse impact on local
industries.
171. Regarding the Singapore issues, he first wish ed to draw attention to document WT/GC/W/513
entitled "Proposals on the Singapore Issues for Inclusion in the Draft Text for Cancún", circulated onWT/GC/M/82
Page 44
behalf of some members of the ACP Group as well as a number of other like-minded countries.  The
substance of the text was a merger of the positions expressed in the ACP, Mauritius and Dhaka
Declarations.  The second option reflected in brackets in the draft Ministerial text contained some of
the elements outlined in the aforementioned document and was therefore favourable to the ACP
Group.  Additionally, this second option seemed to have the support of an overwhelming number ofdelegations.  Against this backdrop, the ACP countries were concerned about the inclusion of
Annexes D through G in the revised draft text.  These Annexes had not been the subject of extensive
discussion during the past two weeks of negotiati ons.  Their inclusion created an imbalance in the
draft text both optically and substantively.  The ACP Group welcomed the inclusion of the sections on
the Sectoral Initiative on Cotton and Commodity Issues, as these were subjects that had an impact in
particular on the members of the ACP Group.  The revised text on LDCs was a substantial
improvement over the first draft.  However, this text could be further refined, as evidenced by the factthat some of the text was still in square brackets.  The ACP Group was of the view that the revision of
the sections on small economies, technical cooperation, implementation and S&D treatment on the
whole represented positive steps in these areas.
172. Being amongst the worst affected by the HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other
pandemics, members of the ACP Group had a strong interest in the resolution of the TRIPS andPublic Health issue.  Effective implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS
Agreement and Public Health would enable ACP countries to have access to generic drugs, and would
thereby save many lives currently being lost on a daily basis.  The Group was encouraged to learn that
agreement on this issue was foreseen possibly before Cancún.  These countries were waiting with
eager anticipation and would offer whatever support was necessary to the Chairman of the TRIPSCouncil.  Finally, Cancún was approaching, and it was vital that Members address the issue of the
decision-making process for that Ministerial Confer ence.  In this context, the ACP Group reiterated
the importance of having a transparent, democratic and all-inclusive decision-making process at the
Fifth Ministerial Conference.  Of paramount importance to this Group were the procedures facilitating
the carrying out of work at Cancún.  It was imperative that in Cancún, the procedures for theelaboration, amendment and adoption of the draft Ministerial text were transparent and inclusive.  The
ACP Group sought to improve the process of decisi on-making during the Ministerial Conference.  In
that vein it proposed the adoption of procedural rules in order to enhance transparency and
inclusiveness in the decision-making process.  These rules should ensure that all Members decided on
the appointment of the Chairpersons of Working Groups formed at the Ministerial Conference, that
the draft text forming the basis of negotiations reflected the proposals of all Members or groups of
Members, that all Members were informed of consul tations and were entitled to participate in them,
and that all issues of importance – including consideration of any proposal to extend the Conference –
were put before Members as a whole for a decision.  The ACP Group hoped that the WTO
membership would favourably consider these proposals.  Given the seriousness of the issues that
would constitute the agenda of the Ministerial Conference, procedural considerations were as essential
as those on substantive matters.  The ACP Group stood ready to participate actively andconstructively at the upcoming Ministerial Conference so as to ensure a successful outcome.
173. The representative of Hungary said that as his delegation had commented quite extensively on
the draft text the previous day, he would deal with just two general issues.  The first was the
negotiating process and Members' present situation, of which the case of the agriculture negotiations
was illustrative.  As all were aware, up to early August there had been blockage on this key issue andit had seemed that this would undermine any progress towards a successful outcome at Cancún.  The
EC/US joint proposal clearly represented a major breakthrough.  It showed the flexibility of the major
players and the giving up of long held positions.  Thus, a chance had been provided to give impetus to
the whole negotiating process and to move ahead in this area, as in others.  In response, however,
there had been the paper from the G-20, which those countries had said was a good compromise.  Thequestion was, compromise between what?  Hungary saw this paper as representing a rather extreme
position and as stepping back towards bipolar thinking.  Due to the reasons stated the previous day,
Hungary thought this was even a step backwards from the rather ambitious positions of the CairnsWT/GC/M/82
Page 45
Group, by creating obligations just for developed countries and proposing almost no obligations for
developing countries.  It seemed that one step forward by some important participants was
reciprocated by three steps backwards by another group.  While this had not been unexpected, it was
nevertheless not a positive phenomenon in the context of the discussions.  The agriculture
negotiations were just one example of the situation in which Members found themselves.  In the run-up to Cancún, his delegation had seen more hardening of positions instead of increasing flexibility.
The negotiating process in Geneva could not fulfil its task, as Members were at the end of the road,
and matters needed to be considered at a political level.
174. The second issue his delegation wished to address was what this meant for the future and
status of the draft Ministerial text.  Many different opposing views had been expressed at the present
meeting, which were in most cases mutually exclusive.  At the HODs meeting the previous day,
Hungary, along with other European countries, had also pointed out what it saw as shortcomings in
the draft text, while other participants had praised the draft text for exactly the same reasons for which
some had criticised it.  As his delegation saw it, there had been no change regarding any consensus on
this text, and there were only two alternatives.  The first had been proposed by a group of participants
at the present meeting – that in the absence of consensus, Members give up their efforts in Geneva,
report to Ministers that there had been no outcome from the Geneva process, and leave it to Ministersto decide how to come to an agreement.  The second alternative was to send the revised draft text as
the Chairman's proposal under his responsibility to Cancún, as the result of Members' best efforts.
Ministers would then look at the various issues contained in the text and decide how they could come
to an agreement among themselves.
175. The representative of Japan asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.19  Japan's basic stance was
that in order for the Round to conclude as scheduled, it was imperative to make progress at Cancún.
In this sense, the draft Ministerial text was of critical importance.  All had to make their utmost effort
to transmit to Ministers a document that would serve as a sound basis for constructive discussions
among Ministers so as to achieve tangible results.  While Japan highly appreciated the tremendouseffort behind it, the revised draft text contained room for further improvement.  He wished to make
some general remarks before going into specifics co mments.  First, Japan recognized the objective of
the Round to be expansion of trade to develop the world economy, especially the economies of
developing countries.  From this point of view, his delegation saw certain problems on the road to
reaching agreement after Cancún on modalities that would achieve a high level of ambition in market
access for developing countries, both in agriculture and NAMA.  While appropriate S&D treatment
was of course necessary, excessive employment of S&D treatment would not contribute to, but rathercompromise, the long-term objective of development, by having a negative effect on strengthening the
competitiveness of developing countries' economies and expansion of trade among their economies,
which would benefit developing-country Members most.  On the other hand, Japan placed much
importance on the need to allow for S&D treatment in a way that would assist developing-country
Members to be further integrated into multilateral trading system, and that would promotedevelopment while taking into account different stages of development of respective developing-
country Members.  Japan also attached importance to technical assistance and capacity building.
From this perspective, it had been actively enga ged in the work related to S&D treatment aimed at
carrying out the Doha mandate.  Japan welcomed the fact that certain progress had been achieved in
this area, thanks to the efforts of the Chairman as well as the Chairman of the Committee on Tradeand Development in Special Session.  In order to make further progress in this process, it was
extremely important that at Cancún, Members reaped the fruit of the work undertaken so far.  In this
context, Japan appreciated the revised draft Ministerial text, and had dropped its reservation on the
item on page 5 of Annex C in that text.
                                                     
19 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 46
176. Regarding the Singapore issues, Japan placed considerable importance on maintaining the
relevance of the WTO vis-à-vis the new challenges posed by current world trade.  In this respect,
Japan recognized the Singapore issues to be an important element of the overall package of the
Round, together with agriculture, NAMA and others.  While it was regrettable that consensus was yet
to be achieved among Members for launching negotiations in these four areas, Japan would continueto make efforts towards forming a consensus through discussions at the level of Ministers.  His
delegation was fully aware of the concerns of developing-country Members, such as those related to
their limited capacity to respond to new issues or those relating to the perceived effect of new rules
limiting the scope of development policies.  Japan was willing to address the concerns of developing
countries and wanted to launch negotiations on rules in all four areas on a basis acceptable to all.
Japan appreciated that the current draft text indicated alternatives for Ministers, as consensus was yet
to be formed, thus providing a basis for promoting the discussions at Cancún.  In the areas ofagriculture and NAMA, especially with regard to the frameworks for establishing modalities
contained in the respective annexes, some of the comments Japan had been insisting on had not been
reflected.  His delegation thus intended to continue its engagement in the discussions, with a view to
incorporating its views before the text was sent to  Ministers.  In order to reach consensus in the
General Council to send the text to Ministers, Japan needed to see its views reflected.
177. His delegation wished to comment on the following areas of great importance in a more
concrete manner.  Regarding paragraph 4 and Annex A relating to agriculture, the objective of the
current process should be to establish trade rules on agriculture that enabled the co-existence of
various types of agriculture.  Accordingly, the structure to be established should be well balanced to
properly address the concerns of food importing Members who had to share the main burden ofreform in agriculture.  It should make possible continuous reform and provide enough flexibility to
address non-trade concerns.  The balance among the three pillars was also crucial.  Unfortunately, the
required balance was not there, and too heavy a burden was imposed on importing Members.  Any
framework package which included such notions as tariff capping and TRQ expansion would not
provide a balanced basis.  In this regard, it was regrettable that account had not been taken of theviews clearly presented in the three papers submitt ed respectively by Japan, Switzerland joined by
five countries, and Norway.  Judging from this perspective, Japan's basic view of the draft text on
agriculture was that it had serious difficulties.  Any package which failed to respond to the points his
delegation had made was not acceptable.  Regarding some of the basic points necessary to bring better
balance to the draft text, paragraph 4 should call for modalities that were comprehensive, covering all
rules and disciplines, in order to properly address the interests and concerns of all Members, including
non-trade concerns.  To reflect this, in addition to an explicit reference to non-trade concerns,paragraph 4 should also be modified by moving the reference to "rules and disciplines" from its latter
part to the earlier part of the sentence.  On the issue of non-trade concerns, Japan looked forward to
the corrigendum mentioned by the Chairman.
178. Since it was vital that non-trade concerns be properly taken into account in the three pillars as
provided for in paragraph 13 of the Doha Declarati on, Japan was of the view that the reference to non-
trade concerns should be made not only in the chapeau of Annex A but also in paragraph 4 of the draft
Ministerial text.  Accordingly, paragraph 4 should r ead in part, "We direct the Special Session of the
Committee on Agriculture to conclude its work on establishing modalities for further commitments,
including rules and disciplines, and with non-trade concerns duly taken account of, with the
provisions for special and differential treatment, by [...]."  Regarding Annex A on domestic support,in order to facilitate reform, the basic framework of the disciplines should consist of Amber, Green
and intermediate boxes. Therefore, the proposed text retaining this basic framework was reasonable.
Green Box measures should remain exempt from capping and reduction commitments, in light of the
Doha mandate which called for substantial reduction of trade-distorting subsidies.  Regarding market
access, substantial improvements should be achieved through tariff reduction with a formula whoseoutcome was equivalent to the Uruguay Round formula.  Japan, like other countries, was providing
sufficient market access through TRQs.  The blended formula should be a pure hybrid of the Uruguay
Round and harmonising formulas.  The notion of possible expansion of TRQs in the first category wasWT/GC/M/82
Page 47
excessive.  Accordingly, the sentence in paragraphs 2.1(i) and 2.6(i), "for these import-sensitive tariff
lines market access increase will result from a combination of tariff cuts and TRQs", should be
deleted.
179. Japan reiterated that in the area of agriculture, there was no room for accepting the idea of
tariff capping, since it negated the basic concept of the tariffication package under the Uruguay RoundAgreement and disregarded the tremendous divers ity in production conditions among Members.
Accordingly, paragraphs 2.2 and 2.7 should be deleted.  Special safeguards should remain in place
both for developed and developing-country Members in order to facilitate reform.  Regarding export
competition, while his delegation welcomed the reference to the need to strengthen disciplines on
export prohibition and restrictions, this reference should include disciplines on export taxes.
Paragraph 3.7 should be amended to clearly address this issue.  This was of vital importance for
importing Members from the viewpoint of ensuring  food security and redressing the imbalance
between importing and exporting countries.  On S&D treatment provisions, his delegation had earlier
expressed its general concern over the way S&D considerations were reflected in the market access
provisions of the draft text, not only in the respective Annex but elsewhere as well.  While there was a
need to address the interests and concerns of developing-country Members through appropriate
provision of S&D treatment, this should not be done in such a way as to create a two-tier systemwithin the organisation, which would be detrimental fo r the future of the multilateral trading system.
While his delegation had taken note of India's remarks on this notion, it remained concerned from a
systemic point of view.  Both developing as well as developed Members needed to undertake reform.
As a matter of principle, the same reduction formula should be the common basis for both developed
and developing Members.
180. On other issues in Annex A, in paragraph 6 there were some issues set out in the preceding
paragraphs which were not consistent with the core elements of the framework, such as “product-
specific concerns in domestic support.”  Second, Japan wished to make clear that negotiating
proposals from Members remained on the table, and that the questions and issues referred to in the
Chairman's report referred to were not exhaustive.  Therefore, paragraph 6 should be amended in partto read, "... and the related question and issues specified in the report of the Chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture Special Session to the TNC (TN/AG/10 refers), as well as negotiating
proposals from Members, would serve as reference documents for the further work on modalities, ...."
His delegation wished to reiterate its position that in the area of the framework on agricultural market
access, there should be no tariff capping or TRQ expansion, and that balance in the three pillars as
well as between importing and other Members was vital.  In this context, Japan reserved the right to
seek further modifications of disciplines on domestic support, export competition and S&Dprovisions, depending on developments on the market access pillar.  Japan also wished to point out
that the whole negotiation under the DDA should be conducted in a comprehensive manner.  In this
connection, it was very important to attain an overall balance.
181. On paragraph 5 on NAMA, Ministers in Cancún should give clear guidance on the subsequent
work in order to arrive at a formula that would allow Members to attain their ambitions for further
market access, as agreed at Doha.  Discussions on the formula, as well as on sectoral tariff elimination
and harmonization – two core elements of NAMA – had revealed there were still severely diverging
opinions among Members.  At Cancún, Ministers s hould iron out these differences and agree on a
framework that would allow Members to achieve the ambitious aim set out in the Doha Ministerial
Declarations.  While the formula had to be more  ambitious than non-linear and line-by-line, the
sectoral approach should be mandatory in nature.  Japan shared the concern of the United States that
the current Annex B was weak in those areas.  Further, on Annex B, Japan firmly believed that limited
flexibility through a less than formula cut for all Members was a necessary tool to achieve maximum
overall trade liberalization.  This point had been raised at the recent informal meeting held in
Montreal at Ministerial level.  Members had carefully taken note of the intervention by a majorparticipant at that meeting who had stated that "a limited degree of flexibility should be available to
all countries through less than formula on a limited number of tariff lines/value of trade, which wereWT/GC/M/82
Page 48
balanced by greater than formula cuts of an equal magnitude".  This remark was an important element
to move Japan to advocate a simple, single ambitious formula.  Japan strongly hoped that these
elements would be reflected in the text Ministers would agree in Cancún.
182. Japan wished to add two further remarks out of a number of its concerns.  Regarding binding
tariffs on an ad valorem  basis, Japan urged further careful deliberation because there were a limited
number of cases in which it was more appropriate to apply non ad valorem  duties.  Concerning the
newly-acceded Members, the commitments these countries had made to accede to the WTO had been
carefully negotiated in order to be commensurate with the prevailing MFN tariff levels attained by
other Members, through a series of negotiating Rounds. The consideration of tariff reductions of these
newly-acceded countries should be limited to factors such as longer implementation periods.  Japan
wished to reiterate one of its concerns that sustaining a high level of ambition was extremely
important, and that to this end a limited degree of flexibility should be accorded all Members onlimited tariff lines and trade through the less than formula cuts.  Japan fully supported the proposal by
Korea in the consultation process the previous week.  On services, in order to realize meaningful
liberalisation that would benefit all Members, including developing countries, it was necessary for the
draft text to set a specific benchmark for initial offers.  His delegation urged those Members who had
not yet submitted their initial offers to make their utmost efforts to do so before Cancún.  As for thequality of offers, improvements should be made in the sectors and modes of supply of interest to all
Members.  In this regard, and also in regard to Mode 4, which was important to all Members,
including developing countries, the bracketed part of  paragraph 24 should be modified consistent with
the present text of paragraph 6.  Concerning the wording on the negotiations on rule-making, the
revised draft text was well balanced and reflected positions of all Members impartially, withoutprejudging the outcome of future negotiations.
183. On modalities for the LDCs, Japan looked forward to the continued consultations, which
should result in a simple and encouraging message that would not prejudge the outcome of the
negotiations on specific commitments and rules.  On Trade, Debt and Finance and on Trade and
Transfer of Technology in paragraphs 18 and 19, Japan could go along with the revised draft text,provided that the last sentences in both paragraphs did not a priori mean the continuance of the two
respective Working Groups.  On the question of commodities, although Japan understood the
concerns of many developing countries, due to the complexities of this issue, Japan's view was that it
needed to be discussed at the level of the General Council and other relevant bodies before being
raised at the Ministerial level.  On the paragraph on accessions, Japan welcomed the fact that both
Cambodia and Nepal were mentioned as the first two LDCs to complete the accession process under
Article 12.  Japan supported this paragraph wholeheartedly.
184. His delegation had made the above comments in order to contribute to arriving at a result in
Geneva that would enable Ministers in Cancún to more effectively deal with the enormous task before
them.  His delegation was prepared to work hard with the Chairman, the Director-General and the
entire membership in the days and hours which remained.  He reiterated his delegation's firm
commitment to the Doha Development Agenda, and its  will to work closely with the Chairman and
other Members to make Cancún a success.  With a collective sense of four key notions:  ambition,
balance, flexibility and realism – in alphabetical order – Members could collectively fulfil their
immediate task for a success at Cancún.
185. The representative of Bolivia recalled that at the informal HODs meeting the previous day,
Bolivia had expressed preliminary reactions to the draft Ministerial text – a text which, as the
Chairman himself had pointed out, represented neither partial nor full agreement.  Elements of this
text had been the subject of innumerable consultations in practically all areas, many of them with
Bolivia's direct participation, while his delegation had been kept periodically informed of other
consultations by the Chairman – a point Bolivia wished to emphasize and gratefully acknowledge,
given the transparency and inclusiveness which should prevail in this process.  The revised draft texthad been received under the same conditions, and had undergone further overall development andWT/GC/M/82
Page 49
included a greater number of topics.  However, an assessment of the overall content of the revised
draft text revealed that there was still no balance in the proposed guidelines for each of the topics.
The development dimension, which Ministers in Doha  had instructed Members to safeguard, was not
being taken into account, and in some cases the mandate clearly established at Doha was being
reinterpreted, with the risk of initiating a process of questioning which jeopardised the expectations ofthe developing countries on whose behalf the Round had been launched.  With these remarks in mind,
his delegation wished to express some concerns regarding the points covered in the draft text, or those
not clearly reflected, which Bolivia considered important to be included in the final text.
186. Regarding the framework document on agriculture – the ambit of which in general
represented a lower level of ambition than that mandated at Doha – as Bolivia had stated, together
with 19 other countries, substantial reductions in domestic support could not be envisaged without the
elimination of trade-distorting measures.  Bolivia also considered it necessary to establish disciplineson measures exempt from the reduction commitment.  In order to substantially improve market access
for agricultural production and to convey a clear message reflecting the tireless efforts of many
governments, the framework document should keep to language that did not imply backtracking on
existing commitments, and thus should expressly include the provision contained in the preamble to
the Agreement on Agriculture concerning the need for developed countries to provide for the fullestliberalization for trade in tropical agricultural products and for products serving to diversify
production away from the growing of illicit narcotic crops.  Bearing in mind the existing
discrepancies among Members, the use of emergency mechanisms such as special safeguards should
be available only to developing countries.  The text "[r]eductions of, with a view to phasing out, all
forms of export subsidies", constituted a mandate that should govern the disciplines to be adopted inthe future.  Concerning other matters included in Annex A, Bolivia considered that Ministers should
issue clear guidelines to the negotiators, excluding matters with a period of application for which the
scheduled and agreed deadline was the end of 2003, as well as topics relating to other areas of
negotiation.  With regard to the second framework document on NAMA, his delegation noted that this
was more fully elaborated and hence reflected a higher level of ambition than in the area ofagriculture.  Nevertheless, Bolivia still had difficulty supporting the proposed wording on the sectoral
tariff component, a negotiating topic on which, in Bolivia's view, it would be difficult to make
progress.
187. Regarding the provisions on S&D treatment in Annex C, Bolivia considered that they
represented a step forward, which would constitute an important part of the Ministerial message from
Cancún.  At the same time, his delegation believed that this principle should be included in each of
the modalities to be adopted, and that it would be the developing countries which ensured it wasapplied.  With regard to the four Singapore issues, his delegation – as had already been mentioned in
other WTO subsidiary bodies – did not object to the mandates contained in the Doha Declaration,
which effectively called for the elaboration of modalities to be adopted by explicit consensus.  For
various reasons, this situation was not part of the present stage of proceedings.  Consequently, the
decisions to be taken by Ministers in Cancún on these issues had to take these factors into account,and Members had to be cautious in their recommendations and submit alternatives consistent with the
balance of the negotiations, in order for the final text to be approved by all Members.
188. The representative of Australia asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.20  His delegation wished to
make three additional points on agriculture.  First, with respect to the proposed framework, Australia
accepted forwarding this, but wished to state clearly that if this was the state of the agricultural
modalities at the end of Cancún or towards the end of Cancún, it would not be an acceptable basis to
proceed.  Second, one element that had been highlighted in the past few days was export subsidies,
and not just in the context of agriculture, but more generally.  His delegation expected that, building
on the Chairman's proposed modalities, Cancún would produce a firm date for the elimination of
                                                     
20 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 50
export subsidies, so that Members could put this issue to rest.  He said that in addition – and largely in
response to Japan's comments – his delegation was not surprised that Japan was concerned about the
issue of TRQ's in the context of the agriculture modalities.  From work Australia had done, including
running some numbers overnight, it was increasing ly clear that without substantial TRQ expansion,
any blended tariff formula could far too easily be managed in such a way as to achieve minimalmarket access outcomes.  For Australia, and for many other countries, any blended approach to
market access had to clearly and substantially provide for the expansion of tariff-free quotas.
189. The representative of Kenya asked that her delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.21  The preparatory process
for the Fifth Ministerial Conference that the Chairman and the Director-General had initiated earlier
in 2003 had been transparent, and her delegation wished to commend them both for that.  Kenya also
wished to note with appreciation the manner in wh ich the Chairman had been reporting to Members
on the progress in his consultations.  This had been done in a very timely and factual manner.  While
the difficulties the Chairman had faced had been immense, Kenya believed that the end product could
have better reflected the state of play, and thus took comfort in the Chairman's statement that the draft
text did not purport to be agreed in any part at the present stage and was without prejudice to any
Member's position on any issue.  Therefore, her delegation saw the draft text  as a work in progress.Kenya wished to see the divergent views that had been expressed so often clearly and unequivocally
reflected, in order to enable Ministers to take the decisions they had to, on an informed basis – a basis
that tallied with their instructions to representatives in Geneva.
190. Given that Members had placed the interests and needs of developing and least-developed
countries at the heart of the WTO work programme at Doha, and recognizing the importance ofagriculture, her delegation urged the Chairman to consider incorporating in the draft text the proposals
Kenya had submitted on S&D treatment in agriculture, which her delegation believed would ensure
adequate flexibility to developing countries to pa rticipate flexibly in the reform programme.  This
included, and Kenya had said this several times, exempting a category of countries from undertaking
further reduction commitments because of their particular economic situation.  Kenya's paper and apaper that would be submitted by the Informal Group of Developing Countries would point in this
direction and would inject some balance into the text on agriculture.  Kenya noted that in paragraph 6
of Annex A, the report of the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session would
serve as one of the reference documents in the future negotiations.  However, Kenya would prefer
that, in addition to the first draft revised modaliti es, the text also include the overview paper as a
reference document.
191. Her delegation noted that on NAMA, Ministers were expected to adopt the framework for
modalities for negotiations, while in the case of agriculture – and this point had been made by others –
Ministers would only be expected to adopt the fr amework set out in Annex A.  Kenya proposed that
the style of the language used in the text on agriculture also apply to the NAMA negotiations.  While
no agreement had been reached on the entire Annex B, paragraphs 3 and 6 continued to pose
problems for her delegation, but of particular importance was paragraph 5, for which Kenya hadrepeatedly requested a redrafting of the first sentence and a reformulation of the second sentence to
reflect the development needs of developing countries.  The way the paragraph was currently worded
would not provide the flexibility required to induce industrialization and to meet the development
challenges of the Doha Development Agenda.  On services, her delegation had already expressed its
views on Articles IV and XIX of the GATS, and would not repeat them.  On Rules, Kenya wished tosee a clear detailed elaboration of the development aspects of regional trading agreements.  While
Kenya noted some progress had been made in meeting the Doha mandate on S&D treatment and
thanked the Chairman for his efforts in this area, it was still concerned about the value of some of the
language in the relevant Annex.  For example, regarding the proposal on the Enabling Clause, "The
General Council confirms that the terms and conditions of the Enabling Clause shall apply when
                                                     
21 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 51
action is taken by Members under the provisions of this Clause."  This did not add anything to the
language already contained in the GATT 1994, and was one of the proposals Kenya wished to see
deleted from any text forwarded to Ministers.  On the same issue, Kenya wished to see a deadline
inserted, within which this work would be concluded.  The instructions from Ministers were clear in
the Doha Declaration, and Members were supposed to have concluded this work.  The deadlines hadbeen allowed to slip, but this should not deter Members from agreeing on a different deadline.
192. On implementation-related issues, there was a need to state clearly what had been achieved.
It would be very difficult to convince Ministers that Members had accomplished what they had
instructed, without showing them the results.  Ther e was also a need to indicate the balance of work
remaining and the time required to complete the work.  Regarding the Singapore issues, her
delegation welcomed the inclusion of the two options in paragraphs 13-16.  Kenya had all along
associated itself with Option 2 on all four subjects, which called for further clarification to beundertaken, taking into consideration the work done so far in the relevant Working Groups.  Her
delegation had been disappointed that the proposed modalities – which had hardly been discussed –
had been included in the draft text as Annexes, thus creating the impression that they had a certain
privileged status.  Both options should be accorded equal treatment in the draft text.  For this purpose,
Kenya, together with a number of developing countries, had prepared elements for clarification whichher delegation hoped would inject balance into the paragraphs on the Singapore issues, and invited
the Chairman to consider their inclusion in the draft text.  Regarding the communication from
Botswana on behalf of the ACP Group of countries and others in document WT/GC/W/513, the
footnote should either be deleted or include all ACP countries, as 55 ACP countries were WTO
Members.  Kenya welcomed the inclusion of the paragraphs on commodity issues and on cotton, aswell as the suggestion that these issues be discussed in the Committee on Trade and Development.
However, her delegation would hasten to add that there were certain components of the problem that
could be dealt with appropriately only in other WTO subsidiary bodies.  These two issues were of
critical importance to LDCs and developing countries.  Kenya would have liked to see a deadline
within which some of the work would be accomplished, but would not insist on this.  Her delegationhoped that its contributions would help the Chairman to come up with a text that was balanced,
development-oriented and acceptable to the entire membership.  Kenya looked forward to a successful
Ministerial Conference and remained ready to continue to work in a constructive manner.
193. The representative of Zambia said his delegation strongly supported the statement by
Bangladesh on behalf of the LDCs, and also the statement by Botswana on behalf of the ACP Group.
If the Doha Declaration was about development, this meant the interests of developing countries,
especially the LDCs, had a special place and had to be at the centre of all Members' deliberations andactions, in order to bring the desired development to such countries as soon as possible.  It was in this
light that his delegation welcomed the Director-Gener al's report in document WT/MIN(03)/1.  As had
been clearly stated by many Members and emphasized in the informal HODs meeting the previous
day, the revised draft Ministerial text fell far short of expectations.  However, the text did have some
positive sections.  Regarding paragraph 23 under the heading "Technical C ooperation", his delegation
proposed two amendments.  First, in accordance with the proposal by South Africa the previous day,
his delegation was suggesting adding on the twelfth line from the top, the following text after the
sentence ending with the word "Programme":  "and agree to strengthen this relationship financially,
particularly with ITC and UNCTAD".  Second, at the end of the paragraph, Zambia was suggesting
adding a new sentence as follows:  "We also recognize the strong and worthy efforts of theInternational Trade Centre to involve the business communities of developing and transitional
economics in the context of the DDA and encourage the continuation of these efforts as well."  On
the Singapore issues, Zambia's position had been well articulated by India, Kenya, the Philippines,
Botswana and Malaysia, and he had nothing to add.  There were many other important issues the
WTO could concentrate on before taking up the Singapore issues, such as implementing existingWTO commitments, abolishing export subsidies in agriculture, reducing trade barriers and ensuring
fair access to markets, recognizing the overriding right to health and food security, and finding a
resolution to the debt crisis that was ravaging the economies of many developing countries.  Thus,WT/GC/M/82
Page 52
there was much the WTO could be involved in before the question of Singapore Issues was dealt with,
after clarification and negotiations, and following explicit consensus.
194. The representative of Senegal said that on the issue of TRIPS and Public Health, which was
very sensitive both for the WTO and for the entire international community, his delegation welcomed
the efforts currently under way to reach a satisfactory solution on the basis of the text of16 December 2002.  Senegal reaffirmed its strong conviction that the integrity of this text had to be
preserved at all costs.  Regarding negotiations on agriculture, while Senegal welcomed the proposal
whereby the LDCs would not assume reduction comm itments, the draft text had shortcomings that
should be remedied.  First, the text had taken a step backwards on the modalities to be established, as
Members were now speaking of a "framework" for Cancún.  This framework remained somewhat
succinct and imprecise on a number of issues that were sensitive for Senegal.  Such an approach
would inevitably entail intensive work after Cancún to fill in the gaps, and this was Senegal's concernwith respect to the erosion of preferential margin s.  Unless Members considered this question to be
settled by the blended tariff reduction formula, and this had not yet been established, this remained an
important pending issue on which Ministers had to be asked to provide guidance.  His delegation was
concerned by the same shortcomings with respect to duty-free and quota-free market access.  Senegal
continued to believe that one way to improve market access for LDCs was for the developed countriesto grant LDCs duty-free and quota-free access on a mandatory basis.  Regarding export subsidies,
Senegal was among those Members which defended their elimination in all forms and with respect to
all products concerned.  The attempted nuance in the draft text with respect to products of particular
interest to the developing countries would merely add to the complexity of this issue when it came to
selecting the products concerned, not to mention the particularly harmful distorting effects of theseexport subsidies.
195. In the area of NAMA as well, Members were faced with a framework for modalities in the
absence of actual modalities, although his delegation acknowledged that considerable work had been
done in this area.  The proposed framework did not  satisfy Senegal with respect to non-reciprocal
preference erosion.  Senegal, which was not a demandeur in these negotiations, could not understandthat this important issue was being neglected and pushed aside in the name of liberalization.  Many
LDCs and developing countries had repeatedly stressed their misgivings at the prospect of
negotiations being conducted in this area without taking this issue into consideration.  In fact, the
mandate clearly stated that these negotiations "shall take fully into account the special needs and
interests of developing and least-developed country participants".  In Senegal's view, it would be
appropriate, even at the stage of this framework for modalities, to specify the manner in which
preference erosion would be addressed, namely, the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to dealwith the negative consequences for the beneficiaries of such preferences that could result from
liberalization.  On services, Senegal attached great importance to establishing modalities for special
treatment of LDCs in these negotiations.  Rather than simply renewing, in this area, the non-
operational and ineffective S&D provisions LDCs were accustomed to, Members should be ensuring
true market access for LDCs, flexibility regarding their commitments and, above all, effectivetechnical assistance to enable them to take ad vantage of the opportunities offered in the rapidly
expanding area of trade in services.  An alternative course would not benefit the LDCs and would
undermine their capacity to participate effectively in the negotiations on services.  In this connection,
it was important that before Cancún, the ongoing work of the Council for Trade in Services resulted in
an agreement on the modalities for special treatment of LDCs under the GATS that was meaningfuland reflected genuine progress.
196. Regarding the negotiations on rules, Senegal appreciated Members' willingness to take
account of developmental aspects in the effort to clarify and improve the disciplines applicable to the
regional trade agreements of developing countries and LDCs.  His delegation hoped that the regional
and inter-regional integration process under way in several developing countries and LDCs wouldfind its place in the WTO multilateral rules as a co mplementary element that could only reinforce the
multilateral trading system.  On S&D treatment, in the light of the objective of improving theseWT/GC/M/82
Page 53
provisions, his delegation doubted whether the draft decisions in Annex C that Members were being
asked to adopt would truly help make S&D treat ment provisions more precise, effective and
operational.  Even if they did, it was difficult to speak of progress in this area, given all of the other
issues that did not appear in Annex C.  Rather, Ministers should be asked to note the lack of
substantial progress and to urge Members to complete this work as quickly as possible.  The same wastrue for the implementation-related issues and concerns, where the negotiations had not thus far
produced satisfactory overall results.  On the Singapore issues, Senegal favoured the second option
proposed for the four issues, i.e. to continue the clarification work.  For several reasons, inter alia  the
lack of true progress in addressing development issues and the excessive workload involved after
Cancún, his delegation did not think it wise, as matters stood, to consider initiating negotiations on
these issues.  In this respect, he associated his delegation with the communication by Botswana on
behalf of the ACP States and a number of developing countries.  Regarding the sectoral initiative oncotton,  Senegal reiterated its full support for this initiative and believed that an appropriate procedure
for finding a satisfactory solution to this problem w ould be to provide Ministers, in an annex, with a
copy of the modalities proposed by the co-sponsors of the initiative.  This approach would enable the
initiative to be dealt with promptly in Cancún, bearing in mind the urgency of settling this issue.
Priority had to be given to this matter in Cancún in order to avoid subsequent drawn-out discussionsto determine the modalities for dealing with it.  His delegation encouraged the Chairman in the pursuit
of the work at hand and assured him of its full cooperation towards success in Cancún.
197. The representative of Venezuela said his delegation wished to endorse the criteria, expressly
mentioned by the Chairman and the Director-General, of respecting the ambition of the Doha
mandates, respecting the development dimension and seeking overall balance.  It was useful to look atthe global social and economic context that would be the backdrop to the Cancún Ministerial
Conference and which posed certain challenges to the commitments undertaken by Members at Doha.
According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, 826 million human beings suffered from
hunger and other forms of malnutrition.  Agriculture had become a dominant variable in the trading
process, which had to, of necessity, ensure food security.  Unemployment in the rural sector stood atthree million.  According to the International Organization for Migration, there were 175 million
"active" migrants, who suffered discriminatory tr eatment on the labour market and whose remittances
to their countries of origin amounted to no more than 50 per cent of what the United Nations assigned
to developing countries.  Meanwhile, the world economy had registered slow average growth and had
been marked by uncertainty, growing demands for mo re flexibility on the part of developing countries
and commitment to comply with the Doha mandates, while average growth in trade had gone from
6.7 per cent in the last decade to a scant 2.5 per cent in 2002 with little prospect of improvement in2003.
198. Mindful of this context and the obvious difficulties encountered by Members in trying to
reach consensus on the adoption of balanced modalities for trade, Venezuela wished to make the
following observations.  Regarding the nature of the draft Ministerial text, this text was not so much
an operational text, as it had been termed, as a document reaffirming the Doha mandates, which tookup the first 11 paragraphs:  liberalization of trade policies to avoid a global economic slow-down;  the
role of international trade in the promotion of economic development and the alleviation of poverty;
increased opportunities and welfare gains for the peoples of Member countries;  growth of world trade
commensurate with the economic needs of developing countries;  enhanced market access;  balanced
rules;  technical assistance and capacity-building programmes;  coherence with the Bretton Woodsinstitutions in global economic policy-making;  commitment to sustainable development through an
open and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system allowing national environmental assessments
of trade policies on a voluntary basis with a view to the protection of human, animal and plant life;
and commitment to the WTO as the unique multilate ral forum for global trade rule-making, and the
collective commitment to internal transparency and the effective participation of its Members.Accordingly, Cancún had to be a forum for reaf firming commitments, the scope and workability of
which had been discussed in formal plenary meetings, country group consultations, working sessions
on specific subjects, and regional and multilateral consultations which had led to an overall, but as yetWT/GC/M/82
Page 54
incomplete, enrichment that Members had to allow to mature before embarking on balanced
negotiations with sights set on development.
199. As to the nature of the annexes, these came over as operational texts which could be useful as
reference documents in developing modalities or negotiating mechanisms through multilateral
workshops to analyse trade categories and concepts as yet not fully understood, to which could beadded all the other proposals by countries or groups of countries designed to seek out common ground
in the diversity inherent in the WTO membership.  It would be advisable in this connection to delete
from paragraphs 4 and 5 of the draft text the words "we adopt" and to replace them with "we present",
since – quite apart from the fact that there was no consensus on the matter – a significant number of
countries felt unable to be held to adopting these annexes.  In the paragraph on S&D treatment,
"recall" should be replaced by "reiterate" and the subject treated as a cross-cutting issue of trade
negotiations in the WTO, in keeping with the Doha mandate.  On TRIPS and Public Health, access toa health system that was equitable for all was perhaps the greatest challenge of modern times.  No
state could have its role as guarantor of public health affected by future disciplines or commitments
which might compromise its sovereignty in this matter.  The issue of patents had to be dealt with in
depth until balanced modalities were found that complied with the concepts of intellectual property
protection and resolved the matter of access to these essential inputs by large groups of thepopulation.  Excessive restriction arising from protec tionist practices might ultimately eliminate what
all sought so earnestly – greater market access based on fairness and equity.
200. In Venezuela, health was protected by the Constitution.  Thus, this issue had to be treated
with the utmost openness and inclusion.  Accordin gly, his delegation reiterated its wish to be
informed of any new texts submitted by developing  countries, and whether Members were continuing
to take as a basis the document of 16 December which, in its view, could still be improved, or if new
options had been put forward.  Regarding the Singapore issues, in paragraphs 13-16 of the draft text,
his delegation suggested eliminating the dualism, which was a reflection of the differing views on
these issues which precluded meeting the requirement of explicit consensus set forth in paragraphs 20,
23, 26 and 27 of the Doha Declaration.  It would be appropriate to include a paragraph statingexpressly that there had to be explicit consensus on modalities in respect of these issues, that these
issues had to be treated individually according to their merits, and that there was need for a more
rigorous analytical process that lent greater clarity to the trade concepts that came into the negotiating
process.   There was a need to reaffirm the commitments agreed in Doha, and to analyse the annexes,
enriching them with the proposals made by countries or groups of countries in regional meetings and
in multilateral analysis workshops designed to produce trade modalities in the disciplines that
warranted them.  Members should maintain the analytical and specific discussion on modalities forthe Singapore issues that were already in process, with a view to achieving explicit consensus that
would enable Members to start negotiations.  Account should be taken of the food security
commitment throughout the negotiations on agriculture.  Intellectual property should be made an
active component of development.  S&D treatment, technical cooperation and capacity building
should be treated as cross-cutting issues of the WTO negotiations, and this approach had to apply tothe disciplines, geographical areas and trade requirements dictated by the specific development needs
of each country.  Venezuela stood ready to take an active part in producing a text that was
understandable, simple and easily digested by Ministers, while maintaining the ambitions agreed
jointly and pursuing attainment of these objectives by 2005.
201. The representative of the United States asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal
HODs meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.22  His delegation had
indicated that there were a number of troublesome elements in the current draft text as the United
States saw it.  Further review had confirmed this assessment, despite the best efforts of the Chairman
and his team.  The United States was disappointed that there had not been further convergence on the
main issues Ministers would need to address at Cancún.  Like others, his delegation was disappointed
                                                     
22 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 55
that some of its strongly held positions had not found their way into the text, as proposed.  At Doha,
the challenge Ministers had given Members was to ensure that trade liberalization made a significant
and central contribution to economic growth, poverty reduction and development.  The challenge
Members were now giving to Ministers was to provide the guidance necessary to meet their original
expectations.  His delegation's assessment was that, taken cumulatively, the results to date in the drafttext did not meet the original mandate from Doha.  However, Cancún was still ahead.  The United
States had been troubled by some comments made the previous day in the course of the discussion.
Members had a shared responsibility to ensure that they succeeded.  This meant all had to contribute,
and the United States understood that some had to contribute more than others.  However, the days of
a great North/South divide in the organization were behind Members.  Alliances were now forged
based on interests rather than geography.  When Members arrived at Cancún, this sense of shared
responsibility would have to be more evident than had been the case thus far.
202. Regarding the draft text itself, at the HODS meeting the previous day his delegation had
focused on agriculture, NAMA, services, S&D-related issues, implementation, rules and the
Singapore issues.  He wished to supplement those comments in order to respond to the discussion at
that meeting on the following:  agriculture;  NAMA;  implementation, and specifically GI's;
proposals to broaden the DDA mandate to include commodities;  the Working Groups on Trade, Debtand Finance and on Technology Transfer;  and the subject of coherence.  The United States wished to
underscore that for it, agriculture was at the heart of the DDA and the key to development.  By
offering a possible framework intended to help move the process forward, the United States had
signalled its readiness to compromise, as well as to take difficult decisions.  The United States was
committed to an ambitious outcome in the negotiations, and if the right framework was agreed atCancún, it would enable Members to have the opportunity to negotiate an ambitious outcome.  The
key at Cancún, beyond the question of agriculture, was to establish frameworks that provided
opportunities to negotiate ambitious significant liberalization.  Members were not completing the
negotiations, but rather setting up the conditions under which successful ambitious negotiations could
be completed.  On NAMA, many concerns had been expressed in the HODs meeting about the currentlevel of ambition on the text on NAMA as being too high, or too high relative to the agriculture text.
There had also been a number of proposals to further curtail this ambition, despite the numerous
points of flexibility already provided in the text.  The text as currently drafted was low on ambition.
This was a major concern for the United States.  If Members did not set ambitious goals for
themselves, they would be doing nothing to stimulate the global economy or to keep global business
committed to the multilateral trading system as an engine of growth.  The United States' aim for
Cancún was to improve the text to retain the high level of ambition all needed.
203. On S&D treatment, his delegation wished to reiterate a point it had made the previous day.
The greatest gains to development would be in what could be achieved in the areas of agriculture,
NAMA and services.  Members needed to keep this perspective in mind.  At the HODs meeting, a
few Members had taken exception to the suggestion that Ministers adopt the decisions worked out
thus far on S&D.  All had worked long and hard to come to those decisions, on the understandingthat they were working on a package for adoption by Ministers at Cancún.  While there might be
outstanding issues that other Members felt were important and wished to be addressed, Members
had been told by the sponsors of the proposals that each and every one was a priority.  His
delegation did not see what purpose would be served by putting off definitive resolution of priority
issues.  On implementation, at the informal HODs meeting there had been a number of commentson the specific reference to geographical indications (GIs), and whether this issue should be singled
out.  His delegation joined others in noting that there was no agreement to negotiate on the
extension of the coverage of GIs beyond wines and spirits.  The United States understood the
Chairman's effort as merely maintaining the status quo, by suggesting that the Director-General
continue his consultations.  Like others, his delegation thought the question had been answered onwhether to launch negotiations as part of the DDA.   Its preference remained to show that the
question of extension had been reviewed, that there had been no consensus, and that Members were
finished with this implementation issue.  However, the United States recognized that others did notWT/GC/M/82
Page 56
share this view.  In sum, the facts were that Members had worked carefully on all the
implementation issues outlined by Ministers, consistent with the mandates given at Doha.  Members
needed to be careful about raising expectations that a number of issues, for example in rules, would
be completed in advance of the negotiations, or suggestions that mandates that had been completed
were being re-opened.  On rules,  the United States was prepared to live with the current text, but as
his delegation had noted earlier, should others have additional improvements to make, the United
States would as well.  This was an area that had been very difficult for the United States, and yet it
had worked in good faith with others to move the negotiations forward.  Some might say that
relative to other areas of the negotiations, this work was too advanced.  He was not suggesting any
changes to the text, but it did give one pause compared to other areas.
204. On the Singapore issues, his delegation wished to emphasize that in the areas of trade
facilitation and transparency in government procurement, the texts did reflect substantial consultationand discussion among Members that addressed specific concerns about potential negotiations.
Therefore, the United States saw a qualitative difference between the options that had been provided
for negotiations in these areas, as compared to the other areas, and did not believe that they were
extreme ends of the spectrum, as had been suggested.  His delegation was ready to find the right
modalities to permit a launch of negotiations on all the Singapore issues.  The United States had someconcern with proposals to add an annex of proposed "issues for clarification" on the Singapore issues.
Discussion thus far had led his delegation to believe that there was a difference of appreciation among
Members on what issues needed to be resolved in the modalities, and which were really part and
parcel of any negotiations.  On the Working Groups  on Trade, Debt and Finance and on Technology
Transfer, in consultations on the text suggested by a group of countries, his delegation had pointed outthat the existing Doha mandate in paragraphs 36 and 37 had to remain undisturbed. It did not accept
that the proposed amendments were mere clarifications of existing mandates.  However, the Unites
States was willing to consider the suggestion from this group of countries to include a report from the
General Council to the next Session of the Ministerial Conference, which was reflected in the revised
draft Ministerial text.  On commodities, while the United States appreciated and recognized theconcerns of the Members that had raised this issue, it did not believe this paragraph belonged in the
Ministerial text.  That text should focus exclusively on the specific work set out for Members by
Ministers under the DDA.  That being said, his delegation could agree to  this paragraph being
included as it stood, without change.  The United St ates would not support modifying this paragraph
to call for work beyond the mandate of the WTO, to change mandates of existing groups or to suggest
reviving failed efforts at price controls.  On coherence, his delegation thought it was appropriate to
have something in the text on this matter, given th e adjustment issues that had been raised in the
negotiations, particularly in agriculture, NAMA and the various work on S&D in terms of tariff
liberalization, as well as the work on technical assistance.  However, his delegation believed Members
needed to be mindful of the respective roles of the institutions in what they could and could not
deliver in terms of assistance, financial or otherwise.  His delegation had listened carefully to
concerns raised by a few delegations about past experience with some of these institutions, but thefact was that Members could not recreate the function of these institutions within the WTO.
Nevertheless, a more activist and combined effort of the Director-General and the Heads of the other
institutions could help to be more responsive to the concerns and interests of Members, and the United
States would support that.
205. The United States had indicated where it saw major points of contention in the text. His
delegation trusted that the Chairman would take its vi ews, and those of others, into account in leading
Members forward to Cancún. This might be a lonely job, but it was extremely important if Members
were to ensure that the DDA delivered major trade liberalization to foster economic growth and
development.  The Chairman and the Director General had mentioned the need for all to focus on
their collective responsibility to advance the work  sufficiently for Ministers to succeed in Cancún.
The United States saw that Members' collective re sponsibility was to work with the Chairman and
with all of its colleagues in the organization, using th is text as a vehicle to find solutions that worked
for all Members and that would propel the organizati on forward into substantial liberalization that wasWT/GC/M/82
Page 57
essential for the growth of the world economy and the development of Members' individual
economies, and the fulfilment of the Doha Development Agenda.  With the present meeting, it was
clear that Members were at the end of the Geneva process.  Members needed to change their focus
from their disappointments with the draft text to how to use Cancún to improve the substance of the
text and to establish an operating plan.  The text had to have mileposts to ensure that Members mettheir goal of finalizing agreements by 1 January 2005. Members' collective aim had to be to create the
needed momentum for the negotiations and to secure guidance in a direction that would achieve the
high ambitions Ministers had set out in Doha.  The stakes for the WTO, for Members' individual
economies and for the global economy could not be higher.  If Members were to deliver on the
promise of liberalization as a powerful force for economic growth, poverty alleviation and
development, they could do no less than make Cancún a success.
206. The representative of Uruguay asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.23
207. The representative of Brazil asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.24  His delegation wished to
offer some further thoughts on the process and substance of the draft text.  The Chairman had done
what he had had to do, carefully crafting a draft Ministerial text, and Brazil thanked him for that.  Asingle, comprehensive, relatively clean draft text was easier to handle than a collection of reports or a
multi-bracketed proposal.  Ease of handling, however, was not necessarily the test, especially when
one had to decide on difficult options between finding the lowest common denominator and the
promotion of meaningful progress. Of course, there remained the theoretical possibility that all
brackets in the draft text would be filled in, so as to fulfil the promises of Doha.  Perhaps theoptimistic interpretation was the right one, and the su bsidizing countries did envisage an end date for
phasing out all forms of export subsidies within the scale of earthly time.  The revised draft
Ministerial text did not preclude such a positive outcome.  However, it did relegate it to the fringes of
the range of possible outcomes, and thus pointed to a watering-down of the Doha mandate.  If
Ministers were to choose to split the differences over the current draft, or simply fill in the missingdates with two constants, the result would be a new, weaker, less ambitious mandate.  It would most
certainly not be a development Round.
208. Any Chairman’s draft was bound to displease Members.  A good Chairman’s draft was bound
to displease everyone.  However, one should not push this argument too far and come to the strange
conclusion that widespread criticism was actually praise.  Everyone should be able to identify in the
text substantive reasons to believe that by remaining engaged in the negotiation – despite his or her
level of displeasure – at the end of the day he or she would have something to gain.  As his delegationhad pointed out the previous day, the current draft text contained, from Brazil's perspective, serious
imbalances.  For instance, it asked too little of developed countries in agriculture, and too much from
developing countries in NAMA.  He wished to dem onstrate this argument by looking at the opposite
assertion – that the draft text asked too much from developed countries in agriculture and too little
from developing countries in NAMA.  Would the draft text be asking too much of developedcountries if clearly indicated the phase-out of all export subsidies and related forms of support?  Was
it too much to ask them to eliminate subsidies that distorted trade and harmed developing countries, as
acknowledged by the Commissioner for Agriculture of the European Communities when he had
announced the CAP reform?  Hardly, since developed countries were virtually the only providers of
those subsidies.  If a country provided $US10 billion in export subsidies and another provided zero,where was the balance?  The same reasoning applied to domestic support.  As for market access,
given that there were no figures in the draft text, developed countries were not, at present, being asked
anything.  They could count, however, on a linear formula to cover import-sensitive tariff lines.  This
brought him to a similar argument with regard to NAMA.  In spite of the clear Doha mandate for less
                                                     
