RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONGPA/M/16
26 November 2001
(01-6024)
Committee on Government Procurement
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 2 OCTOBER 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Martin Loken (Canada)
1. The following agenda was adopted:
A. Applications for Observer Status
B. Modifications to the Appendices to the Agreement
C. Accessions:
(i) Latvia
(ii) Estonia(iii) Chinese Taipei
(iv) Jordan
(v) Bulgaria
(vi) Slovenia
(vii) Albania
(viii) Kyrgyz Republic
(ix) Panama
(x) Oman
(xi) Other Newly Acceded Countries
D. Review of National Implementing Legislation
E. Negotiations under Article XXIV:7
F. Annual Report for 2001 to the General CouncilG. Date of the Next MeetingGPA/M/16
Page 2
A. APPLICATIONS FOR OBSERVER STATUS
2. The Committee agreed to grant observer status to the Governments of Albania and Hungary,
pursuant to the decision it had taken on this matter (GPA/1, Annex 1) and in response to the requests
received from those countries (GPA/W/157 and 148, respectively).
3. Welcoming the two new observers, the representatives of the United States and the European
Community said that they hoped that the observers would participate in the work of the Committee in
a substantive way.  The representative of the United States encouraged the observers to consider their
accession to the Agreement as early as possible.
4. The observer from the Slovak Republic said that, as part of the ongoing process of the
approximation of its legislation with the EU Directives, the Public Procurement Law of
1 January 1994 had been improved.  Also, the Office of Public Procurement, an independent central
government authority, had been established on 1 January 2000.
B. MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPENDICES TO THE AGREEMENT
5. The Chairman said that, since the May meeting, the delegation of the United States had
proposed modifications to Appendix I and Appendices II and IV in documents GPAW/1531 and 1542
respectively, dated 25 September 2001;  and the delegation of Japan to its Appendix I in documents
GPA/W/144, 145 and 146, dated 29 August 2001.  As regards the proposed modifications by Japan,
communications had been received from the delegations of the United States, Canada and the
European Community (GPA/W/151, 155 and 156) seekin g clarification and objecting to the proposed
withdrawal of the three Japanese Railway companies, namely East Japan Railway Company, Central
Japan Railway Company and West Japan Railway Company from the coverage of the Agreement.  A
relevant notification received from Japan had been circulated in document GPA/W/152 and Corr.1.
6. The representative of Japan said that, first, Japan was convinced that regulatory control or
influence over the three Japanese Railway (JR) companies had been effectively eliminated.  The three
JR companies had been incorporated as a commercial company in 1987 when the Japanese National
Railways services had been divided into six regional passenger services.  The Government had
subjected these passenger railway companies to extensive regulations concerning their management inorder to ensure the smooth transition of the railway services which had previously been provided by
the national railways.  An amendment to the Law on Passenger Railway Companies and Japan Freight
Railway Company would remove the three JR companies from the coverage of regulations provided
for in that Law.  The Amendment had passed in the Diet in June 2001 and would come into force on
1 December 2001.  Second, government control or influence over the three JR companies through
ownership was no longer in place.  The shares of the three JR companies were listed and traded on the
Tokyo Stock Exchange Market and a majority of the shares were already privately held.  Although theJapan Railway Construction Public Corporation, a 100 per cent government-owned entity, still held a
certain percentage of the shares, it held them merely to pay the annuity debt to former employees of
the national railway out of their sales revenues.  Therefore, it was  in the interest of the Corporation to
sell them as quickly as possible in order to keep up with the payment of bills.  Third, the three JR
companies were operating without special aid from the Government and were competing fiercely withother private operators and other modes of transportation.  For these reasons, the representative of
                                                     
1 The delegations of Canada, the European Community and Japan have made communications seeking
further information from the United States with respect to the notification in GPA/W/153 and objecting to theproposed modifications going into effect at the end of the 30-day period (respectively circulated in documentsGPA/W/167 of 24 October 2001, GPA/W/163 of 19 October 2001 and GPA/W/162 of 22 October 2001).
2 The proposed changes to Appendices II and III have become effective on 25 October 2001
(WT/Let/407).GPA/M/16
Page 3
Japan was quite confident that the three JR co mpanies fulfilled the requirements set forth in
Article XXIV:6(b) of the Agreement and said that his delegation considered that their proposed
withdrawal from the Agreement should be approved.
7. The representatives of the United States;  the European Community ;  Canada ;  Hong Kong,
China;  and Switzerland  said that their respective delegations  were currently studying the information
that had been provided by Japan and that they intended to provide written questions to Japan
regarding certain specific issues.3  The representatives of the European Community and Canada  said
that their delegations had held bilateral consultations with Japan regarding this issue.  In concludingthe discussion, the Chairman said that the Committee would revert to this matter at its next meeting in
the light of discussions between Japan and interested Parties.
8. With regard to the proposed modifications notified by Japan on 6 September 1999 in
document GPA/W/91, the Chairman said that consultations had been held between Japan and the
delegations of the United States, the European Community and Canada on the basis of the questions
put to Japan by these delegations (GPA/W/ 97, GPA/W/99, GPA/W/100 a nd GPA/W/100/Add.1) and
Japan's answers thereto (GPA/W/104, GP A/W/104/Add.1 and GPA/ W/104/Add.2/Rev.1,
GPA/W/107, GPA/W/108  and GPA/W/160).
9. The representative of Japan said that, following the submission of Japan's notification
regarding the reorganization of the NTT in 1999, Japan had held consultations with Parties who had
opposed the proposed modifications to Appendix I.  It had become clear to Japan that certain points
regarding independence, competition and volume of procurement relating to NTT should be explained
further in order to convince Parties that this modification was justified under Article XXIV:6 of the
GPA.  First, all NTT-C stocks were owned by the NTT Holding Company, some of whose stockswere owned by the Government of Japan.  This fact could lead to the assumption that the Government
could exert influence on NTT-C through the NTT Holding Company.  To counter any such
assumptions, Japan would give the following explanation to indicate the independence of NTT-C.
First, the authorization by the Government to the NTT Holding Company to release the share of
NTT-C was to be abolished in December 2001 when the amendment of the NTT Law of June 2001would come into effect.  As a result of this amendment, there would be no stipulation concerning the
NTT-C in the NTT Law and the autonomy of the management of the NTT-C would be more clear.
Second, the ratio of NTT Holding Company stocks he ld by the Government had fallen to less than
50 per cent.  At present, the ownership of NTT stocks by the Government was 46 per cent.  As for
competition, the market share related to long-distance services, which was one of the main businesses
undertaken by the NTT-C, had been steadily decreasing year by year.  The market share of
international telephony and Internet access services for individual use provided by NTT-C was alsoquite small.  Finally, the volume of procurement by NTT-C above the threshold under Japan's Action
Programme on Government Procurement (SDR 100,000) had been nil in 2000.  Given the
aforementioned, the conditions for modifications to Appendix I under Article XXIV:6 should be
considered as satisfied.  In the past two years, the Government of Japan had responded to the
questions put by interested Parties and had provided all the relevant data.  Japan believed that Partiesshould be able to decide soon on the matter.
10. The representative of the United States asked whether Japan had plans for selling the shares
of NTT-C by the NTT Holding Company or whethe r the NTT Holding Company would maintain all
the shares of the NTT-C company.  The representative of Japan said that, based on the three-year
programme for promoting regulatory reform and other recommendations, the Ministry of Public
Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications requested in May 2001 that the NTT
Holding Company develop and publish a voluntar y action plan which wo uld aim at providing
                                                     
3 The questions received from the European Commun ity and the United States, dated 19 October 2001,
have been circulated in documents GPA/W/164 and 165, respectively.GPA/M/16
Page 4
improved management and ensuring fair competition.  In that sense, maintaining NTT-C shares was a
question of management by the NTT Holding Company.
11. The representatives of the European Community and Canada  said that their delegations would
study the information that had been provided.
12. In concluding the discussion, the Chairman said that the Committee would revert to this
matter at its next meeting in the light of discussions between Japan and other Parties.4
13. With respect to the notification by Japan in GPA/W/129, dated 19 March 2001 , the Chairman
said that the United States and Canada had made  communications objecting to these modifications
(GPA/W/132 and 134) and Hong Kong, China ha d requested further information (GPA/W/135
and 143).  Japan's responses had been circulated in document GPA/W/137.  The United States and
Canada had indicated subsequently that they had withdrawn their objection to the proposed
modifications (GPA/W/139 and 147).  Accordingly, the modifications proposed by Japan inGPA/W/129 had entered into force on 5 September 2001 (WT/Let/400).