23 See Annex IV.
24 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 58
than full reciprocity in reduction commitments, the draft text reflected a preference for a non-linear
formula, to be complemented by mandatory sectoral  initiatives. Both would inevitably result in far
larger tariff reductions, both in absolute as well as in relative terms, from developing countries.  Was
this asking too little of developing countries?   Hardly.
209. The current draft text was, therefore, indeed imbalanced.  As his delegation had said the
previous day, the draft text was fundamentally flaw ed.  According to one dictionary definition, a flaw
was an imperfection or weakness, especially one that detracted from the whole or hindered effective
operation.  The more Brazil studied the draft text, the more it became convinced that the text needed
balance.  His delegation understood the Chairman's reluctance to open up the draft text.  However, it
should be remembered that this text was only a means to an end – that of assisting Ministers to take
stock of progress in the negotiations, to provide political guidance and to take decisions as necessary.
Brazil thus urged the Chairman to continue consultations in order to ascertain whether there was amargin of movement to correct the imbalances of the text.  The proposal by 17 developing countries –
now 20 – moved in the direction of compromise.  Brazil hoped others would reciprocate.  The latter
text offered a better compromise, was more faithful to the Doha mandate, and remained on the table.
If the Chairman found it impossible to open up the draft text, his delegation would respectfully ask the
Chairman to consider listing all the proposals made  and forwarding them to Ministers with a cover
letter explaining the situation.  Ministers then would do what they had to do – take the necessary
political decisions on how the negotiations should continue.  In the circumstances, Brazil would not
be prepared to accept the possibility of lowering the ambition of the Doha mandate or accepting that
its careful balance be compromised.  His delegation trusted the Chairman's judgement and stood ready
to work with him and with the Director-General to ensure a successful outcome at Cancún.
210. The representative of Canada asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.25  Canada agreed with the
United States that the current stage, in terms of the Geneva preparatory process, was coming to a
close, and that the next stage was being ushered in, which was to facilitate the work of Ministers in
Cancún, to enhance the draft text and to turn the collective disappointment all shared into an
opportunity for Ministers in Cancún.  As the Chairman had said at the end of the HODs meeting the
previous day, every delegation which had spoken had pointed out at least one concern with the draft
text.  Canada had said at that meeting that it supported the Chairman's prerogative and authority to
forward this text to Ministers as a starting point and a basis for their deliberations in Cancún.  Thus
far, only one Member had challenged that prerogative or authority, and his delegation awaited the
Chairman's further word on this matter.  However, should there be a procedural discussion, Canada
wished to participate in it.
211. The representative of Jamaica, speaking also on behalf of Barbados, Belize, St. Lucia, and
Trinidad and Tobago asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs meeting on
25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.26  Those comments had related primarily
to agriculture, NAMA, the Singapore issues, and paragraph 27 on coherence, which these delegations
did not support in its present form.  They wished to underscore that at the present point in the Round,just before Cancún, they had hoped to be able to evaluate more fully and clearly the implications for
their interests of the process in which they were engaged.  It was a measure of the stalemate in some
areas and the divergences in others that it was not possible at the present time to make this evaluation.
Members had frontloaded expectations at Doha and were now proceeding to backload decisions at
Cancún.  These delegations were very concerned that this process hurt the interests of countries suchas theirs, which had found it difficult to keep pace in  the past several weeks and would find this to be
more the case after Cancún.  In these circumstances, their strategy had to be to emphasize at all times
certain issues that were key for them.  In agriculture, their farmers were small-scale producers who
required continued tariff protection and easy-to-use safeguards.  They were unable to provide their
                                                     
25 See Annex IV.
26 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 59
farmers with domestic support.  Given their level of competitiveness, their survival depended on
preferential access and a tolerable pace of adjustment.  Many of these issues were still open – the
depth of cuts to be required, the percentage of tariff lines to be subject to which cuts, the nature of a
Special Safeguard Mechanism, and exactly how preferential access would be taken into account,
especially longstanding preferential access.  These countries wondered what kind of decisions theirMinisters would be in a position to take in these circumstances.  In regard to industrial products, those
countries which imported three times as much as they exported and which ran chronic current account
deficits – and which, furthermore, for resource reasons rather than the absence of good cause to do so,
did not resort to trade-remedy measures – could not share the high level of ambition some had for the
NAMA negotiations.  These countries required a fo rmula and coefficient that would not further
undermine their fragile industrial base.  Furthermore, they could not accept being compelled to
participate in sectoral tariff elimination initiatives.  Article XXVIII bis of GATT 1994, whichMinisters specifically cited in the Doha mandate, made it clear that matters such as tariff revenue
dependency and other relevant circumstances, such as preference erosion, should be fully taken into
account in the NAMA negotiations.
212. On the Singapore issues, these countries agreed that Ministers expected to be presented with
modalities for consideration at Cancún, but they also believed that Ministers would expect thosemodalities to have been agreed by the General Council, or that the General Council would at least
have agreed to submit, for Ministers' consideration and decision, modalities that had not been agreed.
Since neither had occurred, these countries saw no basis to submit Annexes D, E, F and G to
Ministers.  In addition, they did not support forwarding paragraph 27 on coherence in its present form.
These delegation had given their views on this in greater detail at the HODs meeting the previous day.Regarding process – which in the WTO, more so than in other organizations, appeared to determine
substance – these countries applauded and paid tribute to the Chairman's hard work and skill which
had brought the process thus far.  Nevertheless, these delegations had reservations regarding the
practice of submitting texts to Ministers on the Chairman’s own  responsibility.  This was of even
greater concern when some of these texts had been produced late in the day and had not beenextensively discussed, such as the texts in some A nnexes.  Jamaica would work hard at Cancún to find
agreement on outstanding issues.
213. The representative of Costa Rica noted that the first sentence of paragraph 4 of the revised
draft text proposed that Ministers reaffirm their commitment to the Doha mandate on agriculture.
However, a reading of the proposed framework in Annex A made clear a lack of proximity to the
Doha mandate, since the level of ambition, on matters of detail, was inadequate.  Several days earlier
the group of 17 – now 20 – Members had submitted a proposal on agriculture which sought to raisethe level of ambition to the level of the Doha mandate.  Some elements had been timidly reflected in
the draft text.  Costa Rica believed that the framewor k proposed in the draft text should be the subject
of further work in order to make it acceptable.  On the question of domestic support, the level of
reduction appeared to be uncertain.  The blank spaces in paragraph 1.1 were designed to limit the
level of ambition.  Likewise, paragraph 1.5 was vague, no limits were placed on Green Box directpayments and there was no mention of the need to improve the disciplines under Annex 2 of the
Agreement on Agriculture.  His delegation was concerned at the continued lack of any reference to
the elimination of all export subsidies, as clearly  provided for in the Doha mandate.  Moreover, the
section on this subject should refer to export subsidies, not export competition.  His delegation
regarded as inappropriate paragraph 6, in which subjects of differing natures were placed on the samelevel.  Most of these subjects did not appear in the mandate, and Costa Rica saw no justification for
inclusion of the peace clause and export taxes.  Regarding the negotiations on NAMA and Annex B,
the text was, in general terms, a step in the righ t direction, which included positive elements such as
the non-linear formula and the conversion and binding of all tariffs in ad valorem  terms on the basis
of a methodology to be determined.  This text was a step towards the decision Ministers had to take.Paragraph 7 on S&D treatment took up the idea of differential treatment for a specified percentage of
tariff lines, which in his delegation's view had received substantial support.  However, Costa Rica was
concerned about prejudging the tariffs to which such treatment would apply, since there was noWT/GC/M/82
Page 60
consensus on the option under which not all tariffs should be bound.  It seemed clear that, regardless
of the approach adopted, "there should be no a priori  exclusions", as established in the Doha
Declaration.  Furthermore, any consideration of pref erences had to run parallel to that in the text on
agriculture.  Therefore, his delegation considered that, in the areas of both agriculture and NAMA, the
term "preferences" should be used, rather than "non reciprocal preferences".
214. Costa Rica had a high level of ambition in the agriculture negotiations, as well as in those on
NAMA, and was concerned at the extent of the imbalance caused by the low level of ambition of the
proposed text on agriculture.  There had to be a levelling process if Members seriously hoped to
achieve convergence in Cancún.  To that end, it was necessary to recognize the absolute necessity of
raising the level of ambition for agriculture to the level of the Doha mandate.  This would ensure that
one of the areas of greatest importance for development would produce results that significantly
contributed to increasing trade levels in the developing countries.  Concerning the Singapore issues,his delegation supported the initiation of negotiations in the wake of Cancún.  The proposals in the
draft text reflected divergent positions on some of these issues.  However, in the area of trade
facilitation, the first option in square brackets, the modalities for which were set out in Annex G, was
in fact a flexible one which incorporated important elements in the light of the discussions between
the demandeurs and other delegations.  Costa Rica was confident that, with flexibility and in aconstructive spirit, Ministers in Cancún would be able to agree on negotiating modalities for the
Singapore issues.
215. The representative of Mauritius said that Annex A was a genuine effort to reconcile the
interests, specificities and concerns of the variety of agricultural systems world-wide, and
accordingly, his delegation considered it to be a good basis for future work in Cancún.  Mauritiuswelcomed the proposals on preferences, now accepted by all as being important to developing
countries, in particular the vulnerable ones.   At least 90 developing countries, representing the vast
majority of all such countries, were concerned by preferences.  On 21 August, in the HODs meeting
on agriculture, his delegation had made a number of comments on the framework for agriculture, and
wished to submit the following proposals at the present meeting:  on Annex A – domestic support, theEC/US proposal, and the Chairman's proposal on S&D;  on market access – the Chairman's proposal
plus the incorporation of those elements of the Harbinson text on long-standing preferences.  His
delegation wished to recall that the Maputo AU Summit Declaration, the ACP Declaration, the
statement by Morocco on behalf of the African Group and statements by Caricom  had all welcomed
the proposals in the Revised First Draft of Modalities on preferences and special and differential
treatment.  His delegation had no problem with paragraphs 4 and 5.  However, a new paragraph 6
should be introduced which should read, "Flexibility for certain groupings as specified inparagraph 57 of the Revised First Draft of Modalities for agriculture shall be effectively addressed".
This, along with the safeguard of longstanding prefer ences, would go a long way to ensuring that the
small, vulnerable countries continued to maintain their agriculture.  On flexibility and preferences,
Mauritius fully endorsed the statement by Jamaica.  Mauritius might at a later stage make suggestions
on the contents of paragraph 6.  His delegation stood ready to assist in the forging of a consensus.
216. The representative of Hong Kong, China asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal
HODs meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.27  As the Chairman
had said in his concluding remarks at that meeting, criticism of the revised draft text had been highly
diversified.  The fact that criticism was coming from all sides might indicate that the text was
probably about right, although each Member certainly wanted to see changes on certain issues.Members had to conclude the Geneva process and submit the draft text within the next two days to
allow Ministers sufficient time to prepare themselves and be properly briefed.  Under such a tight
timeframe, it might not be realistic to expect any further negotiations on the draft text.  Although his
delegation was not fully satisfied with that text, and notwithstanding Hong Kong, China's particular
difficulties with the language on Trade and Competition in paragraph 14, the present text could serve
                                                     
27 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 61
as a useful basis for Members to build common ground in Cancún.  His delegation had full confidence
in the Chairman's judgment that, after hearing al l Members' comments, he would strike the right
balance in submitting the draft text to Ministers with or without amendments.  Hong Kong, China
took comfort in the fact that any text so submitted did not purport to be agreed in any part and was
without prejudice to any delegation’s position on an y issue.  His delegation agreed entirely with
Malaysia that Members should conserve their ener gy for Cancún, and should now shift their attention
to negotiations there.  There were many controvers ial outstanding issues to be settled in Cancún and
time was not on Members' side.  While maintaining the level of ambition mandated at Doha, and
conscious of the need to safeguard their particular interests, all Members had to reflect on the
maximum extent of flexibility they could exercise so as to produce positive outcomes in Cancún.
Members had suffered too many setbacks in recent months by missing successive deadlines on a
number of issues.  It was high time to exercise collective will to recover some of the lost ground bymaking Cancún a success.
217. The representative of Egypt asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.28  He wished to associate his
delegation with the comments by India at that meeting on the Singapore issues and the areas that
required further clarification in the respective Work ing Groups.  A letter had already been sent to the
Chairman the previous morning, and had been circulated to all Members.  Egypt reiterated the request
that the attachments in that document be added as Annexes to the draft text to be forwarded to
Ministers in Cancún.  On the sectoral initiative on cotton, raised by four West African Members, his
delegation was truly disappointed by Members' inability to reach some sort of consensus on those
ideas, as indicated in paragraph 25 of the draft text.  A consensus on this issue would have highlightedthe developmental nature of the Doha work programme, particularly in the face of heavy criticism of
Members' work in many circles of civil society.   Therefore, Egypt suggested that the Chairman
undertake further intensive consultations in this respect, with a view to producing a more positive
resolution of this important initiative.
218. The representative of Turkey said that producing the revised draft Ministerial text could not
have been an easy task.  His delegation knew how difficult it was to try to bridge the gap between
different positions – ranging from one extreme to the other – of 146 Members, and to try to find a
middle ground with which everyone could live in one way or another.  However, this was the reality
in this organization.  It was not possible to satisfy to the full, each and every Member, because of the
simple fact that conditions and realities of each and every Member were different, as were their needs
and expectations.  As the Chairman had said earlier, the fact that every delegation had found
something to criticize in the draft text was a good sign, and his delegation would be doing the samevery shortly.  In the light of the above, and although Turkey was not fully satisfied with the revised
draft text, his delegation considered it an improvement and a step forward compared to the first draft,
and also as an operational framework paper that would help Ministers have a meaningful discussion
and hopefully take the necessary decisions in Cancún.  However, from what had been expressed by
different delegations during the past two days, it was obvious that the task of Ministers in Cancúnwould not be easy.  Turkey had hoped during the Geneva preparatory process to make that task much
easier, but this had not been possible.  Therefore, his delegation shared the view that Members' task as
of the present should be to work collectively for the success of Cancún.  This was of utmost
importance and necessity, if the organization wished to be credible and respected.  He assured the
Chairman that his delegation was ready to work in this direction.
219. Turning to more specific issues, his delegation wished to register Turkey's views with regard
to different parts of the revised draft text.  On agriculture, regarding Annex A, as Turkey saw it the
draft text was a step forward both in comparison to the proposals made earlier by some countries as
well as in comparison to the previous draft text.  However, in view of the great importance of
agriculture for developing countries, this text fell short of Turkey's expectations and needs.
                                                     
28 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 62
Furthermore, seen from the perspective of the developmental dimension of the DDA and in terms of
overall balance, it was also far from satisfactory.  More specifically, proposed tariff reduction
commitments for developing countries were tightened up to a so-called import-sensitive tariff lines
with lower tariff cuts and others with high tariff cuts and TRQs.  On the other hand, developed
countries would be safe enough by using a blended tariff reduction approach, which shielded their so-called import-sensitive tariff lines from substantial reductions.  The rest of their tariff lines were either
relatively low or open to free access of products coming from developing and less-developed
countries.  This approach neither hid the real intention nor helped to build up an equitable, well-
balanced, solid base for all.  Moreover, a blended tariff reduction approach was additionally
complicated, besides being difficult to implement.  Once institutionalized, it would be open to misuse
at later stages of the reform process.  The proposed tariff reduction formula would certainly hurt many
developing countries like Turkey, since tariffs were the only means through which they could protecttheir vulnerable agriculture.  Concerning domestic support measures, in the Chairman's text these
were subject to a new categorization as "more trade-distorting" and "less trading-distorting", which
implicitly legalized the use of Blue Box measures by developed countries.  This seemed unjustifiable
to Turkey.  All boxes had more or less trade-distorting effects, that had been discussed in detail
throughout the informal and formal Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture as well as ininformal consultations.  In the draft text, all kinds of domestic support measures intended to be used
by developed countries were being put on strengthened ground, while Special Products intended to
address crucial food security, livelihood and rural development concerns of developing countries were
being eliminated.  Special Products were taken up in paragraph 2.6(i), but Turkey believed that
Special Products should be self-declared, broad based and subject to no tariff reductions or ceilings.If developing countries were asked to pay a price for Special Products, their answer was they had
already paid for them.
220. On the S&D treatment parts of the draft text, there were some positive elements in terms of
the interests of developing countries.  Nevertheless, all of these would be open to discussion after
Cancún.  This made them volatile and vulnerable to the interventions of some Members.Paragraph 2.7 of Annex A was a distinct example of  this misguided approach.  There was no clear
wording on the elimination of Special Safeguards, which had been established as a temporary
measure.  The language in paragraph 3.1 of Annex A was difficult to interpret.  He asked what the
degree of "particular interest" to developing countries would be, and which countries would be
awarded this.  On NAMA, concerning Annex B, al though this constituted a good step forward and
could be taken as a workable basis for discussions in Cancún, his delegation wished to voice a
concern in this context.  Having a very low level of average tariff rate and being a developingeconomy, Turkey sincerely wished to see a real market access achievement at the end of this Round.
In this context, his delegation supported a higher level of ambition regarding the formula in
paragraph 3 of Annex B.  In other words, Turkey was in favour of a single, simple and non-linear
formula that dealt with tariff peaks, escalations and high tariffs, creating meaningful market access for
the export interests of the developing countries.  On the Singapore issues, Turkey considered them animportant element of the whole negotiation package.  Given that Turkey had a strong legislative basis
for these disciplines, which were compatible with  multilateral standards and norms, it did possess the
technical capacity to initiate negotiations in thes e areas.  Therefore, his delegation approached the
Singapore issues in a flexible and constructive manner.  However, in order to start negotiations in all
four areas, explicit consensus – as foreseen in the Doha Declaration – had to be reached on each ofthem.
221. On services, in general his delegation found the draft text in paragraph 6 quite acceptable.
However, his delegation felt it was rather unbalanced to include a deadline for improved offers when
there was none for initial offers.  It would have been  a better approach to set a new deadline for the
submission of initial offers.  In this context, Turkey understood the difficulties faced by fellowdeveloping-country Members.  Nevertheless, it was essential that all Members engaged in these
negotiations in good faith and with a constructive sprit.  On implementation, it was a positive
development that the revised draft text included a reference to one of the most importantWT/GC/M/82
Page 63
implementation issues, namely, the extension of the protection of GIs under Article 23 of the TRIPS
Agreement to all products.  However, Turkey was not satisfied with the content of the relevant
sentence in paragraph 12.  The mandate from Ministers concerning one of the most important issues
for many developed, developing and least-developed Members needed to be strengthened so as to
realize this extension as a matter of priority.  In this context, Turkey supported the proposal by Indiaand Pakistan and some other Members to establish a special negotiating group on all implementation
issues.
222. The representative of Korea asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.29  That statement had been
preliminary.  His Government had difficulties with what it perceived as shortcomings in the draft
Ministerial text in five areas – agriculture, NAMA, services, rules and the Singapore issues.  In
comparison to the first draft text which was of a skeletal nature, the revised draft text – and theannexes on agriculture, NAMA and S&D alone – represented significant improvements.  The fact that
the text had relatively few brackets and was clean in most places was also very welcome.  However,
as had been stated at the HODs meeting the previous day, the revised draft text still had a number of
shortcomings.  Obviously, it fully satisfied no one.  However, it was a reflection of the realities of the
negotiations.  To put it simply, Members' work thus far had not been satisfactory.  In order to turn thetide and lay the groundwork for the successful completion of the negotiations, Members had to build
on the draft text and work harder with their Ministers in Cancún.  In this spirit, his delegation wished
to make several comments on some of the key areas of the draft text.  On agriculture, Article 20 of the
Agreement on Agriculture and paragraph 13 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration made it clear that the
agricultural reform process had to properly address non-trade concerns.  Thus, Korea welcomed thereinstatement of the reference to non-trade concerns in the chapeau of Annex A.  However, the text
should provide more clarity that reforms in all three pillars would take into account non-trade
concerns.  Korea also had serious concerns that the revised draft text linked tariff capping and TRQ
expansion to tariff reduction.  In the joint paper Korea had submitted with five other importing
countries, it had stressed that it could only agree to a blended approach provided certain conditionswere met, including that there was no mandatory expansion of TRQs and no tariff capping.  The
differences in tariff levels reflected the diverse realities of agriculture.  Agricultural reform had to
ensure the co-existence of various types of agricu lture, but tariff capping threatened the survival of
agriculture in many countries that had less favourable agricultural conditions.
223. Some delegations had claimed that the Uruguay Round formula alone did not bring about
expansion of effective market access.  However, that formula could contribute to agricultural reform
in a meaningful way.  The rapid increase of agri cultural imports into the Korean market was evidence
of the real impact of that formula. Imposing the additional burden of mandatory TRQ expansion on
importing countries that already suffered from import surges was hardly justifiable.  It was
encouraging that the framework contained in the revised draft text gave due consideration to S&D
treatment for developing countries in all three pillars.  In particular, Korea welcomed the retaining of
the Special Products concept in market access.  Korea fully supported the joint statement by Indonesiaon behalf of several delegations on Special Products.  His delegation shared the view that introduction
of the SP concept was critical for food security and rural development.  As had been succinctly
explained in the statement by Indonesia, developing countries should be able to designate a certain
percentage of their tariff lines as Special Products according to their food security and rural livelihood
needs.  Such products should be exempt from the tariff reduction formula applied to other products.There were voices calling for restrictions on Green Box subsidies, but such subsidies were essential to
addressing non-trade concerns, including maintaining an adequate production basis for food security,
rural viability and cultural heritage.  In addition, these subsidies had only minimal trade-distorting
effects.  Therefore, Korea was of the view that the idea of capping Green Box subsidies or introducing
similar restrictions was not justified.  His delegation also wished to emphasize that S&D treatment forGreen Box subsidies should be expanded to address developing countries’ food security and rural
                                                     
29 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 64
development needs.  Korea agreed that agriculture was a key to the Doha negotiations, but it was not
the only key.  It was doubtful that progress in agriculture would automatically spill over into other
areas.  Members had to make a conscious effort to realize the goals set out in the Doha Declaration in
all areas.
224. On NAMA, the framework in Annex B represented important progress in these negotiations.
That framework provided a basis to move toward fulfilling Members' goal to reduce or, as
appropriate, eliminate tariffs, including the reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high tariffs and
tariff escalations as mandated by the Doha Declaration.  Nevertheless, Korea could not say this was a
sufficiently large step.  His delegation agreed with many others that the level of ambition contained in
Annex B was the bare minimum.  Members had to make every effort to achieve a higher level of
ambition through more inputs into the modalities.  A single non-linear formula would be a useful tool
for achieving substantial expansion of market access for all Members.  In the same vein, participationof all Members in sectoral elimination or harmonization was critical to attaining balanced gains for
all.  Annex B could also be improved on another front.  As Korea had consistently maintained
throughout the course of the negotiations, a minimum level of flexibility for a very limited range of
sensitive products should be given to all Members, as this would enable all participants to fully
engage in the negotiations with a built-in leve l of comfort regarding domestic sensitivities.  On
services, Korea was fairly satisfied with the draft text.  However, his delegation also supported
establishing a new benchmark for the submission of initial offers.  The submission of initial offers by
a critical mass of Members was crucial if Members were to expect improved offers of sufficiently
high quality, and if they were to be able subsequently to engage in intensified market access
negotiations in 2004.  Establishing a new benchmark – even an indicative one – for the submission ofinitial offers would help secure more active participation by a majority of developing countries in the
negotiations.   Korea hoped that such a benchmark would be established at Cancún along with a date
for the submission of improved and, if necessary, revised offers.  On rules, Korea welcomed the
direction provided in the draft text for these negotiations, which shifted the relevant Negotiating
Group’s emphasis after Cancún from identifying issues to seeking solutions.  Like many otherMembers, Korea was seriously concerned with the pr oliferation of anti-dumping actions in the recent
past.  Such actions undermined the progress made in other areas in terms of market liberalization, and
hampered the efforts of developing countries to facilitate economic growth through further
participation in international trade.  Clarifying and improving the ambiguities and lacunae in the Anti-
Dumping Agreement could make an important contribution to preventing the abuse and misuse of
anti-dumping measures.
225. On the Singapore issues, Ministers at Doha had agreed that negotiations should start after the
Fifth Ministerial Conference on the basis of a decision to be taken, by explicit consensus, on the
modalities of the negotiations.  Korea regretted that the draft text only partly met this mandate, since it
included a second option of not starting negotiations.  However, it accepted this reality and hoped that
Ministers in Cancún would be able to reach a consensus on modalities and the launch of negotiations
on all four issues.  There had been complaints that the modalities in Annexes D through G had notbeen properly discussed among Members and therefore should be removed from the draft text.  Korea
had asked all along for Members to engage in substantive discussions on these modalities, but many
had been reluctant to do so.  His delegation remained committed to substantive engagement on these
modalities.  Korea was well aware of the concerns regarding the launch of these negotiations and was
ready to discuss ways to address these concerns in  the modalities, provided this did not prejudge the
outcome of the negotiations.  However, it could not agree to the request to remove the modalities in
Annexes D through G from the draft text.  Members had a mandate to submit modalities to Ministers.
If Members did not do this, it effectively prejudged the decision of Ministers to not begin negotiations
at all.  The elements contained in the modalities had been the subject of long discussions in the
Working Groups.  Further, the modalities in Annexes D through G could serve as a good basis for thenegotiations.  There had also been arguments for adding middle-ground options, but his delegation
was not sure how much in the middle these were.  At the end of the day, either one started
negotiations or not.  Some had talked of soft agreements, but the modalities in Annexes D through GWT/GC/M/82
Page 65
did not rule out soft agreements.  The modalities suggested that the scope and nature of the
obligations should be determined in the negotiations.  His delegation placed equal importance and
interest on the negotiations on the Singapore issues as it did on the negotiations on agriculture,
NAMA, and services.  In parallel with the establishment of frameworks for modalities for market
access for agriculture and NAMA, framework modalities should be agreed upon in Cancún for theSingapore issues.  Without substantive achievements on the Singapore issues, the benefits arising
from the other market access negotiations could not be fully enjoyed by Members.  Korea looked
forward to sincere and sound discussions on the negotiations on the Singapore issues before and in
Cancún.  His delegation had just received a copy of the letter sent by India and a few other
delegations to the Chairman.  Korea welcomed this initiative as a constructive move.  However, it
found that the issues for further clarification as suggested in the letter had already been discussed
sufficiently and in detail over a lengthy period of time.  Those issues were very important, and hebelieved that they could in fact be tackled within the course of negotiations, while some of the issues
could be reflected in the modalities.  Korea was ready and willing to engage in sincere negotiations
with the delegations and use the remaining time to  improve the modalities contained in the draft
Ministerial text as Annexes D through G.  The Cancún Ministerial Conference offered a unique
opportunity to give renewed momentum to the Doha negotiations.  Members should not let it fail.The revised draft Ministerial text left much room for improvement.  However, it remained the basis of
Members' work up to Cancún.  His delegation would participate in the efforts to improve the draft text
actively and constructively.
226. The representative of El Salvador asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.30  With regard to agriculture,
El Salvador had joined the 19 delegations which had submitted a proposal in this area – a proposal
which his delegation considered to correspond most closely to the objectives and goals outlined by
Ministers in Doha.  This being said, he wished to em phasize certain points of particular interest to his
delegation in the area of agriculture.  First, concerning domestic support, and specifically with regard
to the Green Box, as had been said by other delegations, Ecuador attached importance to revising thedraft text with a view to establishing a cap on this type of measure.  The reductions in domestic
support should be applied on specific products and not under the modality of comprehensive
reductions.  This was more transparent and guaranteed elimination of the most distorting supports in
accordance with the provisions of the Doha mandate.  Regarding export subsidies, as stated in the
Doha mandate these should be reduced within a specific timeframe and not, as some proposed, on the
basis of a modality applied to categories of interest to certain Members, while no specific date was set
for other, equally distorting measures of this kind.  This was inconsistent with the spirit of what wasagreed by the Ministers in Doha.
227. Regarding NAMA and Annex B, his delegation wished to reaffirm that in paragraph 7 dealing
with S&D treatment, the figures in square brackets were merely a non-binding reference, agreement
on which would form part of a negotiating process in which the level of ambition in other areas of
negotiation had to be taken into account.  Regarding paragraph 3 of Annex B, the reference to thenon-linear formula should be linked to the formula set out in document TN/MA/W/35 Rev. 1 by the
Chairman of the Negotiating Group, since it would be difficult to accept a harmonizing formula that
did not incorporate the principle of less than full reciprocity in favour of developing countries.
Accordingly, El Salvador regarded the draft text as a sound basis, but only if the above was taken as a
point of reference.  On services, it was important that the declaration to be adopted by Ministersrecognized the importance of Mode 4 for developing countries, since it was under this mode of supply
that countries like El Salvador became competitive, thereby achieving tangible benefits at this new
stage of negotiations on existing commitments.  El Salvador maintained its resolute support for this
negotiating process based on the principles agreed and with a view to its conclusion within the
scheduled time-frame.
                                                     
30 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 66
228. The representative of Honduras, speaking also on behalf of the Dominican Republic , asked
that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records
of the present meeting.31  These delegations had noted that the draft Ministerial text was being
presented  under the Chairman's responsibility, that it did not purport to be agreed in any part at the
present stage, and that it was without prejudice to Members' positions.  First, regarding Annex Acontaining the framework for establishing modalities in agriculture and the section on S&D treatment
of the market access pillar, these delegations welcomed the clarification that Special Products would
not be subject to additional tariff quota commitments .  However, they still insisted that those products
not be subject to additional reductions, and that each country be free to designate its own Special
Products.  These countries understood Special Products to be a separate concept within the first
category.  They recognized that this was a framework agreement, and that Members had to continue
working to achieve balanced negotiating modalities that took into account the interests of allMembers.  Concerning Annex B containing the framework for establishing modalities in NAMA, and
paragraph 6 on sectoral approaches, while the language used was flexible, these countries wished to
reiterate their view that the voluntary nature of those approaches should be reflected.  In paragraph 7
of Annex B, while they welcomed the flexibilities for developing and least-developed countries, these
should be neither restricted by nor linked to the value of imports.  In paragraph 13, these countriesnoted that issues of importance for developing countries, such as non-reciprocal preference erosion
and high tariff revenue dependency, would be considered.  They also noted the failure to take into
account major concerns expressed by several countries, including Honduras, with regard to low
income per capita, highly indebted countries.  Consequently, they requested that consideration be
given to these concerns, and that if there were no objection to this S&D treatment, this beincorporated into the draft text forwarded to Ministers.
229. The representative of China asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.32  Like many previous
speakers, his delegation wished to emphasize the development dimension of the Doha Development
Agenda.  Ministers had stated in the Doha Declarat ion that "[i]nternational trade can play a major role
in the promotion of economic development and the alleviation of poverty" and "[t]he majority of
WTO members are developing countries.  We seek to place their needs and interests at the heart of the
Work Programme adopted in this Declaration."  Therefore, as Members were preparing for the next
Ministerial Conference, they had to make sure that  the spirit and letter of the development dimension
would not be watered down.  On agriculture, China appreciated that the Chairman had done his best to
reflect Members' opinions.  However, there were still big gaps between the draft text and the Doha
mandate.  China was disappointed at the lack of ambition in the draft text, particularly regarding thetwo pillars of export subsidies and domestic support.  Agriculture was at the center of this Round and
the elimination of trade distortion in agriculture was Members' major task.  For a large number of
developing countries which relied heavily on agriculture but had few financial resources to match the
rich countries' subsidies, whose farmers could not compete in a fair and equal manner on the world
market as well as on their domestic market, this was a life-and-death issue.  Therefore, his delegationhoped that the Chairman would draw more elements from the G-17 – now G-20 – proposal, which
was a more ambitious and more balanced paper on agriculture.
230. On NAMA, more effective measures should be taken to eliminate tariff peaks and tariff
escalations.  The principle of less than full reciprocity for developing-country Members should be
better applied.  The sectoral approach should only be supplementary and of a voluntary nature.  OnS&D treatment for developing countries, China fully appreciated the efforts and hard work by the
Chairman and the friends of the Chair in informal consultations, which had led to a solution on quite a
number of S&D issues.  However, further efforts were required to settle all the issues so as to make
S&D treatment more precise, more efficient and more operational.  On the Singapore issues, China
could live with the two options proposed, but was disappointed at the imbalance reflected in the draft
                                                     
31 See Annex IV.
32 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 67
text.  A group of Members had recently circulated a proposed annex for the second option, and his
delegation strongly requested that this be included in the draft text.  On the newly acceded Members,
China insisted on its request that there be a paragraph in the draft text saying that the particular
concerns of the newly acceded Members would be effectively addressed, while in the Annexes for
agriculture and NAMA, the elements of a lower level of reduction, exemption from further reductionof sensitive products, longer implementation periods and deferred implementation should be reflected.
The reason for this request could be found in document JOB(03)/168 submitted by China.  His
delegation would keep very much in mind Members' collective responsibility, as the Chairman had
rightly pointed out at the beginning of the informal  consultations, and would work closely with other
Members for the success of Cancún.
231. The representative of Chile asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.33  Regarding Turkey's
statement at the present meeting that it was not possible to satisfy each and every Member, this was
true, but the important thing was whether the draft text brought Members closer to complying with the
Doha mandate, and if it did so in a balanced manner.  The revised draft text did, to a considerable
degree, comply with this mandate and brought Members closer to it.  However, it was equally true
that in certain key areas, like agriculture, NAMA and the Singapore issues, there were still importantdecisions to be taken, and these issues had to be discussed by Ministers.  Regarding agriculture, his
delegation had already made comments at a meeting some days earlier.  He would not repeat the
many important issues his delegation, as well as Argentina and now China, had referred to.  Chile
shared the view expressed by Australia that in the final analysis there was one fundamental issue,
which was the elimination of export subsidies.  In saying this he wished to draw attention to astatement by the Group of 77 and China in relation to Cancún, in which these countries called for the
elimination of all forms of export subsidies.  Chile also shared the point made by Australia that the
draft text certainly served as a basis that would enable Ministers to discuss and take the requisite
decisions.  However, as his delegation understood it, this text did not reflect all the ambitions of all
delegations, nor the level of ambition envisioned by Chile.  If , as Australia had said, this would be theresult from Cancún, it would not be acceptable.  However, Chile was grateful for the Chairman's
efforts and contribution, as this took Members a step forward in the right direction.
232. On the Singapore issues, Chile in the past had supported the launching of negotiations on
certain of these issues, and had greater enthusiasm for some of these issues than for others.  His
delegation had wished to continue to support and work on the elaboration of drawing up substantive
and procedural modalities.  However, the lack of progress in other areas of the negotiation, as well as
the position adopted by many of the proponents in this area, as in agriculture, did not provide thepolitical conditions for enabling Chile to maintain its support for the launching of negotiations on the
Singapore issues.  If the situation were to change – in other words, if the negotiations in other areas
were to evolve and change and if a decision was taken to negotiate on one, several or all of the
Singapore issues – this would involve an extremely complex task.  Chile of course had a preference
for one Singapore issue in terms of priorities to be set, which was trade facilitation.  However, if thepolitical conditions changed, his delegation would have to give serious thought to substantive
modalities that would be as precise in nature as possible, in terms of determining the actual scope and
areas of what was to be negotiated.    The texts in the draft text did not reach that degree of precision.
As Chile understood it, these texts were simply illustrative of a given situation, a situation that
prevailed at present but would not necessarily serve as a basis, or even be an approximation of whatChile hoped to achieve in the final analysis.  If, on the contrary, on certain or all of these issues there
was no launching of negotiations, Chile believed it was necessary to continue to keep these issues in
the work programme.  Members should concentrat e on the modalities to be drawn up, while awaiting
the situation in other areas of negotiations, which would make it possible to launch the negotiations.
                                                     
33 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 68
233. On NAMA, Chile believed that the non-linear formula in the draft text did not reflect a high
level of ambition.  The high level of ambition should be determined by a co-efficient that would have
to be determined subsequently, in parallel with what happened in agriculture.  As to the sectoral
approach, the draft text did not reflect clearly the position of the majority of countries.  The change
that had been made in the text went in that direction, although it was still somewhat ambiguous.Chile's interpretation of the present text was that the participation of all participants, while this was
desirable, was not mandatory.  Therefore, the definition of participation was still an outstanding issue,
and in that context there would have to be flexibility for the developing countries.  As to the countries
that had recently acceded to the WTO, he wished to say something that was valid for agriculture as
well.  His delegation supported the concept that something special should be provided for the recently
acceded countries, given that in many cases they were still in a process of tariff reductions which
should not be super-imposed on new commitments, given the degree of tariff cuts already agreedunder the accession process.  However, the situation among these countries was not homogenous, nor
was it between the different sectors of the economies of those same Members.  Thus, although Chile
supported the general principle, his delegation believed the time had come where Members had to
look at this on a case-by-case basis, sector by sector, in order to elaborate a specific provision for
recently acceded countries.  In response to the statements by Bulgaria and Hungary that only oneimplementation issue had been singled out in the Doha Declaration, Chile wished to point out that
paragraph 19 of the Doha Declaration mentioned other areas in this context.  Bulgaria had made
various proposals the previous day in this context, with which Chile totally disagreed.
234. The representative of Guatemala asked that her delegation's statement at the informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.34  Guatemala supported the
points made by Argentina and Chile in the main regarding agricultural subsidies and NAMA, and
wished to reiterate the points it had made in the informal HODs meeting.
235. The representative of Nicaragua said that the previous day his delegation had made a brief
preliminary statement and he wished at the present meeting to make detailed comments on the draft
Ministerial text, which Nicaragua hoped the Chai rman would take into account in the final text
submitted to Ministers.  As had been emphasized by many previous speakers, agriculture was the
main focus of this negotiation and as such should be given priority in Cancún.  For Nicaragua, whose
economy and trade depended largely on agriculture, it was vitally important that Ministers' decisions
produced real and concrete benefits.  With regard to the S&D treatment component of the modalities
in the draft text, Nicaragua preferred as a deadline the dates of 31 December 2003 or 31 January 2004.
Similarly, his delegation considered that June or July 2004 could be a realistic date for submission of
the comprehensive draft Schedules, which would be in line with the time-limits proposed by Ministersin Doha for this negotiation.  Regarding Annex A, Nicaragua considered the chapeau to be adequate,
as it struck an appropriate balance between the th ree pillars of negotiation, including the concept of
development, and forcefully advocated the need to adopt modalities.  On domestic support, his
delegation proposed maintaining a high level of ambition in accordance with the spirit of the Doha
Declaration.  Nicaragua would consider ideal the achievement of a level of ambition in line with thesuggestion in the Revised .  A lower percentage would not be in keeping with the mandate from
Ministers in Doha for substantial reductions in trad e-distorting domestic support.  It should be recalled
that reductions of 36 per cent were agreed in the Uruguay Round, and Nicaragua considered the level
of ambition in this new Round to be considerably higher than in the Uruguay Round.  Similarly, his
delegation felt that the de minimis  level should also be reduced in accordance with the same level of
ambition, which Nicaragua considered to be set at an appropriate level in the Revised .  Regarding
direct payments, use should also be made of the figure of five per cent of total agricultural production,
or the average authorized for the years 2000 and 2001, whichever was lower.
236. Regarding market access, Nicaragua's position was duly reflected in document JOB(03)/164
submitted jointly with Honduras, Panama and the Dominican Republic.  Regarding export
                                                     
34 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 69
competition, the draft text provided a solid basis on which to build provisions that would contribute to
the speedy elimination of distorting measures.  Un fortunately, only in Cancún would his delegation be
able to obtain a better idea of the readiness for comp romise of all the parties directly involved in this
part of the negotiation.  Nicaragua was making this comment because the figures currently being
bandied about showed significant discrepancies.  In sum, Nicaragua naturally supported those figuresthat most substantially reduced such measures and that prevented the inordinate use of measures
which, despite not being prohibited, were – or coul d possibly be – used as distorting mechanisms.
Regarding the S&D treatment provided for in each of  the sections of the draft text and its Annexes,
Nicaragua considered that there remained a lack of any reference to the economic conditions
confronted by many Members.  In Nicaragua's case,  low per capita income and debt problems had a
direct impact on the conduct of these negotiations and undoubtedly constituted an obstacle to its
development.  His delegation took note with satisfaction of the inclusion of Special Products in thedocument, as well as of the clauses on S&D treatment contained throughout the text, and urged all
Members to take concrete action to give genuine effect to these principles.  On TRIPS and Public
Health, Nicaragua considered that the inclusion of this text as the first paragraph in the draft text
reflected the pre-eminence of this topic on the multilateral trade agenda.  Accordingly, his delegation
fully supported the text of 16 December 2002 which, though not perfect, provided a viable andrealistic way to achieve consensus.  Nicaragua was aware of the informal consultations carried out by
the Chairman of the Council for TRIPS and applauded his efforts to guide delegations towards a
consensus.  His delegation would follow these consultations closely.
237. Regarding a multilateral system of notification and registration of GIs for wines and spirits,
his delegation considered that this should be volunt ary in nature, thus avoiding additional burdens for
Members not participating in the system.  His delegation had closely followed these negotiations and
considered there was still some way to go.  Therefore, Nicaragua did not think it advisable to establish
an artificial date regarding this issue, and supported a broad and flexible deadline, such as the date of
conclusion of the Round.  On non-violation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement, his delegation
considered that such complaints were not applicable under or compatible with the TRIPS Agreement.However, with a view to contributing to a consensus on this matter, Nicaragua was prepared to accept
the proposal for extending the Doha solution, by way of a compromise.  His delegation wished to
emphasise that it considered that this topic formed part of the single undertaking and that it needed to
be dealt with in that framework.  On the Singapore issues, each of these should be considered,
discussed and negotiated separately, as they were different in nature.  Nicaragua was aware of the
intrinsic interrelationship between these issues, but felt that no balance necessarily existed in their
legal and institutional development.  This was clearly the case not only within each Member.  At themultilateral and even regional and sub-regional levels, there was a clear disparity and imbalance in the
treatment of these issues, no doubt due to the differences in the prevailing levels of development
among Members and, hence, in their levels of experience and commercial development.
Nevertheless, Nicaragua would continue to work in a positive and proactive spirit and would
demonstrate the necessary flexibility for the sake of the substantial balance all wished to achieve.  Inthis connection, his delegation wished to refer to the following aspects of the Singapore issues.
238. Transparency in government procurement represented one of the central pillars of Nicaraguan
Government policy.  Consequently, negotiations on this issue, without prejudice to market access or
dispute settlement under the DSB, constituted a process Nicaragua favoured and could support.  This
was an issue of great importance and would support and strengthen government policies on action tocombat corruption.  Moreover, the predictability generated by transparency in a country's economy
was also a means of attracting investment.  On competition policy, his delegation considered that
negotiations to establish a multilateral agreement on competition should be initiated in Cancún.  The
developing countries should regard this agreement as a means of defending their commercial interests
vis-à-vis  the so-called international cartels, which were intrinsically harmful.  This agreement had to
be constructed on the basis of the principles of non-discrimination, transparency and procedural
fairness.  Another cornerstone of the agreement had to be cooperation to ensure the gradual
strengthening of competition bodies in developing and least-developed countries, so as to enable themWT/GC/M/82
Page 70
to promote capacity building and collaboration and exchange of information between equivalent
national agencies.  On trade facilitation, Nicaragua agreed on the need to continue strengthening the
Doha mandate on the basis of clearly defined fields of application.  That mandate necessarily had to
contain a programme of cooperation which included technical assistance and cooperation and
financial resources for investment in physical and computer infrastructure.  His delegation was not infavour of making these commitments subject to the DSU mechanism, as long as there was no
assurance that the cooperation plan covered 100 per cent of the requirements or needs for the
fulfilment of those commitments.  On NAMA and Anne x B, the draft text clearly stated that "we also
reaffirm the importance of special and differential treatment and less than full reciprocity in reduction
commitments as integral parts of the modalities".  Nicaragua considered that such treatment should
not only be set forth as a general statement of principle, but should be included in all the methods and
modalities to be agreed, such as differentiated bound tariff reduction schedules, and lower reductioncommitments on behalf of developing and least-developed countries.  Similarly, Nicaragua supported
inclusion of the paragraph which stated that "[w]e instruct the Negotiating Group to continue its work,
as mandated by paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration with its corresponding references to
the relevant provisions of Article XXVIII bis of GATT 1994 and to the provisions cited in
paragraph 50 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration".  Nicaragua also welcomed the provision, pendingagreement, on supplementary modalities for developing countries.  His delegation was fully prepared
to work with the Chairman, with the Director-Gen eral and with all Members, in the search for
common ground that would lead to the desired consensus.  Nicaragua recognized the outstanding
efforts the Chairman had made during this process to try to achieve concrete results, and his readiness
to help in these negotiations.  He reiterated his delegation's wish to continue working in the samespirit.
239. The representative of the Slovak Republic asked that her delegation's statement at the
Informal HODs meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.35  Based on
the detailed intervention by the Community at that meeting, which fully covered her delegation's main
concerns in the areas of agriculture, NAMA and services in particular, her delegation wished to makeonly a few general comments on the process as a whole.  The Slovak Republic appreciated the
tremendous efforts by the Chairman to strike the right balance in a number of sensitive areas.
Statements by different Members confirmed that this had not yet been possible.  The progress
achieved during the past two weeks had not proved to be sufficient to reach the stage of convergence
that might lead to a possible consensual compromise.  However, at least the draft Ministerial text
might be taken as a workable basis on which Ministers could work further in Cancún, take political
responsibility and provide the necessary commitment to continue in negotiations based on realbalance, which was clearly still missing.  At the present stage her delegation urged all to work with a
sense of collective responsibility and of the need fo r shared compromise, as well as flexibility, which
was still not reflected in the positions of many Members.  Her delegation would refrain from stating
its concerns in detail, since these had already been communicated in sessions of the relevant WTO
negotiating bodies.  However, she wished to point out that the harmonizing of dates for modalities andnegotiated figures could contribute positively to the overall process in order to avoid pending
speculations and tactical conditionalities.  The Slovak Republic would be constructive in seeking
solutions, narrowing differences and fulfilling the spirit of the Doha mandate.
240. The representative of Paraguay asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.36  He recalled that at the
General Council meeting in July, Paraguay's Deputy-Minister of External Relations had given a clear
and detailed statement setting out Paraguay's position with regard to NAMA, services, trade
facilitation, agriculture – which was at the very heart of the negotiations – small economies and S&D
treatment.  These positions remained unchanged and could be confirmed as immutable.  His
delegation was unable to improve on them, and had no wish to go over the same ground again.  He
                                                     