14. With respect to the notification by Korea in GPA/W/128 and Corrs. 1 and 2, the Chairman
said that Korea's responses to the clarification of the proposed modifications sought by the
United States (GPA/W/133) had been circulated in document GPA/W/142.  The United States had
indicated subsequently that it had withdrawn its objection (GPA/W/150).  The modifications proposed
by Korea in GPA/W/128 and Corrs. 1 and 2 and additional modifications proposed by Korea to its
Appendix I (GPA/W/140) had entered into force on 14 September 2001 (WT/Let/401).
C. ACCESSIONS
(i) Latvia
15. The Chairman said that Latvia had updated the information that it had previously provided on
its government procurement regime by replying to the Checklist of Issues in document GPA/W/149,
dated 13 September 2001.5
16. The representative of Latvia said that Latvia had concluded its bilateral consultations with
Canada, Switzerland and the United States.  She hoped that the ongoing bilateral consultations with
the European Community and Israel would be finalized soon in order to enable the Committee to takea decision on Latvia's accession by the next meeting.
17. The representative of the European Community said that her delegation hoped to conclude its
bilateral consultations with Latvia soon.
18. The representative of the United States said that the United States would be prepared to agree
to the terms that had been offered by Latvia during the bilateral consultations.  The representative of
Canada said that her delegation looked forward to receiving Latvia's final draft offer following the
conclusion of Latvia's consultations with some other delegations.  The representative of Switzerland
said that his delegation looked forward to Latvia's accession to the Agreement.
                                                     
4 In a communication, dated 19 October 2001, the United States has withdrawn its objection to the
modifications proposed by Japan in GPA/W/91 (GPA/W/166).
5 A further communication by Latvia transmitting the Law on Procurement for State or Local
Government Needs was circulated on 22 November 2001 (GPA/28/Add.2).GPA/M/16
Page 5
19. The Chairman urged those delegations that had not yet completed their bilateral consultations
with Latvia to do so as soon as possible.  With regard to the next steps in Latvia's accession process,
he suggested that Latvia should submit a revised offer as soon as possible.  Parties would then have
six weeks from the date of circulation of the offer to advise the Secretariat whether or not they would
be able to accept the terms of the offer.  If no objections had been raised within that time-period, theSecretariat would circulate a draft Decision containing the terms providing for the accession of Latvia
which the Parties could consider for adoption at the next meeting.  The Committee so agreed.
(ii) Estonia
20. Reporting on the developments regarding Estonia's accession since the meeting of the
Committee held in May 2001, the Chairman said that a revised version of Estonia's replies to the
Checklist of Issues had been circulated in document GPA/W/127/Rev.1 and Add.1.  In addition, acopy of the Revised Public Procurement Act of 1 April 2001 was circulated in document GPA/55.
21. The representative of Estonia said that, since the May 2001 meeting, Estonia had held
bilateral consultations with the delegations of the United States and Canada and a revised offer would
be submitted in the near future.
22. The representative of Japan said that Estonia had replied to a follow-up question that had been
put by his delegation relating to the registration and qualification of suppliers of construction services
(GPA/SPEC/19/Rev.1).  Japan looked forward to receiving Estonia's revised offer.  The representative
of the United States said that his delegation appreciated the progress that had been made in Estonia's
accession process.  His delegation had held bilateral consultations with Estonia and hoped that Estoniawould be able to complete its accession process in the near future.
6  The representative of Canada said
that her delegation had held bilateral consultations with Estonia and looked forward to receiving
Estonia's revised offer.
23. In concluding the discussion on Estonia's accession,  the Chairman invited those Parties who
had not yet completed the bilateral consultations wi th Estonia to do so in the near future.  He
suggested that Estonia should submit a revised offer as soon as possible.  Parties would then have six
weeks from the date of circulation of the offer to advise the Secretariat whether or not they would be
able to accept the terms of the revised offer.  The Committee so agreed.
(iii) Chinese Taipei
24. The representative of Japan said that her delegation had recently sought some further
clarification from the delegation of Chinese Taipei.  The representatives of the European Community
and Switzerland said that their delegations were examining the information that had been received
recently from the delegation of Chinese Taipei.
25. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that, in the process of its WTO accession
negotiations, Chinese Taipei had undertaken a commitment to accede to the Agreement on
Government Procurement following its accession to the WTO.  Chinese Taipei had completed the
bilateral negotiations with all interested Parties.  Chinese Taipei's offer in document
GPA/SPEC/1/Rev.1, dated 19 March 1997 , would be revised pursuant to those negotiations.  Chinese
Taipei's WTO accession was expected to be approved at the time of the Fourth Ministerial Conferenceand would become effective after the completion of domestic ratification procedures and the deposit
of the instrument of accession.  Chinese Taipei's final offer would be submitted for the consideration
and adoption of the Committee once the WTO accession process had been completed.
                                                     
6 The questions received from the United States , dated 23 October 2001 ha ve been circulated in
document GPA/SPEC/24.GPA/M/16
Page 6
(iv) Jordan
26. The representative of Jordan said that her delegation had pursued bilateral consultations with
the delegations of the European Community and the United States.  Reporting on the domestic work
under way regarding Jordan's accession to the Agreement, she said that, in cooperation with the
AMIR (Access to Microfinance and Improved Implementation of Policy Reform) programme, atechnical assistance project funded by the USAID (United States Agency for International
Development), a comprehensive study on government procurement was being conducted for the
benefit of the Jordanian government authorities.  The main purpose of the study was to estimate the
size of Jordan's procurement market and to assess the possible impact of the opening of Jordan's
procurement market to international competition on domestic suppliers.  The first stage of the study
consisted of the gathering of data on the procurement of goods and services by various central and
sub-central government entities over the past four  years.  Most government entities' procurement
records were paper-based and in loosely organi zed files and documents which meant that the
collection and organization of data took time.  The second stage of the study which involved an
economic analysis had been delayed until after data from the relevant government entities had been
collected and compiled in a usable format.  However, some initial findings, based on the available
data, were expected to be presented to the Jordanian Government in the near future.  The study underway was considered to be essential to the preparation of Jordan's entity offer.  Turning to the basic
law under preparation, she said that the relevant authorities in the public and private sectors were
reviewing the draft law and that the legislative work was not expected to be completed before next
year.  Moreover, consultations were under way at the intergovernmental level and with the private
sector regarding the restructuring of the main procuring entities.
27. The representative of the United States said that his delegation welcomed the information that
the domestic preparatory work on Jordan's accession was moving forward.  He hoped that Jordan
would be in a position to submit an initial offer at the earliest date possible.  The representative of the
European Community said that her delegation had received Jordan's replies to its questions
(GPA/SPEC/20/Rev.1) and had also had bilatera l consultations.  Her delegation was ready to
consider, jointly with the delegation of Jordan, how assistance could be provided regarding the
drafting of the new legislation.  The representative of Switzerland said that Jordan had made
substantial efforts regarding its internal consultations and the preparation of the legislation on publicprocurement.  He looked forward to moving to the next steps in the accession process of Jordan.
(v) Bulgaria
28. The Chairman said that the questions related to  Bulgaria's replies to the Checklist of Issues
(GPA/W/136) that had been received from the delega tions of Switzerland;  Hong Kong, China;  and
Canada had been circulated in documents GPA/SP EC/21, 22 and 23, respectively.  He added that,
according to the indicative time-frame, Bulgaria was expected to provide its responses to those
questions by 1 December 2001.
29. The representative of Switzerland said that, in light of Bulgaria's replies to the Checklist of
Issues, it seemed that the public procurement regime in Bulgaria, as it stood currently, would
generally meet the requirements under the Agreement.
30. With regard to the negotiation of Bulgaria's Schedules, the representative of Bulgaria referred
to the ongoing work on the preparation of the initial offer and said that her delegation hoped to be able
to submit the offer as soon as the internal consultations on the offer had been finalized.GPA/M/16
Page 7
31. As regards the next phase in Bulgaria's accession process, the Chairman invited the delegation
of Bulgaria to submit its initial offer as soon as possible.  Also, he suggested that informal plurilateral
consultations could be held between Bulgaria and interested Parties in February 2002, back to back
with the formal meeting.  The Committee so agreed.
(vi) Slovenia
32. The Chairman said that Slovenia had applied for accession on 24 September 2001 (GPA/56).
It had also submitted its replies to the Checklist of Issues in document GPA/W/158.  He suggested
that, in accordance with the indicative timetable , any Party wishing to put questions to Slovenia
should do so by 1 December 2001.  Slovenia should reply to these questions by 1 February 2002 .
Plurilateral consultations between Slovenia and interested Parties could be envisaged at the time ofthe next meeting provided that the exchange of questions and answers was completed in advance of
the next meeting.
(vii) Albania
33. The Chairman said that Albania had applied for accession on 18 September 2001 (GPA/57).
He had been informed that Albania would submit its replies to the Checklist of Issues in document
GPA/35 in the near future.7  He suggested that any Parties wishing to put questions to Albania should
do so by 15 December 2001.  Albania should provide its responses to any such questions by
15 February 2002.
(viii) Kyrgyz Republic
34. The Chairman said that the Kyrgyz Republic had applied for accession and had submitted its
initial offer on 11 May 1999 (GPA/SPEC/4).  The written questions and comments received from the
United States had been circul ated in document GPA/SPEC/7.