35 See Annex IV.
36 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 71
merely wished to add that Paraguay did not consider it either appropriate or advisable at the present
time to discuss the merits and objectives of its proposal regarding an understanding on the full
implementation of the Enabling Clause, but was willing bilaterally to explain the scope of this
proposal.
241. The representative of Sri Lanka said that the draft Ministerial text provided a working basis
for Members in the lead-up to Cancún.  He wished to comment on four issues – agriculture, NAMA,
services and the Singapore issues.  On agriculture, his delegation believed that Annex A containing
the framework for establishing modalities provided a basis for Members to move the process forward
with a view to agreeing to a framework in Cancún.  His delegation shared the view that ambition
should also be balanced with flexibility.  In this context, Sri Lanka had stated on numerous occasions
that being an NFIDC, its most important concerns related to the market access pillar, particularly the
S&D elements.  His delegation had also stated that for countries like Sri Lanka, whose bound tariffswere at a very low level, it was not possible to reduce tariffs any further on some products, no matter
what tariff reduction formula was adopted, and Sri Lanka could only undertake minimum reductions
on other products.  Therefore, his delegation could support the proposed approach in paragraph 2.6 of
Annex A on S&D for tariff reduction for developing countries, with some reservations.  His delegation
appreciated that in paragraph 2.6(i), developing countries would have additional flexibility todesignate Special Products which would only be subject to a linear cut.  However, his delegation
continued to hold the position that Special Products should not be subject to any tariff reductions.  On
the proposal that in place of the percentages in paragraphs 2.6(ii) and (iii), a percentage of tariff lines
would be subject to the Swiss formula, this would cause difficulties to countries with very low bound
tariff levels.  Sri Lanka had pointed out that, for example, with a co-efficient of 25, a bound tariff of50 per cent would have to be reduced to 16 per cen t, which would be extremely difficult to accept.
Therefore, his delegation could not agree to replacing the percentages in paragraphs 2.6(ii) and (iii)
with the Swiss formula approach.
242. Paragraph 2.2 of Annex A envisaged that the tariff lines that exceeded a maximum percentage
would be reduced  to that maximum level.  Sri Lanka believed that this issue should be dealt with as
envisaged under paragraph 2.7, which remained under negotiation, and not through paragraph 2.6.
His delegation appreciated the incorporation of paragraph 2.8 on the establishment of a special
agricultural safeguard (SSM) for developing countri es.  However, such a mechanism would be subject
to conditions and products yet to be determined.  When such conditions, which might include criteria,
were determined, this could trigger the application of the mechanism to products which met such
criteria.  Therefore, SSM should not be further restricted by products to be determined.  His
delegation appreciated the inclusion of the references in the draft text to Articles 6.2 and 9.4 of theAgreement on Agriculture, aimed at developing countries benefiting from these Articles.  Under
paragraph 3.10 of Annex A, participants would ensure that regarding the disciplines on export credits
to be agreed, appropriate provisions for differential treatment  for NFIDCs would be provided.  Sri
Lanka welcomed this proposal.  On NAMA, his delegation could s upport Annex B as a basis for the
framework for establishing modalities.  His delegation recognized that paragraphs 3 and 6 of Annex Bwere central elements which were important to realize the ambition of the Doha mandate.  However,
ambition should be balanced with flexibility.  In th is context, his delegation welcomed paragraph 5 of
Annex B on which it had already expressed specific views.  Under paragraph 5, participants with bound
coverage of non-agricultural tariff lines of less th an 35 per cent were expected to be exempted from
tariff reduction commitments, because of their  low applied rates, in order to address revenue concerns.
These groups of countries were expected, instead of making tariff reductions, to undertake 100 per cent
tariff bindings at the average level th at did not exceed the overall average  of bound tariffs for developing
countries.  Sri Lanka proposed that th e binding coverage of these countries  should also be the average
binding coverage  of developing countries.  This proposa l was objective and logical, and should be
incorporated into Annex B as it had support.
243. On services, his delegation was flexible and could support the text in paragraph 6 of the draft
Ministerial text.  In this connection, and in order to demonstrate its commitment to the DDA and theWT/GC/M/82
Page 72
services negotiations, his delegation had submitted that week its initial offers.  Sri Lanka believed that
services liberalization, in particular infrastructure services, was important to attract foreign investment
and to make the goods sector more competitive.  It was from this perspective that his delegation
approached the services negotiations.  However, on the movement of natural persons, Sri Lanka's
interest in market access under Mode 4 remained important.  Before commenting on the Singaporeissues, his delegation wished to state that Sri Lanka was not a sponsor of the paper presented by
Botswana on behalf of a group of developing countries.  Therefore, Sri Lanka should be deleted from
that list of countries.  On the Singapore issues, his delegation was pleased that the Chairman had
included the options in paragraphs 13-16 in the revised draft text, either to commence negotiations on
the basis of modalities set out in the relevant Annexes or to continue with further clarification of
issues in the relevant WTO bodies.  On these issues, Sri Lanka's position had been, and continued to
be, that each issue should be treated on its own merits.  Sri Lanka had made its position known ontrade facilitation and on transparency in government procurement, to agree to modalities for
negotiations at the Cancún Ministerial.  Therefore, his delegation could support the modalities set out
in Annexes G and F as a basis for commencement of negotiations.  On the issue of trade and
investment, his delegation had indicated at previous meetings that it was prepared to take a flexible
position on agreeing to modalities for negotiations at Cancún.  However, Annex D did not provide therequired comfort level as a basis to start negotiations.  The issue of trade and competition policy was a
difficult and complex issue on which two options had been given in paragraph 14.  Since this issue
had not been adequately clarified, and considering the different needs of Members, some of whom did
not even have laws on domestic competition policy, as Sri Lanka had indicated on earlier occasions, it
could support option 2 of the paper by the Chairm an of the relevant Working Group which provided
for a soft agreement.  However, this option was not available in the draft Ministerial text.  Therefore,
his delegation reserved its right to support the option providing for further clarification of the issues in
the respective Working Group.
244. The representative of Nigeria associate his delegation fully with the statement by Morocco on
behalf of the African Group.  In Nigeria's view, the revised draft text was an improved text but needed
strengthening in a number of areas.  His delegation would comment both generally and specifically on
both the process and substance of that text.  Agriculture was a very important sector in his country, in
view of the strategic position agriculture occupied regarding food security and employment and as a
means of livelihood for the majority of Nigeria's people.  Unfortunately, progress in the agriculture
negotiations had been slow.  Thus far the objectives of the Doha mandate on agriculture remained a
mirage.  The only progress was that the US and the EC had agreed to support each other.  This was
a welcome development, as it had created a more favourable environment to move the processforward.  However, without any figures or numbers, or end dates attached to the elimination or
phase-out of trade-distorting export subsidies and domestic support given by the major trading
partners, his delegation found it difficult to fully support the draft text on agriculture.  Nigeria
supported the proposal of the G-20 countries, which contained elements that were balanced and
favourable to all Members.  On domestic support, the draft text was vague on how the serious GreenBox loopholes and abuses could be disciplined.  In a non-committal manner, the draft text merely
stated in paragraph 1.5 of Annex A that Green Box criteria remained under negotiation.  Developing
countries had repeatedly called for the Green Box supports to be capped and reduced, and wished to
see a similar high level of ambition on the market access pillar apply to reduction in overall domestic
support.  On market access, the tariff reduction approach suggested for developing countries was veryambitious.  Either the hybrid Swiss/Uruguay R ound formula or the Swiss formula would lead to
developing countries cutting most tariff lines by a large amount, and this would effectively leave them
even more vulnerable – and permanently so – to dumping.  The S&D treatment in the market access
pillar needed to be reinforced, especially the Special Products concept, to enable developing countries
to sufficiently defend their domestic producers and to ensure their long-term food security and ruraldevelopment needs.  Paragraph 2.4 on special safeguard should be removed and merged with
paragraph 6 of Annex A, since Members were yet to agree on discussing this issue under the current
negotiations in agriculture.  Nigeria did not support the application of paragraph 2.7 to developing
countries, and therefore requested its deletion.  On  export competition, paragraph 3.6, which statedWT/GC/M/82
Page 73
that the question of the end date for phasing out all forms of export subsidies remained under
negotiation, also reinforced the lack of commitment of developed countries in undertaking any reform
at all.  It was important to specify clearly the end date for phasing out all export subsidies.
245. Regarding paragraph 6 of Annex A, his delegation did not support the reopening of
negotiations on issues such as the peace clause, continuation clause, GIs, certain non-trade concernsand other detailed rules that were not part of the Doha mandate on negotiations on agriculture.  On
NAMA, for the present, his delegation could not accept paragraph 5 of the draft text in view of the
fact that there was no consensus on the framework in Annex B.  Alternatively, the third sentence of
that paragraph, which started with "[T]o this end" should be put in square brackets until such time as
all pending issues in Annex B were resolved.  Wi thin Annex B, the major contentious issues for
Nigeria were paragraphs 3, 6 and 13, in addition to a few other minor elements.  In paragraph 3, the
second sentence presupposed the recommendation of a particular formula, when it was clear there wasno consensus yet on the formula to adopt.  In order for this paragraph to be acceptable, the words
"non-linear" in the second sentence should be deleted.  On paragraph 6, Nigeria, based on its
economic circumstances, had always maintained that sectoral tariff elimination should be voluntary.
Therefore, his delegation could not accept language which tended to make this mandatory for all
Members.  In light of these difficulties, the words "all participants" in the second sentence of
paragraph 6 should be deleted.  While Nigeria welcomed efforts to accommodate the concerns raised
on preference erosion and high tariff dependency, the language in paragraph 13 did not capture the
seriousness of this issue for the Members concerned.  Nigeria had always maintained that Ministers
needed to know the true position of things in th e negotiations.  Ministers needed to acknowledge that
this was a major issue of concern to a significant number of Members.  Therefore, his delegationsuggested that the following language replace the current text:  "We acknowledge the concerns raised
by preference beneficiary and high tariff revenue dependent countries.  We recognize that impending
tariff reductions might erode non-reciprocal preferences and negatively affect high tariff revenue
dependent countries.  We therefore commit ourselves to finding a workable solution, as part of the
negotiating modalities, to mitigate the possible adverse effects arising from further tariff reductions."His delegation welcomed in paragraph 5 the exemption of participants with low binding coverage of
less than 35 per cent from making tariff reductions, and to increase their binding coverage up to
100%.  However, Nigeria suggested that the first sentence up to "tariff reduction" should be
retained, while the last three words reading "through the formula" should be deleted.  The rest of
the sentence could be retained.
246. On TRIPS and Public Health, his delegation supported the current consultations aimed at
resolving this matter before Cancún, so that co untries including Nigeria could take measures to
address their health concerns.  This was a humanitarian issue on which a decision was long overdue.
On the Singapore issues, his delegation had a major concern with the Annexes to these issues, which
the Chairman needed to address.  Nigeria was highly disappointed that the Chairman had included
Annexes D through G in the draft text.  The presence of these Annexes created the impression that
they were frameworks for possible negotiations on the Singapore issues.  They had not been discussedor agreed to, and yet were being forwarded to Ministers as if they were coming from the membership.
In spite of the Chairman's effort to explain their inclusion in the draft text, doubts had been created as
to the intended motive.  In response to a point of clarification sought by Nigeria, the Chairman had
clearly stated in the HODs consultations on the Singapore issues that the modalities, which Ministers
would consider in Cancún, would be prepared by Members.  Since Members had not had the
opportunity to debate or agree on any modalities on these issues, his delegation requested that
Annexes D through G be removed, because they represented the interests of only one group of
countries.  Alternatively, and in the interest of fairness and equity, another set of annexes representing
the interests of the other group of countries, of which his delegation was one, should be included in
the draft text sent to Ministers.  His delegation had submitted these additional annexes to theChairman that morning.  Their inclusion as annexes to option 2 in the draft text would provide the
correct picture and state of play on the Singapore issues.WT/GC/M/82
Page 74
247. On S&D treatment, his delegation was seriousl y concerned about the lack of progress in
resolving these issues as mandated by Ministers in Doha, in order to make them more precise,
effective, operational and binding.  The number of S&D issues that had been resolved so far fell short
of expectations.  Out of the 88 Agreement-specific proposals, only about 25 had been resolved.  In
view of this, Nigeria wished to see more commitment on the part of its partners, and for Ministers togive clear guidance, including a timeframe for re solving the remaining S&D issues.  His delegation
also wished to see language on implementation issues to the effect that a report on progress resolving
them would be made to Ministers at the next Sess ion of the Ministerial Conference after Cancún.  His
delegation supported the sectoral initiative in favour of cotton, and believed this would assist in
poverty reduction, provide a means of livelihood for many cotton farmers in poor countries and
promote development in many developing countries .  Action by Ministers on this issue would also
help in integrating many developing countries into the multilateral trading system.  On the
preparatory process, Nigeria wished to stress the need for the process to continue to be transparent
and all-inclusive in the remaining time in Geneva and in Cancún.  Another pertinent question,
which his delegation had raised at the informal HODs meeting on 25 August, was how the views
expressed and the inputs made by Members at the present meeting would be reflected in the draft
Ministerial text.  Nigeria was satisfied with the Chairman's assurance that he would convey these toMinisters.  In Nigeria's view, these inputs and views should be conveyed to Ministers for clarity and
transparency. At the present stage of preparations for Cancún, most delegations believed the
Geneva process had come to an end.  This had been stated by the major trading partners.  Therefore,
the least the Chairman could do for Members was to ensure that all the views and positions
expressed on the draft Ministerial text were conveyed to Ministers.  The Chairman had assuredMembers that this would be done, and Nigeria trusted that it would be.  His delegation would
continue to participate actively and constructively in the process both in Geneva and Cancún to
achieve a successful Ministerial Conference.  In view of the Chairman's appeal during his closing
remarks at the informal HODs meeting on 25 August, and in spite of the fact that the draft text had
been prepared by the Chairman on his own responsibility and was being forwarded by him on hisown responsibility, his delegation was prepared to join the consensus for the draft text to be
transmitted to Ministers in Cancún.
248. The representative of Colombia asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting37  The revised draft text
would serve as a good starting point for the discus sion of Ministers in Cancún.  However, it would be
disappointing if this were to represent the end product that would be adopted by Ministers.  The draft
text quite correctly attempted to push the process forward by suggesting compromises and flexibilityon the part of all Members.  However, in assessing the package as a whole, it was quite clear that in
certain areas, the level of ambition had fallen far short of the Doha mandate – in particular, regarding
agricultural reform.  On the contrary, in other areas of market access, the levels of ambition were
clear-cut and set high, and this created an imbalance in the text.  The draft text also represented an
important reality check which should not differ much from the present objective state of thenegotiations, and therefore should serve as a wake-up call for all.  With respect to agriculture, the
final level of ambition would, in part, be determined by the numbers and dates included in the square
brackets in the text during the work in Geneva after Cancún.  However, the general level of ambition
would also be determined by the general direction and guidance given for the reforms to be taken, in
the framework of the modalities in Annexes A and B.  This was why, regarding agriculture, Colombiawas concerned by the ambiguities and the general direction given in the text to certain issues, like the
Blue Box, the Green Box and the critical issue of the elimination of all types of export subsidies by a
determined date.  Regarding market access, his delegation regretted that the full liberalization of
tropical products and others mentioned in the pr eamble of the Agreement on Agriculture had not been
included.  Many developing countries were not asking for much more in S&D treatment inagriculture, but the developed countries insisted on maintaining it for themselves, and in some cases
were even broadening it and making it legitimate.  In this regard, his delegation did not see how there
                                                     
37 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 75
could be viable package for the majority of developing countries, in which their benefits would really
be in balance with the concessions they were required to make in other areas of the negotiation.  For
this reason, the G-17 proposal – now the G-20 proposal – represented an honest effort to put forward
an alternative for the benefit of all Members, and this had obliged developing countries to move from
their original positions, while remaining faithful to the Doha mandate.  This proposal clearly showed
what the developing countries' aspirations would be in Cancún.
249. Furthermore, some developed countries wishing to maintain very high and distorting
domestic support and export subsidies, unblushingly suggested that developing countries were asking
for excessive S&D treatment in NAMA, when in fact these were relatively marginal measures.  This
was rather ironic.  With respect to the Singapore issues, the Chairman had correctly interpreted the
state of the discussion, and had suggested two altern atives for the adoption or otherwise of modalities
under each issue.  The Singapore issues, with the exception of trade facilitation, were peripheral tothis negotiation, the crux of which was market access and rules.  The Singapore issues, while
important, did not represent the same degree of interest for all Members and could only be
accommodated within the single undertaking on two conditions – that they did not bring about an
imbalance in the negotiating package, and that the objective and scope of the modalities for each issue
was clearly stated.  At present it would be paradoxical to adopt modalities in Cancún for theSingapore issues and not for market access issues.  This was why, in the present circumstances, his
delegation felt that, despite having worked in a constructive manner with the demandeurs of these
issues, Members were far from incorporating the Singapore issues within the single undertaking on
the basis of an explicit consensus.  Colombia would continue to work with the Chairman and the
Director-General on a constructive basis.  Members needed to raise the level of ambition and shouldnot miss this opportunity to achieve a negotiating package that had benefits for all.  This package still
needed to be consolidated.  Members had worked well and had in fact run part of the course, although
not always on the straightest path.  Cancún was thus an opportunity to give final momentum to these
negotiations, and the draft text would help do that.  However, much remained to be done.  Colombia
hoped that the political will and flexibility required would be present in order to enable Members toachieve the results all hoped for in Cancún.
250. The representative of Peru said his delegation had mixed feelings about the revised draft text.
On the one hand, it reflected significant progress in some areas, such as S&D treatment, trade and
environment and services, as well as the inclusion of problems affecting commodities and the matter
of coherence between the WTO and the international financial institutions.  On services, Peru had that
same day submitted its initial offer on services, thus reaffirming its wish to participate actively and
constructively in these negotiations.  Apart from the above progress, his delegation found that the textdealing with the key aspect of the negotiations – namely, the framework for establishing modalities in
agriculture – fell short of the Doha mandate in terms of ambition.  In this connection, Peru wished to
stress the importance of attaining the necessary ba lance among the three pillars of the Agreement on
Agriculture.  Peru continued to associate itself with the proposal originally supported by 17
developing countries.  Regarding domestic support, the draft text was inadequate in that it providedfor no reduction in respect of specific products in the Amber Box, nor did it set any limit or provide
for the establishment of tighter disciplines for the Green Box.  As to export subsidies, no clear course
was charted for their elimination despite their disruptive effect on developing countries.  The
incorporation of more precise guidelines on this matter was essential.  With regard to the market
access pillar, his delegation welcomed the fact that the concept of Special Products had beenmaintained in the section on S&D treatment.  However, all Special Products that were essential to
food security and rural development in developing countries should be exempted from tariff reduction
commitments.  His delegation wished to consider the response to the request by a number of
developing countries for the establishment of a new Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM)  to be
applied solely by those countries.  However, there was considerable concern that, in parallel, thedeveloped countries should be free to maintain their current safeguards.WT/GC/M/82
Page 76
251. On NAMA, Peru attached great importance to the principles of S&D treatment and less than
full reciprocity, which would have to be properly reflected when it came to establishing modalities in
this area of negotiation.  Peru endorsed the inclusion in Annex B of the text on the conversion of non-
ad valorem  duties to ad valorem  equivalents.  Regarding the sectoral component of the negotiations,
his delegation wished to thank the Chairman for his great effort towards conciliation.  Peru's positionon this remained unchanged – this should be complementary to the application of the formula and
should be voluntary.  With regard to implementation-related issues, in his delegation's view the text of
paragraph 12 could prejudge the importance of one subject to the detriment of others, by singling out
unnecessarily the extension of the protection of GIs to products other than wines and spirits,
particularly as there was no consensus on this matter.  With regard to non-violation complaints, his
delegation noted that the draft text reflected a provisional compromise which in no way affected the
position of Peru and the vast majority of developed and developing Members, in that non-violationand situation complaints were not necessary, desirable or possible, and should therefore be declared
outside the scope of the TRIPS Agreement.  Regarding the Singapore issues, his delegation found that
the draft text reflected significantly different positions, and left out important intermediate or mixed
options which the Friends of the Chair had themselves suggested, or several Members had proposed,
in the consultations.  It would be appropriate to take up those proposals at Cancún in the interests offacilitating an agreement that envisaged the necessary flexibility for developing countries.  He
reiterated Peru's position, namely, that any decision as to whether or not to commence negotiations on
investment, competition policy, trade facilitation and transparency in government procurement would
depend on actual progress made in the negotiations on agriculture and on NAMA.  He reaffirmed
Peru's commitment to the multilateral trading system and to the WTO.  The work programme agreedat Doha afforded an important opportunity to prog ress towards global trade that was more inclusive
and more equitable, and to give real content to the development objectives marked out as constituting
the highest priority of this Round.  Cancún could an d should be a step towards the attainment of that
goal.
252. The representative of Gabon said that a draft text was an open invitation to negotiate on all
issues, with a view to reconciling the interests of all Members, large and small.  She would be brief,
since her country, which had recently appointed a new Minister of Trade, was still finalizing its
position and had yet to formulate a response to the revised draft text.  At Doha, Gabon had expressed
its views on issues relating to public health and intellectual property, debt, preferences, weak capacity
and S&D treatment. In the first instance, her delegation would convey its major concerns to the
African Group, as this would be an opportunity to ex press its solidarity with countries campaigning
for a fair appreciation of the deterioration of trade in commodities and the dramatic consequences fornational income.  This was particularly true for cotton, as well as for other products that underlay
these countries' economies, which were already weakened by uncontrolled fluctuations on
international markets.  Regarding paragraph 9 of the draft text, and in her capacity as Chair of the
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment, she wished to note that she knew it was
for delegations to negotiate and propose the main thrusts and/or take the necessary decisions pursuantto paragraph 45 of the Doha Declaration.  Nevertheless, she feared that if Members agreed on the
current vague text, they would fail to provide any effective impetus to guide the work in such a
complex area of the negotiations.  It was very well for Members to "reaffirm their attachment" to
these negotiations, but the term "commitment" would be more appropriate.  Her delegation had taken
note of the information provided by the Chairman the previous day concerning the preparation of aproposal regarding observer status, to be submitted to Members after Cancún.  Gabon hoped this
proposal would have a positive impact on the negotiations in the Special Session of the Committee on
Trade and Environment relating to paragraph 31(ii) of its mandate.  She wished Members good luck
in the successful and smooth completion of their work, in a climate of full transparency.
253. The representative of Romania said that the draft text was very valuable, particularly since the
results of the negotiations had not been the best.  Members had failed to observe each and every
deadline established at Doha and had not obtained a single important global result, despite the huge
amount of work and effort.  Under these circumstan ces, Romania considered that the revised draft textWT/GC/M/82
Page 77
was a fair and complete presentation of the status of the negotiations in Geneva, and at the same time
a call for political guidance in ensuring that the decisions taken at Doha were turned into reality.  Her
delegation had tried its best to make its positions less radical and to find an acceptable compromise.
However, it was of the view, especially after having heard certain positions expressed at the informal
HODs meeting on 25 August, that the only solution was to forward the revised draft text to Ministersat Cancún under the Chairman's responsibility.  Romania considered that the revised draft text
reflected reality and gave Ministers the possibility to negotiate the best solution for the future work of
the organization.  It was not a Seattle-like text, there were not too many brackets, and there was still
enough room for negotiation.
254. As a net food importing developing country, the first subject Romania wished to comment on
was agriculture. This was one of the most difficult areas of negotiations, as it was nearly impossible to
reconcile the needs and concerns of as many agricultural policies as there were WTO Members.  Herdelegation considered the draft text on this issue as one to be still negotiated, or as a reference text in
which many provisions would have to be negoti ated.  Romania trusted that Ministers would give
political guidance to delegations, that would enable them to continue the process of reform in
agriculture.  While the draft text and its Annex were not clean texts, and all Members' concerns had
not been taken aboard, there was a way to find the compromise that would both observe the Dohamandate, covering the interests of development, and the particular concerns of each and every
Member.  On NAMA, as stated in the informal HODs meeting, Romania could accept the latest input
from the Chairman of that Negotiating Group, and was ready to continue negotiations, also on the
basis of the two documents presented.  Romania considered that a decision on TRIPS and Public
Health was crucial for the organization and trusted that even before Cancún, Members would be ableto send the world a message about their commitment to the tremendously serious problems faced by
certain developing countries.  On services, the draft text was encouraging and provided a sort of
momentum to finalize the negotiations in this area.
255. The results of negotiations in the area of TRIPS, rules, S&D, implementation and
environment were accurately presented and included a sense of movement and continuation.  This didnot mean Romania was satisfied with the results obtained in these areas, but the text reflected reality
and that Members had to continue the work in these areas.  This positive evaluation of the draft text
did not preclude the rights of her delegation to try to have its interests better preserved through the
text to be adopted in Cancún.  However, her delegation believed that Ministers would have before
them a proposal from the Chairman of the General Council.  The Chairman was well aware of
Romania's initial position and its interests, and had been informed about the positions of all other
Members.  Ministers at Cancún would have a difficult task of taking decisions, and this at a timewhen turmoil, uncertainty, slowing of the world economy and a certain degree of unreliability in the
international financial system characterized the world.  Her delegation remained optimistic and trusted
that trade, based on rules accepted by all Members, in a continuous trend of opening markets for all
participants in the multilateral trading system, havi ng efficient instruments of technical assistance and
capacity building, taking account of the concerns of those in need and deploying all efforts to have allMembers effectively and efficiently included in the system – such trade would prevail and the WTO
would remain a trusted, beneficial and useful organization, while expanding trade in a harmonious
way so as to support efforts towards sustainable development.  Romania was committed to
contributing to a positive and tangible outcome at Cancún.  This was why her delegation was tackling
this matter in a positive manner, and had changed gears from a purely individual approach to anegotiating one, making the needed adjustments in its priorities and objectives, and trying to consider
more attentively the positions and concerns of others.  She knew that her delegation was not the only
one to do so, and urged all Members to adopt a negotiating approach.
256. The representative of Thailand asked that her delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.38  Her delegation was
                                                     
38 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 78
disappointed but not discouraged.  It was the job of all delegations to do their best to fulfil the
mandate given by Ministers in Doha, i.e. to report to the Cancún Ministerial Conference where each
one stood on each negotiating issue, so that Ministers could take decisions or provide political
guidance as necessary.  The question was whether common ground could be found for Ministers to
take any decisions at Cancún.  At the present stage, the revised draft text enabled his delegation to seemore clearly where Members stood.  Although the draft text contained positive elements in some
areas where Members might be able to find compromise by Cancún, in several key areas – because of
divergent views of Members – the text had resulted in an imbalance.  In this respect, it was
delegations' task to assist Ministers and help them find a balanced outcome in Cancún, so they would
be able to take decisions they could happily report back to their constituencies as being beneficial, in
the light of the unhealthy world economy.  Hence, flexibility, give and take and trade-offs were key at
the present juncture.  In this regard, her delegation wished to make additional comment on the reviseddraft text.
257. On market access in agriculture, it was irrational to expect substantial improvement in market
access from developing countries, while there was a proliferation of heavy subsidization of
agricultural products on world markets by developed countries.  On domestic support, first, the new
type of Blue Box introduced in the draft text in Annex A would enable countries to increase, notdecrease, trade-distorting domestic support.  Second, there was no product-specific reduction
commitment mentioned in the text.  This would prov ide excessive flexibility to rich countries, that
would adversely affect the trade of developing countries like Thailand.  Third, there was no
commitment – not to mention capping or reduction – even to strengthen the disciplines on trade-
distorting measure under the Green Box, thus allowing countries with sufficient resources to continuetheir unlimited trade-distorting support.  On export subsidies, Thailand did not believe the question of
the end date for phasing out export subsidies should be negotiated.  In this respect, the text proposed
by 17 – and now 20 –  Members was balanced, ambitious and faithful to the Doha mandate.  It
represented a big move from a group of countries and was now on the table.  In addition, the draft text
might be improved by specifying the end date for elimination of export subsidies and ensuringsubstantial reduction commitments on a product-specific basis for all trade-distorting domestic
support, and by indicating a capping and strengthening of the Green Box.
258. On NAMA, in general her delegation did not have much difficulty leaving a bracket on the
date for concluding the work on modalities, as long as it corresponded to the date for agriculture.  On
Annex B, her delegation wished to emphasize its concerns about the language in paragraph 6 – which
did not follow the Doha mandate.  The less than fu ll reciprocity mandated in the Doha Declaration
had not been met.  The sectoral initiative should be only a supplemental and voluntary element in theformula.  Thailand could not accept any language that might lead to an interpretation that a sectoral
tariff component would be mandatory.  On services, her delegation supported having only one
deadline for the submission of improved offers, bearing in mind the progress in agriculture and
NAMA.  On the Singapore issues,  to her delegation's disappointment, the Annexes included and
proposed to be used as a basis for further negotiations on these issues were supported by only ahandful of Members.  Compared to the Annexes on other issues, like agriculture and NAMA,
which had been included in the draft text, the Annexes on the Singapore issues ignored other
possible options and did not truly reflect the present state of discussion among Members.  She
recalled that in an attempt to find a possible way forward, some Friends of the Chair had come up
with a text including the three possible options drawn from consultations with Members.Regrettably, none of these options appeared in the Annexes, even as a more flexible or
intermediate option that might be used as a bridge between the two other options.  In this regard,
if Ministers were to choose in Cancún only between the two options – in which the first option
had an Annex that did not reflect Members' be nefits or concerns – Ministers would have no
choice but to choose the second option.  Thailand remained committed to the multilateral tradingsystem and wished to see the Cancún Ministerial a success.  Her delegation would work in
Geneva as well as in Cancún constructively  with the Chairman, the Director-General and other
colleagues in order to achieve an agreed solution.  Thailand hoped all Members wouldWT/GC/M/82
Page 79
demonstrate maximum flexibility and utmost willingness to cooperate with one another.  There
were no barriers that could not be overcome if the will was strong.  In this regard, Thailand would
submit its initial offers on services shortly before Cancún despite many hurdles that it had faced
along the way, both political and technical.  Thailand had been a consistently constructive
participant all along in the negotiations  and strongly urged other Members to move positively in
other areas of negotiations as well.
259. The representative of the Czech Republic said his delegation recognized the complexity of the
task of putting together a draft Ministerial text, and the difficulty of squaring the circle of widely
diverging positions, concerns and interests.  However, a good job had been done, despite all the
voices of unhappiness and the qualifying remarks Members had made.  His delegation agreed with the
Chairman that the revised draft text was based on many hours of consultation and discussion,
especially in the open-ended HODs format.  Throug hout that transparent and inclusive process, the
Chairman had listened to Members and had invested a lot to better understand their positions through
more structured and focussed exchanges.  It was on that basis that the Chairman had analysed various
positions and had produced, in close cooperation with  the Director-General, what he saw as a possible
middle ground or way forward.  The Czech Republic understood all of the voices of disappointment
and unhappiness regarding various portions of the text.  His delegation was equally unhappy about theoverall imbalance of the text and that many of the issues of particular concern to it had not been
addressed in a meaningful manner or reflected at all in the draft text.  However, when sharing their
sentiments and comments, Members should not lose sight of the fact that, for the first time, they had a
text which, albeit not agreed, was manageable and negotiable.  To qualify this as a step forward in
comparison with the original version of the draft text  was quite an understatement.  The first draft had
been of a somewhat skeletal nature.  Members now had something that enabled them to see the bigger
picture and to assess their offensive and defensive positions – a text on the basis of which, along with
submissions by Members, Ministers at Cancún could face their responsibilities.  He had already
indicated that there were areas in the draft text which caused major difficulties for his delegation and
that required additional effort to facilitate the process of consensus-building at Cancún.  However, hewould refrain from going through all of them.  His delegation's concerns were very similar to those
stated by the Community.  His delegation would spare no effort to work with the Chairman and other
Members with a view to bridging the gaps and reaching a conclusion acceptable to all.
260. The representative of Barbados asked that her delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.39   Her delegation fully
associated itself with the statement by Botswana on behalf of ACP Group and subscribed to all of the
points raised therein, in particular that it was imperative that in Cancún, the elaboration, amendmentand adoption of the Ministerial text be transparent and inclusive.  With respect to agriculture,
Barbados welcomed the statement by Indonesia on the subject of Special Products.  Barbados broadly
subscribed to those views, but would go even further – no developing-country product, including
those designated as Special Products, should be subject to either tariff ceilings or new tariff rate quota
commitments.  With regard to the Singapore issues, her delegation had already expressed itspreference for a final text on each of the four issues along the lines of the second option in the draft
text.  Her delegation had taken note that the language of paragraphs 13 through 16 of the revised draft
text was drafted so as to reflect the essence of the clarification given by the Chairman of the Doha
Ministerial Conference, namely, that a decision on modalities would need to be taken by explicit
consensus before negotiations could proceed.  On the issue of coherence, her delegation had listenedcarefully to the statement by the United States on this matter and had noted the assertion that “we
cannot recreate the function of these institutions within the WTO”.  Barbados welcomed this
affirmation.  However, the proof of the pudding remained in the eating.  Her delegation's experience
in such matters had been such that it would care fully examine the ingredients before ingesting any
more, in order to ensure it would not later regret ha ving gorged itself.  With respect to the issues of
S&D and implementation, which were of great importance to her delegation, it was critical that
                                                     
39 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 80
further progress be achieved.  Barbados held similar views with regard to the Working Groups on
Trade, Debt and Finance and on Trade and Transfer of Technology.  On cotton and commodity
initiatives, it was critical that Ministers at Cancún be able to address these issues in a constructive and
result-oriented way.  With regard to small economies, her delegation believed that paragraph 17
reflected the status of the relevant Work Programme at the present time.  It was therefore critical thatin the post-Cancún period, work be accelerated in order to realize a substantive outcome at a very
early stage.
261. The representative of Uganda asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.40  In addition to the
comments Uganda had already made at the informal HODs meeting on 25 August, his delegation
wished to stress a few points.  Uganda attached great importance to S&D, and the elements that had
been agreed on should be banked.  However, the harvest was too meagre to be meaningful in terms ofreal commercial value.  Therefore, Uganda supported the statement by Kenya.  His delegation also
fully subscribed to the statement by Bangladesh on behalf of the LDCs.  There had been a recent
development on the Singapore issues which was the subm ission by India of a letter and an attachment.
As the coordinator for the LDCs could not be in th e room at present, he had asked Uganda to make
the following statement on behalf of the LDCs:  "The LDC Group has taken note of the contents of
the letter.  We support the move to provide annexes to the second option in your draft on each of the
Singapore issues, to provide the needed balance to enable the Ministers to take decisions on these
issues."  Uganda supported the proposal that the letter and its attachments from India be annexed to
the draft Ministerial text in the appropriate places.
262. He then made the following statement also on behalf of Egypt, Kenya, Lesotho, Namibia,
Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe:  These countries wished to express their
views on the current discussions in agriculture, a subject that was of critical importance to the African
continent.  The results of the Doha Development Agenda would only be meaningful to Africa if it
delivered a positive outcome in the agriculture negotiations.  As African countries, they believed that
in accordance with the Doha mandate, the reform programme in agriculture should take into accountthe particular needs and circumstances of the African countries.  In this regard, these countries
believed that the G-17 – now G-20 – joint proposal of the developing countries contained some key
elements on which one could build, with a view to addressing the special needs of Africa.  With
regard to domestic support, while they supported the general thrust of the paper, they wished to
emphasize that the high level of ambition of the Doha Declaration should be adhered to, and that the
most trade-distorting support should be substantially reduced for all products.  As to market access,
which was of particular importance to these countries, given that tariffs were the only viable andavailable trade policy instrument to protect domestic production, while they supported the general
thrust of the G-17 proposal in this area, they wished to highlight the following issues of concern.
First, the special needs of African countries should be taken into account for the purposes of
developing modalities on the concepts of Special Products and the SSM.  Second, the current
preferences accorded to products originating in African countries should be safeguarded.  In addition,the modalities should establish appropriate and effective mechanisms to address the negative effects
of loss of preferences, building on the Revised .  Third, on tariff rate quotas, special measures should
be undertaken to assist small-scale and limited-commodity exporters from African countries to benefit
from any tariff rate quota expansion in developed countries.  With respect to export competition, the
approach proposed in the G-17 paper on export subsidies went in the right direction.  In thesecountries' view, export subsidies provided by developed countries should be substantially reduced
with a view to their elimination within an agreed timeframe.  The modalities should take into account
the special needs of the NFIDCs and LDCs.  Regarding other S&D measures, these should to be part
of any framework agreement, as elaborated in Kenya's proposal in Job(03)/175.
                                                     
40 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 81
263. The representative of Chinese Taipei asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal
HODs meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.41  His delegation
urged Members to continue negotiating among themselves.  In order to do that, they should have in
mind one crucial word – flexibility.  His delegation strongly supported the view of many Members
that the one area where flexibility was greatly needed was agriculture.  Chinese Taipei wished toreiterate that in agriculture, there was no one-size-fits-all solution.  There should be enough give and
take in the eventual modalities on agriculture to en sure an equitable and workable agricultural reform,
especially to accommodate non-trade concerns.  In addition, his delegation, along with several others,
found it extremely difficult to accept the capping of the Blue and Green Boxes, the reduction of the de
minimis,  the TRQ expansion and tariff capping, and the linkage between the two.  Furthermore, his
delegation appreciated the support of certain Members for recognizing the special needs of recently
acceded Members.  Bearing in mind that recently acceded Members were still in the process ofimplementing or adjusting to their considerable  accession commitments, his delegation wished to
emphasize that the special needs of such Members were an integral part of striking a balance in the
overall Doha Development Agenda.  Chinese Taipei strongly urged all Members to allow these
countries more moderate tariff reductions and longer implementation periods, especially in the
NAMA and agriculture modalities, to enable a sm ooth adjustment to further commitments.  His
delegation shared the view that a successful Cancún Ministerial Conference was a goal the
multilateral system could not afford to miss.  Chin ese Taipei was therefore ready to demonstrate the
flexibility necessary to achieve a fair and balanced outcome, and was fully committed to working with
the Chairman, the Director-General, and all Members in order to ensure a successful Cancún
Ministerial meeting.
264. The representative of Cuba said the fact that the revised draft Ministerial text had been issued
at such a late stage in the preparatory process for Cancún, i.e. only ten working days before Ministers
commenced their discussions, constituted a serious problem, because the draft text contained a series
of obligations in technically very complex areas and, more importantly, whose implications for the
economies and development of many Members, in particular the developing and least-developedcountries, required them to be absolutely certain  that the commitments they adopted would bring
economic benefits for their economies.  Consequently, even a text which the Chairman put forward on
his own responsibility still presented difficulties fo r most Members, including both industrialized and
developing countries, as had become clear in the informal HODs meeting, and as the Chairman
himself had recognized in his concluding remarks at that meeting, when he had said that the text had
not met the expectations of any Member, since it had failed to reflect the level of ambition of the
mandate for some and had gone beyond the mandate for others – i.e., that what was an acceptablecompromise for some was a totally unacceptable compromise for others.  Members had a long way to
go in order to reconcile their differences.  Therefore, the short time available should not be used either
to damage the interests of developing countries or to force them to undertake commitments, the
implications of which were as yet uncertain, and which developing countries were yet to be convinced
would bring trade benefits for their economies.  Her delegation was not satisfied with the content ofthe revised draft text and wished to make the following preliminary remarks.
265. Concerning paragraph 4 on the agriculture negotiations, Cuba, as a member of the G-20,
shared the aspirations of this group, as expressed by Brazil and India.  For Cuba, as an
underdeveloped net food importing country, the strengthening of Article 12 of the Agreement on
Agriculture with a view to eliminating export prohibitions and restrictions was a matter of toppriority, in order to avoid hindering free trade and jeopardizing the food security of net food importing
countries.  Cuba therefore welcomed the inclusion of  paragraph 3.7 in Annex A of the draft text.  Her
delegation attached great importance to the issue of Special Products, the genuine and effective
implementation of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision, the erosion of preferences, and the need to take
positive steps to counter the impact of these negotiations on preferential access.  Cuba's viewconcerning the Singapore issues had been set forth in document WT/GC/W/513, submitted on behalf
                                                     
41 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 82
of a group of developing countries.  Further analysis was necessary for each of the four issues, on
account of their complexity and owing to the shortage of human, financial and technological resources
experienced by many Members.  The likely implications of multilateral rules in these areas for
developing countries should also be the subject of  further study.  Cuba therefore requested that the
communication presented by India, on behalf of a group of countries, including Cuba, should be
annexed to the draft text, in order to alert Ministers to these countries' concerns and to the fact that
they were not yet ready to commence negotiations on these issues.  Cuba noted that the revised draft
text on electronic commerce did not contain the square brackets that had appeared in the first draft
text at the request of Cuba.  Cuba would not insist on retaining those brackets, in order to help the
Chairman in the difficult preparations for Cancún.  However, her delegation had reservations
concerning the recommendation to Ministers that Members should maintain their current practice of
not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions until the next Session of the MinisterialConference, for the reasons given in Cuba's statement in the General Council on 24 July.  Cuba was
uncomfortable with the adoption of automatic decisions that were not based on any analysis or studies
demonstrating the need to make this kind of commitment.
266. Cuba had high ambitions regarding development-related issues, as it had shown through its
active participation in the discussions, by stressing the need to obtain substantive results in thepackage of proposals on S&D treatment and implementation-related issues, and in the alternative
paragraphs submitted on issues such as trade, debt, finance, and technology transfer, together with
other developing and least-developed countries.  With regard to TRIPS and Public Health, Cuba
hoped that, for the benefit of all developing countries, the text of 16 December 2002 could finally be
adopted.  Cuba supported this text as a compromise solution.  However, in her delegation's view, thedefinition of "pharmaceutical product" contained in paragraph 1(a) was inadequate, because it
excluded vaccines, which, on account of their very nature and the role they played in public health,
should be included in this category.  Concerning paragraph 8, Cuba agreed that the TRIPS
negotiations should continue and that they should be completed by 1 January 2005 at the latest.  The
title of paragraph 9 concerning the environment should refer to trade and environment negotiations.Cuba had no difficulty with the present wording of paragraph 10.  The current wording of paragraph 5
concerning negotiations on NAMA needed to be improved, in order to bring it into line with the
additional provision of paragraph 8 on keeping five per cent of tariff lines unbound.  Concerning the
formula to be applied and the sectoral approach, the current text did not reflect the view expressed by
most countries, especially the developing and least-developed countries, during the negotiating
process.  As contained in Annex B, these elements could affect the industrial development policies of
many developing and least-developed countries.  The sectoral approach should be voluntary.
267. Cuba supported the views of the G-24 and China regarding services.  Her delegation
underlined the importance of implementing paragraph 15 of the Negotiating Guidelines as one aspect
of the review of the negotiations to benefit developing countries.  With regard to Mode 4, which was
of great interest to developing countries, Cuba wish ed to draw attention to the scant coverage in the
offers made by developed countries, which indicated the need to improve such offers with a view toeliminating the barriers that remained in place.  Concerning paragraphs 23 and 24, Cuba endorsed the
suggestions made to ensure that technical cooperation was an effective way of creating and improving
the human resource and institutional capacities of developing and least-developed countries.  Cuba
supported the proposals introduced by Bangladesh on behalf of the LDCs with a view to strengthening
the paragraph concerning this group of countries.  On the issue of accessions, Cuba wished to includean additional sentence in paragraph 28, with a view to providing a timely and adequate response to
WTO accession requests that remained pending from a group of developing countries, and to
initiating the corresponding accession procedures.
268. With regard to Annex C concerning S&D treatment, and specifically Article 67 of the TRIPS
Agreement, the proposed wording put excessive emphasis on assistance to ensure that developing andleast-developed countries complied with their obligations under the Agreement.  However, it was just
as important to mention that assistance was needed to prevent the adverse use of intellectual propertyWT/GC/M/82
Page 83
rules.  Reference should also be made to assistance in correcting anti-competitive practices in
contractual licences.  In his statement, the Director-General had referred to the difficulties facing the
world economy.  Consequently, it was necessary to improve market access for products of particular
interest to developing countries, to eliminate export restrictions, and to strengthen S&D treatment
provisions, while not increasing the burden of obligations on Members, most of whom had greatdifficulty fulfilling their existing commitments.  Regarding process, Cuba supported the proposal of
the African Group that the Chairman should continue to hold consultations regarding the draft text,
since any text forwarded to Ministers in Cancún should be adopted in Geneva by consensus.  Her
delegation wished to thank the Chairman, the Director-General, the Deputy Directors-General and the
Chairpersons of the negotiating groups, for all of their work in seeking to produce a text acceptable to
all.  Regrettably, so far that had been impossible to achieve.  Her delegation was ready to work with
the Chairman and the other Members towards that objective.
269. The representative of Lesotho said his delegation supported the statements by Bangladesh on
behalf of the LDCs and by Botswana on behalf of the ACP Group.  With regard to TRIPS and Public
Health, it was his delegation's expectation that before the present General Council meeting ended, a
special meeting of the TRIPS Council would be convened to adopt the 16 December 2002 text, along
with a statement to be made by the General C ouncil Chairman.  His delegation understood that the
statement by the Chairman was in the final stages  and was intended to give comfort to certain
delegations in terms of the interpretation of the 16 December text.  However, it should be remembered
that amendment of the TRIPS Agreement was the ultim ate objective.  With regard to agriculture, the
draft modalities in Annex A of the revised draft text were based largely on the joint EC/US
framework paper.  Although the developed Members' efforts in moving the process forward werewelcomed, Lesotho had suggested that the draft text should include the Revised First Draft of
Modalities.  Paragraph 4 of Annex A was a watere d-down version of what was contained for LDCs.
This was surprising, as Lesotho had been under the impression that the Revised First Draft of
Modalities was acceptable insofar as it referred to LDCs.  Further, his delegation wished to confirm
its support for the statement by Uganda on behalf of the African countries, including Lesotho, in thisregard.
270. With respect to NAMA, the progress in developing negotiating modalities was commendable,
and therefore the text in this regard – and to a large extent, Annex B – was generally acceptable.  With
regard to S&D treatment, work was still proceeding regarding modalities for LDCs.  However, the
progress of this work was disappointing, as the proposals presently on the table had little if any
economic value.  However, further comments would be made at the time this language was finalized.
His delegation was also concerned about the proliferation of work on this topic in various WTObodies, in spite of paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration which had to be read in conjunction with
paragraph 12 of the Doha Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns – which placed
such work squarely within the ambit of the Co mmittee on Trade and Development.  With regard to
the Singapore issues, his delegation confirmed the position of the LDC
 Dhaka Ministerial Declaration,
the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Lusaka Ministerial Declaration, the AfricanUnion Grand-Baie Ministerial Declaration and th e ACP Brussels Ministerial Declaration, and the
attached negotiating positions on this matter.  Lesotho supported the second option in the draft text in
paragraphs 13 through 16.  A wrong impression was created by attaching Annexes D-G, as these
reflected the views of the proponents of negotiations and had not been fully scrutinized by the
membership.  Lesotho supported the statement by Uganda on behalf of the LDCs in this regard.  Withrespect to technical cooperation, his delegation welcomed paragraph 23 of the draft text, but wished to
emphasize the necessity of the availability of funds to undertake the work in the various programmes.
Further, the consultation of beneficiaries in the drawing up of the plan was crucial to making the
assistance meaningful.  His delegation welcomed the paragraph on LDCs and wished to thank the
Chairman for the effort he had put into the successful negotiation of this paragraph.  With regard tothe sectoral initiative on cotton, Lesotho encouraged the membership to adopt the draft decision
submitted by Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali in document WT/GC/W/511.  Regarding the
procedure for submitting the draft Ministerial text to Ministers, it was his delegation's view that whereWT/GC/M/82
Page 84
there was a clear meeting of minds on the text, it should be submitted for the consideration of
Ministers.  Furthermore, there should be a proper balance in the text that expressed the development
bias of the Round, with levels of ambition either at  par with or higher than what had been agreed in
Doha.
271. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic asked that his delegation's statement at the
Informal HODs meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.42  T h e
question of effective and globally beneficial membership of the Kyrgyz Republic in the multilateral
trading system had reached its most crucial point, as Members were only a few days away from the
forthcoming Ministerial Conference, when the new phase of the negotiations would commence.  To
his delegation, use of the term "effective and globally beneficial membership" would imply a degree
of certainty and flexibility from such membership, but in no way should this membership diminish the
natural ability of a country to participate in global policy making.  In  a recent letter to the Chairman,which had been circulated to all Members, his Government called on all Members to further
strengthen the WTO by taking up this issue seriously in the course of the Cancún Ministerial
Conference.  His delegation would provide additional documents deemed necessary during the
consultations at Cancún.
272. The representative of Lithuania said that like others, his delegation had concerns regarding
parts of the revised draft text, and wished to touch on only the most problematic ones.  His delegation
supported the format of the document, which included options and brackets in only a very few areas.
In Lithuania's view, this format could help Ministers reach adequate agreements at Cancún.
Moreover, his delegation supported submitting the text to Ministers on the Chairman's own
responsibility.  With regard to agriculture, during  the consultations held during the past two weeks,
Lithuania had supported the joint EC/US proposal, which reflected a most ambitious level, and was
most realistic at the present stage of agricultural reform.  On domestic support, in particular with
regard to the Blue Box and the second phase of the reduction of this kind of support – as described in
the second sentence of paragraph 1.3 (ii) of Annex A – his delegation believed that a proposal to
impose limits of five per cent during the implementation period was already an ambitious stepforward, taking into account also the fact that Bl ue Box support was minimally trade-distorting, and
significantly less distorting than Amber Box subsidies.  Lithuania therefore believed that this step was
adequate at the present stage of the agricultural negotiations.  With respect to reducing or capping the
Green Box support, his delegation believed that this support was not trade-distorting and was a key
instrument in addressing non-trade concerns in agriculture.  Therefore, his delegation wished to
clearly state that such a proposal could not be accepted.
273. Regarding market access in agriculture, Lithuania supported those Members with concerns
regarding the two-tiered approach in the draft text  on formulas.  In his delegation's view, the same
formula should apply to both developed and developing-country Members, with S&D treatment for
developing countries.  However, Lithuania was convinced that the S&D treatment should be explicitly
applied to those countries which really needed it, but not in respect of countries that were global food
exporters and richer than others.  He did not understand why these Members should not contribute totrade liberalization to the same extent as others.  Regarding export subsidies, the draft text with
respect to the end date for phasing out all forms of export subsidies created an imbalance in the export
competition section of the text, which in his delegation's view was one of the greatest achievements of
the EC/US proposal.  His delegation also felt that  the provisions on export competition were too
weak.  Regarding NAMA, his delegation sought a greater level of ambition through a single andsimple non-linear formula, leading to the harmonizatio n of import tariffs, at the same time effectively
applying the S&D treatment provisions.  Regarding the Singapore issues, Lithuania was not satisfied
by the results of the consultations.  However, his delegation agreed with the Chairman's approach of
submitting two options to Ministers for decision.  His delegation expected that these concerns would
be duly taken into account, if not at present, then by the Ministerial Conference at Cancún.
                                                     
42 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 85
274. The representative of Switzerland asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.43  Switzerland's position on
the framework package on agriculture was also reflected in document JOB(03)/167 submitted by
Bulgaria, Chinese Taipei, Iceland, Korea, Liechtenstein and Switzerland on 20 August.  Further to
Switzerland's statement at the informal HODs meeting, his delegation had three additional commentsto make on the draft Ministerial text.  First, Switzerland understood the position expressed by
Bulgaria at the present meeting.  However, Member s were not quite there, in terms of agreement on
this issue.  Switzerland still hoped for a more co nstructive approach by exporters to the concerns of
net food importers with little or no export interests.  This group could not be the only having to make
very substantive commitments, while a number of major net food exporting countries assumed none
or few corresponding commitments.  Second, in this respect his delegation wished to stress again that
only a flexible set of commitments responding to th e various situations in agriculture would ensure
success.  Third, the concretisation of non-trade concerns was of paramount importance.  Switzerland's
Constitution specifically instructed it to follow a ma rket-oriented agricultural policy that would satisfy
the needs of multifunctionality.  Any result that w ould prevent the fulfilment of such policy would not
be acceptable.  His delegation supported the statement by Japan, including the request related to
paragraph 4 of the draft text.  Regarding suggestions that had been made to separate the draft textfrom the Annexes it currently included, it was Switzerl and's view that all of the Annexes had the same
status and were an integral part of the draft text.  Therefore, all of the Annexes should be forwarded to
Ministers for their consideration at Cancún.
275. The representative of Croatia asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.44
276. The representative of Iceland asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.45  His delegation wished to
expand briefly on the segments of the revised draft Ministerial text relating to agriculture, NAMA and
the Singapore issues.  As already mentioned, Iceland believed that the approach taken in the draft text
better accommodated the sensitivities of those Members which enjoyed large-scale and broad-basedproduction that was relatively competitive.  The draft text failed to address the interests of countries
with small-scale production of few products under difficult conditions, which were not competitive on
international markets.  Iceland's agricultural sector had minimal – or perhaps more accurately, no –
impact on world trade.  Its domestic support policies reflected the severe difficulties it had to confront
in maintaining a viable agricultural sector on the edge of the Arctic Circle.  A one-size-fits-all
approach did not begin to fathom the different needs of individual Members in different production
conditions.  Sufficient flexibility should be ensured to suit the smaller as well as the bigger players.  Itwas paramount that Iceland safeguard its right to sustain a certain level of domestic production, i.e.,
for food security purposes, and that the methodologies applied in the reform process provided it with
an appropriate set of tools for the task at hand.  Iceland was a country with minimal agricultural
exports, and the predominant share of domestic production was for domestic consumption.  His
delegation did not believe that non-trade concerns had been adequately addressed in the process todate, and was therefore troubled by the current course of the negotiations.  It went without saying that
Iceland's concerns needed to be addressed within the framework to be agreed, not outside it, where
they would be rendered insignificant.
277. Production-linked policies had proven to be necessary tools to accommodate Iceland's diverse
policy objectives in agriculture, and this required flexibility, both in the Amber and Blue Boxes, forthese policies to be continued at a level sufficient to ensure a certain level of domestic production.
With respect to market access, Iceland had consistently argued the merits of a Uruguay Round
approach and continued to extol its virtues.  It was a simple fact that non-competitive agriculture
                                                     
43 See Annex IV.
44 See Annex IV.
45 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 86
required an appropriate blend of domestic support policies and tariffs to ensure its viability.  It was
imperative that Iceland provided its arctic agriculture the minimal shelter it needed from the scorching
heat of international competition, in order for it to be viable.  Given the divergent needs of Members,
a harmonization approach was ill-suited to provide the fair and equitable trading system for which all
strived.  The same went for tariff capping.  As in domestic support, the modalities in this pillar shouldbe characterized by flexibility to take into account the different sensitivities of Members.  Iceland's
task here was to ensure that such supports would be continued without distorting international trade in
agricultural goods.  With respect to NAMA, on which Iceland hoped to see some results, the draft text
was disappointing. Members were negotiating formulas for agriculture, and at the same time
struggling with a very weak text on NAMA.  This was not acceptable.  Members should at least agree
on the basic framework, including the formula.  In this connection, his delegation wished to underline
that mandatory sectoral elimination was an important part of that framework.  The draft text lackedambition and hardly added anything to what had already been agreed at Doha.  Iceland feared that it
could even bring Members one step backwards.  Iceland agreed with those that were prepared to begin
negotiations on all four Singapore issues.  As one delegation had said earlier, it took two to tango.
Part of the problem might be that a couple of Members were dancing the tango together, nearly
oblivious of the rest of the Members who were dancing something resembling a polka.  While theleadership of the two dancing the tango was necessary, it was important that they joined the rest in the
polka, in order to provide a better chance of creating an agricultural framework that would have all
the ingredients of flexibility needed to accommodate Members' different problems.  His delegation
would  come to Cancún with an open mind and ready to  continue to work in an effort to improve the
draft text in a way that would enable all Members to accept it.
278. The representative of Zimbabwe said that over the past few days, his delegation had been
regaled with wisdom drawn from Western classical tr aditions, and also from other, equally powerful
and thriving original sources.  However, it remained earth bound, in real time and its concerns were
still palpable and demanding of attention.  These concerns might be less lofty but, nonetheless they
were enriched by humble life patterns and the wisdom of hunters and gatherers of Zimbabwe's part ofthe world.  However, one would return later to the derided wisdom of those scarred by many
millennia of rustic existence on the harsh terrains of Africa.  As Members continued to develop a
framework their Ministers might use to chart the fu ture of the multilateral trading system, he wished
to assure all that his delegation was committed to c ooperating with all, while it expected that the
views of all would be taken on board.  There should be no favoured few.  In agriculture, a sector many
termed the key to all else in the Doha Round – and his delegation did not quarrel with that
characterisation – his delegation did have concerns with assertions about what was good forZimbabwe.  Subsidies should  be eliminated, and in an agreed timeframe, and the level of ambition in
other aspects should also be improved.  Seemingly transparent processes posed problems for
Zimbabwe when they permitted annexes to be added to the draft text which it was then said faithfully
reflected the deliberations among Members.  Zimbabwe had a sense that it was engaged in proxy
negotiations.  The real negotiations – if one could call them that – were taking place elsewhere invarious modes, between the powe rful and the weak, who were deliberately misinformed and promised
unrealisable rewards.  Sadly, his delegation had been victim to those machinations in the past.  The
stark reality was that the current trade arrangements would not improve the lot of the world's one
billion-plus peasant farmers. What had been put before Members pretended nothing better.
279. The Singapore issues had fallen victim to the notorious annexes, which many speakers had
said should be removed from the draft text.  For a fairer exchange and for Ministers properly to make
informed choices, they should also have before th em alternative modalities, such as those developed
by India and others, who opposed the launch of negotiations on these issues.  It would not be
acceptable to put forward only the modalities developed by the demandeurs.  On NAMA issues, his
delegation was dissatisfied with designs that sought to cripple his country's nascent industries.Realistic S&D treatment provisions should be negotiated and faithfully implemented.  Developing and
least-developed counties would not be well served by the current provisions, which fell far short of
the Doha mandate in ambition.  Despite Zimbabwe's discomfort with the progress of the negotiationsWT/GC/M/82
Page 87
so far, his delegation remained engaged, and this was important.  No one should be allowed to
provoke disruption and unproductive discourse.  That said, neither should deception find a place in
serious exchanges on such weighty issues which potentially might determine whether millions lived
or died.  He recalled a saying of one of the tribe's in Zimbabwe, that might in some ways characterise
what Members had been about en route to Cancún.  In this tribe's almost inimitable tongue theyconveyed a saying that meant "do not crow that you have given me a juicy eland when all I got is a
handful of cheek piercing sour termites."  All Members sought benefits from this Round, and it was
not enough to make mere promises that some Members' lot would be better off one day.  These
Members wanted realistic exchanges that would deliver meaningful development for their people.
The current multilateral trading system would not suffice; and they did not believe that this was a
radical critique.  His delegation would continue to cooperate with the Chairman, and urged him to
continue consultations and to produce a fairer and more practical draft text for Ministers.
280. The representative of Israel asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.46
281. The representative of Oman associated his delegation with the statement by Croatia.  His
delegation wished to add that the issue of elimination of export subsidies was important for Croatia,
which hoped that the high level of ambition it expected would be achieved during negotiations,especially regarding paragraphs 3.1 and 3.6 of Annex A in the revised draft Ministerial text.
282. The representative of Bahrain said he wished to briefly present the recommendations of the
Arab Ministerial meeting organized by the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia,
contained in document WT/L/537.  His delegation wished to make some translation improvements to
this paper since the official working language for the Arab group was Arabic.  The paper conveyed aunified position in all areas, such as TRIPS and Public Health, agriculture, NAMA, services,
implementation issues, S&D treatment, trade-related aspects of intellectual property, rules, trade and
environment, Singapore issues, accession, and cooperation and capacity building.  His delegation
wished the Chairman to take this paper on board and to forward it to Cancún.
283. The representative of Panama asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.47
284. The representative of South Africa asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.48  His delegation wished to
make three additional comments.  On technical assistance, he recalled that in supporting the work of
the Director-General and the Secretariat in the tech nical assistance and capacity-building work of the
WTO, his delegation had proposed in an earlier intervention the inclusion of appropriate recognition
in paragraph 23 of the draft text of the close collaboration between the WTO, UNCTAD and ITC inthe context of greater co-ordination of WTO techni cal assistance programmes.  This was in line with
the proposals made by Zambia.  He had had heard from Members of the work the ITC had been doing
in building the trade capacity of developing and transition economies, especially their private sectors.
This work had been undertaken often in co-ordination and collaboration with the WTO and
UNCTAD.  South Africa requested that this be mentioned in paragraph 23 of the draft text.  Onagriculture, his delegation associated fully with the statement by Uganda on behalf of the African
Group.  That statement had strengthened the position of the G-20 by supporting the call for
fundamental reform in agriculture as a necessary condition for a development outcome of this Round.
In this regard, his delegation also wished to support the statement by Brazil at the present meeting.
On the issue of the status of the draft text, as his delegation had said, it was the Chairman's text.  Hisdelegation had great respect for that text, but the text did not adequately reflect South Africa's views.
                                                     
46 See Annex IV.
47 See Annex IV.
48 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 88
However, his delegation urged the Chairman to annex to the draft text the views of significant groups
of countries such as the G-20, which had been supported by a large number of countries at the present
meeting.
285. On the question of alliances, his delegation did not see the present alliances as a North-South
divide based on the geographical situation of countries.  Rather, it was a divide based on values.  First,it was a divide between those rich countries who could not break from the shackles of protectionism
and were still insistent on subsidising their uncompetitive agricultural sectors – through the Blue box
and an unrestricted Green box, and their destructive export subsidies – and those who were committed
to fundamental reform in agriculture, to removing the distortions in global markets and to creating a
freer, fair and market-based system, thus enabling developing countries to benefit from their
comparative advantages.  There were many developed countries in this latter group who had a good
track record, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.  Some Community Member states could
easily join this group if they were not constrained by the disciplines of Community policy.  Second, it
was a divide between those countries who were genuinely committed to a development outcome in
this Round, and those who preached trade liberalization and market access for their products but
continued to prevent access to their markets for products – mainly from poor countries – through
subsidies, quotas, tariff peaks and escalations and contingent protection such as anti-dumping,countervailing duties and safeguards, costing developing countries about US$100 billion a year.  This
was the fault line in the negotiations which the EC/US joint text had underscored.  The challenge in
Cancún would be to build momentum towards the historic mission begun at Doha – to create a freer
and fair market-based system in agriculture and to ensure a genuine development outcome.  South
Africa urged all developed and developing countries alike to join this movement.
286. The representative of Pakistan asked that his delegation's statement at the Informal HODs
meeting on 25 August be reflected in the records of the present meeting.49
287. The Director-General said he had listened attentively to all the remarks made in past few days
and weeks, and had been impressed by the subtleties and the depth of understanding evident from
Members' perceptive comments and criticisms.  The revised draft Ministerial text proposed by theChairman had been fully criticised, partly for bein g unfaithful to the Doha mandate, partly for being
unbalanced in its treatment of different topics and partly for producing unequal benefits and burdens
for different groups of countries.  He wished to speak up not to defend some of the criticisms that
Members were perfectly entitled to make, but simply so that all were aware of some of the realities on
the ground that all were trying to come to grips with, so Members would not lose sense of that realism
when tackling the difficult issues at Cancún.  He wished to give Members the real situation all had
been facing in the DDA negotiations.  It was not a secret that the contents of the DDA at its launchhad not been a model of clarity.  On the same issue, time and again he had been hearing delegations
criticising the Chairman and himself for lowering the ambition of the Doha mandate.  At the same
time, an equal number of delegations had been making accusations that the Doha mandate had been
exceeded.  It had been admitted in general terms that some areas of the mandated issues had been
intentionally left ambiguous in order to launch the Round.  He was not saying this in order to point thefinger at anyone, but merely to remind all that when one talked about being true to the Doha mandate,
one should realize there might be areas where Ministers might still have to make that mandate clearer
and less ambiguous.  Members had needed constructive ambiguity for the launch of the Round, and
now needed constructive clarification and engagement to reach completion of the negotiations, and
this was what the draft text was meant to be of service to.  The draft text did not and could not aspireto sorting out the existing ambiguity, but faithfully defined areas where Ministers might have to
concentrate their minds in Cancún.  As evidenced by the discussions in the past few days, it appeared
the draft text had fully served this purpose.
                                                     
49 See Annex IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 89
288. The delicate issue of balance among the elements in the draft text had always been a high
priority in its drafting.  The draft text aimed to introduce the key elements derived from all the
proposals made by Members or groups of Members.  Of course, as was true with all multilateral
negotiations, it could not be expected that all demands from all Members or all groups of Members
could be incorporated, if one wanted to keep the text manageable.  The draft text was meant to be animpartial path leading to further negotiations and not one that would be a compilation of all Members'
wishes.  The draft text was certainly imbalanced when viewed from only one angle – from one's own
interests, which might not have been fully taken up.  However, the text had to be seen from a
multilateral viewpoint, which might be difficult but was the only way to articulate the final
multilateral outcome.  However, in spite of the difficult reality of this undertaking, he remained
encouraged by the discussion and criticism.  One of the key purposes of the draft Ministerial text was
to help generate constructive negotiations and to provide room for manoeuvring for the negotiations.He had definitely seen an intensification in the negotiations.  As Members attacked the texts, they
were in fact really attacking each others' positions as expressed through the text.  This was a highly
encouraging sign.  He recalled that for months he had been asking Members to address each others'
positions by expressing what they could and could not accept, and in discussing the trade-offs or
balance between different issues.  The draft text had stimulated Members to embark on this kind ofdebate, which constituted the real negotiation.  Members had to continue with these discussions and,
instead of directing attacks and criticism of the draft text to the Chairman, these should be exchanged
among the various participants.  The number of proposals produced in the past few weeks and the
regrouping of Members to make proposals had demonstrated that Members were crafting their
negotiating positions.  There had been more flexibility.  This surely was a sign of countries makingthe effort to move away from some of the original and posturing positions.  Members should continue
in this way, and capitals should have full exposure to these debates and positions.  The Secretariat and
he would be giving their full support to Members and to the Chairman to achieve the goal of having
full information transmitted to Ministers in order to make their work at Cancún as efficient and
effective as possible, for the benefit of the multilateral trading system that had to be equally shared byall Members.
289. The Chairman thanked the Director-General for his statement.  He wished to make some
comments on where Members were and the direction they should take in the next days.  First, he
wished to thank all delegations for their comments during these two days of intensive work, all of
which had been very useful contributions.  He wish ed to assure Members that he and the Director-
General had taken note of the specific criticism levelled and also of the suggestions for changes in
certain aspects of the draft text.  They had also noted the request of some delegations to incorporate orwithdraw some annexes from the revised draft text .  The discussion in the General Council the past
two days had been fruitful.  It had facilitated the presentation of new proposals and inputs which
clarified the position of many countries or groups of countries.  Notwithstanding this, he had to admit
that these lengthy discussions had not enabled Members to achieve greater convergence in positions
or to make headway with respect to finding common ground.  This was why he continued to think thatthe comments he had made at the conclusion of the informal HODs meeting, which had been
circulated in document JOB(03)/174/Add.1, would not change greatly based on the discussion he had
heard in the General Council, and therefore they still applied.  Members had carried the preparatory
process in Geneva as far as possible, and he thanked delegations for their intensive efforts.  He was
fully convinced that the holding of new consultations or the continuation of discussion within theCouncil would not serve to improve the text.  Noth ing would have pleased him more than to be able
to submit to the Ministerial Conference a document which had received the consensus or agreement of
all, but as he had already stated, there had been no indications guaranteeing that the presentation of a
new text would yield greater consensus than the revised text he had presented on 24 August.
290. The discussion had shown scarce flexibility in the respective positions in many of the most
sensitive areas of the negotiation.  Many suggestions had been made to introduce changes, inclusions
and exclusions responding to these positions.  However deserving these proposals might be, the
difficult exercise of reconciling such divergent positions, endeavouring to incorporate some andWT/GC/M/82
Page 90
necessarily leaving out others, would increase the level of complexity of this work and would create a
serious risk of making the work of Ministers in Cancún more difficult.  This was a risk at the present
juncture in the preparatory process, where Members had virtually completed their work in Geneva.
He believed that neither Members nor he as Chairman of the General Council should assume this risk.
Therefore, he did not intend to continue revising the text and, as had been the case with previous draftMinisterial texts, he had no other possibility than to submit the text to Ministers under his own
responsibility.  At the present juncture of the discussion, it seemed to him that this text – with all the
imperfections and limitations that had been noted, but also with the merits noted by many delegations
– continued to be an adequate and manageable basis for Ministers' discussions, and he hoped it might
represent a useful tool to find common ground in Cancún in all of the areas addressed.  It was
therefore his intention to submit this text to Ministers on his own responsibility and based on his task
as Chairman of the General Council.
291. Having carefully listened to all of the opinions expressed, he thought it advisable to suggest
that the draft text be submitted to Ministers accompanied by a letter in which he would indicate
clearly that the text did not represent an agreed text in any of its sections, or as a whole, and that it
was being presented without prejudice to the position any country might have on any of the issues
mentioned in the text.  He would also indicate clearly that the text did not reflect many of theproposals presented by the Members.  Members would understand that he could not give further
details at the present time on the drafting of this letter.  He would reflect, together with the Director-
General, on the various viewpoints and suggestions made by Members.  However, he wished to assure
Members that the letter would reflect, in a weighted and objective fashion and as far as possible, the
concerns that had arisen during the discussion, in particular the difficulties that persisted in areaswhere Members had the most divergences of views and that were the subject of concrete proposals
that were different from those reflected in the text – for example, in agriculture, NAMA and
modalities for the Singapore issues.  Where there were differences in viewpoints, this would be taken
into account.  The objective of this letter was to enable Ministers to take up negotiations with full
knowledge of what had occurred in the preparat ory process in Geneva, without prejudging the
position of any Member.  For this, he had noted the suggestions for improvements with respect to
various paragraphs in the text, as well as the concerns that some alternative proposals that had been
the subject of discussion, such as in the case of the Singapore issues, had not been reflected in the
text.  He assured delegations that there would be many opportunities in Cancún to address these
concerns.  Nothing could be considered to be definitively agreed in the absence of a global agreement
of the parties concerned, and the decision in this respect would be in the hands of the Ministers
meeting in Cancún.  It was his intention as Chairman to present to Ministers an exhaustive list of allthe documents that had been presented during the preparatory process.  This would include
submissions circulated as "JOB" documents where they were major contributions.  With these
introductory words, he asked whether any delegation wished to comment on anything.
292. The representative of Brazil thanked the Chairman for his very thorough explanation of his
game plan for presentation of the draft text, and also the Director-General for his inspiring statement.
His delegation had suggested twice in the course of the present discussion that the Chairman keep the
draft text open, and that he undertake further consultations on it.  This was because – judging from the
discussions held over the past few days and from the informal consultations all had been undertaking
– Members were still very far from agreement on the core issues of this Round.  This had nothing to
do with anyone's personal capacities or intelligences, but rather with real differences that had to benarrowed and with real questions, as the Director-General had pointed out, about the interpretation of
the Doha mandate.  Thus, Brazil had no problem on procedure, but rather on substance.  His
delegation had asked the Chairman to keep the consultations open because it did not think that at the
present point, any text such as the one put forward by the Chairman could be used as the basis for
Ministers' discussions.  Brazil, for one, had not made any suggestion on how to improve the draft textbecause it did not accept it as a basis for discussion.  His delegation did not want Ministers in Doha to
receive this text as a basis for their discussion.  This should be very clear.  Brazil was prepared not to
object to the sending of this text to Ministers, but it would have to be very clear that the GeneralWT/GC/M/82
Page 91
Council had not approved or endorsed it, and that it  was not merely a question of Brazil having doubts
about the text or suggestions about how to improve it.  Brazil had neither approved nor endorsed the
text as the basis for Ministers to discuss in Cancún.
293. His delegation wished to avoid a situation in Cancún in which Ministers would have this text
before them and would be led to start discussing on the basis of this text.  Brazil was not prepared todo this at the present meeting and would not be prepared to do this in Cancún.  Thus, his delegation
would respectively suggest, if the Chairman insisted  on sending the draft text in his personal capacity,
that it should be made absolutely clear that not on ly had there been suggestions to change or improve
the text, but that the General Council had not endorsed it as a basis for discussion in Cancún, and that
there were other proposals on the table that should be at the disposal of Ministers.  His delegation had
instructions to insist on this.  Whatever could be solved in Geneva should be solved.  In Cancún there
would be less time to solve those problems than the time remaining before Cancún.  If Members couldbe very clear about the way they sent this draft text to Ministers, and if equal footing was clearly
given to other proposals, such as the one by the G-20, Members could say the Geneva process was
concluded.  Otherwise one might be creating more problems for Geneva.  These were the suggestions
Brazil wished the Chairman to reflect on at the present stage of the discussion.
294. The Chairman said he would have liked nothing more than to send Ministers a text approved
by everyone.  However, as he had mentioned, this had not been possible, and he was therefore not
asking for the Council to approve anything.  He was merely asking the Council to take note of the
statement he had made and at the same time to take note of all the statements that would be made,
which would be properly reflected in the records so that these would be before Ministers in Cancún.
295. The representative of Japan said his delegation fully recognized the necessity of providing a
document that would streamline the issues and pr omote meaningful discussions among Ministers at
Cancún.  This was why Japan had been actively engaged in the consultation process under the
Chairman's leadership.  In Japan's view, the draft text should be transmitted in such a way that
Ministers would accurately understand those important points not reflected in the draft text, as well as
the points where Members' views were divergent, indicating also the discussions held hitherto, majorarguments asserted and the premise on which the Chairman had proposed the draft text.  Japan did not
object to the Chairman transmitting the draft text to Ministers as an input under his own
responsibility, with a view to cont ributing to the negotiations at Cancún.
296. The representative of India said he had listened carefully to the Chairman's remarks.  India
noted that the Chairman intended to send the draft text  to Ministers, and to indicate clearly that it did
not have the approval of the General Council and that there were differences of opinion on various
sections of the text.  An important point on which India agreed with Japan was that Ministers had tobe fully aware of all aspects of each issue.  There should be no imbalance in any section of the text
and all views should be reflected.  This was why it was very necessary – and why India, along with
others, had asked the Chairman – to rectify the imbalance they perceived in the text relating to the
Singapore issues.  India also agreed with Brazil  that other submissions on agriculture should be
equally considered, as such proposals had a substantial following among the membership.  Hisdelegation therefore requested the Chairman once again to reflect on how the issues raised – the
differences of opinion and the substance of what had been raised – would be reflected for Ministers in
such a manner that they had a complete and overal l picture of what the membership thought and what
it had thought in the General Council.
297. The representative of Argentina said he had listened very carefully to the statements by the
Chairman and by the Director-General at this important moment before the submission of the draft
Ministerial text to Ministers, and wished to re fer to some of the concepts mentioned in those
statements.  The Director-General had referred to the possibility that what was presently occurring in
the organization was the result of the fact that in Doha, there had been a need to achieve a result that
would send a positive message to the internationa l community, and that – at any cost – a round ofWT/GC/M/82
Page 92
negotiations had to be launched.  His delegation was sympathetic to some degree with this analysis.
However, the reality was that Members had subscribed to the Doha mandate in good faith, believing
that what was contained in that text was going to be fulfilled and respected.  His delegation
understood that there were certain ambiguities.  However, when there were certain indications in
certain areas of negotiation, and if certain results were expected, it was very difficult to change this.For example, the agreement in Doha appeared to produce a substantial reduction of domestic support
in agriculture  Thus, there was a need for substantial reduction of domestic support in agriculture.  If
the results that were to be achieved implied merely reducing slightly the amount of support and even
increasing support in other areas, this went agains t the Doha mandate, regardless of the interpretation
one might make of that mandate.  Therefore, it was not acceptable to Argentina to justify this with a
reference to the possibility of ambiguity at the time the Doha Declaration was agreed.
298. The second difficulty arose from the references to the very clear reality that undoubtedly not
everything could be reflected or incorporated in the draft text, and that since there were differing
viewpoints, the present text was the best possible text.  It was very difficult to accept this way of
thinking, because in Argentina's view, the imbalance was always on one side.  For example, when
different alternatives were incorporated, it was on the Singapore issues.  When it was decided to
include a sole text, it was for agriculture.  Based on what his delegation had heard at the presentmeeting, there could be no doubt that there were opinions in both directions.  However, his delegation
had an obligation to submit its views on what had been said, and a very important number of
Members had stated displeasure with the specific balance achieved in the draft text.  One only needed
to refer to the records to note the high level of disapproval or dissatisfaction indicated by Members.
Another example was that Argentina would have wished to have the reference to a non-linearambitious formula in NAMA have an equally ambitious counterpart in agriculture.  The balance in the
text should not have meant including issues that ha d been strongly rejected by Members, such as the
peace clause, geographical indications in agriculture, other non-trade concerns and export taxes.  All
of these had been juxtaposed with legitimate issues.  However, the reality was that his delegation had
found it difficult to see that there had been such imbalances from the outset.  With the present drafttext, Members would arrive in Cancún with the burden of having to restore balance to this draft text,
when it had not been clearly noted that this text represented just one of the bases for the work of
Ministers in Cancún.  His delegation agreed with previous speakers who had said they did not object
to forwarding the draft text as an input for Ministers' discussions, but it should be clear that Ministers
should start with a horizontal picture, and not one inclined in one direction.
299. The representative of Norway said his delegation, and no doubt others, had the feeling it had
already had these discussions some four years earlier at the last General Council before the Seattle
Ministerial Conference.  At that time there had been no text to send to Ministers, and all knew what
had happened subsequently.  Since February 2003, his delegation had participated in discussions in
various configurations on the basis of a document which carried the heading "Draft Cancún
Ministerial Text", and the document the Chairman had submitted the previous week also had the
heading "Preparation for the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference, Draft Cancún MinisterialText".  This was the rule of the game under which Members had been working.  It seemed that Brazil
was now trying to apply a different rule.  One could not change the rules in the middle of the game.
Members had been working on the basis of drafting a Cancún Ministerial text.  What this meant in the
context of WTO practice was that Members would send the text to Ministers – as the Chairman had
said – as an element for their discussions.  No one was bound by that text.  Members could – andcertainly would – introduce new proposals during th e Cancún Conference, and the draft text would
certainly be changed in many places.  However, his delegation would have great problems if Members
started from the premise that they would send a draft text to Ministers and at the same time say
Ministers could not base themselves on that text during their discussions.  Such a proposal did not
make sense and constituted changing the rules of the game mid-stream.  Norway hoped all could nowagree that there were different positions, that no one was happy with the draft text, and that all had
their own proposals – which they would repeat in Cancún and which the Chairman would draw on
when he wrote the accompanying letter – so that every Minister would be aware of that situation.  OneWT/GC/M/82
Page 93
should not try to change the basics now.  Members should transmit the document, which the
Chairman could do on his own responsibility.  No one attached any status to this document beyond
the fact that it was the only result Members had from almost six months of preparations in Geneva.
His delegation wished to avoid the sort of unruly situation experienced in Seattle, but was very afraid
that if Members now started to attach impossible conditions to the draft text, this would create asituation similar to that just before the Seattle Conference, as far as the organizational aspects of
Cancún were concerned.
300. The representative of Brazil said his delegation failed to see Norway's point, because his
delegation was not trying to change the rules, and was not even aware there were any such rules.  At
the outset of the discussion of the Chairman's draft text, his delegation had very clearly stated – and
had repeated at the present meeting – that Brazil did not take the draft text as a basis and had not
discussed a single provision of the text.  Thus, it could not be said that Brazil was changing orproposing to change anything.  However, as his delegation had said from the outset when Members
had embarked on this exercise, Brazil could not take this text as a basis.  The exercise had ended
without the Chair indicating he was going to change the text.  Thus, his delegation was merely abiding
by the rules of the game.
301. The representative of Canada said it had become abundantly clear during the past few weeks
that Cancún would not be what most Ministers had wanted and expected it to be when they launched
the Round in Doha.  At that time, Cancún had been seen as the mid-term of the Round.  Ministers had
seen the work as embodying modalities, not only for agriculture but also for NAMA.  Thus, Ministers
were going to be disappointed that they had a second-best alternative, and Canada shared that
disappointment.  The Chairman had noted that in discussions on the draft text, not one delegation had
not raised its flag and lamented that the draft text  either included or failed to include something.
There was common ground on that point.  Second, the Chairman and the Director-General had made
some valuable remarks.  The Director-General had said it was impossible to incorporate every
demand in the text and that the text had to be viewed at a certain point from a multilateral perspective,
as opposed to each Member's parochial perspective.  The Chairman had gone on to say that his letterwould state that the text was not an agreed text, that it was without prejudice to the positions of any
Member and that it did not reflect many of the proposals submitted during the Geneva process.  He
had also said that all the relevant documents and proposals would be circulated and available to
Ministers, and Norway had recalled that at the start of the informal HODs meeting, the Chairman had
said he viewed the entire text as being in brackets.
302. The Chairman had been quite clear, and his method of proceeding was quite acceptable to
Canada.  The letter accompanying the draft text was a helpful tool for Ministers because it would setout the political context from which the text had emanated.  The points raised by the Chairman, the
Director-General and several Members would make that document a very useful complement to the
text the Chairman would be forwarding to Mini sters.  One delegation had suggested the Chairman
should say in the letter to Ministers that the text had not been agreed or endorsed by the General
Council.  This was true, as long as the Chairman also made it clear that such agreement orendorsement had never been sought.  It should not inadvertently be implied that the text had not been
endorsed because a vote had failed.  Canada agreed that it was not an endorsed text, but the letter
should not imply it had been proposed for endorsement, because the text was being submitted to
Ministers on the Chairman's own authority.  In saying that the text was not endorsed, the letter should
not leave room for any assumptions on either side.
303. Another delegation had said the draft text should be seen as on an equal footing with the G-20
paper.  This was not Canada's view, and it could not share that view, nor did his delegation think the
draft text was on an equal footing with the EC/US pa per or with Japan's paper, and it certainly was not
on an equal footing with the multi-functionality paper from Norway and others.  To say otherwise
would be to give a blank page to Ministers as a net result of all the work in Geneva.  Thus, while hisdelegation could see many beneficial parts in the G-20 paper, the accompanying letter should not inWT/GC/M/82
Page 94
any way suggest that the draft text was on an equal footing with the G-20 paper.  While the
Chairman's draft text might not be the basis for any Member, it was a basis to begin the value-adding
process Ministers would hopefully engage in as they tried to lift the game from where Members had
left it, because the latter had not taken the ball very far down the field in the Geneva process.
304. The representative of the European Communities said his delegation had taken note of the
Chairman's statement, of the thoughtful remarks of the Director-General, and of the very wise words
of two former Chairmen of the General Council, the Ambassadors of Norway and of Canada, who had
spoken from experience.  His delegation wished to make a few remarks in this procedural debate.  As
the Community had stated at the informal HODs meeting on 25 August and again at the present
meeting, it had fundamental reservations on important parts of the draft text, and like Brazil, India and
others, considered that the text in many areas was unbalanced.  Like Brazil, the Community would
have preferred to see its own proposals integrated in the text.  His delegation agreed with Canada onthe issue of equal footing.  His delegation saw the text of Brazil as being on an equal footing with the
texts of Norway, Japan and many others.  Nonetheless, his delegation agreed with the Chairman's
assessment that Members had gone as far as they could in the Geneva process.  Thus, the Community
took note that the Chairman would transmit the revised draft Ministerial text to Ministers under his
own responsibility.
305. His delegation did not agree with that text, nor did it endorse it, and was confident the
Chairman would present the draft text with a cover letter in a fair way that indicated the divergences
of views on the fundamental issues.  His delegation had full confidence in the way the Chairman
might present the draft text to Ministers.  All along, the Chairman had conducted the proceedings in a
professional, fair and impartial way, and the Community wished to pay tribute to him for that.Ministers would dispose not only of the revised draft text, the Chairman's comments and the cover
letter, but they would also dispose of all the inputs presented in the past few days and weeks in the
context of the work in the General Council.  As Norway had said earlier, each Member would make
sure that Ministers reiterated their countries' views and positions at Cancún.  Members had done their
job as well and as far as they could.  It was now up to Ministers to fight, and up to each and everydelegation to help their respective Ministers to do their negotiating, but to do it in such a way that
there was further convergence of views already in the initial phase of the Cancún proceedings.
Members might have made the job of Ministers easier in presenting them with a larger number of
issues on which convergence was reached in Geneva.  Nonetheless, the draft text would enable
Ministers to negotiate.  It might be a difficult and hard negotiation, but they were paid for that – to
negotiate a positive overall outcome at Cancún with the full potential of meeting the ambitions of the
Doha Declaration within the established timeframe.
306. The representative of Kenya said that her delegation too had taken note of the Chairman's
statement and that of the Director-General.  Kenya was grateful for the Chairman's efforts and for the
process the previous day, which had been transparent and inclusive.  However, her delegation had
also expressed concern over the draft text that had emerged from that process.  The differences among
Members were not minor and could not be glossed over, neither would they just disappear.  Kenyahad  hoped that the text that would eventually be  presented to Ministers in Cancún would at least
clearly identify these differences, all of which were quite legitimate.  As the text currently stood, there
was a clear imbalance, the most apparent example of which was the treatment meted out to the
Singapore issues, where there were two options and only one set of draft modalities.  This was not
equal treatment.  All had spent a lot of time trying to ensure the Singapore issues were addressed ascomprehensively as possible, and her delegation was clearly disappointed.
307. Cancún was only the middle of the road, albeit an important middle of the road, and Members
had to be careful not to hurt the process all believed in and had a responsibility to uphold, by throwing
out the baby with the bathwater.  This was a process that involved consensus building, and Members'
actions, activities, negotiations and, indeed, the outcome of those negotiations, had to clearly reflectthat.  The good faith and the constructive engagement of all after Cancún was essential, and herWT/GC/M/82
Page 95
delegation therefore also saw it as the Chairman's responsibility – and the Chairman had referred to
this himself – to bring to the attention of all Minist ers, in his letter to them, the clear divergences that
existed among Members.  Kenya also suggested that the Chairman's statement to the Ministerial
Conference reflect clearly and ambiguously the state of play, and that he also refer to the positions
submitted to him that had not found their way into the draft Ministerial text.  Her delegationespecially urged the Chairman to ensure that the elements for clarification on the four Singapore
issues were brought to the attention of all Ministers.  Kenya entrusted this to the Chairman and wished
him luck.
308. The representative of Australia said that if he asked his Minister, when he came to Cancún,
whether he would prefer to have a Seattle-type text, a blank page with thousands of pages of
Members' proposals, or the sort of draft text the Chairman had prepared on his own responsibility
with the covering note he had foreshadowed, there wa s no question that his Minister would opt for the
latter.  He was one of the survivors of Seattle and never wanted to repeat that experience.  There was
no chance of starting off with a blank page and making progress.  It was true, as Kenya had just said,
that this was only the middle of the road.  The fact  was, if all were genuinely committed to finalizing
these negotiations by the end of 2004, or at least breaking the back of the negotiations in 2004,
Members were going to have to make progress in Cancún, and the best way of doing this was toforward the draft text proposed by the Chairman with an accompanying letter.  His delegation did not
endorse the draft text – in fact, Australia did not like it at all and was not going to agree to it in
Cancún the way it was currently drafted.  However, he presumed all Members had been making
preparations for Cancún.
309. His Government had been following very clos ely what was happening, and had its processes
for giving instructions to Ministers as to what they could and could not do.  However, his Minister
and his Government were under no illusion about the stage Members had reached in the current
process.  They were under no illusion that the text being sent them was an agreed text.  They were
under no illusion that delegations would not be fighting to convince others to accept their own
proposals.  However, the draft text was a useful reference tool.  It was only a reference tool, but atleast it would give Members something they could focus on, along with all other proposals, all of
which remained on the table.  Most delegations knew exactly where they stood in key areas, and if
Geneva representatives were good officials, they would be briefing their Ministers so that they knew
that this draft text simply reflected the Chairman's best judgement at the time in relation to where
Members stood.  Thus, Australia could proceed with the Chairman's proposal.  His delegation was
quite happy with the formulation Brazil and Canada had come up with – that the Chairman had never
sought the General Council's endorsement of this draft text and it had never been given.  This wouldbe a fair reflection of the situation.  He underlined  that Ministers would be very aware that this was
not an agreed text.
310. The representative of the United States said Australia had expressed exactly the way his
delegation felt about the draft text and the situation Members faced as they approached Cancún.  The
United States agreed with Australia that if those three options were to be put to his Minister, he hadno doubt which choice his Minister would make.  The United States agreed that the draft text was, at
the present stage, flawed, but it was the best expression Members had available to send to Ministers to
inform them of the state of the negotiations and to prepare them to make the decisions necessary for
Members to proceed with the negotiations after Cancún.  The text was certainly not the way his
delegation wished to see it, and the United States understood it was not the way the G-20 or probablyany delegation wished to see it.  However, especially after the very full discussion over the past two
and a half days, and in light of the various proposals put forward in recent days and in the weeks
before these meetings, his delegation was very confident that in some appropriate accompanying
document, the Chairman would accurately convey to Ministers the issues for their review and
decision, and that this would be a fair presenta tion for all who had expressed views on these issues.
His delegation agreed it would be a mistake to elev ate proposals of certain groups or certain countriesWT/GC/M/82
Page 96
above proposals of others.  Therefore, the United States supported the Chairman's proposed approach
of preparing Ministers for the challenge that faced them, and all, at Cancún.
311. The representative of Bulgaria asked what the practical relevance would be of what might
come out of the present discussion.  It would be more useful to have some clarity about how the
Chairperson in Cancún would proceed, and whether – when the draft text was discussed – it would betaken for granted that there was no agreement and no consensus that a particular text was the basis for
discussion, or whether it would be taken for granted that a particular text was the default text.  For
example, if there were no agreement on changes to the present draft text, he asked if that text would
stand by default.  This was the practical question – whether there would need to be consensus on any
text that was going to be discussed, or whether there would need to be consensus on any
changes/amendments to that text.
312. The Chairman recalled that in his introduction to the revised draft text he had referred to what
Bulgaria was referring to – that no text could be considered to be agreed definitively, in the absence of
global agreement to this effect of the parties to th e decision.  In this respect, the decision would be in
the hands of the Ministers meeting in Cancún.  This was what he had said, and what he maintained at
the present time.  He assured delegations that he had listened with great attention to all of the
statements and would be taking them into account when drafting the document that would accompanythe text.
313. The representative of India said his delegation wished to have clarification on two points.
The Chairman had said he would be sending a cove ring letter, and India wished to know when that
letter would be ready, and whether it would be circulated to Members so that they could brief their
Ministers beforehand.  Also, his delegation wished to know how the Chairman proposed to reflectwhat India had indicated in its letter to the Chairman that morning.
314. The Chairman said that in the coming hours and days an accompanying document or cover
letter was going to be drafted and would be submitted to Ministers together with the revised draft
Ministerial text.  He would reflect in this text the content of India's letter.
315. The representative of Malaysia said his delegation was very encouraged by some of the points
made by the Director-General and the Chairman.  The first thing that had struck him in the Director-
General's observations was his drawing attention to the fact that there were many areas where
Ministers needed to clarify and take action.  Malaysia was highlighting this particular observation
because it was trying to relate this to the Singapore issues.  His delegation had suggested that this was
one area where Members had to clearly put forward to Ministers where they stood, given that a group
of countries, including Malaysia, felt it essential to include an annex to option 2 in the draft text.
Some of the major trading partners had said that all Members were on an equal basis.  His delegationagreed entirely, and hoped that its suggestion would be taken in that light.  The United States had said
that no issue should be elevated above any other.  Malaysia agreed entirely.  On the Singapore issues,
his delegation merely wished to remind all that it was not seeking any changes to the draft text in
terms of substance, but rather in terms of restoring the balance.  Malaysia was not talking about
changing the text or elevating any issue above any other.  In fact, the draft text as it stood regardingthe Singapore issues – if one examined it very carefully – elevated option 1.  His delegation was
intrigued by Canada's observation regarding a proposal by Brazil, that it was fine with Canada for the
Chairman to reflect that the General-Council did not endorse the draft text, provided the Chairman
also said he had not sought this.  Malaysia found this rather unusual.  His delegation thought it was
the Chairman's intention to put the draft text to th e General Council either for acceptance or to listen
to whatever Members had to say, and then to further reflect on what he wished to do.  The problem
Members faced at present was simply because – and Norway had alluded to this – they were seeing a
repeat of the same problem as at Seattle.  Many Members had been trying very hard to ensure that the
situation did not develop again in which many trading partners, especially the major ones, refused or
were reluctant to engage in discussions to find a way forward.  This was where Members were atWT/GC/M/82
Page 97
present.  This was rather disappointing, but nothing  could be done about it.  Malaysia wished to make
these points before the Chairman concluded on this item.
316. The General Council took note of the statements.50
317. At the end of the meeting, on 30 August, the Chairman requested the Chairman of the Special
Session of the Council for Trade in Services to provide a final update before the Cancún Ministerial
Conference on where Members stood with respect to the work on services.
318. Mr. Jara (Chile), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services,
recalled that there was a placeholder in the draft Ministerial text for language in the paragraph on
services concerning modalities for LDCs.  Members had been working on this matter in consultations
over the past days and in the last meeting of the Special Session of the Services Council which had
been held the previous day.  The consultations had been what he termed "restricted open-ended" – that
is, all delegations which had indicated an interest in attending had been invited, but attendance hadbeen restricted to only those who had indicated their wish to attend.  Members now had a virtually
clean text, and this was a tribute to the flexibility of delegations for which he was grateful.  However,
he had no illusions that this might be the final text, precisely because of the fact that this work had
been carried out in parallel to other important work  in the house related to TRIPS and Public Health,
and thus not all concerned parties had been able to participate in the meeting, particularly one majordelegation.  Therefore, there was still a need for further consultations, and he would leave Monday of
the following week open for delegations to get in to uch with their capitals, to talk to one another and
to explore the possibility of reaching a consensus on this text.  The text has been distributed to all
Members.  He intended to hold an informal open-ended Special Session of the Council for Trade in
Services on Tuesday, to be followed if necessary by a resumed formal session of the Council to seekapproval of the text for the modalities for LDCs.  He urged delegations to look at the text in terms of
whether they could live with it or not.  No text was perfect or would satisfy everyone.  This was not
the time to be picky, but to take the high road.  This text was important for LDCs and Members
should act on it expeditiously, not only because it was important for LDCs, but because it was
important for all Members to do this before Ministers met in Cancún.  He again urged all Members tobe flexible and generous in discussing this text among themselves and with capitals.
319. The representative of Bangladesh, speaking on behalf of the 
LDCs, thanked the Chairman of
the Special Session of the Services Council for his statement on the modalities for LDCs.  The
Chairman had made a tremendous effort to bring all the participants together in order to bring about
consensus.  Bangladesh also thanked the Secretaria t for its hard work in this process.  While the
current text was quite far from what the LDCs had originally proposed, they realized that other
delegations had had to make accommodations at various stages in order to come to the text that hadbeen negotiated  the previous day.  The LDCs had had great difficulty in participating in the numerous
meetings that were being held – sometimes simultan eously – but had tried their best to participate in
the services negotiations, and his delegation was surprised to hear that even developed countries had
had difficulty participating in all the negotiations, as it had thought this was a difficulty of smaller
delegations only.  However, he hoped that all countries would now look at this text very favourably,would consult with their capitals if needed, and would come to a positive conclusion.  Bangladesh
wished this issue to be resolved before Cancún so  that this could be another success to take there.
Apart from this, these modalities were very important to the LDCs because they considered services
to be very important to the future of the multilateral processes.
320. The Chairman, in concluding, said that the present meeting brought Members to the end not
only of the General Council meeting but also of the Geneva preparatory process.  Before closing, he
wished to say a few words.  In the past few weeks, Members had worked long hours in a collective
effort to find common ground in complex and sometimes very politically sensitive areas.  They had
                                                     