35. The representative of the United States said that there was need for more input from the
Kyrgyz Republic and that his delegation looked forward to receiving the replies to the Checklist of
Issues in document GPA/35.
36. The Chairman invited the Kyrgyz Republic to respond to the Checklist of Issues in GPA/35 as
soon as possible.
(ix) Panama
37. The representative of the United States said that, since the May 2001 meeting, his delegation
had had further consultations with Panama in Panama.  It had, however, been unable to resolve some
of the remaining problems, the principal one of which was his delegation's request relative to the
coverage of the Panama Canal Authority in Panama's offer.  The United States considered that
procurement by the Panama Canal Authority was an important part of the overall governmentprocurement market in Panama.  His authorities continued to encourage Panama to consider the listing
of that entity in its offer.  The authorities in Pana ma had indicated that they were still considering the
matter but had not yet been able to reach an agreement.  It was the United States' understanding that
the procurement practices of the Panama Canal Authority were, in general, consistent with the
requirements under the Agreement.  His delegation had suggested to Panama that its accession to theAgreement could be a significant demonstration of that fact.  He hoped that Panama would be able to
reconsider its position and would be able to actually include that entity in its offer.
                                                     
7 Subsequently circulated in document GPA/W/161, dated 12 October 2001GPA/M/16
Page 8
(x) Oman
38. Referring to Oman's replies to the Checklist of Issues that had been circulated in document
GPA/W/141 on 12 July 2001, the Chairman said that, in accordance with the indicative time-frame,
Parties were to address any questions to Oman by 12 September 2001 but, to date, no questions hadbeen received.
39. The representative of the United States said that his delegation's questions would be
submitted in the near future.8
40. The representatives of Canada, the European Community  and Switzerland  said that their
delegations had held bilateral consultations with the delegation of Oman.
41. The representative of Oman said that, in order to enable her authorities to have a better
understanding of the commitment that they had undertaken regarding the Agreement, her delegation
had asked the Secretariat to hold a seminar for the officials of the tender board and other concernedMinistries in Muscat early next year.  Oman was fa cing the problems that were typical of developing
countries with small administrations.  Because of logistical constraints, the preparation of Oman's
entity offer had taken time.
42. The representative of the United States said that his delegation had taken note of the
challenges that developing countries might face in acceding to the Agreement and expressed its
willingness to work with the Government of Oman to address any particular issues.  In his view,
informal consultations between the Parties to the Agreement and the acceding countries could be the
most beneficial aspect of the accession work.
(xi) Other Newly Acceded Countries
43. The representative of Lithuania said that Lithuania had undertaken a commitment to initiate
negotiations for membership in the Agreem ent following its accession to the WTO
(WT/ACC/LTU/52).  Lithuania had become a WTO Member on 31 May 2001.  Lithuania's replies to
the Checklist of Issues in document GPA/35 was under preparation and would be submitted in due
course.  The representative of the United States said that his delegation hoped to receive the replies as
soon as possible, preferably prior to the next meeting.
44. The representative of Moldova said that Moldova had undertaken a commitment to initiate
negotiations for membership in the Agreement by tabling an entity offer immediately after accession.
Moldova had acceded to the WTO on 26 July 2001 (WT/ACC/MOL/37).  He said that Moldova had
recently adopted its legislation on government procurement.  His authorities were currently preparing
the replies to the Checklist of Issues in document GPA/35 as well as the initial offer and hoped to be
able to submit them shortly.
45. The representative of Croatia said that Croatia had undertaken a commitment that it would
initiate negotiations for membership in the Agreement on Government Procurement upon accession
by tabling an entity offer at that time (WT/ACC/HRV/59, paragraph 155).  Croatia had acceded to the
WTO on 30 November 2000.  The preparation of a new legislation on public procurement was
currently under discussion among different government agencies.  Croatia would initiate the
procedures regarding the application for accession  to the Agreement after the conclusion of the
legislative work and once the new law had been passed by the Cabinet and had been approved by the
Parliament.