50 Including the statements reflected in Annexes III and IV.WT/GC/M/82
Page 98
been able to reach agreement on many topics, but there were still very important matters pending for
consideration and decision by Ministers in Cancún.  He had to confess that he was satisfied by what
had transpired over the past three weeks.  On 11 August Members had started this work with a very
schematic text, the famous skeleton text, with broadly diverse positions on almost every single topic.
Very little negotiation had been going on among Members and there were serious questions about thepossibility of a successful Conference in Cancún.  He said this quite sincerely because he thought
Members had seen a very radical change over the past three weeks.  They had negotiated among
themselves.  A good working atmosphere had prevailed with a constructive spirit to try to find
common ground and reach understandings, and progress had been made.  On some paragraphs of the
draft Ministerial text put to Members for considerat ion, there was more or less agreement.  On other
paragraphs Members were moving towards that, and even on the most sensitive topics, he felt that at
present Members had a much clearer vision of where the difficulties lay – much clearer than threeweeks earlier – and he wished to thank delegations.  The draft Ministerial text which would be
submitted to Ministers under his responsibility had not been fully agreed in any of its parts, and he
wished that to be quite clear.  Nonetheless, he thought it was a reflection of the efforts undertaken by
both the Director-General and himself to try to find common ground among Members.  He believed
that it was, with all of its limits and gaps, nonetheless an adequate and manageable basis for Ministersto continue the work in Cancún.  Moreover, it had the merit of leaving all doors open, so that all
countries, and Ministers in particular, would be able to put their own options forward in Cancún.
Finally, he felt that it identified quite clearly those areas where the greatest divergences still lay and
where Ministers would have to concentrate their work during the Ministerial Conference.
321. At the present meeting, Members were concluding their work in the General Council with an
agreement on a topic which was no doubt one of the greatest challenges to this organization in the
past few years – a topic which was more humanitarian than commercial in nature, TRIPS and Public
Health.  The Decision on this matter was not only symbolic in character, but also – as had been
evidenced the previous day and at the present meeting in many emotional statements by African
countries – it would genuinely contribute to access to cheaper drugs to protect public health in manydeveloping countries which had an urgent need of such drugs, and in this way it would contribute to
saving human lives.  He was very pleased that the WTO had been able to meet this challenge and had
taken the necessary moral responsibility.  This positive and specific result was an auspicious signal to
launch negotiations by Ministers in Cancún.  He wished to conclude by thanking all Members for
their unstinting efforts over the past weeks for their constructive spirit and clear demonstration of
good will and flexibility at various key steps in the pr ocess.  He particularly wished to thank them for
the respect and support he had received from all, even when his proposals, suggestions and decisionshad caused great difficulties.  He hoped that the constructive spirit and good atmosphere which had
marked Members' work in the past three weeks w ould continue and would be strengthened during the
discussions at Ministerial level in Cancún.  Lastly, he wished to offer special thanks to the Director-
General for the enormous support he had given him, as well as the Deputy Directors-General and
other officials of the Secretariat.  Without their help, Members would not have been able to achievethe results they had achieved.
322. The Director-General said that work at the WTO had its moments of trials and of triumph.  At
the present meeting Members were relishing a moment of triumph.  After congratulating themselves,
which they deserved, Members had again to face the harsh realities.  The ink on the Decision on
TRIPS and Public Health had yet to dry and Members were seeing the omni-present critics predictingall sorts of un-doings of this noble effort.  Member s should right away start to work to prove these
critics wrong by putting this Decision into full effect, together tackling and solving in good faith the
frictions that might arise.  With the spirit of compassion and collective responsibility Members had
shown time and again, he had no doubt that they would also succeed in this pursuit.  The present
General Council meeting was not only an historic but also an auspicious moment for the WTO, whosematuring process had been brought a giant step forward by this undertaking of profound humanitarian
consequences.  Members should build on this solid foundation of trust and carry this spirit with themWT/GC/M/82
Page 99
to Cancún to overcome the not insignificant challenges there, where he hoped there would be more of
these moments of triumph.
323. The representative of Brazil said that in his statement the Chairman had mentioned the
question of the draft Ministerial text as a basis for discussion by Ministers.  Members had discussed
this matter thoroughly at the present meeting, and hi s delegation wished to make sure that when the
Chairman said he considered the document to be an appropriate basis for the discussion by Ministers,
he was speaking in his personal capacity, and that this did not reflect any decision of the General
Council.  He wished to clarify this because it was an extremely important question for Brazil.
324. The Chairman said he wished to repeat what he had said earlier – that in his opinion the draft
text was an adequate and manageable basis for Ministers to continue the work in Cancún.
325. The General Council took note of the statements.
(e) Administrative arrangements – Statement by the Chairman
326. The Chairman said that since this was the la st meeting of the General Council before the
Ministerial Conference, he wished to advise delegations about arrangements for the meetings at the
Conference as they were known at the present stage.  This would be useful to all delegations in
briefing their Ministers as well as other members of their delegations in preparation for the
Conference.
327. Regarding arrangements for plenary meetings, a Proposed Order of Business for the formal
Plenary meetings at Cancún had been circulated in document WT/MIN(03)/5.  This would provide
delegations with an outline of how work in the plenary meetings was proposed to be organized.  The
Ministerial Conference would begin on the morning of 10 September with an inaugural session at the
Cancún Convention Centre that would last from 10 a.m. to approximately 11.30 a.m.  The Presidentof Mexico, H.E. Mr. Vicente Fox, would be the firs t speaker to address Ministers at this inaugural
session.  He would be followed by the Chairman of the Ministerial Conference, H.E. Mr. Luis Ernesto
Derbez;  the Director-General of WTO, Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi;  the Secretary-General of the
United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan;  and by himself as Chair of the General Council.  The Ministerial
Conference would then move to the opening of the business session of the Conference, where it would
adopt its agenda and agree on the organization of work.  Delegations were advised that security
arrangements for the participation of the President of Mexico at the inaugural session would result in
access to the Cancún Convention Centre being blocked after 8.30 a.m.  All delegations were therefore
requested, for the inaugural session, to be in the Convention Centre by 8.30 a.m., and to be seated by
9.30 a.m.
328. The Ministerial Conference would resume in the afternoon of 10 September at 2.30 p.m. to
hear general statements by Ministers under Item 1 of the Agenda, namely the Overview of WTOActivities.  In accordance with the practice at previous Ministerial Conferences, statements by
Ministers were expected to be limited to not more than five minutes – which corresponded to two
typed pages in single spacing.  Facilities would be available for circulating longer presentations in
writing.  An Information Note regarding the delivery of statements and the distribution of the texts of
statements had been circulated by the Secretariat in document WT/MIN(03)/INF/10.  In the eveningof 10 September, starting at 6.10 p.m., the Ministeria l Conference would take up Item 2 of its Agenda,
where it would consider a joint proposal by Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali regarding the
Sectoral Initiative in Favour of Cotton.  From 11-14 September, plenary meetings of the Ministerial
Conference to hear general statements under Item 1 of the Agenda would be organized on a schedule
as follows:  morning meetings from 9.30 a.m. – 1.10 p.m., and afternoon meetings from 2.30 p.m. –6.10 p.m.  This schedule was based on a speaking time-limit of five minutes for each speaker.  In the
evening of 11 September, starting at 6.10 p.m., the Ministerial Conference would meet in plenary
session to conclude formally the accession processes of Cambodia and Nepal.  Finally, the afternoonWT/GC/M/82
Page 100
of 14 September would be devoted to the remaining items on the Agenda, which would include taking
action on a Ministerial text.  This information was contained in document WT/MIN(03)/5.
329. Regarding arrangements for informal consultative meetings, as Members were aware,
informal consultations might be organized as necessary throughout the conference by the Chairman of
the Ministerial Conference, Minister Derbez.  The la tter had indicated to him that it was his intention
to advise all delegations about the overall organization of the informal process as early as possible.
However, in broad terms, he could inform dele gations at the present meeting that the informal
consultative process at Cancún would mirror the Geneva preparatory process – in order to ensure both
transparency and a sense of continuity – and would be conducted in open-ended informal meetings of
all Heads-of-Delegations.  He knew that Minister Derbez was fully briefed about Members'
continuing commitment to ensuring the fullest possible transparency and inclusiveness in their
decision-making processes, and the practices that they had developed over the past several years,including those endorsed at the first meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee in January 2002.
The informal process at Cancún would proceed in parallel with the formal plenary sessions, and
would be open to all WTO Members and other participants in the negotiations.  The principal
objective of this process would be to facilitate consensus-building in a fully transparent and inclusive
manner, while maintaining the flexibility built in to the Geneva process.
330. The informal HODs meetings would be chaired by Minister Derbez, and would be convened
as necessary, but at least once each day.  Delegations would be kept informed of these meetings
through every means possible at the Conference centre.  As in the Geneva process, Minister Derbez
might call on other Ministers to assist him, as Friends of the Chair, with consultations on specific
issues and to report back to the HODs meetings on their progress.  All Friends of the Chair would also
keep transparency in their work uppermost in their minds, and would set aside times to allow all
delegations an opportunity to make their views known.  Clearly, all understood that decisions could
only be taken by the membership as a whole, and this was the purpose of the open-ended HODs
meetings.  A final informal HODs meeting would be organized just prior to the concluding plenary
session of the Conference, in order that delegations might collectively review the results of work in allareas.  Building on the practice at Doha, on each day of the Conference, an hour in the morning and
an hour in the afternoon would be set aside during which no informal meetings would be scheduled.
The purpose of this was to allow delegations the tim e they required to consult among themselves and
in regional groupings as necessary.  As he had said earlier, Minister Derbez would provide greater
details on the scheduling and organization of all meetings in this informal process.  Beyond this, he
could only say that the hours would be long, and th e work arduous and difficult.  However, if all
could continue to show a sense of shared responsibility in this important journey they were nowembarked upon, with the potential it had for changing for the better the lives of all peoples, he was
sure they would not fail in achieving an outcome th at respected and addressed each participant's needs
and interests.  He did not intend to invite discussion on his statement, since the documents on the
organization of the plenary meetings had been circulated by the Secretariat, and further, more specific
information on the organization of the informal meetings would be announced by Minister Derbez.
331. The representative of Mexico said there was no doubt that Minister Derbez was convinced of
the importance of the process in Cancún, and of the need for this process to be transparent and
inclusive, as had been the case in Doha.  His delegation believed that all Members realized this.
Minister Derbez, as Chairman of the Cancún Ministerial Conference, would preside over the drafting
of the Ministerial declaration, and would be ready to listen to any concern of any Member, just asMexico had been trying to do over the past month.  He had no doubt that the Cancún Ministerial
Conference would be an exercise in openness and transparency that would enable all Members to take
the decisions for which they had been given a mandate in Doha.
332. The representative of Canada asked whether the draft Ministerial text the Chairman would
convey to the Chairman of the Ministerial Conference would be put on the general WTO website –WT/GC/M/82
Page 101
given that there were inevitably leaks of such documents outside the organization –and suggested that
this would add to transparency.
333. The Chairman noted that the draft Ministerial text was an informal "Job" document, and as
such was available only to Members.  Canada's question was therefore pertinent.
334. The representative of Chile said that the text, once it became an official WTO document,
should be issued as unrestricted, since there was a need to inform NGOs and other stakeholders.
335. The Chairman said that if Members had no objection, this would be done.
336. The representative of Egypt said her delegation understood that the question raised by Canada
related only to the draft Ministerial text, which was only one input for Ministers.  If this text was put
on the WTO website, the Chairman's letter conveying this text, as well as other annexes that had been
proposed, should also be put on the WTO website.
337. The Chairman said that this was a good point and that the text should not be publicly
available until the accompanying letter had been sent to Ministers, so as to provide the whole picture.
He would be working on that letter, together with the Director-General, and once both components
were ready, if it were the wish of the Council, as he sensed it was, the letter would be made publicly
available as well.
338. The General Council took note of the statements.
5. Sixth Session of the Ministerial Conference – Communication from Hong Kong, China
(WT/GC/72)
339. The representative of Hong Kong, China, speaking under "Other Business ", said that as
Members were aware, the Secretary for Trade, Industry and Technology of Hong Kong, China,
Mr. John Tsang, had written to the Director-General  on 21 August conveying his Government’s offer
to host the Sixth Session of the Ministerial Conference.  The letter had been circulated in document
WT/GC/72.  His delegation noted that the date and venue of the Sixth Session was on the provisional
agenda of the Ministerial Conference in Cancún.  In order to allow sufficient time for the necessary
preparations, his Government hoped that Members w ould arrive at an early decision on the venue of
the Sixth Session, taking into account the progress of the negotiations under the Doha DevelopmentAgenda.  Based on the experience of hosts of previous Ministerial Conferences, Hong Kong, China
was of the view that it would probably require around one year’s lead-time to properly organise a full-
scale Ministerial Conference outside of Geneva.  Should Hong Kong, China's offer have the privilege
of being accepted by the membership, it would work closely with Members and the Secretariat to
make the Ministerial Conference a success.
340. The Chairman thanked Hong Kong, China for its statement, and proposed that the General
Council take note with appreciation of the offer from the Government of Hong Kong, China.  As
Members were aware, the date and venue of the next Ministerial Conference was an item on the
agenda of the Cancún Ministerial Conference.  He therefore proposed that he hold informal
consultations urgently on the question of the venue of the Sixth Session of the Ministerial Conference
and report back to the Chairman of the Cancún Ministerial Conference at the earliest opportunity,
with a view to assisting him in preparing this it em for consideration at the Conference.  He also
invited any other Member Government wishing to host the next Ministerial Conference to so inform
him, so that he could take this into account during his consultations.
341. The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to proceed in accordance with the
Chairman's proposal.WT/GC/M/82
Page 102
6. Poverty reduction:  Sectoral initiative in favour of cotton – Joint proposal by Benin,
Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali
342. The representative of Benin, speaking under "Other Business ", commended the Chairman for
his remarkable work at the head of the General Council, in particular at this sensitive time in the
preparatory process for the Fifth Ministerial Conference, and said that he could count on the supportof Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali in carrying out these responsibilities.  Cancún was
approaching, and in parallel, expectations were increasing, not only in public opinion but also among
Members, regarding the results and the value added Cancún would bring.  He recalled that at the time
of the creation of the WTO, Members had recognized that their economic and trade relations should
be directed towards improving standards of living and increasing production and trade of goods and
services, while allowing for an optimum use of world resources in accordance with sustainable
development.  Consequently, they agreed to make positive efforts so that the least developed mightobtain an increasing part of international trade, corresponding to the necessities of their economic
development.  Thus, it was understandable and legitimate that expectations were so great, especially
in the context of negotiations, that the fundamental aspects of a development dimension should be
evident.  He recalled that during the course of the last Ministerial Conference in Doha, Ministers
solemnly affirmed their faith that international tr ade could play a major role in the strengthening of
economic development, the reduction of poverty and the need for all peoples to obtain advantages
from the gains and well-being which the multilateral trading system would generate.  He recalled that
the special vulnerability of the least-developed countries had been recognized, and that all Members
had said they were determined to remedy the marginalization of the least-developed countries in
international trade by improving their effective pa rticipation in the multilateral trading system.
343. These references to Members' commitments showed that the credibility of the organization
would depend on Members' capacity to provide concrete and wise responses to the trading concerns
of all Members, whatever their level of development, as long as these concerns were humanly
comprehensible, economically sustainable, and above all, legally defendable.  The working
populations and the Governments of Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad, had great hopes for theresults of the Cancún Ministerial Conference, in particular in sensitive areas such as NAMA, TRIPS
and Public Health, services and agriculture – which was the real basis of these countries' economies.
For these countries, as for almost all Members, agriculture was an essential and unavoidable point,
and it was in this context that these countries had submitted the sectoral initiative on cotton to the
competent WTO bodies on 30 April 2003.  At the present stage in the preparatory process for Cancún,
he would not refer to the content of that submission, nor the reasons for which the co-sponsors had
submitted it, nor what they were asking.  He noted with satisfaction that this matter had been includedon the Agenda of the Fifth Ministerial Conference, and insisted on the vital importance which the so-
sponsors of this initiative attached to the need for an urgent and equitable solution to be found in
Cancún.
344. While his delegation was conscious of the need for a systematic approach to all negotiations
on agriculture, it hoped to have an early harvest.  With the hope of reaching concrete decisions inCancún on this matter, the co-sponsors of the initiative had drafted a document to be submitted to the
Ministers.  They requested that the draft Ministerial decision in document WT/GC/W/511 be attached
to the revised draft Ministerial text.  This draft decision had been drawn up on the basis of proposals
for modalities contained in document TN/AG/GE N/6 and WT/MIN(03)/W/2, which concerned the
setting up in Cancún of a system for the reduction of support for the production and export of cotton,with a view to elimina ting such support completely, and a proposal for a mechanism of transitional
compensation for the least-advanced cotton exporters who had been affected by measures previously.
His delegation wished to seize this last occasion before Cancún to launch an appeal to all Members to
work together towards a successful outcome on this matter in Cancún.  He recalled that on 16 August
during the course of an informal consultation at the level of Heads of Delegation, the four co-sponsorshad indicated their trust that the multilateral trading system and the WTO would find an urgent and
equitable solution to this problem.  These countries trusted that the subsidies which affected themWT/GC/M/82
Page 103
would be eliminated, and that cotton would be defended.  The co-sponsors firmly hoped that the
organization would not remain indifferent to the hard labour of national construction in their countries
and the efforts of stabilization for their economies.  They had achieved some results with the aid of
their development partners.  Members should avoid that these countries' participation in the
multilateral trading system diminished or disappeared because of trade-distorting practices which allagreed were harmful.  There were signs, ever more alarming, of disintegration of the social fabric in
the countries concerned.  Income from exports of cotton had decreased catastrophically, so that
producers were ever less in a position to educate their children, promote local initiatives, and obtain
the social infrastructures so necessary.  The situation was such that thousands of young people
migrated to towns, resulting in a problem of rural exodus which had become even more serious, and
which had an undeniable impact on the increase of unemployment and insecurity in urban centres.
His delegation maintained its faith and trust in the WTO, and hoped that in Cancún, reason and justicewould prevail.  Bénin still believed that equitable treatment would be given by the organization to all
Members.
345. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the 
LDCs, strongly supported the statement by
Bénin on behalf of four LDCs that were severely affected by the subsidies on cotton in developed
countries.  This matter would be on the Agenda of the Ministerial Conference in Cancún, and theLDCs would be fully supportive of the genuine demands of the four countries concerned.
346. The representative of Morocco, on behalf of the African Group
, said these countries
supported the initiative of Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali and reiterated the hope that Ministers
in Cancún would make an appropriate positive reply that would take into account the difficulties of
these countries.  The development dimension, as decided upon in Doha, could find no betterexpression than by taking into account the distortions due to subsidies granted to certain strategic
products – which for some countries were the only products they had.  The African Group hoped that
the interests and survival of these countries would be taken into account and that their integration into
the world economy and globalization would take place.  Unfortunately, the situation with cotton was a
catastrophic one on which the globalization machine had trodden.  There were, of course, positiveaspects to globalization, but one had to take into account the needs of the developing countries.  The
African Group's hoped that Ministers would take into account the legitimate requests of the countries
concerned.
347. The representative of Uganda supported the initiative articulated by Benin on behalf of the
four LDCs.  As his delegation had stated earlier, this proposal was reasonable and was in line with the
liberalization for which this organization stood.  Uganda hoped that by the end of the Cancún
Ministerial Conference, Ministers would have beefed up paragraph 25 of the present revised draftMinisterial text to reflect a programme that would immediately begin rolling back the subsidies on
cotton and would put in place a mechanism for these countries to adjust while that roll back was
taking place.  His delegation called on other partners – both developing and developed – to support
this initiative.
348. The General Council took note of the statements.
7. Communication from the Kyrgyz Republic (WT/MIN(03)/W/3)
349. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic, speaking under "Other Business ", said that the
revised draft Ministerial text (Job(03)/150/Rev.1) contained provisions in several parts concerning,
but not limited to, paragraph 5 of Annex A and paragraph 9 of Annex B, on which his delegation had
strong concerns.  His delegation would raise this issue at the Cancún Ministerial Conference in thecontext of the communication circulated by his delegation in document WT/MIN(03)/W/3 and other
recent submissions that would be forwarded to the Ministerial Conference.  He asked that the
Secretariat make one correction to the submission in WT/MIN(03)/W/3, which was to add, in the first
sentence of the last paragraph on page one, the word "December" before "1998".WT/GC/M/82
Page 104
350. The representative of Turkey said that having listened to the intervention by the Kyrgyz
Republic and having seen document WT/MIN(03)/W/3, his delegation wished to support the latter's
request to be treated as a developing newly acceded Member in the course of the current negotiations
on the same basis as those Members to which reference was made in paragraph 9 of the Doha
Declaration.  Taking into account the fact that the Kyrgyz Republic had made extensive market accesscommitments during its accession process, as well as the present difficult economic and social
situation in that country, Turkey hoped that the necessary understanding would be shown by Members
in regard to this reasonable and justifiable request.
351. The General Council took note of the statements.
8. Attendance of observers at the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference – Requests by
the Governments of Niue, Cook Islands and Afghanistan (WT/L/534, 535, 538)
352. The Chairman drew attention to the communications received from the Government of the
Cook Islands (WT/L/535) and from the Government of Niue (WT/L/534), respectively, requesting
observer status at the Cancún Ministerial Conference.  He had also received a similar communication
late the previous day from Afghanistan for observer status at the Cancún Ministerial Conference
(WT/L/538).  He recalled that in February 2003 the General Council had agreed inter alia  that, in
accordance with the Guidelines in Annex 2 of the General Council's Rules of Procedure, requests forobserver status at the Ministerial Conference fro m Governments not having this status would be
considered on their merits in accordance with the Guidelines.  He proposed that, unless there was any
objection, the General Council agree to invite the Cook Islands, Niue and Afghanistan to attend the
Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference as observers.
353. The General Council so agreed.
9. Chairmanships of the WTO bodies under the TNC – Statement by the Chairman
354. The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business ", recalled that at its first meeting on
28 January and 1 February 2002, the Trade Negotiations Committee had adopted a structure and
established a number of bodies to undertake work on the various elements of the Doha Development
Agenda under its supervision.  The TNC had also endorsed certain principles and practices to guide itswork, including that the Chairman of the Genera l Council would consult on the chairmanships of the
individual bodies, and that the Chairpersons of these bodies would be appointed to serve up to the
Fifth Ministerial Conference, at which time all the appointments would be reviewed.  The
Chairpersons of the bodies under the TNC had been subsequently appointed by the General Council at
its meeting in February 2002, following consultations undertaken by the Council Chairman.  He
recalled that these appointments were as follows:
Negotiating Group on Market Access Am b. Pierre-Louis Girard (Switzerland)
Negotiating Group on Rules Amb. Timothy John Groser (New Zealand)Special Session of the Council for Trade in
ServicesAmb. Alejandro Jara (Chile)
Special Session of the Council for TRIP S Amb. Eui Yong Chung (Rep. of Korea)
Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body Amb. Pèter Balás (Hungary)WT/GC/M/82
Page 105
Special Session of the Committee on Agricultur e Mr. Stuart Harbinson (Hong Kong, China)
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and
EnvironmentAmb. Yolande Biké (Gabon)
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and
DevelopmentAmb. Ransford Smith (Jamaica)
355. Although these appointments were to be review ed at the time of the Ministerial Conference,
he considered that given the heavy workload in connection with the Ministerial Conference, Members
would be better placed to conduct this review at the next meeting of the General Council, which was
scheduled for 21-22 October.  This would also allow more time for consultations as necessary.  In the
meantime, and keeping in mind the need for maintain ing continuity in the process, he proposed that
the Chairpersons of these bodies be requested to continue in office until the review at the Council
meeting in October.  On behalf of the General Council, he expressed his sincere appreciation to all the
Chairpersons of these bodies, as those of other WTO bodies, for their dedicated commitment toprogressing the work of this organization over the past year and a half, which had, of course, been a
particularly demanding period, given the heavy work load all had faced.  He wished to commend all
the chairpersons also for their patient and committed guidance and service, and the long hours they
had put in – and were continuing to put in – all of which had most certainly contributed to the
considerable work Members had been able to accomplish.
356. The representative of Brazil asked whether the Chairman's proposal was that the Ministerial
Conference not consider this matter, and that the General Council take it up at its meeting in October.
357. The Chairman responded in the affirmative.
358. The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to the Chairman's proposal.
10. Traffic congestion in the WTO premises
359. The representative of Chile, speaking under "Other Business ", expressed concern regarding
traffic congestion in the WTO premises.  While the current parking problem was difficult to resolve in
the short-term, he believed the present system of traffic flow was absurd, in that it took some 20
minutes to exit by car from the WTO.  His delegation urged the Secretariat to look into this matter and
consider ways to solve this problem expeditiously.
360. The General Council took note of the statement.WT/GC/M/82
Page 107
ANNEX I
Item 3 – Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the
TRIPS Agreement and Public Health
Attachment to the General Council Chairman's Statement
"Best Practices" Guidelines
"Companies have often used special labelling, colouring, shaping, sizing, etc. to differentiate
products supplied through donor or discounted pricing programmes from products supplied to othermarkets.  Examples of such measures include the following:
- Bristol Myers Squibb used different markings/imprints on capsules supplied to
sub-Saharan Africa.
- Novartis has used different trademark names, one (Riamet®) for an anti-malarial drug
provided to developed countries, the other (Coartem®) for the same products
supplied to developing countries.  Novartis further differentiated the products through
distinctive packaging.
- GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) used different outer packaging for its HIV/AIDS
medications Combivir, Epivir and Trizivir supplied to developing countries.  GSK
further differentiated the products by embossing the tablets with a different number
than tablets supplied to developed countries, and plans to further differentiate the
products by using different colours.
- Merck differentiated its HIV/AIDS antiretroviral medicine CRIXIVAN through
special packaging and labelling, i.e., gold-ink printing on the capsule, dark green
bottle cap and a bottle label with a light-green background.
- Pfizer used different colouring and shaping for Diflucan pills supplied to South
Africa.
Producers have further minimized diversion by entering into contractual arrangements with
importers/distributors to ensure delivery of products to the intended markets.
To help ensure use of the most effective anti-diversion measures, Members may share their
experiences and practices in preventing diversion either informally or through the TRIPS Council.  It
would be beneficial for Members and industry to work together to further refine anti-diversion
practices and enhance the sharing of information related to identifying, remedying or preventing
specific occurrences of diversion."WT/GC/M/82
Page 109
ANNEX II
Statements by delegations at the Informal Meeting of Heads of Delegations
on 29 August on Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the
Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement
and Public Health
Page
1. Kenya.......................................................................................................................... ......... 110
2. Venezuela...................................................................................................................... ....... 110
3. Nicaragua...................................................................................................................... ....... 111
4. Canada ......................................................................................................................... ........ 112
5. Switzerland .................................................................................................................... ...... 113
6. Senegal........................................................................................................................ ......... 113
7. Ecuador ........................................................................................................................ ........ 114
8. Philippines .................................................................................................................... ....... 114
9. Bangladesh..................................................................................................................... ...... 114
10. Sri Lanka...................................................................................................................... ........ 115WT/GC/M/82
Page 110
1. Kenya
I take the floor in response to the Ambassador Canada's request that those of us from Africa
state our position.
(1) We support both your appeal and the Director-General's appeal that we overcome our
differences, however minor or major, and get this out of the way before Cancún.  The Director-
General has provided excellent reasons why we should do that, and my African colleagues have
reminded us again why our decision today is a life and death one.
(2) We were involved in consultations on the text, together with other colleagues, and are
satisfied with the result of our consultations.  We believe the text before us now, which has beenworked on considerably, provides us all with the opportunity to adopt the 16 December text – a text
that we all agreed to and supported.  We are fully convinced that the Chairman's text does not change
the 16 December text in any fundamental way, and at the same time provides comfort to the United
States without unravelling the 16 December text, and therefore should not affect the support that the
December text enjoys.
(3) We are comfortable that the draft Decision and statement will not, and indeed, should not,
hinder us from getting access to affordable medicines, which is our common objective and primary
concern.
(4) We are also comfortable in the knowledge that it will not affect in any way our intention to
improve our manufacturing capacity, which is our medium- as well as long-term objective, and that
this is a temporary solution which will come to an end after the permanent solution envisaged in
paragraph 11 of the draft Decision is in place.
(5) The Chairman's draft statement allows all of us  to come together in solidarity, rise to the
occasion and meet the challenge before us today, that of saving millions of lives.  So I join the appeal
to colleagues to allow this text move forward.  I support it fully and unequivocally and express our
sincere appreciation to the TRIPS Council Chairman, the US Ambassador and other colleagues who
worked hard to bring us this far, including by consulting experts far and wide.
2. Venezuela
We strongly believe that, for decisions of this nature, our countries need time for constructive,
thorough reflection.  We understand perfectly the complexity of the issues facing the Cancún
Conference, but consider that inclusive participatio n, internal transparency of the consultation process
and effective participation by the Members in decision-making are principles stemming from theDoha Declaration itself, and are hence essential for building consensus on issues, such as health, that
pose a challenge to the commitment to development contained in the Work Programme.
In this regard, we should point out that public health in Venezuela is a social entitlement
linked to the right to life, which is protected by the Constitution, and that the State of Venezuela isalso required by the Constitution to guarantee the development of a domestic industry for the
manufacture of medical supplies.  Consequently, and pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Chairman's Note
concerning the objectives of industrial or trade policy, it is important to emphasize that the
development of a domestic pharmaceutical industry is not only a component of Venezuela's industrial
or trade policy, but it is also and primarily part of a public policy that guarantees a universal, non-discriminatory right to health and medicine.
Since receiving the text yesterday evening, our Mission has held intensive discussions with its
capital, with the conviction that this consensus, which has been described as fragile and delicate, willWT/GC/M/82
Page 111
help to assist many of our fellow human beings currently suffering from a shortage of medicines,
particularly in Africa, to whom we express the solidarity of the people of Venezuela.
Mr Chairman, you are well aware of the commitment my country has shown on this issue.
Venezuela has co-sponsored all of the documents submitted by developing countries, has taken part innegotiating groups prior to 16 December and, as you pointed out, has followed the process very
closely, even asking the Chairman of the Genera l Council to keep it informed of any progress made
and of any possible or new alternatives.
With regard to TRIPS and public health, we have been presented with a supplementary text to
the proposal of 16 December, designed to resolve the issue of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on
the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.  We are being asked to agree to this text, the main purposeof which is to seek a balanced formula for the distribution of medicines that takes into account the
urgent need to protect public health.  Having said that, and in the hope that this very instructive
exercise in transparency will remain in the collective memory of this organization, Venezuela
supports this decision and joins the consensus reached to resolve one of the many problems relating to
health.
We trust that this decision will make a substantial contribution to a broader process that
should be directed at enabling countries to manufacture their own medicines at affordable cost in
order to meet the needs of their people.  The adoption of this decision does not fully resolve the
problem of TRIPS and public health, but it opens up possibilities for future consensus agreements inan area of such significance for global development and for the collective well-being of all of our
peoples.
3. Nicaragua
I should like to thank both you and the Director-General for your keynote addresses.  My
delegation also wishes to express its appreciation for the documents submitted to Members for their
consideration some days ago.  Although it proved difficult for my delegation to consult extensively
with our capital in the short time at its disposal since these documents were circulated, we have had an
opportunity to analyse them and have received instructions thereon.  My delegation is particularly
pleased to endorse both documents tabled (the Draft Decision in document IP/C/W/405 and the Note
from the Chairman of the TRIPS Council in document Job(03)/177), and calls for us all to join forces
in order to achieve the sought-after consensus.
We likewise welcome the statement by the Ambassador of India, which clarified some
aspects on which my Capital had voiced concern.
The road we have travelled has proved arduous; however, under the able guidance of the
present Chairman of the Council for TRIPS and his predecessor, Ambassador Pérez-Motta, we have
managed to reach a point where the endeavours and will of the Members of this organization have
come together with a view to finding solutions to the issue of public health, one of the most sensitive
on the Doha Development Agenda.
We have listened with particular interest to the statements by our African brethren and
colleagues concerning the serious public health problems with which they are beset and to which
Nicaragua is not indifferent.  Recent statistics show that the number of AIDS sufferers is on the
increase;  there have been outbreaks of diseases t hought to have been eradicated;  we have a small
pharmaceutical industry and are not suppliers of active ingredients.  Factors such as these reflect the
major restrictions which face us when investing in research and technology.  For all of the above
reasons, supporting any mechanism which grants resource-poor populations and countries access to
medicines at affordable prices is a priority for my country.WT/GC/M/82
Page 112
Mr Chairman, I believe that the end of the road is in sight.  If a prompt solution proves
feasible following the suggestion made by the Ambassador of South Africa, then we will endorse and
support it, were such a suggestion still to be required.
Without trying to rush matters, Mr Chairman, we should like this issue to be resolved in the
very near future so as to send out a positive signal to the world.
4. Canada
(i) Your proposed solution to this outstanding issue is very good news, for a number of reasons:
I recall how disappointed we all were at the end of that long evening last December.  Despite
everyone's hard work and best efforts, we were unable to agree by the deadline imposed on us.
The prospect of being so close to successfully closing this file makes up for that empty
feeling we had last December.
(ii) It fulfills an important part of our overall Doha agenda.  It was the first item we agreed to in
Doha.  It has substance, and finding a solution for countries which lacked manufacturing capacity, and
enabling them to obtain the essential medicines their citizens require by using the flexibility of the
Trips Agreement, was pivotal.
It also demonstrates that, while late, the WTO is on the verge of showing its heart and soul on
this huge and emotional issue.  This has been a highly public and visible issue for the outside world,
and this decision therefore has an important symbolic value.
(iii) It offers some much-needed momentum to the rest of our work in the lead-up to Cancún.  We
have just come from our General Council meeting, where there was considerable disappointment over
the low level of ambition contained in the Cancún text.  So, if we are to endorse this proposal, it will
certainly help us lift our game in Cancún.
While this is the first open-ended meeting in which Members may submit their views on this
statement, and while we respect the right of Memb ers to take some time to consult their capitals,
Canada whishes to state that we support your proposed statement, and would be prepared to endorse itfully.
Finally, let me extend four "thank you"s:
(i) A thank you to the Ambassador of Singapore, the Chair of the TRIPS Council.  When I put
together the slate of chairs as my last deed as General Council Chair, there were not many takers for
the TRIPS Chair, but he was willing.  He has showed both courage and astute leadership in taking us
to this point.
(ii) A thank you to the Ambassador of Mexico, our past TRIPS Chair.  We owe him a great debt
of gratitude for bringing us so far down the road.  He deserves credit today, as well.
(iii) A thank you to the US Ambassador and the US Trade Representative, both of whom have
worked tremendously hard to build many bridges – both at home and abroad.  They had a difficult
task.  I never saw them as "the problem".  Rather, they had, like we all do on a variety of importantissues, to provide comfort to a significant national and international constituency.  They deserve our
appreciation.
(iv) The final thank you goes to all my African colleagues.  It was their countries and their
citizens who where always recognized as the primary beneficiaries of the Declaration on TRIPS andWT/GC/M/82
Page 113
Public Health.  It was their people who had the most need.  And yet, they have demonstrated
remarkable patience with us, on such a "life and death" issue.  I am not sure many of us, in similar
circumstances, would have acted as honourably.
In closing, while this document is solid, statements can also be very fragile things.  They have
a limited shelf-life, before everyone starts, perhaps inadvertently, unravelling it.  So, we have an
opportunity.  Let us all seize the moment.
5. Switzerland
I too will be brief.  I welcome this for the same reasons as those invoked by New Zealand.
When we began this exercise, we had an objective which was to define the ways and means torespond to the countries whose production capacity was insufficient or non-existent for a series of
medicines, but in the broader aspect of the work, our real objective was to make it possible to make
available to those who have an urgent need, the medicines which are vitally important to them.  Now
quite naturally, as we sometimes see happen in this forum, in this organization, in the course of the
process we tend to forget or stray away from our initial objective that we had set for ourselves.  Someother considerations and concerns that are somewhat alien to the initial objective have taken on
proportions, which to many outsider observers, may have seemed to be, to say the least, inappropriate.
So, thanks first of all to the preceding and curren t Chairmen of the TRIPS Council.  The obstacles to
the achievement of the initial objective we had set for ourselves, we successively set aside, and my
view is that today we are in a position, in the way you consider most appropriate, to seal our
agreement according to the terms defined by the Chairman of the TRIPS Council.
I would like to pay tribute to you and to the Director-General for the efforts that you have
made and that you will certainly continue to make in the upcoming hours, but I would above all like
to pay tribute to the representatives of the African countries and the other countries that are so hard hitby AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics.  I think they have quite rightly recalled to us a
situation, a reality, which for most of us here is something quite foreign to us, and they have also
recalled to us quite rightly as well, what our duty and responsibility is.  In this regard I would like to
extend to them my particular thanks.
6. Senegal
Senegal would like to take this opportunity to extend its thanks to you and to the Chairman of
the Council for TRIPS and all the Members of the Secretariat for your unceasing efforts to secure the
implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.
I extend those thanks also to the Ambassador of Mexico, who directed the work of the
Council for TRIPS during 2002.
At this crucial juncture, Senegal wishes to express its concern that a satisfactory solution be
found before the Cancún Ministerial Conference, which would enable us to settle a problem that has
cost us much energy since 2002.
The reason I voice that concern is that the African continent is particularly hard hit by
scourges such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.  Seventy per cent of the 40 million people
worldwide suffering from HIV/AIDS are in Sub-Saha ran Africa.  That figure amounts to more than
the average population of the African States.
Senegal strongly endorses the solution chosen, namely the adoption of the decision of
16 December 2002 together with an interpretative note by the Chairman.  We find this to be an
acceptable compromise.  The peoples of Africa pay close attention to our deliberations, and ourWT/GC/M/82
Page 114
appeal to all our partners in the WTO is for an additional effort to adopt the solution awaited by all to
alleviate the suffering of the many people infected by the AIDS virus.
On our continent, the greatest pain is suffered  in silence, held in by dignity and restraint.
Although it has a low prevalence rate for HIV/AIDS in comparison to other African countries,Senegal nevertheless invokes the right to life and proclaims its solidarity.
We consequently urge all Members of the WTO to support the draft decision submitted to us.
7. Ecuador
The day before yesterday, my delegation was surprised to hear that a formula had been
arrived at that would permit all Members to join a consensus on the proposal tabled by the outgoing
Chairman of the Council for TRIPS last December.  Notwithstanding the brief time Members have
had to assess the scope of the content in the stat ement made by the Chairman of the TRIPS Council
with a view to facilitating the adoption of the decision which Ministers in Doha had requested of
Members – to provide for mandatory licensing regarding countries which had scarce manufacturingfacilities – my Government is grateful that a consensus has been achieved in order to respond to
paragraph 6 of the TRIPS Agreement on Public Health.  This solution has been forged amidst great
difficulties, the result of fears which arise from different sources and which depend on the approach
one took.  Some of these fears have been due to the time it has taken to achieve this consensus, the
safety mechanisms involved, the safeguards and the restrictions contained in the 16 December draftDecision as well as in the Chairman's statement a ccompanying it.  Potential importers wondered about
the effectiveness of this solution, and its costs and consequences for them.  It is the practice in my
country that any effort made in good faith for humanitarian reasons should be supported.  My
delegation hopes that the results of these efforts are indeed intended to benefit all Members with poor
and needy populations, and trusts that this instrument will neither prevent nor limit the flexibilityoffered under the TRIPS Agreement for managing public health policies.
8. Philippines
We are grateful to you and the Director-General for your very strong remarks and the
immediate action both of you have taken on what I call a transcendental issue.
You have our assurance that we are prepared to work constructively with you in the work to
carry this issue to a successful conclusion in a short timeframe.  Upon reflecting further Mr.
Chairman, particularly on the plight of our African colleagues who are the principal beneficiaries of
this landmark decision drafted by our colleague the Ambassador of Mexico – the preceding Chair of
the TRIPS Council – and the statement from the TRIPS Council Chairman, it behoves this delegationto reiterate that the Philippines fully supports consensus on this decision and on the Chairman's
statement without reservations.  All of us actin g in the TRIPS Council last night agreed on the
decision and the Chairman's statement.  Without exception, we all agreed by consensus to favourably
endorse this decision and this statement for adoption by the General Council.  We have always
approached this work with sincere and abiding responsibility, and in this particular case, the objectiveof obtaining the most expeditious solution, in order to provide a mechanism which will complement
our efforts in various fields to contain the scourges of death and the deep family and personal
tragedies that accompany this.  On account of the problem of access to affordable medicines, it is with
the same perspective that the Philippines will conti nue to work actively towards ensuring the adoption
of the decision and the statement of the Council Chair in the General Council as soon as possible.
9. Bangladesh
We have noted your statement and the remarks of the Director-General and take them
seriously.  Many consider the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health adopted atWT/GC/M/82
Page 115
Doha on 14 November 2001 as a turning point in the history of the WTO.  Responding to popular
demand, this organization had addressed the question of access to medicines for public health
problems of many developing and least-develope d countries.  We had hoped that the WTO would
finally operationalize the right of WTO Members to use to the full the provisions of the TRIPS
Agreement, which provide flexibility for this purpose.  It took several months of discussions to arriveat the decision contained in document Job(02)/217 dated 16 December 2002 which was acceptable to
the full membership except for one country.  We had hoped this document would provide the
necessary comfort to Members that the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health could
be used to the satisfaction of all.  Despite the best intentions of Members, we required further
consultations for eight months after December 2002 to arrive at another document that would be the
Chair's statement and represent "several key shared understandings of Members regarding the
decision" contained in document Job(03)/177 of 27 August 2003.  After hearing the statement of theAmbassador of Argentina on yesterday's procedure, there is very little to add in that regard.
We are happy that the African Group finds the decision and the Chair's statement acceptable
and we are fully supportive of the sentiments expressed.  We hope that the decision and the Chair's
statement will not in any manner affect our right to develop our industries, particularly ourpharmaceutical industry.  At the same time, we have the belief that the decision and the Chair's
statement are intended to facilitate the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement and the Declaration
on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, and not restrict in any manner the rights of Members,
particularly the LDCs.
It will be our pleasure to join in the consen sus that we hope will be the form in which the
decision and the Chair's statement will be adopted.
10. Sri Lanka
My delegation was deeply touched by the sentiments expressed by our distinguished
colleagues from Africa who know the gravity of this problem more than anyone else because they
experience this problem.  The Director-General reminded us once again to view this as a humanitarian
issue for which we need to find an urgent solution.  Before me I have an article written by the South
African Ambassador whom I respect very much.  It says 30 million people are affected by HIV/AIDS
and only 30,000 are treated.  That means only 0.1 per cent.  This is not a very healthy situation, and
the distinguished Ambassador from Morocco said that everyday 8,000 people are dying.  We need toaddress this problem very urgently.
Yesterday, we stated in the informal TRIPS Council that the Chairman's text is a delicately
balanced one.  Therefore, very sincerely, my delegation joins hands with our African colleagues in
appealing to all the other Members to adopt this decision.  The adoption of this decision will no doubtbe a landmark event in the WTO which should also generate required momentum in other areas of
negotiation of the DDA that can also contribute to alleviate poverty, which is another humanitarian
cause.WT/GC/M/82
Page 117
ANNEX III
Opening and Closing Remarks by the Chairman of the General Council
at the Informal Meeting of Heads of Delegations
on 25 August on the Draft Ministerial Text51
Opening Remarks by the Chairman of the General Council
The purpose of today's meeting is to give delegations an opportunity to make their initial
reactions to the draft Ministerial text in an informal setting.  It will then be taken up by General
Council.  Let me say a few words by way of introduction.
I am aware that the text was distributed late, and that many delegations have yet to receive
concrete instructions from capitals.  So I am l ooking for preliminary reactions today, and I would
suggest that delegations not deliver their General Council speeches here.  I equally ask delegations not
to embark on a procedural discussion today.  I think it is important for everyone to hear substantiveviews.
This text is put forward on my own responsibility, and in close co-operation with the
Director-General.  However it is based on many hours of consultation and discussion, especially in
this open-ended Heads of Delegation format.  I would also like to express my particular gratitude toall those who have generously assisted me as Friends of the Chair, as well as to the Director-General,
his Deputies and his staff.
This text is based on my best judgment.  It does not purport to be agreed in any part at this
stage, and is without prejudice to any delegation's position on any issue.  In other words, the wholetext is in square brackets.  You will notice that, rather than including all possible options, which
would have resulted in an unmanageable draft, I ha ve come forward with a clear text in many areas.
I believe my approach is in keeping with the criteria I set out earlier of respecting the
ambition of the Doha mandates, of respecting the development dimension, and of seeking overall
balance.
It is also in keeping with the progress – or lack of progress – in our consultations and with the
realities of our situation.
This is a pragmatic approach that should provide a workable framework for action by
Ministers.
I would like to repeat that this is intended as an operational text, one which can assist
Ministers at Cancún in taking the necessary action.  As such it clearly cannot be a compendium of all
views and positions, which would make the task of Ministers impossible.  I have considered
everything that I have heard very carefully, but in the end I had to make my own best judgement andassume my responsibility.   In quite a number of areas I have put forward texts which have attracted a
high level of convergence in our consultations, a nd which I believe could be agreed upon.  In other,
more controversial areas I have tried to find a possible compromise among competing positions
within the generally-accepted concept of a framework for developing modalities.  And concerning the
Singapore Issues, where views remain more or less polarized, I have set out the two basic options.
I should also recall that Ministers will have at their disposal all the reports of the WTO bodies
which have worked on these issues.  These were forwarded to Ministers by the General Council in
                                                     
51 Previously circulated in JOB(03)/174 and Add. 1.WT/GC/M/82
Page 118
July.  So, with briefings from their delegations as well, Ministers should be amply informed about the
positions on all the issues.  What they need more is a means of helping them focus effectively on the
key areas where they need to take decisions and give guidance, and this is the purpose of the present
text.
As I said earlier, this text goes as far as I judge is possible in the Geneva process.  From now
on our attention should rather be on assisting Ministers in their heavy tasks at Cancún.  We will all be
listening attentively, and I urge you in making your comments to keep very much in mind our
collective responsibility for the situation that your Ministers will face in two weeks' time.
I will now make some brief comments about some sections of the text before opening the
floor.  I will not, of course, speak to each and every paragraph, because I do not believe that isnecessary.
Following my remarks, I will invite the Direct or-General to say a few words before inviting
delegations to speak.
TRIPS and Public Health
TRIPS and Public Health has remained an intractable issue since the General Council  last
considered it in February this year.  However, I can report that intense diplomatic efforts are currently
under way, and it is possible that we may have positive results to report very soon.  Clearly, we mustall recognize that this is politically a crucial issue, and one on which our collective aim must continue
to be to reach agreement before Cancún.  This matter is, as you know, on the agenda of the General
Council meeting, and I am hopeful that the Chairman of the TRIPS Council, Amb. Menon, will be
able to report to us positively in that vein.  I would like to request all delegations to be ready to be
called at short notice for a meeting of the TRIPS Council to consider the results of this work.
Agriculture
First, I wish to point out an involuntary omissi on in the chapeau text to Annex A – that is, the
mention of non-trade concerns.  So after the words "special and differential treatment" the phrase "and
taking into account non-trade concerns" should be added.  A corrigendum to this effect will be
prepared and submitted to the General Council.
One of the most sensitive areas of the negotiations is of course agriculture.  Progress has been
made since Doha but it is evident that we will not be able to establish fully-fledged modalities by
Cancún.
In the context of the difficult situation we have been facing, I think that we have all
appreciated the joint initiative by the European Co mmunities and the United States in coming forward
with the concept of a "framework" as a way to move forward.  Their input does indeed seem to have
energised the negotiations and prompted other Members, including large numbers of developing
countries, to come forward with their own versions of a possible framework.
All of these inputs were extremely useful to me  in drafting the text that you now have before
you.  This, I can assure you, was a very difficult task because, although the inputs represented
significant moves towards convergence among certain Members, significantly differing perspectives
remained between the various proposals put forward.  It is not easy to reconcile these.
On the basis of the various inputs, there have been intensive consultations over the past two
weeks at the level of Heads of Delegations and in various formats chaired both by myself and by
Stuart Harbinson as a Friend of the Chair.  As a result, Annex A to the draft Ministerial TextWT/GC/M/82
Page 119
constitutes my best effort to provide you with  a workable framework on agriculture for action by
Ministers.
I should add that there seems to be general acceptance that we should proceed with a
framework approach which leaves the figures for negotiation post-Cancún.  This in my view still
represents an important step forward towards the establishment of modalities in line with the Dohamandate on agriculture. It leaves room for various eventual outcomes depending on the hard
negotiations on the figures that will inevitably follow Cancún. And, although the text takes a certain
direction in various areas, it leaves the direction open in others.
NAMA
On the NAMA negotiating modalities also, the idea of a framework has also emerged as a
likely basis for decisions by Minister in Cancún.  I acknowledge the intensive consultations over the
past several weeks chaired by Amb. Girard as a Friend of the Chair.
However, I was confronted as late as Saturday by a text coming out of these consultations
which still presented serious problems and reservations on many elements, especially paragraphs 3and 6.
In the short time remaining to us before distributing the text, the Director-General conducted
some consultations on my behalf, on the basis of which I decided on some revisions, particularly to
paragraph 6, in order not to prejudice the strong positions maintained by some Members.  Iunderstand however that there may still remain some significant concerns and divergences that will
have to be tackled by Ministers in Cancún.
Special and Differential Treatment
Let me begin by recalling and again appreciating the involvement of the Heads of Delegation
in a long and constructive process on special and differential treatment, which in my view has led to
positive results on a number of Agreement-specific proposals.  The recommendations that Members
have agreed are contained in Annex C of the text.  As indicated, Annex C also contains three
proposals which had been agreed to ad referendum.  I am happy to inform Members that the
reservations expressed by Japan on one of these proposals, namely that on the Enabling Clause, have
since been dropped.  I hope that the other Members which had  reservations on the other twoproposals can also similarly go along with the consensu s. Clearly, this is only an initial harvest of the
work. As indicated in the text, there is still a lot of work to be done on S&D treatment, and indeed on
the Agreement-specific proposals, and I fully acknowledge this.
In addition, I have tried to incorporate some of the other views and concerns that Members
had expressed on the previous draft. Firstly, I have taken on board the request that the thrust of the
Doha Declaration be reiterated, and accordingly I have reaffirmed Ministers' commitment that S&D
provisions are an integral part of the WTO Agreements and that their review should be carried out
with a view to strengthening and making them more  precise, effective and operational.  Secondly, in
keeping with the commitment I had expressed to  ensure that work on category II proposals is
expedited, the General Council is being directed to monitor closely the work being done in this regard
in negotiating groups and other WTO bodies.  The text also reflects the suggestion made by a number
of Members that future work on special and differential treatment should as far as possible be
conducted in the Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session.
With respect to the need for a time-frame for the conclusion of our work, I have left it to
Members to decide which time-frame would be realistic taking into account both the proponents
needs and the amount and complexity of the work still ahead of us.  Finally, let me also mention that
the operative part of the language of some of the proposals in Annex C may change, since it is now
the Ministers, and not the General Council, which would be adopting these proposals.WT/GC/M/82
Page 120
Singapore issues
Turning now to the four Singapore issues I would like initially to share with you the overall
approach I have adopted in these areas. You will note that, in each area, I have opted for the inclusion
of two alternatives.
Let me explain why I have taken this approach.As you know, many delegations have pointed out that the establishment of modalities is an
issue for Ministers to decide.  I therefore felt that the best framework to give them for making those
decisions would be to outline the proposals and positions at either end of the debate.  I am fully aware
that a number of delegations will not find their position on these issues reflected in the two options.  Iam also aware that this approach has not enabled me to include any possible intermediate option for
one or more of the Singapore issues, despite the fact that the Chairs have informed me that somedelegations would be comfortable with such a third option.  These intermediate approaches, of course,
remain available for further consideration by Ministers in Cancún.
I believe the formulation in the text reflects th e prevailing sentiment at the level of Heads-of-
Delegation about how best to present these issues to Ministers.
With respect to the bracketed options in the text, I would note the following:
In each of the four areas there is a first option containing a decision to launch negotiations and
setting forth the modalities for such negotiations.  Th ere is then a second alternative which refers the
matter back to the Working Group for further clarification.  Clearly, these brackets reflect the fact that
there are still considerable differences between Members, although the scope of divergence is greater
in some areas than others.  However, in all four ar eas, there is still considerable work for Ministers to
do.
Lastly, let me note that new paragraphs have been added on three issues to respond to
developments in the course of our consultations.  These cover a Sectoral Initiative on Cotton,
Commodity Issues and Coherence.
Concluding Remarks by the Chairman of the General Council
I would like to make some final remarks on the discussion we have just had this afternoon.
Firstly, I should like to thank you for your contributions and for having remained in this room until
late at night.  I can assure you that I have listened carefully to your reactions to the revised Ministerial
text put before you.  Your reactions do not surprise me nor do they discourage me.  I welcome them,particularly as all of them, without exception, have b een highly critical of at least some parts of the
text.  What is appreciated, however, is that these criticisms have not been uniform but very different,
they have come from different angles and different positions, and this encourages me inasmuch as I
have always considered that if there was disagreement on a text on all sides but in different directions,
this would be an indication that its tenor was not completely wrong.
The discussions today have clearly shown that the text does not meet the objectives, the
expectations or the levels of ambition of any Member.  What is obvious, however, is that in all the
areas of negotiation what fails to reflect the level of ambition of the Doha mandate for some, is too
ambitious and goes beyond the mandate for others.  Likewise, it has been mentioned that the approachis unbalanced, but here again proposals that represent a step forward for some are a step backward for
others;  what is an acceptable compromise for some, is a totally unacceptable compromise for others;
what is the best paragraph in the text for some is the worst for others.  This reflects the true situation
and we cannot ignore it.  It has also been mentioned that the text shows a low level of ambition as
regards agriculture and market access for non-agricultural products.  It is true that it is difficult toWT/GC/M/82
Page 121
define the final level of ambition in a text that does not contain any figures, but I remember that the
framework approach to work in Cancún was the result of recognition that we would not be able to
negotiate figures for the modalities, either in agriculture or market access for non-agricultural
products, before the Conference.  In my view, th erefore, the level of ambition will depend on the
negotiations and that will only occur after Cancún.
I consider that, on the basis of the text I have put before you, it is possible to arrive at
ambitious results, but also at very modest results.  It will depend on the figures to be negotiated.
However, these figures, like many other issues mentioned this afternoon, are not to be negotiated with
me but among yourselves.  Reach agreement on these and other issues and there will be no problem in
incorporating this common ground in the texts to be submitted to the Ministers.  In the absence of
agreement and if the disagreements, only some of which I have mentioned, persist, it is impossible todraft new texts.
I can assure you that today's debate has not given me any guidance that would allow me to
draw up a new text with greater certainty that it could achieve a better consensus than the text I have
submitted.  Consequently, until this occurs, I continue to believe that the text I have submitted is thebest approach and the best way of seeking common ground in the various areas we have discussed and
at the same time it constitutes a manageable basis for discussion on which the Ministers can decide.
I have listened to a number of delegations repeating that they want to see all the positions
reflected in the text and at this point in the discussions and negotiations, this definitely appears to meto be an extremely unrealistic position.  I do not believe either that the mere fact of `putting eight or
nine options before the Ministers is acceptable.  In  my view, this would mean that I would be failing
in my obligations as Chairman if I did not at least try to draft something that I believe could be a basis
for an understanding, even though it is possible that it might not be.
I should like to conclude by referring to some  specific remarks that have been made this
afternoon.
Deadlines
It has been said, and quite rightly I believe, that there are many square brackets in the texts
concerning deadlines, where we should be seeking results, and these deadlines in square bracketsshould correspond.  I fully agree that this is a cross-cutting issue and this is why they remain in square
brackets in the revised draft Ministerial text so that the Ministers can decide what the deadlines should
be and so that we can then insert dates that are inter-related.  Today, we have also heard criticism of
the fact that using the framework format provided to us by the United States and the European Union,
as well as some elements of their proposals, means that the document has an imbalance in favour ofdeveloped countries and against developing countries.  Despite the fact that other developed countries
have said exactly the opposite, this is a view I cannot  share.  It suffices to listen objectively to the
criticism of the document made this afternoon by developed countries to see that the proposals I have
made are far from reflecting their positions.  I have made a considerable effort to maintain the level of
ambition and to take into account the interests of developing countries and I believe that these areclearly reflected in the document I have put before you.
I used the format of the United States and the European Union as, I might add, has been done
by many other countries which made proposals, for practical reasons, and I have sought and attempted
to find convergences based on the situation we are facing, namely, Cancún is not the end of theprocess, while at the same time leaving doors open in order to resolve important issues on which there
is not yet any agreement.
Much can said about agriculture, but I shall simply limit myself to some of the aspects
mentioned.  As already stated, the level of ambition and the final balance of the Round will depend onWT/GC/M/82
Page 122
the figures that still have to be negotiated.  In the absence of these figures, I consider that it is
impossible at this stage to define the ultimate level of ambition.
Secondly, regarding the blue box, I must emphasize that, as you all know, the Agreement on
Agriculture does not presently provide any limitations in relation to this box.  The text I havesubmitted to you does not only initially fix a limit in line with the proposal by the United States and
the European Union, but it also puts forward additional substantive reductions in this box.  Regarding
the green box, we all know that we are starting out from totally divergent positions;  there are those
who wish to expand the box and those who wish at leas t to cap it and revise it radically.  I believe that
the text I have put before you does not prejudge the final outcome.  It indicates that the criteria will
continue to be the subject of negotiation.
The lack of direction on market access, giving two options regarding developing countries, is
also a reflection of totally divergent positions, and it is the Chairman's responsibility when submitting
a text to take into account, as far as possible, all the positions that have been expressed.
Regarding market access for non-agricultural products, I repeat that I received the text on
Saturday afternoon with indications that there were still problems and reservations on at least some of
the elements in the text.  After the Director-General had held consultations on the question, we made
some adjustments, in particularly in paragraph 6, so as not to prejudge the positions of some Members
on the sectoral negotiations in which they had adopted very radical positions.  I believe that the text as
drafted, although it may contain some ambiguities, has the constructive ambiguity of not prejudging
this issue and leaving it open for negotiation.  What is very clear to me, however, is that there are
unresolved problems which we must continue to discuss and which, ultimately, will have to be
resolved at the Ministerial level in Cancún.
I conclude with the Singapore issues.  Our original approach, and when I say ours I mean the
approach we had in mind with the Director-General, was not to present only the two most divergent
options.  The decision to take this approach was the result of intensive consultations held with
Members, both at the Heads of Delegation level and in other forums.  It may not be the best solution,
but it is a reflection of the will expressed by Heads of Delegation regarding the presentation of these
issues to Ministers.   I have already pointed out that this position, namely, only to present two options,
does not reflect the position held by many countries with regard to the Singapore issues, and at the
same time, in presenting these two options we are fully aware that we have disregarded otherintermediate options that enjoy the support of many countries.  I can assure you that the work done on
the four Singapore issues has not been lost and that undoubtedly when we return to addressing these
issues in Cancún, they will be considered by the Ministers there.  There are two options on the table
today:  to initiate negotiations or to continue to work in working groups.  As many Members have
emphasized, it is true that the modalities reflected in the Annexes to the text in respect of alternative 1have not been agreed (I am referring to the modalities) by all Members.  They have been incorporated
in the Annexes because they reflect the position of the proponents, just as in alternative 2 we have
faithfully reflected the position of the proponents of this second alternative as well.  Nevertheless, if
the Ministers in Cancún eventually decide to enter into negotiations on one or all the Singapore issues,
I am sure that the question of modalities will be discussed and decided upon by them, and notnecessarily on the basis of the two texts in the Annexes.
With this, delegates, and aware of the fact th at I have not answered all the questions, I am
going to give additional time to allow countries to receive instructions, to continue discussions
amongst yourselves, and also to reflect on what we ha ve heard today.  I would ask you also to reflect
on the different reactions to this proposal and, in some way, to ensure that the General Council
meeting we will attend tomorrow afternoon at 3 p.m. does not become a repetition of what we have
already heard today but instead tries to seek common ground that we will be able to reflect in a
Ministerial text.WT/GC/M/82
Page 123
I thank you once again for your participation and invite you to attend the General Council
tomorrow at 3 p.m., when we will discuss these and other pending matters.WT/GC/M/82
Page 125
ANNEX IV
Statements by delegations at the Informal Meeting of
Heads of Delegations on 25 August on
the Draft Ministerial Text
Page
1. Mexico ......................................................................................................................... ......126
2. Argentina ...................................................................................................................... .....128
3. European Co mmunitie s......................................................................................................129
4. Malaysia....................................................................................................................... ......133
5. Japan .......................................................................................................................... ........134
6. Australia...................................................................................................................... .......137
7. Kenya.......................................................................................................................... .......139
8. United States.................................................................................................................. ....140
9. Uruguay ........................................................................................................................ .....144
10. Brazil......................................................................................................................... .........145
11. Canada ......................................................................................................................... ......146
12. Jamaica (on behalf of the CARICOM Members) ..............................................................148
13. Hong Kong, China .............................................................................................................15 0
14. Egypt.......................................................................................................................... ........151
15. Korea.......................................................................................................................... ........153
16. El Salvador.................................................................................................................... .....154
17. Honduras (also on behalf of the Dominican Republic)......................................................154
18. China.......................................................................................................................... ........155
19. Chile.......................................................................................................................... .........155
20. Guatemala ...................................................................................................................... ....157
21. Paraguay....................................................................................................................... ......158
22. Colombia....................................................................................................................... .....159
23. Thailand ....................................................................................................................... ......160
24. Barbados ....................................................................................................................... .....162
25. Uganda......................................................................................................................... ......163
26. Chinese Taipei ................................................................................................................. ..164
27. Kyrgyz Republic................................................................................................................ 165
28. Switzerland .................................................................................................................... ....166
29. Croatia........................................................................................................................ ........168
30. Iceland........................................................................................................................ ........168
31. Israel......................................................................................................................... ..........169
32. South Africa................................................................................................................... ....170
33. Pakistan....................................................................................................................... .......171WT/GC/M/82
Page 126
1. Mexico
These are preliminary comments, as we have not yet completed our technical analysis.  We
will accordingly confine ourselves to the three subjects we see as being the most important at this
stage:
-A g r i c u l t u r e
- Market access for non-agricultural products
- Singapore Issues
Substance
Agriculture
We still have a few doubts of a technical nature which we need to resolve in order to
understand the proposal properly.
Nevertheless, we have a number of s ubstantive problems with your proposal:
1. We understand that a sub-category of what is currently Amber Box support would be created,
which for a time would allow unlimited quantities of highly distorting support. We find this
unacceptable because it is incompatible with the Doha mandate.
2. We are also concerned that the support reductions would not be product-specific in the new
"Light Amber" Box and other categories of subsidies.
3. With regard to the Green Box, although paragraph 1.5 mentions that the criteria will be
subject to negotiation, we would have liked to see the word "ceiling" expressly included in the
text.  It is our understanding that the negotiating criteria must include a limit to suchpayments.
4. Paragraph 6 of your Draft suggests that the Peace Clause may be subject to negotiation.  It
must be clear that this issue is not subject to negotiation.
5. Paragraph 3.6 (end date for phasing out all forms of export subsidies) is essential to knowing
the level of ambition. The Ministers must settle the date on which export subsidies would be
eliminated in order to lend certainty and ambition to the process.
6. As for market access, the Swiss formula would be unacceptable were there to be no change in
the language the paper proposes for domestic support and in the lack of certainty about the
date for eliminating all forms of export subsidies.
In conclusion, the paper presented by 17 developing countries is closer to the Doha mandate
than what you have tabled.
Market access for non-agricultural products
We realize that you identified the sectoral  discussion as a controversial issue and accordingly
tried to draft a paragraph reflecting a consensus.  Finding a consensus is difficult, however, when the
great majority of Members are opposed to the idea you are attempting to reflect.  Although we aregrateful for your efforts, we still have difficulties with the recently proposed language.WT/GC/M/82
Page 127
We note that the annex on agriculture contains no figures at all and we therefore suggest
deleting the figure "5" in square brackets which appears twice in paragraph 7 of Annex B, so as not to
prejudge the level of ambition in this discussion as compared to other issues.
With regard to paragraph 9, which refers to newly acceded Members, we cannot prejudge the
outcome of the negotiation.  There is no agreement as to how the exceptions these countries have been
proposing are to be dealt with.  In our view, the current language does not reflect this fact.
Singapore issues
We note that your text is confined to giving the two extreme positions on these issues:  that of
the proponents and that of the opponents.
We heard the reasons for which you have decided not to consider an intermediate proposal.
In our view this is a risky strategy.  There is no certainty that the rest of the negotiating package is
sufficiently ambitious to allow us, even the fair ly flexible Members such as Mexico, to agree to
negotiations on the Singapore issues with the level of ambition that the proponents want.
Process
These are the major problems we have with your text.  As you see, they are serious and
substantive ones.  And let there be no doubt that these are the positions my delegation will defend atCancún.
At the same time, we recognize your right to send the Ministers a text under your own
responsibility.  Indeed at this stage, you have not only the right but the obligation to do so.
We Members have been unable to come to an agreement on modalities in agriculture and
non-agricultural market access, as we undertook to do at Doha.  We have thus failed to meet any of
the Ministerial Declaration's deadlines.
That being so, you alone are in a position to propose a text to serve as a basis for discussions
at Cancún.  And a text is an essential ingredient for a productive Ministerial Conference.
- Without a document, we would have nothing in Cancún but our original positions.  In
such circumstances a productive discussion among the Ministers would be very
difficult.
- Furthermore, the smaller or least-developed Members would run the greatest risk of
not having their interests included.
But it is essential, precisely for the sake of the discussion and in order to safeguard the
interests of all Members, that you point out to the Ministers the areas where the most important
differences lie.  It must be clear that the text is not an agreed document but an input to serve as astructure for the work at Cancún.
This week's discussions will help all of us to sort out where we agree and where we differ on
your text and thus to prepare ourselves for the discussions at Cancún.
This must be the objective:  to arrive at Cancún in a position to reach agreements and give
momentum to our process, with a view to meeting the most important deadline:  completion of the
negotiations by 1 January 2005.WT/GC/M/82
Page 128
2. Argentina
The delegation of Argentina would like to extend its sincere thanks to the Chairman, the
Director-General, and their team for all the effort that has gone into preparing this document for
distribution.  This afternoon, I would like to address some general points.  My approach will beAristotelian, in that I will start with general concerns before moving on to those which are more
specific, although this is not an attempt to match up to the Latin phrases used by our friend the EU;  I
have no desire to express my views in Greek, simply for time reasons.  I did not have time, on the
flight from Buenos Aires, to carry out the in -depth study that such a task would require.
The first thing that struck me when reading your paper was the presence of double standards.
I say double standards, as it is the developed countries' positions which are adopted on the key issuesin these negotiations, and where different positions exist, they appear in brackets.  The annexes also
reflect the positions of the developed countries.  This is clearly what has occurred in the paper on
agriculture, which is practically a reflection of the agreement between the EU and the United States,
and with the Singapore issues, where you put fo rward the possibility of negotiation or non-
negotiation, but then in the annexes focus on the positions of those who are the demandeurs in thismatter.  I would also like to point out that agriculture is not a "two-tier" system; in today's world a
two-tier system does exist, but it is one that separates agriculture from everything else. These
negotiations are surely all about levelling the playing field; that is why we are here.  If this is not
clear, then all our efforts will be in vain.  When we refer to the acronym DDA, it is clear that A does
not stand for agriculture, but we know that D stands for development, and as regards developmentissues, without wanting to focus on any one in particular,  it has been clearly established outside the
microenvironment of this meeting that agriculture is at the heart of these negotiations.  This is not an
assertion made only by people from developing countries; take a look at the press in the developed
countries over the last few weeks; take a look at the editorials in the Financial Times, the Economist
and the International Herald Tribune, which report the case of farmers in the Philippines and revealthe way in which their standard of living is being directly affected by the distortion in today's
agricultural trade.  If we view agriculture merely  from the perspective of the developed countries, it is
obvious that we are moving in the wrong direction.
Beyond implying that these double standards will make it very hard to achieve a successful
outcome in Cancún, I would like to make some more specific points about agriculture, industrial
goods, implementation and the Singapore issues.  However, before I begin, allow me to comment onsomething that you originally overlooked when re ferring to the inclusion of "non-trade concerns".
My delegation requests that "non-trade concerns" be included in Annex A; the modalities on
agriculture are referred to as they appear in paragraph 13 of the Doha Declaration, which states that
"non-trade concerns will be taken into account in the negotiations as provided for in the Agreement on
Agriculture".  The delegation of Argentina therefore requests that if "non-trade concerns" are to beincluded, then the entire phrase should appear, i.e. "as provided for in the Agreement on Agriculture".
This could otherwise lead to confusion or the addition of issues that do not feature in the mandate.
Turning to agriculture, as regards domestic support I feel that the paper focuses on making changes
that change nothing.  The way in which the "blue box" is being maintained and failure to establish a
cap for the green box, which will throw all the Members into a debate on "box shifting", is tantamountto making changes that change nothing.  Similarly, not listing specific commitments product by
product will mean one moving down so that another can move up, but will do nothing to change the
overall reality of the situation.  Furthermore, by  not phasing out domestic support for export products,
there is little chance of redressing the imbalances in today's agricultural trade.  I would also like to
add to the remarks made by my colleagues from the CAIRNS group and the developing countries, bypointing out that paragraph 6 is very confusing because of the diverse issues that are grouped under
the same standard – issues that are not in the ma ndate - and it is therefore my humble suggestion that
this paragraph be altered or eliminated.  In formal and informal meetings, I have always emphasized
the need for parallelism between our level of ambiti on in market access for agricultural goods and that
in market access for non-agricultural goods.WT/GC/M/82
Page 129
As regards NAMA, I would like to mention that both paragraph 3 and paragraph 6 go beyond
the fragile consensus that exists on modalities.  Paragraph 3 in particular, which no longer includes
the notion of average tariff, goes beyond the existing consensus and, furthermore, does not parallel the
progress, or indeed the setbacks, that we have experienced in the field of agriculture.  As regards the
references made to sectoral (i.e. zero-for-zero) agreements, also in paragraph 6, is evident that agreater consensus will be achieved if these agreements are voluntary rather than mandatory.  I would
particularly like to comment on the paragraph regarding implementation, which our delegation feels is
a major cause of concern due to the strange inclusion of geographical indications.  Paragraph 12
mixes implementation issues under paragraph 12(a) of the Doha Declaration with other outstanding
implementation issues falling within the scope of paragraph 12(b).  This renders the wording of the
paragraph unacceptable.  Doha established a distinction between these two concepts which is now
blurred.  The paragraph explicitly mentions the extension of geographical indications to productsother than wines and spirits.  This issue, which Argentina reaffirms is not an implementation issue, is
undoubtedly related to intellectual property and is a matter on which there is very little or no
probability of reaching a consensus.  Hence, there is no justification for explicitly mentioning this
issue or for treating it any differently from the others.  Our modest suggestion, like that of other
delegations, is therefore to keep to the original text in document Job(03)/150.  As regards theSingapore issues, our delegation has been very open in its approach to the four issues, subject to
progress being made; we have done our utmost and been as constructive as possible in order to
promote discussion on these issues.  However, I reiterate that there are double standards, and this is
obviously unacceptable.   I feel that Annexes D, E, F and G reflect only the views of those who have
proposed the modalities, and do not take into account  the positions of developing countries.  In our
opinion, they cannot adequately ensure that the general framework of future agreements will provide a
satisfactory response to the needs and concerns of the developing countries and, as a result, cannot
adequately guarantee the guidance and direction necessary for the negotiations.  This situation is
reflected, for example, in the area of investment, where the proposed outline of modalities assimilates
the concept of flexibility to that of special and differential treatment, which experience tells us isinadequate for implementing development policies in th is field.  Similarly, as regards the key issue of
transparency in government procurement, there is no clear definition of its scope, and consequently,
the rules of the game can be confused with market access.  I therefore believe it is important to review
this concept.
In conclusion, I would like to re-emphasize my concern over the fact that where no consensus
exists it is the position of the developed countries that takes centre stage, to the detriment of the
developing countries, and I have no doubt that this does nothing to quell the concerns that have arisen
outside this meeting room regarding the way this organization works.  We are capable of levelling the
playing field so that the benefits of globalization and interdependence are within everyone's reach, but
we cannot do this by making changes that change nothing.  My delegation retains its highly
constructive vision and is willing to continue working with you and the Director-General over theforthcoming days, but, if I may, I would urge you to  also continue your work.  Should the Ministers
receive the document in its present state, there will be a serious risk of failure in Cancún.
3. European Communities
We are approaching the end of preparations for Cancún.  Like others we want to thank you,
the Director-General and those who have been working hard together with you for the efforts that you
have made to square up a number of apparently unsquarable circles, conducting a transparent and
inclusive process.
What kind of text will help ensure a successful Fifth Ministerial?  Apart from the substance of
the text which of course is essential and I will be coming back to that later, the text needs to be a
practical basis for Ministerial discussion and negotiations and therefore we have a strong preference
from our side, in spite of the risks inherent in it, for a format with no square brackets other than square
brackets which would be useful for purely housekeeping purposes such as dates and all, or rather as isWT/GC/M/82
Page 130
the case for the Singapore issues in your text, where there is a basic political choice between
negotiations on the one hand and no negotiations on the other hand.  So we think that your format is
well chosen.  We agree with the notion of a text that would go to the Ministers established under your
responsibility, and the criticism that I will shortly be levelling at parts of your text will be constructive
criticism in an attempt to persuade you to establish a final text which would be more likely toconstitute a viable basis for discussion and decision at Cancún.
On substance we have several, even serious preoccupations.  Although I would not use
expressions as strong as those of my Brazilian friend and distinguished colleague Seixas Correa who
was speaking about a fundamentally flawed text.  If this text was fundamentally flawed, it would be a
text in which nobody would find his or her theses re produced and I think that that would not be a
correct description of the situation.  And a fundamen tally flawed text is also one of the type that we
saw appear at Seattle and which would not allow the Ministers to have a meaningful discussion.  This
text, in spite of its imperfection would indeed provoke such a discussion.
Our mains concern is not with the format but with the imbalance that we perceive in it.  It is a
text that puts all proposed efforts on agriculture and a small handful of countries, and without therebeing even any remotely comparable level of ambition, for example, on NAMA.  And before I
continue I should remind others, including our Brazilian colleagues that the "A" in DDA does not
stand for agriculture, it stands for agenda and it stands for a large, for a broad agenda.  It is not enough
simply to repeat that everything is about agriculture until one is blue in the face and the listeners are
blue in the face.  It is not all about agriculture.  There are other things that we are actually negotiatinghere.  Everything concerning geographical indications has been relegated in this text to the Greek
Islands.  Environmental concerns are given lip service and the outcome on the Singapore issues is
kept uncertain because of the effective rearguard action which has tried to unravel the DDA mandate,
which nevertheless is very clear on this.  So, to use this cliché, the question is not "where is the beef"
because it is very clear on whose plate the beef is, but "where is the balance" and how can youestablish a clearer and more convincing balance.  Let me be more specific.
Agriculture
On agriculture, we and the United States have in good faith, and to help move this process
forward, negotiated a draft framework, which if this were to be accepted at Cancún, would create
substantial problems for both of us.  We have never said that this framework text was not negotiable,but we cannot, and I am speaking at least for th e Community now, we cannot go along with proposals
that every time we make a move, including the potential additional movements that we indicated last
week, every time we make such moves that these positive movements are simply pocketed and that
new demands are then piled on.  This is not only unfair, and it would be unfair to ask for fairness in
such circumstances perhaps, but it simply will not help  the process advance.  It will lead to a return to
the effective blockage of the negotiations that we have known since September of last year.
More specifically, inside the agricultural chapter, there are a cluster of issues on which I
would like to focus briefly.  Firstly on domestic support.  Some new ideas that we see appear in your
Draft, especially on the Blue Box, constitute a striking example of the kind of overreach that we heard
from some participants last week, including in th e context of the presentation of the G-17, now the G-
19 paper.  The EU/US proposal on the Blue Box, and the 5 per cent in particular, constitute a major
movement on our respective behalves.  Need I remind you that only a few months ago, we from the
Community side were rejecting outright any form of reduction commitment for the Blue Box, and
here we are ready to put a very substantial reduct ion commitment squarely on the table.  Therefore, to
suggest that the residual that would be left after this major effort at reduction, would still be subject to
further reduction commitments over the years is so fa r over the top, frankly, that it would destabilize,
vis-à-vis  our domestic political constituents, the very principle of the 5 per cent commitment which is
in here.WT/GC/M/82
Page 131
On market access, still in the agriculture context, there is a problem created by what is now a
hybrid ultra-blended approach for developing countries, essentially for three reasons.  The first is that
it would make it very difficult, if not impossible to compare its effect, its impact with that of the
formula applied to developed countries.  Secondly, despite this difficulty of comparison, it still is very
clear that this level of ambition would be significantly below that which we have at least implicitlysuggested last week when we have expressed our wi llingness to go far with respect to S&D treatment
and with respect to special products.  And thirdly, in accordance with this formula, if we have
understood it correctly, all developing countries, irrespective of their level of development, would be
treated alike, allowing major, super competitive substantial net exporters to escape from any
significant market opening commitment, leaving them at the end of these negotiations with an average
level of tariff protection not three times higher, as it is today, but even several times higher than that.
You can imagine the kind of political recep tion that this would receive back home.
Still under the heading of agriculture, on export competition, here again the Community is
willing to go far, very far towards sectoral elim ination and further substantial reductions, but once
more, a willingness to do so, which we have clearly expressed in our joint approach, is now taken for
granted and the outcome of what we fully expect to be the attempt by some Ministers at Cancún, topush us towards complete elimination, is now anticipated in this text.  We cannot prevent, of course,
some Ministers from trying to do so at Cancún, but the DDA mandate does not authorize a reading
which would allow for the inclusion of elimination in this text we submit.
Still under export competition, the proposed discipline on state trading enterprises (STEs) has
now been weakened to the point of insignificance.  CAIRNS group countries, including, in particular,
those with huge state trading enterprise operations, are amongst the main demandeurs of these
negotiations on agriculture, and I must say that I find it astonishing that they should not be the first to
be asked to contribute to them as well.  It is as if they are focussing only on the second part of the
Marxist slogan, "to each according to his need" and forgetting about the first part, which is "from eachaccording to his ability".  We are also concerned with a weakening of export credit disciplines,
introduced through the reference to possible negative effects on developing countries of these new
disciplines.  Why treat export credits more leniently than export refunds?  They have the same effect
on the interests of the importing countries, and potentially the same distorting effects on others.
And finally, the reference to non-trade concerns, even if we are delighted to hear you say in
your introductory remarks that this was an involuntary omission from the Chapeau, in other respectsthis issue is simply shoved into oblivion.  This is not in conformity with the DDA.  It is against the
deeply held convictions of a large part of the membership and therefore an omission that should be
repaired.
NAMA
This text is a distinct improvement on its predecessors, but then of course everything is
relative, and it still lacks one vital ingredient, ambition.  We need a single, simple, non-linear formula
like the Swiss formula.   Before anybody starts acc using us of inconsistencies between sectorals, let
me draw your attention to the list in the draf t NAMA text, immediately following the weak formula,
the list of rebates, reductions, exemptions, special treatments, etc., for developing countries which
would sharply reduce the market opening potential of  this text.  Here we need a level of ambition
which at least starts to approach that of agriculture, but this one does not even reach its knees, let
alone its shoulders.
The sectoral element in the NAMA text leaves open the question of participation.  In our view
the requirement contained in the text should be the participation of a critical mass of the membership
along the lines foreseen in the ITA.  On newly acceded countries, whilst we certainly agree on the
need for flexibility, we think that  that flexibility should be extended in particular to the benefit ofWT/GC/M/82
Page 132
those who have really made major efforts in the context of their accession, and not to those who are
still keeping significant peak tariffs in operation.
And finally on NAMA, by way of transition to what I want to say on trade and the
environment, the Doha Declaration explicitly foresees the negotiation on market opening forenvironmental goods, and here in this text, as elsewhere, the "e" word seems to have been forgotten.
It would be a fundamental political mistake to send a text to Cancún which neglects trade and the
environment to the extent that this text does, not only in the NAMA context.  We should do here at
least what you proposed to do in the rules group, that is to say, to encourage the CTESS to accelerate
its work, and that is just about as minimalist as it could be, and as a further strict minimum, I cannot
imagine that the Ministers would not take the not-so-momentous decision to confirm that we will
continue to invite to the CTESS the secretariats of those environmental organisations which have beeninvited so far.  Failing that, any notion that this organization is taking trade and the environment
seriously would become even more doubtful than it already is, in the eyes of those outside the
organization.
Geographical Indications
This is an example of "special and differential treatment" of issues of importance to the
European Union but with a negative sign in front of it.  Just one example on the TRIPS register on
wines and spirits, and despite the confirmation in the DDA of the deadline of reaching agreement at
the Fifth Ministerial, successful foot dragging has led to minimal if any progress on this, with a resultthat the only alternative remaining is to agree on a new date, and that date should of course, at a
minimum, be the same as the date or dates on which we agree other important decisions to be taken
on other key issues, and I will come back to that in a moment.
Implementation
This part of the text does not create any real commitments and leaves a lot of ambiguity.  We
believe that negotiators require clear guidance.  We are prepared to go along with the proposal made
last week by the Like-Minded Group to set up a negotiating group under the TNC to address all
outstanding implementation issues and to put forwar d decisions for adoption early next year, at the
same time as we would adopt decisions on other issues.
Timelines
That is my last point.  The question of timel ines which has been raised by other colleagues
before me.  We realise that this text has been prepared under very heavy pressure and we are certainly
not complaining about the fact that there is no clear consistency between the timelines proposed, butwe do submit that it would be in the overall interest of the membership if we had the same timelines
for all key decisions and points of progress next year, and I would put this very succinctly, we should
conclude at the same time next year on the following issues:  on both agriculture and NAMA we
should conclude work on the modalities by the month of "X" and exchange schedules by the month of
"Y", and I am going to repeat the same "X" a nd "Y" as I go through the remaining issues, the
intention being of course that the "Xs" and "Ys" should be identical.
On GATS, improved offers by all participants by "X" and submission of definitive draft
schedules by "Y".
TRIPS – wine and spirits register – conclude the negotiations by "X".
Implementation – the same.  As I suggested a moment ago – action and/or agreement also by
the month of "X".WT/GC/M/82
Page 133
Finally on the Singapore issues – Circulation of  Draft Chairman's proposals also by the same
date of "X".
What I have just said, as far as the substance is concerned, is of course based on a first
preliminary analysis of this.  We thought that in view of the quite substantive remarks made by earlierspeakers that it would be useful to share at least our preliminary assessment with you.  Most important
is that you send off to Cancún under your own responsibility a text which does reflect the width and
breath of the preoccupations of the membership in such a manner as to make decisions by the
Ministers possible, and we certainly would like to  help you continue to work in that direction.
If I may, whilst you have been working away on Saturday and Sunday, I have been improving
my knowledge of Romansh, the language spoken in Graubünden, a Canton of Switzerland as you all
know of course, which I think could serve as a concluding matter to today's interventions, and which,
interpreted into English goes "he who will serve everyone is thanked by no one."
4. Malaysia
At the outset I must thank you and the DG for having put in so much effort in coming up with
this text.  Let me assure you that your efforts have not been in vain.  It seems to be that the text that
we have before us is a reasonably good text, but of course, as always, it is difficult to get a perfect
text, especially when we have different views and positions on these issues.  But I think, if we have a
text that will be able to provide us the necessary platform in Cancún to enable the negotiations toproceed or at least provide the momentum for the negotiations to proceed smoothly after Cancún with
concluding the negotiations by 1 January 2005, then we would have, of course, achieved the
objective.
I must say that in most parts I do not think we will have serious difficulties as it is presently
drafted.  But it is important to recognize that there are three areas, two negotiating areas and one
where we have been having discussions which, to my delegation, would be important in order for us
to have that common platform that I have been talking about.
First of all on agriculture.  Of course some delegations have said, and I think it was the
European Communities, that we should not be harping on agriculture but we cannot run away from
the reality that this is a sector which is important to a large number of delegations, and in the contextof the development round that we have been talking about, it is important that we establish the level of
ambition that is sufficient to enable all participants  to contribute constructively in other areas of the
negotiations.
It is not my intention to deal with the specific issues you pointed out in the area of agriculture,
but there is one particular point that I want to stress in terms of agriculture, and that relates to
paragraph 3.7 under the export competition heading.  It surprises me that as far as I know there are
only a couple of delegations, two I would say, which have been pressing for Article 12 of the
Agreement on strengthening of disciplines with regard to export restrictions and prohibitions.  I note
that this has been reflected, and this surprises me greatly because it does not really represent theconcerns of the majority of the Members, and I would like to appeal to you that we should not be
dealing with issues which are really not that important vis-à-vis others where our time is required.
In relation to the level of ambition on domestic support and also in market access, I think
other colleagues in the CAIRNS Group have highli ghted this, and I do not want to touch on that
except to agree with what they have said.
The other one which is very critical is NAMA, and here Chairman Girard, who happens to be
my elder brother, came to me and said that I should say that he is on target, but I cannot say that he is
on target, although he is almost close to target.  I would like to encourage him to do a little bit moreWT/GC/M/82
Page 134
work.  In NAMA I think many delegations have stressed the importance of the language that appears
in paragraph 6, which is the sectoral approach.  I must say that the language that has come out now is
certainly an improvement from what has been reflected in the earlier draft of Amb. Girard on this
particular subject.  But I still feel that we should attempt to make the language a bit clearer so that
there is no ambiguity in terms of participation.  I am sure this is an area that we can really work on,although I take note of the fact that there are some delegations asking for stronger language.  I think to
have stronger language will obviously create a lot of difficulties for many Members, including mine.
Another issue with regard to NAMA and Annex B which I must highlight is in relation to paragraph
4, the second part of tiret 2, which refers to the basis for commencing tariff negotiations for unbound
tariff lines.  I think we have talked about having the MFN applied rate multiplied two times and then
having the reductions taken from there.  I just want to point out there is the issue of inequity here.  In
a way this punishes those countries whose unbound tariffs are low, and this is certainly an issue ofconcern to us, and I think we need to address this.  This I wanted to put on record.
Finally, coming to the Singapore issues, which I do not consider is a negotiating issue.  I think
the kind of approach that you have taken is the right one.  I cannot think of any other approach that
could have been taken in regard to this.  You have clearly captured the sense of the discussions wehave had on Singapore issues and the two options, I entirely agree with you in terms of the approach
that you have taken.  But, the only point that I want to highlight here is that the part about the annexes
poses great difficulties for my delegation.  This has been pointed out by many other delegations
before me, and I think it would be procedurally not correct to have these annexes attached to an
official document that we have before us.  So I would like to strongly urge that the annexes in termsof modalities for these new issues should not be attached to the official document, because I don't
think it has the legal status or even the official status to be there.  So I hope that you will pay some
attention to the annexes in regard to the new issues.
5. Japan
I would like to join all the previous speakers in thanking you very much for the efforts you
have made to prepare this Draft, along with those who contributed, including Dr. Supachai, the
members of the Secretariat and Friends of the Chair.  I would very much like to be as brief as
possible, but unfortunately Tokyo is eight hours ahead in terms of time difference so when they
received the document at midnight they stayed work ing throughout the night and the day to come with
rather long instructions to me.  Of course, I will not carry out all of these instructions.  I will savesome for tomorrow, but if you will allow me, my intervention will be a little bit longer than usual.
Le me begin by stating the obvious.  In order for the Round to conclude as ,scheduled it is
imperative that we make progress at the Cancún Ministerial.  In this sense the Draft Ministerial Text
which you have submitted to us is indeed a document of critical importance.  We all must make ourutmost efforts to transmit to our Ministers a document that will serve as a sound basis for constructive
discussions among Ministers, so as to achieve tangible results.
We appreciate the tremendous efforts behind it, but in our view, the Chair's Draft contains
room for further improvement.  I will make general comments at the outset and then make specificcomments on some of the paragraphs.
First, we recognize the objective of this Round to be expansion of trade to develop the world
economy, especially that of developing economies.  From this point of view, we see certain problems
lying on the road for continuing our work toward s reaching an agreement after Cancún on modalities
that would achieve a high level of ambition in market access of developing countries, both in
agriculture and NAMA.  While appropriate S&D ar e of course necessary, excessive employment of
S&D treatment would not contribute, but rather would compromise, the long-term objective of
development, by having a negative effect on strengthening the competitiveness of developing MemberWT/GC/M/82
Page 135
economies and expansion of trade among developing countries, which would benefit developing
Members most.
On the other hand, we place much importance on the need to allow for S&D treatment in a
way that would assist developing Members to be further integrated into the multilateral tradingsystem.  From such perspective, we have been actively engaged in the work related to S&D treatment
to carry out the Doha mandate.  We welcome the fact that certain progress has been achieved in this
area, thanks to the tireless efforts of the General Council Chair as well as the CTD Chair.  In order to
make further progress in our process, we believe it is extremely important that at Cancún we reap the
fruit of the work undertaken so far.  In this context, we appreciate the Draft Ministerial Text submitted
by the Chair and as introduced by the Chair.  Japan has dropped its reservation on the item on page 5
of Annex C, in order to add to the momentum.
On Singapore Issues - Japan places much importance on these issues for maintaining the
relevance of the WTO vis-à-vis the new challenges posed by the world trade of today.  From this
perspective, Japan recognizes the Singapore Issues to be an important element of the overall package
of this Round, together with agriculture, NAMA and others.  While it is regrettable that consensus isyet to be achieved among the Members for launching negotiations in all four areas, Japan will
continue to make efforts towards forming a consensus through the discussions at the higher level of
Ministers.  Japan is fully aware of the concerns of developing Members, such as those related to
limited capacity of developing Members to respond to new issues or those that relate to the perceived
effect of new rules limiting the scope of their development policies.  Japan is willing to address theconcerns of developing Members and desires to launch the negotiations on rules in all four areas on a
basis acceptable to all.  Japan appreciates the current text as showing the alternatives to the Ministers
when the consensus is yet to be formed, and thus providing a basis for promoting the discussions at
Cancún.
In the areas of agriculture and NAMA, especially with regard to the framework contained in
the respective annexes, there are parts where Japan's comments, on which it has been insisting, are not
necessarily reflected. We thus intend to continue our engagement in the discussions.  We will
engage in discussions with a view to incorporating our views at the General Council meeting before
the document is sent to Ministers in preparation for Cancún.  In order to reach consensus at the
General Council to send the document to Ministers, we need to see our views reflected in the
document.
Let me now comment on the individual areas of great importance in a more concrete manner.On agriculture:  Paragraph 4 and Annex A - The objective should be to establish trade rules
on agriculture that enable the co-existence of various types of agriculture.  Accordingly, the structure
to be established should be well balanced to properly address the concerns of food importing
Members who have to share the main burden of reform.  It should make possible continuous reform
and provide enough flexibility to address non-trade concerns, and in this regard I appreciate the fact
that you mentioned the corrigendum.  We look forward to a substantive corrigendum in this area.  The
balance between the three pillars is also crucial.  Unfortunately, there is not the required balance in thethree pillars, and too heavy a burden is imposed on importing Members.  Any framework package
which includes such notions as tariff capping and TRQ expansion will not provide for a balanced
basis.  In this regard, it is regrettable that the views clearly presented in the three papers submitted
respectively by Japan, Switzerland joined by five countries, and Norway are not taken account of.
From this perspective, our basic view of the draft text on agriculture is that it has serious difficulties.Paragraph 4 of the Draft Text should seek modalities which are comprehensive, having all rules and
disciplines, in order to properly address the interests and concerns of all Members, including non-
trade concerns.  To reflect this, the latter part of paragraph 4 should be modified, removing the
reference to rules and disciplines to an earlier part  of this sentence.  On Annex A–  with regard to
domestic support, in order to facilitate reforms, the basic framework of disciplines should consist ofWT/GC/M/82
Page 136
Amber, Green and intermediate Boxes.  Therefore, the proposed text retaining this basic framework is
reasonable.  The Green Box measures should remain exempt from capping and reduction
commitments, in line with the Doha mandate which calls for substantial reductions in trade-distorting
domestic support.
On market access, substantial improvements in market access should be achieved through
tariff reduction with the formula whose outcome is equivalent to the Uruguay Round formula.  Japan,
like other countries, is providing sufficient market opportunity through TRQs.
The blended formula should be a pure hybrid of Uruguay Round and harmonizing formulas.
The notion of possible expansion of TRQs to the first category is excessive.
Accordingly, the sentence "for these import-sensitive tariff lines market access increase will
result from a combination of tariff cuts and TRQs" in paragraphs 2.1 (i) and 2.6 (i) should be deleted.
We reiterate that in the area of agriculture, there is no room for accepting the idea of tariff capping,
since it negates the basic concept of the tariffication package under the UR Agreement and disregards
the tremendous diversity in production conditions among Members.  Accordingly, paragraphs 2.2 and2.7 should also be deleted.
Special safeguards should remain in place both for developed and developing Members in
order to facilitate reform.
On export competition, while we welcome the reference made on the need to strengthen
disciplines on export prohibition and restrictions, reference should include disciplines on export taxes.
Para 3.7 should be amended to clearly address this issue.  This is of vital importance for the importing
Members from the viewpoint of ensuring food security and redressing the imbalance between
importing and exporting countries.
On S&D provisions - I have earlier expressed our general concern over the way S&D
considerations are reflected in the Market Access provisions of this text, not only in this Annex but
elsewhere as well.
While there is the need to address interests and concerns of developing Members through
appropriate provision of special and differential treatment, this should not be done in such a way as tocreate a two-tier system within this organization, which will be detrimental for the future of the
multilateral trading system.   I have listened to the distinguished Amb. of India who had commented
on this word, but I still believe that this is of systemic importance.  Both developing as well as
developed Members need to undertake reform.  As a matter of principle, the same reduction formula
should be the common basis for both developed and developing Members.
Before moving on to NAMA, I wish to reiterate our position that the whole negotiations
under the DDA should be conducted in a comprehensive and parallel manner.  Balance among all
areas of negotiations is extremely important.
On NAMA - Ministers in Cancún should give us clear guidance on the subsequent work in
order to arrive at the formula which will allow us to attain our ambitions for further market access as
agreed at Doha.
Discussions on the formula, as well as on sect oral tariff elimination and harmonization, two
core elements of NAMA, have revealed that there still exist severe diverging opinions among the
Members.  At Cancún, Ministers should iron out these differences and agree on a framework that
allows us to achieve the ambitious aim set out in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  All the formula
must be more ambitious than just non-linear and number of lines.  The sectoral approach should be
mandatory in its nature.  And we share the concerns expressed by the US delegation that the currentWT/GC/M/82
Page 137
Annex B is weak in these areas.  Further on Annex B, we firmly believe that a limited flexibility
through less than formula cut for all Members is a necessary tool to achieve maximum overall trade
liberalization.  In order to achieve a higher level of ambition, this is an effective tool.
This point was raised at the recent informal meeting held in Montreal at Ministerial level.  We
have carefully taken note of the intervention by a major participant at that meeting who stated  that "a
limited degree of flexibility should be available to all countries through less than formula on a limited
number of tariff lines/value of trade, which are balanced by greater than formula cuts of an equal
magnitude."  This remark was an important element for Japan to move to advocate a simple, single
ambitious formula.
We strongly hope that these elements will be reflected in the text, which Ministers will agree
upon at Cancún.
With regard to binding tariffs on an ad valorem  basis, we urge further careful deliberation
because there are a limited number of cases where it is more appropriate to apply non ad valorem
duties.  Concerning the newly acceded Members, the commitments they made to accede to the WTOwere carefully negotiated to be commensurate with the prevailing MFN tariff levels attained by other
Members through a series of rounds.  The consideration of the tariff reductions of these newly
acceded Members should be limited to factors such as longer implementation periods.
In the interest of brevity, I will stop here and reserve the right to refer to many other
paragraphs  and sections.  But at the end I would like to stress the fact that the comments I have made
so far were made in order to contribute to arriving at a result here in Geneva which will enable
Ministers in Cancún to more effectively deal with the enormous task before them.  This delegation is
prepared to work hard with you and the Director General and all the Members in the days and hours
ahead.
6. Australia
Australia appreciates the efforts of the Chair to present a paper for Ministers to consider at
Cancún.  This task has been made extremely difficult by the wide differences.  I would also like to
associate myself with the comments of Amb. Jara of Chile, in order to save me the time not to have to
pick up those particular points in response to the EU.  There seems to be a tendency in the last fewdays for the EU to focus on derision and mocking of  the alleged negotiating styles and approaches of
other Members which I do not think is very constructive.
I would like to concentrate comments on the agriculture text, as agriculture, despite what the
EU seems to think, remains the key to the success of Cancún and, ultimately, the Doha Round.
Unfortunately, despite your own efforts, and they have been very intensive efforts, we have
fundamental concerns with the agriculture text.  We are firmly of the view that the text falls
unacceptably short of the level of ambition required by the Doha mandate in all three pillars of
domestic support, market access and export subsidies.  I will not try to cover all the areas and issues
of concern but will highlight a number of the areas where we believe changes to the text is essentialfor further progress.  As is always the case in this sort of exercise we will not point out those areas of
the text where we believe you have done an excellent job in terms of capturing the right sort of
balance.
Firstly, the area of export subsidies, and at the outset, let me say that nowhere in the Doha
mandate does the words export competition appear.  If we are to proceed on the basis that it is export
competition, that raises a whole lot of competition policy issues which I am not sure that the
membership at this stage would wish to get into.  But paragraph 6 was a much longer list if we were
to go down that particular route of export competition.  The correct title of that area is export
subsidies.  From our viewpoint, to leave any ambiguity in the elimination of export subsidies as theWT/GC/M/82
Page 138
goal of the Doha mandate at this point in the negotiations is not acceptable  The elimination of all
export subsidies is an essential element of any agricultural framework, and I have to say I am not
aware of any single issue which commands a higher degree of consensus in this particular
organization than that one.  I hope that Chile's interpretation of the text on export subsidies is in fact
one which is agreed to by all, although that does not seem to be the case.
On market access, whilst we can accept the concept of a blended formula, we don't believe
that we have any basis, upon looking at the text, to be confident that the approach suggested will
deliver on the Doha mandate of substantial improvements in market access.  There are a number of
fairly fundamental weaknesses.  The use of a percentage figure, for example, for those tariff lines not
subject to a Swiss formula is likely to lead to the undermining of ambition on market access, and
similarly, the lack of clarity on the commitment to expand export tariff quotas heightens our concernin this particular area.
On domestic support we are also faced with a similar lack of ambition.  We believe that while
moving out of the Amber Box and Blue Box into the Green Box is undoubtedly a positive policy step,
but if enough money is thrown at farmers under the Green Box this will have inevitably a tradedistorting effect.  It is for that reason which we suggested to have a cap on the Green Box and also to
have specific commitments to tighten Green Box language.  Neither of those requirements are in fact
in the draft text.
The possibility that some Members may be able to increase Blue Box spending is obviously
also of concern, although we do acknowledge your own efforts as Chair to reduce the negative impact
of that proposal through a reduction process.
Finally like many others, including Brazil, Chile and South Africa, we have major problems
with paragraph 6 which includes on the same basis, issues which are critical to achieving asatisfactory outcome on agriculture, by which we mean one that meets the Doha mandate and includes
terms in that category such as expansion, opening of TRQs and product-specific commitments in
domestic support.  These issues are included along with issues which are not part of the Doha
mandate, such as GIs or the peace clause.  I won't repeat what others have said, but the peace clause
has already been negotiated.  It was negotiated some time ago and it has a termination date which is
being written into the Agriculture Agreement.  There are a number of other issues on agriculture but I
won't go into those at this point in time.  Maybe we will come back to them.
On NAMA, Australia has been one of those countries which has sought a high level of
ambition across all sectors on market access and in that particular area we believe that the text which
has been delivered, again through some very solid work from the Chair of that particular area, is a
bare minimum.  We are looking for strong ambition in agriculture, NAMA and also in services.
On GI's as again a number of others have mentioned, we too are frankly surprised at the way
you have redrafted the paragraph on implementation and the way you have singled out the one subject
which has infected the discussion on implementation.  Clearly there is not consensus within the
membership on the interpretation of paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Declaration or on the appropriateaction that should be taken on the GI extension tiret.
In view of the overloaded agenda with which we currently face, the divergent views on the
subject and the confusion caused by some Members raising the GI issue under three different fora, we
urge you to go back on this one to your original draft.
On the Singapore issues Australia has made it clear that we are not demandeurs on these
issues, we do not see them as high priority.  We could accept all four issues for negotiation but that is,
as we have always said, dependent upon the fact that we have a set of sufficiently ambitious outcomesWT/GC/M/82
Page 139
on market access issues, particularly on agricultural market access.  At this stage, in our view we have
not reached that level of ambition.
7. Kenya
We wish to thank you and the Director-General including the Secretariat for working very
hard to ensure that we have a text before us.  We are also appreciative of your opening statements.
Indeed when you said that the text is in brackets, y ou made life a little bit easier for us because going
by the comments that have been made this afternoon, we may probably consider removing the
annexes and improving on the general declaration from paragraphs 1-28 and that may probably give
our Ministers sufficient information to make decisions on some of these issues.
We are also grateful that you said that this is an operational text to assist Ministers making
decisions at Cancún and as such it is not a compilation of views expressed so far.  We agree with this
but we think Ministers can only make decisions based on facts placed before them, so this should not
escape us.  We also agree with the Director-General's comment that we need to strengthen the
multilateral trading system, but here again, we think it should not be to the detriment of the weak andthe poor developing countries.
Now, turning to the text and more so to agriculture, like many others we think it falls short of
our expectations, particularly on special and differential treatment provisions that are expected to
address all development concerns and many other developmental issues.  We hope that the text, by theGroup of 19, which I presume now has grown to more than that, supplemented by the paper submitted
by Kenya, specifically on S&D, will be used as a basis for improving the text on agriculture.  Of
particular importance is that the IDA-only list of countries be exempted from the reduction
commitment, given their heavy dependence on revenue for their government expenditure, and I think
this issue was eloquently presented by the Ambassador of Honduras and I don't need to repeat what hesaid.  We support his sentiments.
While preferences are cross-cutting -- they touch on agriculture and NAMA -- I wish to
mention, since a mention has been made on a different paragraph and that is on coherence,
paragraph 27, I wish to bring it in the context of agriculture because we believe the erosion of
preferences and the loss of revenue are really trade issues that should be dealt with in the WTO and
not under the Bretton Woods Institutions.  We think coherence should be limited to economic policymaking and the delivery of technical assistance.  Our experience with the Bretton Woods Institutions
does not leave us with very happy memories, and I believe quite a number of other delegations have
similar memories.
Turning to NAMA, you indicated that paragraphs 3 and 6 have problems and we would
actually want to understand what you meant with the last sentence of your statement when you said,
and I quote "I understand however that there may still remain some significant concerns and
divergences that will have to be tackled by Ministers in Cancún".  We want to know whether this text
is open for amendment or if you intend to take it as it is, given the sentence that I have just read.  But
for Kenya it is not just paragraphs 3 and 6 that are a problem on NAMA.  We have a problem on
paragraph 5 and we have stated this in the consultations.  It was our wish to have the last three wordsof the first sentence on that paragraph deleted and the reformulation and clarification of the second
sentence to ensure that this Group of countries is given adequate flexibility to address its development
concerns, and we hope your last sentence, notwithstanding this, can be done before we go to Cancún.
Regarding the sectoral approach, here again we do not have well developed sectors that could
withstand global competition.  We are therefore faced with a potential problem of loss of market share
arising from, again the erosion of preferences wh ich will place tremendous pressure on our weak,
vulnerable and limited industrial base.  This we think should be taken into account while improving
the text.WT/GC/M/82
Page 140
On services, we want to make a brief comment that it was our wish to see in the text the
reference to GATS Articles IV and XIX.2 as a starting point, because we believe our Ministers should
have this in mind when they are making decisions in  this respect.  We also feel that it appears that
paragraph 6 does not take into consideration the special difficulties faced by developing countries in
preparing the initial requests and offers as well as making evaluation of the requests made to them andwe think it is a point that should be captured in the declaration.  We also think that the sentence that
reads "we note the interest of developing countries as well as other Members in Mode 4" is not adding
value to that particular paragraph and the deletion of that may improve clarity, but maybe towards the
end of the previous sentence we could add "and in particular, Mode 4" to add more clarity to this
particular paragraph.
Turning to Special and Differential treatment, we believe the best approach would be to go by
the proposal that has already been submitted to you jointly by the African Group and a number of
developing countries.  As in paragraph 12 we can take note of the progress made so far and request
the Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session to intensify work on the Agreement-
Specific proposals and complete it by a certain set deadline.  We need to remind ourselves that the
work on Agreement-Specific proposals was expected to be completed by July 2002 and as such theCTD in Special Session should as a matter of priority complete the work without any further delay.
On Singapore issues, as we have always stated, Kenya would prefer Option 2 on the
Singapore Issues which calls for further clarification to be undertaken, taking into account the work
done so far.  Because of the divergent views existing among Members, as highlighted in the reports ofthe Working Groups, Ministers will need to be informed  of the existing situation.  In this respect, it is
important that we have annexes on all the elements that require further clarification to avoid problems
of interpretation in the future.
We should also like to make it clear under commodities issue that the discussion on this issue
should not be confined to the Committee on Trade and Development, but also taken up in other bodies
that may have a role to address the matter, for instance, working groups on trade, debt and finance and
trade and transfer of technology, besides the existing negotiating bodies.  We should also have a
specific timeframe to accomplish this task and come up with the recommendations for a decision by
the General-Council before the Sixth Ministerial.
These comments are preliminary and we will probably be coming up with more detailed
comments maybe by tomorrow.
8. United States
First of all I would like to express our thanks to you, to the Director-General and your team
for your efforts in producing this text for us.  The other day you had commented you were very
popular before the text came out but that you thought your role would be a lot lonelier after the text
was released expecting you would make all of us unhappy in your drafting.  I guess that we can
conclude that you have met those expectations.
There clearly are some troublesome elements in the current Draft but let me also say that
we will continue to follow your lead in these final days before Cancún and offer constructive
comments on this Draft.
Before focusing on individual paragraphs, I think one general point needs to be made.  If
one steps back and looks at what we have overall at this stage, the cumulative effect is that we do
not yet meet the commitment by our Ministers at Doha to a substantially high level of ambition for
trade liberalization as an engine for economic development and growth.  A strong commitment to
significant trade liberalization needs to be emphasized in any result that is sent to the Ministers for
consideration at Cancún.WT/GC/M/82
Page 141
Agriculture
We recognize the difficult task given to the Chair in agriculture, and we appreciate your
efforts given the central and controversial role that this area holds for the negotiations.  However, it
is important to point out the serious questions that have been introduced by the annex on agricultureregarding balance in the level of ambition.
The text contains a number of elements not addressed by our earlier contribution, including
some specific special and differential treatment provisions and discussion of Green Box criteria. We
are willing to work with these ideas, but our concerns would have to be addressed in the course of
that work.
In particular, we are very concerned that Annex A proposes a different approach to tariff
reductions between developed and developing countries.  The fact that different methodologies and
formulas would be used by developing countries sends the wrong message about how to achieve
substantial improvements in market access. It also sends the wrong message that we are
constructing a two-tiered trading system, as opposed to a single unified system.
The first option on market access regarding developing countries is unacceptable because it
provides no ambition. Moreover, this idea was never even proposed by anyone or brought to the
process here in Geneva, certainly not as we read it.  There is no indication of higher tariffs being
reduced more that lower tariffs.  This option does not even provide what Chairman Harbinsonprovided in terms of ambition. It is effectively a repackaging of the Uruguay Round formula, or
worse.
The second option is a better approach but still implies less ambition by leaving out the zero
tariff element and adding Special Products (SP) without the provision of TRQs.  In addition, there isno clear provision for a ceiling on tariffs.  The use of a sensitive products category with flexibility,
in addition to the special safeguard mechanism (SSM) and general S&D treatment, should more
than cover what concerns developing countries have regarding import sensitive products.  We are
prepared to work with you on that basis.
Similarly, the suggestion on domestic support that the revised Article 6.5 should be subject
to further reductions after the implementation period, when no other measures are subject to furtherreductions in any other pillar, is inequitable and unbalanced and should not be in the text.
On the key issue in the third pillar of phasing out export subsidies, let me repeat again that
US objectives have not changed in this area. However, our work over the past several weeks leaves
us convinced that this is not an area where additional progress can be made before Cancún.
There are a number of other areas where this paper should have taken a more reform-
oriented approach, for example the treatment of state-trading enterprises, but I will not detail those
now.
From our perspective, the core issue is to ensure these negotiations maintain a high level of
ambition for agricultural reform, and that ambition is manifest in all three pillars for all countries.
This Draft Text appears to be a basis for a successfully resolving agriculture issues at the Cancún
Ministerial, but does not yet meet the all the commitments we made at Doha.
NAMA
We recognize and appreciate the hard work that has gone into efforts to develop a text on
modalities and the difficult challenges that remain ahead to resolve our differences in modalities for
NAMA.WT/GC/M/82
Page 142
The language on the formula, the sectoral component and the supplementary measures in
this text are very vague. We need to strengthen the focus on achieving substantial improvements in
market access for all, and by all participants.
In particular, we feel strongly that paragraph 6 on sectors is a significant step backwards in
ensuring that an effective sectoral component is an integral part of these negotiations.  And we
believe that this is a part that is necessary to achieve real market access.
We also believe that there should be stronger language on the formula to indicate that it
should be ambitious and harmonizing, in addition to simply being non-linear.
In contrast to these paragraphs, the paragraphs related to special and differential treatment,
less than full reciprocity and special treatment for developing countries and LDCs are elaborated in
a fair degree of detail.  We support flexibility for developing countries, but that flexibility should be
a function of the level of ambition, not the other way around. We appear to be defining the
exceptions before we've agreed on the objective.
We have repeatedly indicated our willingness to define at a later stage the sectors, product
coverage and participation in the sectoral initiatives.  In addition, we are willing to consider
harmonization, as well as elimination, and to demonstrate flexibility, in particular with regard to
participation by those Members who are not global traders in the selected sectors. However, the
language you suggest is too weak at this stage to ensure broad participation in this context. Westrongly urge you to strengthen the language in this paragraph.
We recognize that we have intensive work ahead at and after Cancún and are prepared to
work to strengthen this text. We certainly would not want to see this text diminished.
Services
We appreciate that the new text reflects areas of convergence.  Operationally, we would
want to ensure that the guidance on services in terms of the submission of revised offers and
conclusion of the negotiations is similar to the parameters set out in Agriculture and NAMA.
Furthermore, as we have discussed in consultations, the bracketed language concerning
Mode 4 in paragraph 24 should track the language in paragraph 6 on services.
S&D and Related Issues
Before turning to the specifics of paragraph 11, it is important to recall that the issue of
special and differential treatment is addressed throughout the text. The measure of whether DDA
adequately addresses development will not be judged by the results in this single paragraph.
As to the paragraph on S&D as drafted, we believe that it is a fair accounting of the
situation and reflects the desires of the overwhelming number of Ministers to have a package atCancún. We all recognize that this work must continue after Cancún, as the Chairman has already
indicated.
With respect to Annex C, we support the ad referendum agreement reached on Saturday,
which would allow the Chairman to drop the language in the brackets from the final item onAnnex C.
In paragraph 24 on least-developed countries, as one of the delegations that worked with the
LDCs to formulate this paragraph, we believe that the Chair's text faithfully reflects that work.WT/GC/M/82
Page 143
We note that the bracketed language on services was included in paragraph 24 as a
placeholder, since participants in the Chair's consultations wanted to see the outcome of work on
the services first. We believe that the bracketed text in paragraph 24 should be replaced with the
language that was agreed in Services.
Implementation
We believe that given the differing points of departure of Members on this issue, it would
difficult to find a formulation that each of us would see as best reflecting our point of view.
The facts are that we have worked carefully on all implementation issues outlined by
Ministers consistent with the mandates given at Doha.  We need to be careful about raisingexpectations that a number of issues, for example in rules, would be completed in advance of
negotiations, or to suggest that we are reopening mandates that have been completed.
With these caveats what we would have written this paragraph differently, we believe that the
Chair is well underway to a formulation that preser ve what was agreed in Doha without prejudicing
positions.
Rules
We are prepared to live with the text as has been suggested but as all of you know this is an
area that has been very difficult for the United States, and yet we have worked in good faith with
others to move the negotiations forward.  Ironically, some might say that relative to other areas of
the negotiations, this work is too advanced.  I am not suggesting any changes here, but it does give
one pause as compared to the other areas.
Singapore Issues
Your text appropriately leaves to ministers the decisions on the modalities for negotiations
in each area.  We are ready to launch negotiations in all four areas, provided the appropriate
modalities are secured.
For trade facilitation and transparency in government procurement , the text offer a good
possibility for a consensus to be achieved on modalities. I don’t think it would be fair to
characterize the modalities in these two areas as "the extremes." These modalities actually have
1incorporated numerous comments by countries that had particular concerns about moving to a
negotiating stage.  We hope that these modalities will gain support of such countries.
On government procurement, your language suggests that there should be flexibility
regarding the "extent of commitments", a phrase taken from a submission from Japan.
We understand this language to deal with concerns raised by developing countries regarding
thresholds - that is, the agreement would apply only to procurements above specified thresholds
determined through negotiations. The United States is ready to support higher thresholds fordeveloping countries.
With respect to investment, we will not repeat the concerns that we have raised in the
consultations, but suffice it to say that we expect any modalities for an agreement on investment
would provide a solid foundation on which we can build disciplines over time, and which helppromote economic growth through investment flows.
We need to find an appropriate basis on which we can build a consensus to launch investment
negotiations to achieve these goals.WT/GC/M/82
Page 144
On competition, we note with some concern that  the middle option that had been in Chairman
Jenny's text has been deleted.  We consider this unfortunate, because we continue to believe that a
modest start of negotiating the parameters of a peer review process would help develop a culture of
competition within the WTO and be the most appropriate way to begin work on this topic in the
WTO, and we continue to believe that it could be an attractive middle ground position.
In conclusion, I have indicated where we see the major points of contention in the text.  We
trust that you will take into account our views and those of others in leading us forward to Cancún.
This may be a lonely job, but it is incredibly important if we are to ensure that the DDA delivers
major trade liberalization to foster economic growth and development.  You and the Director-General
mentioned the need for all of us to focus on our collective responsibility to advance the work
sufficiently for our Ministers to succeed in Cancún.  We see that our collective responsibility is towork with you and all of our colleagues in this Organization, using this text as a vehicle to find
solution that work for all Members and that would propel this Organization forward to the substantial
liberalization that is essential for the growth of the world economy, for the development of our
individual economies and for the fulfillment of the Doha Development Agenda.
9. Uruguay
We would like to thank you for the draft revised Ministerial text which you have just
submitted to us yesterday.  While the text is still being analyzed in capital at this time we would like
to make some preliminary comments on the part relating to agriculture.
Uruguay maintains its firm position and its expectation that a high level of ambition should be
achieved in these negotiations on agriculture.  This is undoubtedly the most important area for
developing countries and it is the key to the success of the Doha Development Agenda.  In
April 1986, Uruguay took the initiative of inviting to  a meeting in Montevideo the main temperate
zone southern hemisphere exporting countries in order to identify shared problems and draw up the
basis for the strategy that these countries could carry forward in the Uruguay Round.  A few months
following that meeting that initiative gave rise to  the creation of the CAIRNS Group.  We have gone a
long way since then and this Group of efficient agricultural product producing countries has grown in
membership but it has maintained intact its objective, which is to achieve liberalization of world trade
in agriculture and eliminate restrictions and distortions to international trade in agricultural goods as
well as to fully incorporate the agricultural sector under the disciplines of the multilateral tradingsystem.
The Revised Draft Text which you have submitted to us we are analyzing in the framework of
the situation that we were facing just two weeks ago.  Two weeks ago there were virtually no
negotiations between Members.  These simply transmitted to the Chairman of the Special Session ofthe Committee on Agriculture their respective positions.  All of this changed with the presentation of
the "framework document" submitted by the United States and the European Communities.  This
contains positive elements and we think this has been recognized by other delegations.  Just as other
delegations have pointed out, this was a necessary document but this document clearly is not
sufficient and this was also expressed on various opportunities.  In this respect the contribution on the"framework document" which was made by 19 co-sponsors also constitutes a useful and valuable
input to the discussions.
The Revised Draft Text you have submitted to us as a framework document for Cancún, we
understand it to be placed in the framework of the above-mentioned situation with the objective oftaking a step forward in the negotiations on agriculture and in order to facilitate the continuation of
these negotiations following Cancún.
Regarding the text per se  we would like to make the following preliminary comments:WT/GC/M/82
Page 145
On export subsidies, we understand that paragraph 3.6 establishes that in this Round we shall
be definitely eliminating all forms of export subsidies and that what we need to define then is a date in
order to complete the phasing out of the subsidies.  That is we need to define the date for their
definitive elimination.
On domestic support, we believe that the paper falls short and we shall be seeking a higher
level of ambition in line with the Doha mandate for substantial reductions of trade distorting domestic
support.
On market access, we believe that this document brings us a possible solution and it leaves a
number of options open.  We would like to reiterate in this area, we also have a high level of ambition
which is in line with the Doha mandate which talks about substantial improvements in market access.
To conclude we would like to stress that the text that you are submitting to us does
incorporate concrete elements in special and differen tial treatment under the three pillars.  In view of
the foregoing, we think it is important now to main tain this process in agricultural negotiations and
that the "framework document" as it is known should not be seen as the end of the negotiations butrather simply as one step forward so as we can continue moving forward in these negotiations on
agriculture and comply with the Doha mandate as agreed.  At the same time we think it is important
that we facilitate work of our Ministers in Cancún and this is why we think it appropriate that a draft
text be sent to Cancún, the text on which our Ministers can work and not a multiple text the effect of
which would be to multiply the difficulties of our Ministers.  This Draft we consider to be a basis, atool, a tool with which Ministers will be able to work in Cancún and all of this in the framework of
the general context of the various areas of negotiations.
10. Brazil
The basic parameter for judging the document you now circulated to us is whether it would
lead us or not to the fulfilment of the objectives  laid down in the Doha declaration.  The assessment
may vary with regard to each area.  Some areas of the negotiations, however, carry a disproportionate
weight.  If the document falters on the key issues, the overall assessment must necessarily be negative.
The Doha Round is about agriculture. The Doha Round is about development.  If we don't get
enough movement in the right direction in Cancún, we put the Doha Round at risk.  If we move in thewrong direction, the Doha Round will fail.  From this perspective, the Revised Draft Ministerial Text,
despite all your best intentions, is, I am sorry to say, fundamentally flawed.  Let me explain this by
reference to three key issues:  agriculture, NAMA and implementation.
On agriculture, the Revised Draft Ministerial Text falls short on all three pillars.  It relies
heavily on the joint US-EU proposal, which, in turn, reflected the line of least resistance of the two
largest subsidizers.  The Draft Text leaves open the amount of reduction in trade-distorting domestic
support, but provides an early harvest for subsidizers, who would be able to count upon a virtually
new box for distorting subsidies.  The apparent result would be to provide further leeway for
subsidizers.  Let us not forget that the current Blue Box is predicated on supply control.  On exportsubsidies, the Draft is remarkably vague on the extent of, as well as on the schedule for, reductions in
export subsidies and related forms of support.
On market access, the blended formula approach might lead to minimal, rather than the
substantial improvements called for in the Doha declaration.  In addition to its shortcomings on thethree pillars, the Revised Draft Ministerial Text has other problems, such as that of, unaccountably,
listing as a subject for negotiation the temporary peace clause contained in the Agreement on
Agriculture.  The peace clause is listed in paragraph 6 of the negotiations on which there is no
agreement.  This is wrong on two counts: first, it is not part of the negotiations; and second, it is
agreed: the peace clause expires on 31 December 2003.WT/GC/M/82
Page 146
The bias in favour of developed countries is reflected even in details, such as the
characterization of de minimis  in developing countries as trade-distorting, in paragraph 1.7 of Annex
A, whilst de minimis  in developed countries does not get a similar qualification.  The Revised Draft
Ministerial Text, therefore, fails the test of compatibility with the Doha mandate on agriculture, and it
does so by not requesting enough from the developed countries which are the largest sources ofdistortions in world agricultural trade.
The Revised Draft Ministerial Text also falls short of the Doha mandate on NAMA.  For a
change, it does so by asking too much from developing countries.  The Doha mandate is as explicit as
can be on less than full reciprocity in the negotiations on market access for non-agricultural products.
There is no mandate for harmonization of tariffs.  On the contrary, the Doha mandate is at its more
specific in calling for less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments in NAMA. Yet the proposed
framework for NAMA modalities retains elements, such as the participation by all countries in
sectoral initiatives, which can hardly be reconciled with the Doha Declaration and are unacceptable to
Brazil.
On implementation, I can be brief. There is no justification for singling out the extension of
the protection of GIs among the list of implementation issues and concerns. GIs do not have
precedence over other issues.
Our overall initial assessment, therefore, is that the G-17 - now G-19 proposal, thanks to the
addition of Cuba and Pakistan - stands out as an appropriate compromise.  Brazil requests thereforethat it be kept on the table.  We abide by it, and I do believe that among all the proposals under
consideration, it is the closest to the level of ambition of the Doha mandate.  It is not a national
proposal, and it is not a one-sided proposal.  It is a compromise that comes from countries that
account for 63.3 per cent of the world agricultural population.
The Revised Draft Ministerial Text, as it stands, does not provide a balanced approach.  It
falls short of the Doha mandate in the key area of agri culture.  Oddly, given that this is meant to be a
"development round", it gives precedence to the views of some developed countries, particularly the
largest ones.  It has to be fundamentally changed.  Otherwise, it will fail and we will all fail.  There is
still time to get things on track for Cancún.  The key word is inclusiveness.  The yardstick is
compatibility with the level of ambition of Doha.  Let us put those two things together.  We thank you
very much for your efforts Mr. Chairman and Mr. Director-General.  Brazil is prepared to continueworking with you so that our common stone reaches in due course the top of the Sisyphean mountain
as Dr. Supachai reminded us.  I thus join the re quest made by the African group that you continue
consultations with Members."
11. Canada
I would like to join other delegations in than king the Chair of General Council, the Director-
General, the Deputy Director-Generals, and the Secretariat for hard work over past two weeks, and for
their efforts over the weekend to get the revised Cancún Text to delegations
Canada recognizes the work of all Members, and the long hours, evenings, and even weekends
that have gone into bringing us to this point.
Canada has several concerns about both the overall level of ambition in the text you have
circulated, and several specific concerns in the core negotiating areas, especially areas where squarebrackets remain.
I will concentrate my specific comments only on agriculture and non-agricultural market access
areasWT/GC/M/82
Page 147
Agriculture
On the crucial question of substantial reform in agriculture, we find the proposed text is a
courageous attempt to bridge some very significant differences among Members.
We have a number of specific concerns, but let me just underline three major points:
First, we find the draft framework is not ambitious enough with respect to trade-distorting
domestic support.  It appears to offer the possibility that entitlements to provide such support could
increase in the short term, until a date to be negotiated.  After that date they would be subject to
reductions.  The Doha mandate does not envisage increased room to provide trade-distorting domestic
support, and the framework should follow this mandate.
Second, the draft framework suggests that the "que stion" of the end date for the phasing out of
all forms of export subsidies remains under negotiation.  In fact, there is no question that we are
working towards the complete phase-out of these measures.  The text should simply state that the
date, for completing the phase-out is under negotiation.
Third, paragraph 6 of Annex A contains a highly selective list of issues that have been raised by
some delegations, but on which there is no agreement.  Some of these issues are legitimate tools to
address the objectives Ministers agreed at Doha.  Others are outside the mandate of these negotiations.
There are also a number of issues raised by delegations that do not appear in the list in paragraph 6.
We cannot accept a Ministerial declaration that tells us to work on modalities for issues that are
outside of the Doha mandate, and we do not want to see a list that excludes issues important to
Canada.
We believe the best solution would be simply to note that many issues have been raised, and
instruct negotiators to work on them in a manner consistent with the mandate of Doha.  We should
avoid attempting to negotiate a list in this paragraph.
Non-Agricultural Market Access
It will not be a surprise for Members that Canada would prefer a text which would be much
more specific with respect to the high level of ambition we must aim for if we are to deliver on themandate set out in paragraph 16 of the DDA.
More specifically, we feel that the language in paragraphs 3 and 6 of the Draft Cancún Text
on the formula and on sectoral initiatives - the two key engines to deliver on the Doha mandate -
provides barely adequate guidance on the level of ambition.
In addition, we feel that there is somewhat of an imbalance between, on one hand, the lack of
specificity on ambition and, on the other hand, the level of specificity provided in the text on
flexibility for developing countries, especially in paragraph 7.  The level of flexibility Canada is ready
to accept is a function of the ambition we set for ourselves in these negotiations.
Broad Comments and Conclusion
So, in conclusion where does this leave Canada in our view of the way forward?
We have always been seeking a high level of ambition for this round and we believe that
Doha laid out the parameters for that.WT/GC/M/82
Page 148
In order to assess and lock in the level of ambition for the Doha Development Agenda,
Ministers tasked us at Doha to reach agreement on modalities before Cancún on the core negotiating
issues.
Canada's goals for Cancún were to make real progress in advancing a high level of ambition
for the DDA, and a timeline that allows us to achieve a high level of ambition across the negotiations
by our deadline of  1 January2005.
Let us be clear: this text does not provide for modalities in agriculture nor NAMA, and
contains two opposing views on an agreement to la unch negotiations in the four Singapore Issues.
The text as it stands falls well short of a mid-term review, and does not take us close to a mid-
point in the negotiations as was expected by Ministers in Doha.
Indeed, the level of ambition to be found in the text is a bare minimum.  Any less in this text
would amount to no progress at all in these negotiations.
This is a hard judgment, yet if the text falls well short of the goal we set ourselves in Doha, it
does provide a realistic assessment of how far the process has taken us in Geneva to date.
This text does provide the best means for keeping the process of negotiations going.  It clearly
outlines that much work remains to be done and it leaves clear markers of where the tough issuesremain to be resolved.  It does not rule out building in new ambition in Cancún.
We understand how difficult it is to strike a balance on any given issue.  Hence, with a view
to help you help us, Canada would agree at this stage to-your referring this text to Ministers in Cancún
for their consideration, at the express condition th at it is not watered down any further, for example in
Annex B non-agricultural market access.
In agriculture, we think the proposed text does leave open the possibility to negotiate
substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support, the phase-out of export subsidies and
substantial improvements in market access.
Canada sees Cancún as an opportunity for Ministers to provide further political momentum
and direction, reaffirm ambition, while earmarking the areas for hard negotiations after Cancún.
For us, the true balance is to be found in a conclusion to this round that better integrates
developing countries, and allows each of us to take away gains from our participation in the
multilateral trading system.
We trust that the door is still open to this conclusion, and that this text, for all its many
imperfections, provides the best pathway to engaging Ministers in Cancún.
12. Jamaica (on behalf of the CARICOM Members)
Jamaica thanks the Chairman, and also the Director General for providing us with this revised
text and for your opening remarks.  The comments I will make are shared by the CARICOM
delegations present—Barbados, Belize, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Jamaica.
On agriculture
We will comment on market access pillar.  We are unable to accept the Swiss formula as an
option under S&D.WT/GC/M/82
Page 149
We cannot accept the linking of Special Products to import sensitive tariff lines.  This is
unacceptably restrictive.
We do not believe that the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) to be developed should
apply only to particular products.  We believe an SSM should be applicable to any product that meets
agreed criteria and conditions.
Paragraph 2.10 on Preferences needs to be strengthened.  We believe that this paragraph
should address the question of long standing pref erences, along the lines of paragraph 16 of the
Harbinson text which should be built on in this area.
In the section entitled “other” we would wish to see a paragraph on NFIDCs.  We are aware
that paragraph 3.10 speaks to this issue, but it addresses only the matter of “export credits” in the
context of the interests of NFIDCs.
On Non-Agricultural Market Access
We have two comments on non-Agricultural Market Access.We note that paragraph 6 still proposes a sectoral component involving the participation of all
Members.  We believe that the Ministerial text should be unambiguous on the question of
participation being voluntary and not mandatory.
Square brackets have been removed from paragraph 13  and we appreciate this.  But if non-
reciprocal preference erosion and high tariff revenue dependency are important issues - and the Draft
says they are - then we should insert stronger langua ge than is in the Draft.  The Draft calls for these
issues to be “further considered”.  In our view these issues should not merely be considered, theyshould be fully addressed.
On Singapore issues
We take note that the Draft poses two options.  We think that the second of those options has
the support of the overwhelming majority of the membership. Thus our view is that the inclusion of
four pages of annexes containing draft modalities which were not extensively nor sufficientlydiscussed, is an unsatisfactory approach.  We think there is both optical and substantive imbalance in
the way the four issues are presented in the revised text.  A way must be found to redress this.
Coherence
The paragraph on Coherence is a new one which we saw for the first time in this revised
version of the Draft Ministerial Text.  I have sent the letter from the Heads of the World Bank and the
IMF, issued as JOB (03)/173 to my authorities who will examine its contents and evaluate the nature
and value of the support being offered in the specific context of adjusting to a more liberal trading
environment.  The fact is however that we do not like the tone of some aspects of this letter.  It seemswilling to acknowledge only grudgingly that ther e may be preference erosion and tariff revenue
adjustment costs for some Members.  It states that there may be costs, “albeit temporarily”, and that
the two institutions are willing to work towards addressing “short-term adjustment problems”.  We
know from experience that these difficulties are not temporary and short-term, and we would have
thought that the involvement of these two institutions in many developing countries, and especially inour region, has amply demonstrated the difficult and prolonged nature of adjustment.  Both
institutions have been involved in promoting autonomous liberalization for several decades.  Our view
is that inclusion of this new paragraph in the way it has been done gives undue weight and importance
to a particular approach to addressing the issue we have identified - an approach that is focussed on
loans and technical assistance from the Bretton Woods institutions.  We see no reason why MinistersWT/GC/M/82
Page 150
should highlight this particular approach in the main body of the Ministerial text itself.  We continue
to hold the view that we should seek solutions that are an integral part of the negotiations and there
outcome in the WTO.  Having said that, we do hold the view that there are areas in which these
institutions can contribute but we seek a primary solution within the context of the negotiations and
the outcome of those negotiations in  the WTO itself.
They are some issues we wish to raise but we will not elaborate on these given the time
constraints.  For example, we still think the text suffers from having no reference in the preamble to
the importance of the development objective in the Doha Work Programme.  And still on the
preamble, the text departs from realism, when it notes, without qualification, the progress that has
been made, and does this despite the missed deadlines, the substitution of general frameworks for
specific modalities, and the overall difficulty we have had in the past year and a half pushing the“proverbial stone” up the hill.
We share Kenya’s view that the services text is weak on the developmental aspects of the
services negotiations.  We believe that these should be underscored. We believe also that a more
ambitious approach is needed on Trade, Debt a nd Finance and Trade and Transfer of Technology.
Finally we believe that the precise language from the Doha Declaration should be used for all
the various headings in the Draft Ministerial Text.  For reasons we do not understand, these differ in
some instances.
We await with interest further developments on TRIPS and Public Health.
13. Hong Kong, China
Overall Balance
Thank the Chair for tremendous efforts in giving more flesh to the skeleton Draft Ministerial
Text in the past few weeks.  Also thank the Friends of Chair, the DG and his team for their
contributions and hard work.
While we cannot that say that the skeleton has become a beauty, as there are still a number of
important gaps and square brackets, nevertheless, our initial impression is you have made the bestpossible efforts at this stage given the wide differences among the membership in many areas.
Whether we can bring the beautified skeleton to life will depend on how close the text is to the Doha
Declaration and whether it will enable our Ministers to come up with positive results at Cancún.
I sense that you have tried your best in the Revised Draft to respect as far as possible the level
of ambition in the Doha mandate, hoping that we could recover our lost ground in the remaining
months before 1 January 2005.  You have also ensured that Special and Differential Treatment for
developing Members are duly reflected in various parts of the Draft.
The Revised Draft provides an useful basis for us to work on although we can expect a very
tough time in Cancún in view of the considerable number of issues to be settled by Ministers, such as
the various new timelines, and the treatment of the Singapore issues.
We are still studying the Draft in detail.  Let me make some preliminary comments on two
particular areas, namely NAMA and Singapore issues.  Even though agriculture is a core issue for the
Round, I shall refrain from commenting on the agriculture negotiation elements, despite our strong
interest as a significant net food importing developing economy.WT/GC/M/82
Page 151
NAMA
On NAMA, we are grateful to Ambassador Girard for his efforts in last week's intensive
consultations which went into the early hours of 23 August.
We believe that paragraph 5 of the Revised Draft and Annex B largely reflect the balance of
discussion and should provide a reasonable basis for discussion in Cancún.  There are areas which we
would prefer more clear guidance from Ministers on the way forward and higher level of ambition,
like more detailed description of the functional form of the formula, the question of participation in
the sectoral component and the option of eliminating low duties. But overall we consider the present
text provides a workable basis for Cancún discussion, providing there is no further dilution of the text.
Singapore Issues
On Singapore issues, we note you have chosen to only include the two extreme options.
Among the four issues, trade and investment and trade and competition policy have all along been
very controversial.  Many developing Members are less ready to undertake new obligations in respectof these two issues.  Obviously, Members must have a meeting of ambition before any consensus
could emerge.
As far as the text is concerned, I don't think we should be presented with the choice of all or
nothing.  Many useful compromise ideas have been floated during the consultations, such a "soft"framework agreement, negotiations outside the sing le-undertaking, or a two-step approach focusing
initially on further clarifying the modalities.  More creative thinking we feel is needed.  Suggest
Members should consider practical way out which would do justice to the issues and at the same time
accommodate the concerns raised by others.  In this connection, we are disappointed by the omission
from the Revised Draft Ministerial Text of the option for a "soft" framework on trade and competitionpolicy, which in our view is a workable compromise and has the support of a number of Members.
While we can understand the intention to treat all four Singapore issues on par in the Draft Ministerial
Text, we maintain that each of the issues should be treated on its own merits.
Concluding remark
My capital is still studying your Draft and we may come back with further comments at a
future occasion.  We are happy to work with you and other Members to further improve the text to
ensure that we can deliver positive outcomes offering something for all at Cancún.  The representative
of the European Union had presented his remarks with  letters "A, E, X, Y".  I would like to end with
an "F" word.  "F" for "flexibility".  What is importa nt is to prepare ourselves to exercise flexibility
and make trade-offs in Cancún so that we can come out of Cancún with a balanced and realistic workprogramme in line with the ambitions in the Doha Declaration to guide us towards the successful
conclusion of the round by 1 January 2005.
14. Egypt
First, I would like to thank you, the Director-Gen eral and the Secretariat for the tireless efforts
in producing this operational text.  It is, indeed, clearer than its predecessor in terms of giving a sense
of direction to where do we stand in a number of issues and the kind of work needed after Cancún.
However, we still believe that there are some areas that are weak in terms of materializing the
objectives agreed to in Doha, particularly in areas of interest to Egypt and other developing countries.
For the sake of brevity, I will point out these areas, and describe what we believe should be done.WT/GC/M/82
Page 152
Agriculture
On agriculture, Annex A of the Job document does not correspond to the Doha mandate in the
areas of domestic support and export competition.  In the former, the ideas expressed by the G-19
paper seem to have been lost.  On the latter, we are still not eliminating - in the shortest possibletimeframe - the export subsidization which causes so much damage to developing country economies,
and in spite of the legitimate call by some Members in such proposals as the Sectoral Initiative on
Cotton.  In fact, and with a view to a more balanced approach on export subsidization, it is my
delegation's belief that developing countries which had not benefited from such provisions after the
Uruguay Round, should be allowed to do so for the duration of maintaining export subsidies by
developed Members.
On Non-Agriculture Market Access,
On Non-Agriculture Market Access, negotiations ar e foreseen to be continued under conditions and
terms set out in Annex B, despite the reaffirmation in paragraph 5 of the Text of the commitments in
paragraph 16 of the Doha Declaration.  It seems there is a bit of contradiction here between the textwhich is reflecting the negotiating mandate and the Annex expressing objectives not enshrined in the
former in terms of harmonizing tariff structures.  Our understanding is that we are not yet in
agreement as to whether the applicable formula for developing Members should be linear or non-
linear, or on whether the sectoral approach is a "key element" of the Doha mandate.  The Annex
seems to presume agreement for all Members on a non-linear formula.  This is far from fact.  We stillhave concerns on the proposed sectoral approach in paragraph 6 of the Annex.  Finally, we are
proponents of the two "residual issues" appearing in paragraph 13 of the Annex, and therefore, would
like top see clearer language there.
Singapore Issues
With regard to the Singapore issues and Annexes, we agree that each issue has to be tackled
separately and on the merits of the work undertaken to date.  Most importantly, the modalities for
negotiations that appear for each issue in the Anne xes seem to be at various stages of advancement
despite the best efforts of the demandeurs.  Moreover, those Annexes have not been discussed yet in
open informal meetings at the level of Heads of Delegations and we are quite surprised to see they
find their way into the text.  It is, therefore, my delegation's considered view that we should limitourselves to the second option concerning the four issues; namely to undertake further clarification in
the respective working groups.
We had communicated to the Chairpersons of the Working Groups on Trade, Debt &Finance,
and Trade and Transfer of Technology, specific language for the continuation of the Groups' activitiesin the post-Cancún period.  Such language had made more precise the focus of the Groups' work, and
had requested that the General Council report to the subsequent Ministerial Conference on any
possible recommendations to be made by them.  This language is not reflected in your paragraphs 18
and 19, a fact of some concern to my delegation.
Special and Differential Treatment
The Chairman of the African Group has spoken about this priority issue for the African Group
and for my country.
Deadlines
As for deadlines foreseen for the post-Cancún work, we believe there is a need for harmony
and consistence in order to meet the criteria of the single undertaking.  This is of course withoutWT/GC/M/82
Page 153
prejudice to the early deadlines or down payments cited in the Doha Declaration as far as the
development issues are concerned.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my delegation' s willingness to cooperate with you and the
Members of the WTO to bridge outstanding gaps in the text.
15. Korea
I would like to thank you and others from providing the Draft Ministerial Text.  I believe that
overall the new Draft Text reflects the discussions we have had in the last couple of weeks in a
relatively objective and realistic manner.  We also take note that except for a few exceptions the Draft
is a clean text, and given the diverse views still existing on various issues it is no small achievement.However, we do notice that there are parts in the Draft Text which, in our view, should further be
improved in Geneva before being submitted to the Ministers in order to enable them to resolve
differences in a few days that we have not been able to achieve in two years.  As my capital is still
reviewing the text, the comments I make today are on a preliminary basis, and for the sake of time I
limit my comments to three issues of great intere st to my delegation, namely Agriculture, NAMA and
the Singapore Issues.
On Agriculture, first we would like to extend our appreciation for the improvements in the
area of S&D treatment for developing countries.  We also welcome the introduction of SP concept in
market access as well as the more detailed S&D treatment with regard to domestic support.  Howeverwe still have serious difficulties on a number of other points.
First we are very much disturbed by the notion which links tariff capping and TRQ expansion
to tariff reduction.  We, along with many othe r importing countries, strongly oppose the concept of
tariff capping and mandatory TRQ expansion.  It is our firm believe that the co-existence of the
various types of agriculture is essential for our success in this negotiation.  Tariff capping, bydisregarding the diverse realities of Members would seriously endanger the very survival of
agriculture in many countries and this would create enormous political difficulties for countries like
Korea.  In addition, I would like to point out that the more relevant factor to market access is not the
tariff level itself, it is rather the real price gap existing between the international price and domestic
price.
My delegation has explained on numerous occasions that the Uruguay Round formula can
bring a substantial improvement in market access as proved in the Korean market since the conclusion
of the Uruguay Round negotiations.  We do not see much justification for imposing TRQ expansion
on importing countries which already suffer from import surges.
Finally we are relieved to hear from you that you are going to circulate a corrigendum which
will include non-trade concerns elements in the agriculture framework.  We welcome that and we are
looking forward to the new corrigendum.  However, we would like to emphasize once again that the
new language should state in an unambiguous and concrete way that non-trade concerns should be
fully taken into account in all three pillars of the negotiations.
On NAMA we welcome the inclusion of Annex B, as the draft framework for modalities.  We
believe that we are moving in the right direction.  Nonetheless, we still have two main concerns.
First, we believe that the enhancing market access is the main goal of every participant in these
negotiations.  In our view, however, Annex B reflects only the minimum level of ambition.  We
strongly hope this level of ambition will be kept as baselines for our future negotiations.
Second, in order to ensure meaningful improvement in market access, a minimum level of
flexibility for sensitive products should be given to all participants.  This is not a question of lowering
the level of ambition.  Rather it is a means of securing even greater market access for affordingWT/GC/M/82
Page 154
Members flexibility in their highly sensitive areas.  In this regard, I wish to note that my delegation
submitted a proposal on this issue.
Lastly, on Singapore issues.  In view of the difficulties you had in accommodating all the
divergent views among Members, it might have been inevitable to have brackets for all four
Singapore Issues.  The revised text reflects where we stand on these issues.  But we still hope we can
start negotiations on all four Singapore issues after Cancún.  We believe that is the agreement we
made in Doha.  My delegation is ready and willing to  continue to work with all delegations to further
improve the modalities, so that our Ministers can reach consensus in Cancún.
16. El Salvador
I would like to thank you and the Director-General and the members of the Secretariat for
presenting the Draft that was distributed yesterday.  At this time I will just make a few comments on
some of the points in your document.  This does not prejudice the possibility of our delegation coming
back to other points at the next formal meeting of the General Council.  With respect to market access
of agricultural products, we think that the framework for negotiations on agricultural products inAnnex A does not encompass the concerns of developing countries, taking into account the Doha
Declaration with respect to Special and Differential  Treatment and less than full reciprocity.  These
elements are well encompassed in the document presented by Brazil on behalf of the G-19 countries,
including El Salvador, and we look upon this paper very favourably.
With respect to the peace clause, my delegation does not see any reference in the Doha
Declaration to the peace clause as a subject for negotiation, or for the other points indicated in
paragraph 6 of Annex A.
Just as on other occasions, we would like to stress that any agreement reached should
encompass the principle of special products, which is of vital importance for our rural development
and food safety needs.
With respect to NAMA in Annex B.  If we feel that this document represents a good basis for
negotiations we are not in the position, as we have indicated repeatedly, to support an obligatory
sectoral approach as is established in paragraph 6 of Annex B, in this negotiating phase.  In any case,
this should be left aside for a second phase of negotiations and should be on a voluntary basis.
With respect to the Singapore Issues.  Despite the difficulties these represent for my country
we have always had a very flexible attitude.  We could support the launching of negotiations under
very specific modalities and clear lines.  However, like the distinguished delegates of Australia and
Mexico, among others, we continue to support this only on the basis of an agreement in other areas of
interest and vital concerns to us.
Once again we thank you for your efforts to make headway and you can count on the support
of our delegation to continue to find solutions.
17. Honduras (also on behalf of the Dominican Republic)
We would like to thank you for introducing the Revised Draft Cancún Ministerial Text, and
note that it appears under your responsibility, that it does not purport to be agreed in any part at this
stage, and that it is without prejudice to our positions.
First of all, we shall refer to Annex A, containing the framework for establishing modalities in
agriculture.  With regard to the section on special and differential treatment of the market access
pillar, we welcome the clarification that strategic products will not be subject to additional tariff quota
commitments;  however, we still insist that those products should not be subject to additionalWT/GC/M/82
Page 155
reductions and that each country should be free to designate its own special products.  We understand
special products to be a separate concept within the first category.
We recognize that this is a framework agreement, and that we must continue working to
achieve balanced negotiating modalities that take into account the interests of all Members.
We would like to make a few comments concerning Annex B of the Revised Draft Ministerial
Text, containing the framework for establishing modalities in market access for non-agricultural
products.  With regard to paragraph 6, concerning sectoral approaches, we think that the language
used is flexible, but reiterate our view that the voluntary nature of those approaches should be
reflected.  In paragraph 7, while we welcome the flexibilities for developing and least-developed
countries, they should be neither restricted by nor linked to the value of imports.
In paragraph 13, we note that issues of importance for developing countries, such as
non-reciprocal preference erosion and high tariff revenue dependency, will be considered.  We note
the failure to take into account major concerns expressed by several countries, including Honduras,
with regard to low income per capita-highly i ndebted countries.  Consequently, I request that
consideration should be given to these concerns and that, if there are no objections to this special and
differential treatment, you should incorporate it into the text presented to the Ministers in Cancún.
18. China
Thank you for the tremendous efforts you and the Director-General as well as the Secretariat
have put into preparing this Draft, which is almost an impossible job.  Since I have not yet received
instructions from my capital I can only make some preliminary comments.
On Agriculture we noticed that you have draw n many elements from the EU and US paper
and some elements from the paper of the Group of 19.  While we appreciate very much your efforts
and good intention;  we find that there is still a bi g gap between the Doha mandate and the paper.  The
level of ambition is not enough, especially in export subsidies and in Blue Box and Green Box.  The
peace clause should not be there in the text as it is not something that is subject to further
negotiations.  The S&D treatment requires further improvement.  On NAMA and Services we support
the view that there should be an overall balance with agriculture.  The specific dates and deadlines to
be determined at Cancún should not come before agriculture.  The tariff peaks and escalations inNAMA should be more effectively addressed.  On Singapore Issues we share very much the position
of Thailand.  We can live with the two options, but the Annex is a problem.  We believe Annexes D,
E, F, G should not be there in the Draft as they are proposals by some individual Members which
were not properly discussed and therefore not suitable to be presented to Ministers at Cancún.
Finally, on the Draft Text in general, we noticed the changes already made there.  For instance, theissue of sectoral initiative on cotton.  The issue of commodities and the issue of coherence are added
to your original draft.  We fully understand and support these changes.  I would like to make a strong
appeal here, that in the Draft Text there should be a paragraph that deals with the newly acceded
Members saying that the concerns of the newly acceded Members shall be efficiently addressed, while
in the Annex on agriculture and on NAMA, specific elements for their concerns should be reflected.These elements are included in the document JO B(03)/168 by China and JOB(03)/170 by Croatia and
five other newly acceded Members.  We shall work very closely with all Members and yourself for a
successful preparation for Cancún.
19. Chile
My remarks are, of course, preliminary since we have not had time because of the time
difference to secure instructions from capital .  Tomorrow I hope that I will be speaking under
instructions and that these instructions will not contradict what I am about to say.  We appreciate that
your role as Chair and the colleagues in the Secretariat is extremely difficult for the reasons you andWT/GC/M/82
Page 156
Dr. Supachai have mentioned – how to reconcile the in terests of all Members.  It is a very difficult
task which has been laid in your hands.  However, I think it must be recalled, as previous speakers
have done, that it is your duty and that of the Director-General to be faithful to Doha and not to try to
balance diverse interests.  The balance of interest was struck in Doha.  We are not about to rebalance
these interests because, as time goes on, some move, others don't, and therefore the balancing actbecomes more and more difficult.  The test, as now has been said by the Ambassador of Brazil, is how
faithful we are in this text to Doha and whether this moves us closer to it.
The text which you have presented us, and we thank you for your untiring efforts, is partly a
reality check and partly a sense of direction.  We think that this text helps us move in the right
direction but only an inch.  We should be moving by yards or miles, by kilometres and not be inches
or centimetres at this point in time.  The Mexican Vice-Minister has recalled here that we have failedin all our deadlines.  The Ministers asked for modalities.  We are about to produce an idea of a
framework which even then does not meet the agreement of all.  But having said that, we do think that
this is certainly an improvement over the previous text, and that it helps organize the discussion.  It
helps focus the attention on those areas on which divergences are greater, and this or a revised version
will be the basis on which Ministers will have to take the decisions in Cancún.
From our point of view we are not satisfied with the text.  I never expected to be satisfied
with the text.  But besides this, I repeat the questi on, whether this text complies or not with the Doha
Ministerial Declaration.  We believe that in some respects it does, in some respects it does not.  We
can move in some respects more, and if time allo ws and there is enough political will, I think that
hopefully we can correct and improve on the text over the next few days.
On agriculture, we recognize, and we repeat again that we have moved because the US and
the EU moved.  While one moved a little bit forward and the other one moved a little bit backwards,
still there was movement, there was a show of flexibility and this triggered movement by others.  Inparticular, we moved in a text which is already a compromise, as the Ambassador of Brazil has said,
in the G-17 text.  Others have not moved, or if th ey have moved, I have not noticed.  The question is
now whether we can live with this text, and whether it is faithful to Doha.
On export subsidies, a key point for my delegation, we take note that we have something
which is already a step forward and that we have an outstanding question and that is that the date on
which there will be full elimination of export subsidies is pending.  So we have a clear recognitionhere on paragraph 3.6  in the Agriculture annex that one of the issues to be decided in the negotiations
is the date on which export subsidies have to be completely eliminated.  That is our understanding of
the text and if our understanding is agreed and correct then it has our support.
On domestic support, I need not go into greater detail as I think our Mexican and Brazilian
colleagues have said most of what I would have  liked to say, on Blue Box and Amber Box etc.
Perhaps this is the one point on which the text is still a long way from meeting the expectations, the
mandate we have from Ministers.  We can be more ambitious, we should be more ambitious.
On paragraph 6 of the agriculture text, we do not think it appropriate to imply that things like
geographical indications or the peace clause are pending work on the same level and importance as
things such as implementation period, inter-linkages and other important aspects of the negotiations.
This impression that we get from this paragraph, we believe, should be corrected in order to leave no
room on where further work has to be done and where the negotiations have to concentrate efforts.
On NAMA, in contrast, we have a text which ha s been the subject of much debate and though
it does not have square brackets, we are fully aware that it does not meet completely with the
agreement of all Members.  It is a text which is more focussed than agriculture, and that is not
surprising because on NAMA we are discussing mainly tariffs, while on agriculture we are discussing
disciplines.  On NAMA we are bringing tariffs down, on agriculture we are attempting to get anWT/GC/M/82
Page 157
agreement to take out a lot of money from the pockets of a few wealthy.  So that is more difficult.  On
NAMA, with the present approach we can achieve an ambitious result.  This ambitious result that we
may have, and that still remains to be seen, will have to be corrected at a later stage in the light of
what transpires in the field of agriculture.  Still we believe that it would have been a good idea, it
would have been something to aim to have at the end of these negotiations, 100 per cent bindings byall Members regardless of the level of the bindings and regardless of the level of development.
Your text, as we have said, is imperfect, but I still think that it is an improvement, and before
closing my remarks I would also like to join the Ambassador of Brazil when he mentioned that
singling out extension of geographical indications from the other issues seems to us not to be a proper
thing to do.  We thank you for your efforts, and we trust that flexibility and reasonableness by
delegations over the next days will allow us to bring our text more into line with the Doha mandate.Again we reiterate our thanks and gratitude to the efforts you have made to put this text before us, as
we truly think that this brings us a step closer to a successful meeting in Cancún.  But we are not there
yet.
In response to the statement by the Communities that it is unfair that every time they move,
others pocket that movement and ask for more, I find it very difficult to accept that.  What is really
unfair, grossly unfair, is that we are offered much, much less than what they promised in Doha, and
that they ask us to pay once, twice, and trice.
20. Guatemala
We appreciate your great efforts to ensure that the revision of document Job(03)/150 was
made available for today's meeting.  It is obvious that the text before us is the result of many hours of
work.
We share the view of most delegations that the task has not been easy and that trying to
accommodate different positions is far from straightforward.
There is little that Guatemala can add to the statement made by the distinguished Ambassador
of Brazil.
Guatemala is one of the sponsors of the proposal recently introduced at this meeting.  With
Cuba, El Salvador and Pakistan also having joined us, we now number 20 countries and, as the
Ambassador of Brazil has said, the door remains open.
We recognize that the joint proposal by the United States and the European Communities
provided necessary momentum at an important moment.  But in a sense it was regression, or a stepbackwards from where we started.  Since then, we have no longer been discussing modalities, but a
framework for modalities.  The draft text we have before us, given the total absence of figures, is like
a flattering portrait of that framework.
In some paragraphs, it is as though the revised text was trying to find a new balance, different
from that contained in the Doha mandate.  However, our task is not to alter the balance of the Doha
mandate, but to implement it.  We believe that the proposal now supported by 20 countries contains
some new elements that bring us closer to that mandate.
Allow me to turn to the annex concerning agriculture.  We are surprised and concerned that
paragraph 1.1 removes the possibility of eliminating product-specific support, which creates the same
problems already experienced with regard to the results of the Uruguay Round.  We should be trying
to improve the disciplines, rather than to perpetuate their mistakes.WT/GC/M/82
Page 158
We are concerned by paragraph 1.3, in which a new form of support is being allowed.  Even
though it falls within the scope of Article 6.5, we believe that this creates a new form of distorting
support.
While we welcome the inclusion of the Green Box, the text does not go far enough, since it
refers only to the criteria, and not to a ceiling and a substantial reduction, which is what we and many
other developing countries have been asking for.  Even though some claim that the Green Box is not
distorting, it has a distorting effect by way of the direct payments of paragraphs 5 to 13.
We are also surprised and concerned to see that although some paragraphs, such as
paragraph 3.1, express the intention to eliminate subsidies, paragraph 3.6 states that the question of
the end date for phasing out such subsidies remains under negotiation.
We are even more concerned by paragraph 6, which contains a strange list of issues, as if the
dynamic was the same for all of them in terms of the challenge facing us.  There is no mandate for
some of those issues.  For instance, we cannot accept the juxtaposition of the peace clause,
geographical indications, and export taxes.
With regard to market access for non-agricultural products, we have a problem with
paragraph 6, as we are not convinced that sectoral negotiations have been introduced as planned, but
rather that they will be mandatory.  The developing countries have never agreed to that.
With regard to implementation, the new text reflects the position of countries that are seeking
to extend the protection of geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits.  This
paragraph does not reflect the negotiations that have taken place, and its adoption will add issues to
the negotiations likely to detract from those currently under discussion.  We believe that the first draft
text more accurately reflects the status of the negotiations over the past few weeks.
Guatemala is not seeking the inclusion of the Singapore issues, and we have shown a degree
of flexibility is this regard.  However, in view of the package that we are being offered, there is no
point in taking the option to commence negotiations.  There is insufficient ambition in the area which,
in our view, is most important, namely agriculture.
If no substantial progress is made in the implementation of agricultural reforms, to which our
Ministers in Doha gave their consent and commitment, we risk losing everything else because of our
failure to achieve the balance required by that Ministerial mandate.
21. Paraguay
My delegation would also like to express its thanks for the enormous effort that you, the
Director-General and the members of the Secretariat, are making.  We are very grateful.  As the
document concerned is currently being examined by  my capital, our comments are only preliminary.
I would like to make specific reference to Annex A, concerning which the balance in the level of
ambition and other issues is something we will address in detail later on.
Mr Chairman, our delegation has submitted a joint proposal, under JOB(03)/162, which in the
matter of agricultural negotiations embodies the level of ambition we would like to see reflected at
Cancún.  We feel that your proposal includes elements which should be balanced in the area of
domestic support.  The delegations of Argentina, Br azil, Mexico and South Africa have been quite
clear.  As regards market access, we feel that points 2.3 and 2.4 deal with the issue of tariff escalation
in an ambiguous manner and maintain the duration or imply the existence of a special safeguard for
the developed countries.  Turning to export subsidies, we see that point 3.6 incorporates the idea that
the elimination of subsidies is under negotiation, which is at variance with the Doha Ministerial
mandate.  Finally, we agree with the aforementioned delegations on point 6 which deals with issuesWT/GC/M/82
Page 159
not covered by the Doha Ministerial mandate.  Finally, we agree with the aforementioned delegations
on point 6 which deals with issues not covered by the Doha Ministerial mandate.  These issues, which
our delegation regards as non-negotiable, such as the peace clause, or as forming part of this
negotiation, also include geographical indications and certain non-trade concerns.  With regard to the
latter, we agree with the delegation of Argentina that any reference to non-trade concerns should beconsistent with the Doha Ministerial mandate.
Mr Chairman, we appreciate your efforts and recognize that it is not always easy to reconcile
the interests of all the Members when there is an unstable equilibrium and the divergences are as
extreme as those we see today.  However, we remain hopeful that the level of ambition achieved at
Doha will be equalled at Cancún.  We seek substantive reform in agriculture and are therefore
prepared to continue working constructively in an ef fort to fulfil the aims directly linked to the level
of ambition established at Doha.
22. Colombia
We wish to thank you and the Director-General and others for your text that was a courageous
step forward in the right direction but we shall also  say that it fell short of our expectations both in
terms in the balance and of the level of ambition.  We also recognize that your text is a reality check
and in that framework it can not lie much further beyond our actual state of negotiations here in
Geneva but obviously your text should help move forward and give momentum to these negotiations.
Nevertheless, your Draft has to be faithful to the Doha mandate and from there has to obtain thesource of its balance.  As some other delegations said, among them Chile, the balance should not be
based on the positions of Members who have not moved from their entrenched positions but on the
level of ambition in the Doha mandate, and on those proposals put forward by delegations that have
been trying to bridge differences and look for compromises.
I have some specific comments and concerns, many of them have already been expressed by
delegations like Brazil, Chile and Argentina, so I will try to be very short.
In the area of agriculture, obviously this is central to the negotiation even if some delegations
do not like to be reminded of this, and your paper still has many ambiguities especially about the
direction of the negotiation in several areas that, in our view, have to be strengthened.  One of our
main concerns is the issue of the Blue Box that has been expressed very clearly by Mexico, and the
Green Box that requires better disciplines and, as a minimum, capping in its level of expenditure.
On export subsidies, our reading of paragraph 3.6 that we have to agree to a concrete date for
their complete phase-out or elimination and we interpret that paragraph in those positive terms but we
realize that there is a certain level of ambiguity that, if we could eliminate it, the text would be better.
In the area of market access, there is a missing provision, that is, that these negotiations
should provide for the full liberalization for tropical products and others included in the preamble of
the Agreement on Agriculture.  We regret that omission, because that is something that many
developing countries have been expecting as a minimum single source fulfilling our expectations inCancún, and hopefully that omission can be solved and this proposed liberalization can be included.
In paragraph 6, to which many have referred, such as South Africa and Australia, I want to extend
myself on that.
Finally we want to reiterate the link between th e three pillars that will ultimately determine
the level of ambition that will be possible in these negotiations.  In this regard, we feel that the
proposal of the group of 19 countries is much more faithful to the Doha mandate, vis-à-vis others that
have been presented by other Members, and definitely the adoption of a proposal in those terms would
permit a much richer and ambitious overall package from the Doha negotiations.WT/GC/M/82
Page 160
On NAMA we would like to thank you and the Director-General for the changes incorporated
in paragraph 6, but we still feel that a sectoral approach will need a discussion of the criteria proposed
for the selection of the specific sectors to be included and participation by Members.
In paragraph 7, we also feel that there is a change that should be included.  In this NAMA
Annex, all decisions are taken in terms of "shall have" or "shall be", and unfortunately in paragraph 7
that refers to less than full reciprocity by developing countries, in the second sentence it reads:  "In
addition, they would be given the flexibility of keeping tariff lines unbound, ... or not applying
formula cuts, for up to [5] percent of tariff lines pr ovided they do not exceed [5] percent of the total
value of a Member's imports."  We feel that there it should be changed to "in addition there shall be
given the flexibility", in order to have some cons istency with the rest of the wording used in that
Annex.
Under Singapore Issues, we regret that some interesting options were excluded, and hopefully
some of them can be rescued in the future discussions.
Finally we look forward to your evaluation as Chair of the General Council of the reaction of
all delegations to your text and to your further steps from now to Cancún.  Ministers need a focussed
text like the one you are providing us, to debate and bridge differences and to decide if we are on the
road to comply with the Doha mandate;  if the level of ambition is still too weak, they will have to
make some pertinent adjustments.
23. Thailand
I had the occasion to brief our parliamentarians during their visits to Geneva on how the
WTO works.  Being sceptical of the WTO, one of  them told me that the organization has been
controlled by the major powers and that the institut ion has been set up to serve their own purpose in
one way or another.  I tried very hard to convince him that it was not so, but with no success.
After I have read through your Draft Canc ún Ministerial Text, although I appreciate very
much your untiring efforts as well as the Director-General's, I must say that I now understand why I
cannot convince him.  On many important areas, proposals of the major powers are taken as a basis in
your Draft, whether they were agriculture, non-agriculture, services and even Singapore issues.
Liberalization would be made only on the products or services of interest to developed countries, andnot those they have difficulties on, like agricultural products and services in Mode 4 in addition to the
proposal to have new agreements to protect their trade and investment interests.
On agriculture, we have stepped back from the Doha mandate to establish a framework
instead of submitting our comprehensive draft Schedules based on the modalities by this coming
Ministerial Conference.  We could not understand why the proposal of the two majors was used as the
basis for your Draft, which incorporated only a few elements from the proposals supported by the
broad membership.
As a result, the level of ambition has been lowered in all pillars to accommodate concerns of
the major powers.  Your Draft suggested now we have to negotiate on whether there should be an end
date for phasing out export subsidies, on the concerns of the majors who have recently confessed as
the two biggest users.
It was even clearer in the case of domestic support that the Draft has accommodated concerns
of the two majors on harmonization of entitlement of trade-distorting domestic support, resulting in
the increase and not the decrease in trade-dist orting Blue Box measures for the two countries
combined.  Product specific reduction commitments proposed by the majority of the membership
have been dropped to solve the problems of the developed countries.  There have been noWT/GC/M/82
Page 161
commitments, not to mention capping and reduction, even to strengthen the discipline on the trade-
distorting measure of the Green Box.
It would be needless to continue with market access, as you can just look at the differences
with respect to the level of ambition between the texts of the NAMA framework and that of the
agriculture framework yourself.  On agriculture, th e major powers are still allowed to maintain tariff
peaks and tariff escalation for their sensitive products, with TRQ expansion as well as a request-offer
process that would be a nightmare for small countries without any bargaining power.
Agricultural trade reforms have been our ma in reason for participating in the Doha Round.
What I would like to remind Members is that agriculture was in the Built-In Agenda.  If we can accept
a lenient reform, we can just embark on a continued negotiation without being required to pay onNAMA, Singapore issues etc.  But because we need an ambitious outcome, we agreed to launch this
broad-based agenda round.  We have paid.  Thus we cannot accept a level of ambition lower than the
Doha mandate, as well as the unbalanced obligations between the three pillars in your Draft.  We
therefore urge you to reconsider another revision with much more positive components of agricultural
trade reform in the proposal made by the group of 17 developing countries.
Let me turn to NAMA. Even without the sectoral initiative, the formula itself make us achieve
an ambitious result on market access compared to ag riculture.  Thus this is the imbalance between
areas of negotiations in the paper.  On the sectoral tariff component itself, although it could be
considered as another element in the NAMA negotiations, all Members have yet to agree toparticipate in the sectoral tariff component.  My delegation has repeated on almost every occasion that
this has to be voluntary, but to no avail.  The language in paragraph 6 of Annex B therefore could
prejudice the position of several Members and prejudge the outcome of our negotiations.  In this
regard, we cannot accept any language that might lead to or even hint at the understanding that we
accept the mandatory sectoral tariff component.
On Singapore issues, my delegation would like to make clear at the outset our position on
these issues remains that we will consider each of them on its own merits.  We note with
disappointment paragraphs 13-16 on the Singapore Issues.  We do not believe the two options
presented in the Draft Text on these issues truly reflect the present state of discussion among WTO
Members.  However, after listening to your statement, we will not comment on the options you
presented, but rather on the imbalances of the text itself.  One example is that the Annexes that wereproposed to be used as the bases for negotiations on these issues were proposals from only a handful
of Members.  There was no consensus whatsoever to accept those papers as draft modalities for future
negotiations.  Some of them have not even been discussed openly.  At the same time, on some of the
proposed Annexes that have been discussed at the HODs level, such as the one on investment, I recall
that some Members, including Thailand, made comments on the elements contained in that proposal.Regretfully, none of them appeared to have been taken into account.  In this regard, we think the Draft
Text on the Singapore issues leaves us with little choice but to choose the second option in all of
them, that is, to continue the clarification process.   I wish to reiterate that Thailand has always been
flexible and practical on these issues, but with the current Draft Text in other areas and the fact that
the relevant paragraphs on Singapore issues provide no middle ground option, we simply have tomake such a decision.
In conclusion, I intend to continue to convince my parliamentarians that in the WTO we can
refuse to agree on any imbalanced package presented to us, and I hope that I am able to show them
concretely that we can do so.WT/GC/M/82
Page 162
24. Barbados
I wish to fully associate my delegation with the statement made earlier by the Ambassador of
Jamaica on behalf of a number of CARICOM States including Barbados.  However, I also wish to
take this opportunity to make a few complementary and additional comments.
Agriculture
I will restrict my comments for the moment to the market access pillar.With regard to the formula approach proposed in paragraph 2.6 of Annex A, I would like to
reiterate that Barbados places great importance on the concept of Special Products and we wouldtherefore strongly reinforce the request made by Jamaica that the issue of Special Products be
addressed separately in the framework document.
We also hold the view that the exemption of TR Qs from further reduction should be similarly
treated separately.
With regard to paragraph 2.7 of the Annex, my delegation has made it very clear that it cannot
accept tariff capping for developing countries.  Therefore, we would not be able to entertain any
notion of tariff capping for developing countries in the final Ministerial text.
On the issue of the SSM in paragraph 2.8, which was also raised by Jamaica, we would
remind Members that discussions on this matter in the Special Sessions of the Committee on
Agriculture have focused on the question of the number of products and the HS digit designation of
products, and not on the identification of products themselves.  We therefore feel that the phrase "and
for products to be determined" should be deleted.
With regard to the issue of preferential access and NFIDCs, Barbados shares the views
articulated by Jamaica and endorses the amendments proposed by that delegation.
Non-Agriculture Market Access
We note that the framework document in Annex B has undergone some last-minute changes.
In this regard, we welcome that there has been an attempt to bring more balance, from our
perspective, to paragraph 6.  However, as noted by Jamaica, we would still wish to have the complete
removal from the text of the reference to  the "participation by all participants".
With regard to paragraph 13 of Annex B, we fully endorse Jamaica's suggestion that Ministers
should direct that the issues of non-reciprocal preference erosion and high tariff dependency should be
"addressed" rather than merely "considered".
Services
We are struck by the lack of emphasis in the text on the development dimension of these
negotiations.  We find it quite ironic that in this one market access negotiation where Ministers will be
arguably most appropriately in a position to truly take stock of the progress of what has been dubbed
the Doha Development Agenda, the development dimension is drastically under-developed.
Specifically, we are concerned that the new text essentially neutralizes existing references to
issues of importance to developing countries, and at the same time does not reflect elements of
Articles IV or XIX of GATS or of the negotiating guidelines.WT/GC/M/82
Page 163
On a more positive note, we welcome what seems to be an increased similarity of treatment of
the market access and rule-making components. We feel that this is important if we are to achieve in
the future a better balance of progress between these two negotiating tracks.
Singapore Issues
Barbados, like many other delegations, has selected as its first-best choice the option which
you have relegated to a number 2 position in the text. The delegation of Jamaica has spoken on this
matter.
Coherence
On the issue of the further strengthening of collaboration between the WTO and the Bretton
Woods institutions, there is nothing that I would ad d at this stage to what the Ambassador of Jamaica
has so eloquently said.  Barbados' concerns about the potential danger of interested collaboration
sliding unchecked into intrusive cohabitation have been well articulated before.
TRIPS and Public Health
We take note of the Chair's introductory statement on this matter. We look forward to
receiving information, in an open forum, on the deliberations which are ongoing in smaller groups.
We will reserve our input until that moment.
25. Uganda
I would like to thank you for your tireless efforts to try to provide us with a document that
will give us guidance on how to go.  It is our expectation that at the end of discussions it should bepossible for us to give you guidance on how to transmit it.  My hope is that it will be transmitted
under the responsibility of the Council, so that you do not have to bear brunt of criticism basically due
to our lack of agreement.
One of the items which was dear to Uganda was TRIPS and Public Health.  This item has
been pending for quite some time and it is our view th at it should be settled here in Geneva.  We are
encouraged by your report that the Chairman of the Council for TRIPS is working on a possible wayout, and it is our hope that many of us will be consulted, so that by the time it arrives here in the
General Council there has been agreement.  I unders tand it might have been necessary to keep the
discussion among three or four delegations, but I think we have to reach the wider constituencies if
the recommendations is to be acceptable.  I look forward to what Amb. Menon will put forward.
One of the other items which is dear to Uganda is the question of agriculture.  This is a sector
in which we have a special interest.  We note that when it comes to the question of domestic support,
the level of ambition in your text is very low.  We had expected to have a higher level of ambition.
As we read it, it appears the Blue Box will be extended and there will be no disciplines on the Green
Box.  So we had expected that here the ambition would be higher.  We welcome in paragraph 2.8 theestablishment of a special mechanism for developing countries.  It is imperative, however, that if this
is to work, it be flexible to meet developing country needs.  Therefore, in our view, whatever
conditions are to be determined, should not be too cumbersome.  It should ensure that developing
countries can use the mechanism in a manner that is simple, flexible and effective to meet their needs.
With regard to export competition, again we are disappointed by the lack of ambition on the
part of developed countries to eliminate their export subsidies and export credits.  We note that a
parallelism has been put on export subsidies and export credits.  Our hope is that this will not be a
mechanism for perpetuating these, but that it will be a mechanism for reducing them.  We hope that
will be addressed.  We welcome the section on the LDCs, but as pointed out by Lesotho andWT/GC/M/82
Page 164
Bangladesh, I think the paragraph on LDCs, in particular with duty-free and quota-free access for all
products, could have been more ambitious, and we hope it is possible for you to go back on the
Harbinson text and pick up the language from there, which we thought had quite widespread support.
We also take note of your paragraph on cotton.  I hope it will be possible in this case to be able to
agree on a message that cotton subsidies should be rolled-back, and I think Benin and the other threecountries have put forward a very useful proposal for rolling-back, and I think that is the greatest
signal that we can send for all that are talking about liberalization and helping this development
round.  We welcome your paragraph on commodities and we look forward to improving it.
With regard to S&D treatment, we note that you have worked very hard and we are expecting
an early harvest.  But when we examine the commerc ial value of this harvest, it seems it will leave
many people hungry.  We are still hopeful that you will be able to increase the harvest so that we canincrease the level of satisfaction.  We are still evalua ting it, but otherwise we agree with the thrust of
your paragraph, bringing this back to the CTD and trying to ensure that the issue is not forgotten and
continues.  But we can bank what we have, the little we have, while working to increase the proposals
that we put in the basket for S&D treatment.
With regard to Singapore Issues, my delegation is of course, among others, one of those
which has opted for one of the options and we are glad that you have indicated our option there.  We
take note of the discussion on how to take this fo rward and we take note of those who have said that
not all options have been put across.  We are flexible, but our position remains, as our Ministers said,
that we are not anywhere near modalities.  I will send this document to my Government and I willalso be adding in their comments once I have got their inputs.  But definitely on agriculture I have got
specific instructions already and I don't need to go back.
26. Chinese Taipei
My delegation would like to express our appreciation to you for preparing this Draft Cancún
Ministerial Text.  We see this as a very useful document outlining our work so far.  In order to
contribute to the discussion today, and fortunately for us, the time difference between our Capital and
here allowed us to work through the night, my delegation would like to offer the following comments:
On paragraph 5, relating to NAMA, we do not s ee a problem with the Draft Text itself, but
would like to comment on paragraphs 9 and 10 of Annex B.   My delegation does not see that theinterests of newly acceded Members have been sufficiently taken into account in Annex B.
Considering the extensive market access commitments newly acceded Members have already
undertaken and the high percentage of tariff lines of newly acceded Members that might be
considered as low duties, it would be unfair not to agree to give newly acceded Members special
consideration for tariff reductions, but only to ask them to consider the elimination of low duties.Therefore, in paragraph 9, we would prefer to see the incorporation of the 3 options as outlined in
TN/MA/W/35/Rev.1, and that the first sentence be revised to read: "We agree that the newly acceded
Members shall have recourse to special provisions for tariff reductions ... ."  Similarly,  the last
sentence of paragraph 10 should be revised to read: "We ask participants, except newly acceded
Members, to consider the elimination of low duties."
On paragraph 6, relating to Services negotiations, we are of the view that the timeframe
language for the submission of the improved offers should correspond with the timeframe language
that already exists for the submission of initial offers, either as soon as possible or in due course.
On paragraph 8, relating to TRIPS Negotiations, my delegation has no problem with the
substance of the text, but we believe that the deadline for concluding the negotiations on this issue
should coincide with the end of the Doha Round.WT/GC/M/82
Page 165
On paragraph 12, relating to Implementation, we see the reference to only the issue of GIs as
prejudicial to all other items of equal importance on which we request the Director-General to
continue to hold consultations.  All such items should be listed on an equal footing, and GIs should
not be singled out.  Otherwise, it might be better not to mention the reference to GIs in particular.
On paragraphs 13 through 16, relating to the Singapore Issues, my delegation’s position has
been to commence the negotiations after Cancún.  Therefore, we would support the corresponding
bracketed language.
Finally, turning to Annex A relating to the agriculture framework, my delegation believes that
the long-term objective of the Agreement on Agriculture is to establish a fair and market-oriented
trading system.  It is difficult for us to see how Members’ agricultural policies and programmes canbe carried out peacefully and smoothly if a lack of consistency and continuity with the reform process
exists.  With this in mind, we support that the export-oriented AMS should be dramatically reduced.
We consider the Blue Box to be a crucial tool in the transition process from domestic price
support to non trade-distorting measures.  Capping  or reduction of Blue Box measures would deny
Members a legitimate mechanism to make the appropriate transition to non-trade-distorting measures.
In addition, the de minimis  has very limited trade-distorting effects and should be maintained to
ensure the sustainable development of agriculture and to ensure Members’ non-trade concerns.  The
capping of the sum of the AMS and de minimus  to a level “significantly less than” the base year 2000
would be especially unfair to newly acceded Members.  Therefore, we cannot agree with theproposals contained in paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4.
Regarding market access, we maintain the same positions as previously presented in the
framework proposal Job(03)/167, which we jointly sponsored with Bulgaria, Iceland, Korea,
Lichtenstein and Switzerland.
On non-trade concerns, we understand that the omission is unintentional in the chapeau.
However, even with the revision in the chapeau and the brief reference in paragraph 6, we still find
the lack of any emphasis with regard to non-trade c oncerns to be troubling.  The framework should at
least contain the possibility for an adequate range of negotiated non-trade concerns elements.
We are pleased to see that the particular concerns of recently acceded Members have been
mentioned under paragraph 5 of Annex A.  However, we do not believe that it adequately reflects all
our concerns.  We strongly urge our colleagues to recognize the difficulties that newly acceded
Members are facing and to provide them with more flexibility – in the form of more moderate tariff
and AMS reductions – as well as a grace period to allow them to adjust to the further commitments.
My delegation shares the view that the success of the Cancún meeting is critical.  The signal
we send to the entire world would inject a much-n eeded impetus to the sluggish global economy.  My
delegation is ready to fully cooperate with you and all other Members.
27. Kyrgyz Republic
Let me thank you for the tremendous efforts to move our process forward and to develop the
text of the Draft Ministerial Text, as well as the Director-General and all delegations involved.  As
was said by many delegations before and by you, this text cannot be taken as a prejudgement of the
outcome of negotiations and cannot prejudge the position of any delegation in these negotiations.  Wesee this text only as a framework document to achieve the objective of the Doha Declaration reflected
in Paragraph 49.  Let me quote "These negotiations should ensure benefits to all participants and to
achieve an overall balance in the outcome of the negotiations."  This means that it should be
beneficial for all and for each.  I am taking the whole Socialist slogan in making one very important
point – that it is to be beneficial not only for all,  but also for every and each member of the society.WT/GC/M/82
Page 166
This comment is made with reference to the speaker from the EU who spoke about a Marxist slogan
that everyone should get what he requires and should be asked according to his abilities.  We can see
part of the EU statement only as a result of expans ion of the EU to the East and the experience of all
the EU constituents as their best efforts.  We see that many issues still lag behind on the text and, for
instance, more work is required in paragraph 5 of the Draft Ministerial Declaration and whenMinisters strive to streamline the work with the international institutions of Bretton Woods System.
And we see that the concept of IDA-only should be fully taken on board, as the delegation of
Honduras and Kenya proposed.  Likewise, we see it necessary to continue to work to effectively
address the issue of recently acceded Members, of which the Kyrgyz Republic is one.  To this effect
my delegation will intervene in the discussion tomorrow in the General Council meeting.
28. Switzerland
I would like to thank you, the Director-General and his team for having produced a text in
very difficult circumstances.  We think it is very skilful drafting that pursues the important objective
of keeping the level of ambition high.  This level of ambition, however, is under four threats:
- Imbalances within issues for negotiation;
- Imbalances among issues;- Imbalances among Members with regard to the level of commitments which are expected
from them;  and
- Each ambitious option, which will disappear in areas other than agriculture, will undoubtedly
alter the level of ambition in agriculture.
With regard to TRIPS and Health
This is an issue of paramount importance to our delegation and we hope to know where we
are going with it in Geneva before we go to Cancún.
With regard to Agriculture
In a nutshell, we have a text which will lead to strong internal reform but without any
incentive to go to a reform process.  We know with more precision than in previous drafts what we
will have to pay.  There is no stimulus at all to follow this road.  I recall one aspect of the Doha
Declaration which unfortunately we do not hear very often in this room, that is, the overall objective
to have a fair and equitable system for agriculture.  This means to conciliate competitive and non-competitive agriculture.  We are not there.  We do not have the tools to achieve this.  In a more formal
vein, rightly you make a reference to the text produced by Stuart Harbinson.  I think it would have
been also fair to make reference to submissions from participants.  We appreciate your intention to
add the non-trade concerns in the chapeau, but further concretization of non-trade concerns is needed.
If food security and/or livelihood security needs of developing countries are mentioned, we certainlysupport that, but this does not mean that other net food importers do not have these concerns.  We are
doubtful about the categorization just among LDCs, developing countries and developed countries.
The text remains silent on what the treatment for net food exporting countries will be.  Do they really
need S&D treatment?
Domestic Support
Any modification of the Green Box criteria, which makes it difficult to use the Green Box, is
unacceptable for us.WT/GC/M/82
Page 167
Market Access
Capping of tariffs contradicts the concept of tariffication which was introduced in the
Uruguay Round and which we subscribed to bona fide  and where the whole transformation process of
agriculture should be facilitated by tariff protection.  For us, TRQ increase is only possible in a verylimited way on an ad hoc basis if our other substantive requests in agriculture are met.
With regard to paragraph 2.9 of your text, there is a contradiction there.  We cannot meet all
the ambitions.  Either we have an overall ambi tion for everybody, or only one for all developing
countries, but certainly not in a cumulative way.
Export Competition
This was the highest level of ambition in Doha.  The concept of elimination for some, with
substantial reductions for others, and with the parallelism between export subsidies, export credits,
food aid and state trading is ok for us.
But we have the impression that the level of ambition in market access and domestic support
is now to be more ambitious than the one in export competition.
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6 of your text is for us the most important but also the most disappointing.  Any of
those incentives we need to move forward are just quoted as issues on which there is no agreement.
So, if in agriculture we want to come at the end of the negotiations to a balanced outcome, I think
there is a big need for some changes of mood in a certain number of delegations before we can really
hope to finalize a package which, with regard to Switzerland, will have to pass a public vote with themajority of the population.
NAMA
Given the level of ambitions in agriculture, we are disappointed that the NAMA text is not
more ambitious.  We have a specific problem to flag – the transformation of non ad valorem into ad
valorem duties is not acceptable for my delegation.
Services and Rules
In services and rules we have a good basis for continuation of work.
TRIPS
We are disappointed that we are not more advanced in this negotiation, which should have
been achieved by Cancún.
Environment
We are very disappointed with low level of ambition, which is not even being met.
S&D and Implementation
The long discussions have revealed how difficult it is to address all the different situations
existing in various developing countries.WT/GC/M/82
Page 168
Geographical Indications
We deplore that we have not achieved the level of ambition of agriculture.  There is a need for
a negotiation mandated in Cancún.
Singapore Issues
It appears that only the negotiations option will manage to keep the overall level of ambition
elsewhere.  We regret the low level of ambition in th is house to embark on issues of the future.  In so
doing, Members accept the risk that our system b ecomes obsolete, if we do not manage to enter into
negotiations on new issues after nine years of hesitation.
We hope that there are possibilities to modify this text before we can accept it as a basis for
Ministers in Cancún.
29. Croatia
At the outset we would like to thank you for the Revised Draft Ministerial Text.  We highly
appreciate your tireless efforts as well as those of the Director-General and the Secretariat during the
entire process that led to its preparation.  My authorities are still considering the Revised Draft
Ministerial Text, so the remarks I will be making will be of a preliminary nature.
There is an issue of particular importance that we would like to address at this stage and that
is the treatment of the issue of recently acceded countries in the Revised Draft Ministerial Text,
particularly in the part related to agriculture and NAMA.  Before going into our concerns we would
like to note that Annex A refers to "recently acceded" Members, while Annex B talks of "newly
acceded" Members.  For the sake of consistency we would propose the use of the same reference to"recently" acceded Members in both texts.
We are not pleased with the text referring to recently acceded Members in the Annex A on
agriculture.  There is an imbalance in comparison  to the treatment given to other issues and other
groups of Members' concerns.  The single sentence in paragraph 5, without referring to some specific
provisions or solution, could hardly address adequately our specific concerns.  In this respect, let me
refer to the text on the recently acceded Members in Annex B on NAMA.  Although we are notcompletely satisfied with its paragraph 9, we recognize that it is an effort in the direction of providing
for treatment of the issue of recently acceded countries similar to other NAMA issues.  Therefore, we
really cannot understand repeatedly expressed views that paragraph 9 prejudges the final outcome of
negotiations.
30. Iceland
My delegation welcomes the Draft Revised Ministerial Text which brings us a step further in
our preparations for the Cancún Ministerial Conference and like others we appreciate your able
leadership in this difficult exercise and the immense work and dedication you and your collaboratorshave put into this.
In the interest of time I will only address the agricultural part of the Draft.The approach being taken in the Draft seems to us to better accommodate the sensitivities of
those who enjoy large-scale and broad-based production which is relatively competitive in
international markets.  It fails to address the interests of a country like ours with small-scale
production of few products which are produced under difficult conditions and which stand no chance
of being competitive on international markets.WT/GC/M/82
Page 169
I will not repeat everything that we have put forward as the vital issues for us in the document
we co-sponsored and tabled last week with Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Korea, Liechtenstein and
Bulgaria, but would rather like to refer to it and to reiterate that these views expressed in the paper are
fully valid and that we regret they are not addressed in the Draft.
I would like to emphasize that capping of tariffs in our view fails to recognize the different
agricultural policies pursued by Members.  We also have major concerns as to the treatment of the
Blue Box, which in our opinion should be available for agriculture in transition, as is the case with
ours, because the Blue Box and the Green Box facilitate the reform process rather than hinder it.
Furthermore, the Uruguay Round approach is a delicate compromise that has proved to give
the flexibility needed for Members.  When this co mpromise is upset, some Members will end up with
more burdens than others.  In particular, while we appreciate that the onus is on the developed
countries to take on more burdensome commitments, it is unacceptable that some of the developed
countries are asked to take on significantly more burdens than other developed countries.
By was of conclusion allow me to cite a poem by the Icelandic Nobel laureate in literature,
the late Mr. Halldór Laxness:
"I will talk to the Emperor in China at home
And the Pope at Rome,
But at home,I will wear my shoes"
And if I may add - here in Geneva I am talking to you and the other Members and trying to
get my message across once more.
Similar to our different agricultural policies, our feet come in different sizes and shapes.  So
what the key here is, is the "F" word which was so eloquently invoked by the representative of Hong
Kong, China, namely flexibility.  It is vital that we be able to design a type of shoe that fits our
different needs.  And maybe that shoe feels uncomfortable to begin with for some, as is often the case
with new shoes, but if it is well-designed and the leather of good quality, it should become more
comfortable with some wear and tear, and should adjust  to the shape of the foot, given that the size to
begin with is correct.  Failure to do this could make us incapable of walking properly and only leaveus with pain and blisters.  That is not acceptable, and everybody hates bad shoes.
31. Israel
Israel welcomes the Revised Draft Ministerial Text and appreciates the hard work and efforts
of you, the Director-General, the Friends of the Chair and the Secretariat.
As many others, we have not yet received complete instructions.  Still, my delegation would
like to share with you some initial comments.
We thank you and the Director-General for the opening remarks.  If your remarks were better
reflected in the text before us at least, for my delegation, it would be an easier task to agreeing on
sending it to our Ministers in Cancún.
With regard to agriculture, Israel sees positively the fact that this Draft reflects some
movement.  It should not surprise anyone in this room that one of our major concerns in agriculture is
the issue of non-trade concerns.  We see positively the fact that this issue is reflected in the chapeau of
the draft framework text, but this is not enough.  The issue of non-trade concerns must be properly
reflected in all three pillars.WT/GC/M/82
Page 170
On NAMA your opening remarks reflected very well the actual situation.  We still have a
long way to go.  While we have concerns regarding paragraph 3, for my delegation paragraph 6 is a
major stumbling block.  While we appreciate the slight changes you have incorporated in the text, it is
the position of my delegation that the sectoral approach should receive the same level of importance
as all other approaches that are mentioned in paragraph 10.  At the least, all views regardingparagraphs 3 and 6 must be fully reflected in the text sent to our Ministers.
At this stage we will limit our specific remarks to these two issues.
32. South Africa
In response to the Draft Ministerial Text of 24 August 2003, we want to make some
preliminary remarks.  Before making these remarks, we would like to state our deep appreciation for
the hard work you and the Director-General have both done, so our comments are no reflection on
this.
The first point is that our overall assessment of the Draft Text is that the Draft is
fundamentally imbalanced in form and content.  The Doha Declaration was carefully balanced, in
terms of form, content and process.  It recognized the critical importance of the development issues
and agriculture as fundamental to this round.  It therefore called for agreement to be reached on the
implementation issues, S&D and agriculture modalities first, before NAMA and the Singapore Issues.
This text has broken this balance and reversed the priorities we agreed to in the Doha Declaration.
The framework agreement on NAMA is more advanced.  On the Singapore Issues, the text
you have presented to us poses stark choices, with one option calling for the launching of negotiations
without any substantial modalities.   On the other ha nd, on the critical issue of agriculture, the text is
only a framework, with no clarity that the negotiations would proceed in the direction set by the Dohamandate.
Thus, in our view, there is no balance in the level of importance of the issues and the degree
of maturity of the frameworks to serve as modalities for the negotiations, with more detail and clearer
direction provided on issues of interest to developed countries.
On agriculture, in our view, the Draft Text and especially the Annex lowers the ambition on
the Doha Declaration.  The Doha Declaration calls for a fair, freer market oriented system to be
established in Agriculture and the needs and interests of developing countries to be at the centre of the
negotiations.  This text places the position of the EU/US joint text at the centre of the proposed
framework.  As we stated before in this foru m, the joint EU/US text is the lowest common
denominator of the largest, most protectionist developed countries, and an effort to accommodate eachothers’ interests.  It cannot become the basis for the negotiations.  The Draft Ministerial Text on
Agriculture, especially the Annex, reduces the level of ambition of the Doha Declaration and does not
accurately reflect the fullness of the discussions in this house on the various issues.  For example, on
the Blue Box, this box is given new life and no direction is given to reduce potential abuse of the
Green Box.  On market access, there are no numbers and the proposed text could easily take usbackwards in continuing to protect areas of interest to developing countries.  On export competition,
there is no clear commitment to elimination.
There are some new issues and very contentious issues of interest to developed countries that
are all lumped together in paragraph 6, giving the impression that these are equivalent in importance.
Thus, we urge you to reflect the different views in a more balanced manner and not to
foreclose an ambitious outcome on agriculture in Cancún.  If the text is to be useful it must correctly
reflect all the views of this house.WT/GC/M/82
Page 171
On the way forward:
- We need to strive to agree on "modalities" at Cancún, notwithstanding our failure to go
beyond discussions on "frameworks" in this house.  Indeed, there is no mandate to lower our
expectation of the Cancún Ministerial, especially on agriculture, as this will have implicationsfor the entire negotiating agenda.
- We propose that you change the Draft to correctly reflect different views, especially in
agriculture, or annex the proposal we made as the group of developing countries in the so-
called G-17, that is fast gaining increasing support in this house, which we believe, is more in
line with the Doha Declaration.
We are very pleased that developing countries have provided leadership in this house.  They
have put aside their differences in the interests of building consensus and in ensuring that we have a
development outcome in this round.
The G-17 proposal has also made significant mo vement by engaging with the EU /US text,
and taking on board some of their concepts such as the "blended formula" on market access.
In contrast, the EU/US text has not engaged meaningfully with others.  We call on the
developed countries to also contribute to provid ing leadership and to be faithful to the Doha
Development Agenda that we all agreed on.
33. Pakistan
I would like to join others in thanking you fo r your hard work.  I think that the Director-
General's opening comments were very relevant to where we are now and how to get where we wantto go.
Considering the guidelines that you gave that we should keep our comments to three minutes,
I'll touch on the three or four points.
Agriculture
We think like many others that it does not meet the ambition of the Doha mandate in any of
the three pillars.  We feel that if we really want to reduce trade distorting domestic support, we should
have had clauses proposed in the G-19 paper incorporated in Annex A.
Market Access
If we really wanted to open up markets, then we should have had more of the language used
in paragraph 2.11 of the G-19 paper instead of language that you have in paragraph 2.1 of Annex A.
Export Competition
I think we should have been more categorical about the end date.  We feel that bringing in the
peace clause at this stage is not fair.  As far as I recall, it was never discussed in the original
Committee meetings and I think this is already negotiated and finalized.  If you open it here and bring
it back then you are setting a precedent.  People ma y bring in such things in other agreements which
have already been done and implemented.WT/GC/M/82
Page 172
NAMA
We would have liked to see a stronger indication that any subsequent discussion would be
based on Chairman Girard's proposal.  However, considering the divergence of views, we can go
along with the present text if the text on agriculture can be made as ambitious as it is in NAMA.
Singapore issues
Two extreme positions have been given.  A number of countries had indicated a middle
position, i.e. that they could accept the next phase of negotiations on some of the issues, if they were
given some comfort level on these issues.  We would have liked to see a reflection of this third
category also.
Sectoral Initiative on Cotton
We have a strong interest in and support this initiative, but I don't think we have language
here, so for the time being we will reserve our comments.
__________