                                                     
8 The questions submitted by the United States on 21 November 2001 have been circulated in
document GPA/SPEC/25.GPA/M/16
Page 9
46. Referring to the question of whether it was necessary to complete the domestic work relating
to the preparation of new or revised legislation in an acceding country before that country could move
forward with the process of accession to the Agreement, the representative of the United States, joined
by the representative of Canada, said that acceding countries should be encouraged to consult with the
Parties to the Agreement closely and to submit any drafts of the laws in preparation for theconsideration of the Parties to the Agreement prior to the conclusion of the domestic procedures.
Consultations with the Parties would be beneficial in evaluating any legislation under preparation
from the perspective of an acceding country's future  commitments under the Agreement.  He therefore
encouraged Croatia to share with the Parties info rmation on the draft legislation and to enter into
informal consultations during the phase of the development of the legislation.  The representative of
Switzerland referred to Croatia’s commitment to accede to the Agreement and said that Croatia
should consider the preparation of its offer without waiting to have its domestic legislation fully in
place.
47. As regards the other newly acceded countries, the Chairman said that the Protocols of
Accession of two WTO Members, namely Georgia (WT/ACC/GEO/31) and Mongolia
(WT/ACC/MNG/9) also included commitments regarding the Agreement on Government
Procurement.
D. REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
48. Taking up the review of the implementing legislation of Japan, the Chairman said that, the
replies to the questions put by Canada;  Hong Kong, China;  Switzerland;  and the United States had
been circulated in Job No. 5549 and Corr.1.
49. The representatives of Canada;  Hong Kong, China;  and Switzerland  thanked Japan for the
replies received.  The representative of the United States said that, although his delegation was
prepared to agree to the conclusion of the review of Japan's implementing legislation, it was
somewhat disappointed that Japan's responses to so me of the questions of the United States had not
been very detailed.  In particular, his delegation had concerns relating to the existence of meaningful
competition in Japan's construction market.  This question was, in some ways, related to extremelylow market penetration of foreign suppliers in that market.
50. The representative of Japan said that his delegation was prepared to discuss construction and
related procurement matters, if necessary, on a project basis, with any interested delegation.  He
believed that Japan's procurement system was open and competitive.
51. As there were no outstanding points with respect to the review of the national implementing
legislation of Israel and Liechtenstein on the basis of the replies received from those Parties
(Job Nos. 5773, 2923 and 7113 and Job No. 4731), the Chairman suggested that the Committee
consider that the review of the implementing legislation of Israel, Japan and Liechtenstein had been
completed, it being understood that the Committee might revert to any matter relating to the
legislation of these Parties at any time.  The full record of the review of the legislation of these Parties
would be circulated in the GPA/- series of documents.  The Committee so agreed.
52. With regard to the two Parties whose review of the legislation had not yet been initiated,
namely the Kingdom of the Netherlands with respect to Aruba and Iceland, the Chairman invited
these delegations to submit notifications of their implementing legislation by responding to theChecklist of Issues in GPA/1/Add.1.GPA/M/16
Page 10
E. NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXIV :7
53. Reporting on the informal consultations held on 1 October 2001 on the Article XXIV:7(b)
negotiations, the Chairman said that the informal group had continued its Article-by-Article review of
the Agreement on the basis of the proposals by various delegations compiled in the Secretariat note"Suggested Drafting Changes to the 1994 Agreement" (Job No. 5765).  Delegations also had availableto them an explanatory note by the United States relating to its proposals for the revision of the
Agreement (Job No. 2867) and another submission by the United States on "'BOT' Contracts and
'Concessions for Public Works' under the GPA" (Job No. 6800).  Detailed comments had been made
seeking clarification of or suggesting further drafting changes to the revised texts proposed by the
United States in Job No. 2867.  As a way of moving forward the discussion on the proposed
definitions, the delegation of the United States had been asked to provide some examples of BOT
contracts and concessions for public works.  Those delegations who had questions regarding theextent to which the proposed definition of "BOT" contracts covered certain types of government
procurement had also been invited to forward exam ples of such situations.  The delegation of the
United States had indicated that it would further revise the texts of some of the proposed amendments
in Job No. 2867 to take account of the comments that had been made so far.  It also informed the
Group that it was reviewing its ideas on exceptions to the Agreement.  A number of other delegationsexpected to put forward drafting suggestions on the review of the text of the Agreement:  Hong Kong,
China on several Articles;  the European Community on tendering procedures;  Canada on time-limits
regarding contract award notices;  and Japan on Article XXIV:6(b).  With regard to the possible use
of the term "measures" in defining the scope of an agreement, the Secretariat had been asked to
prepare a note on the use of this term in GATT/WTO jurisprudence.  The Group had reverted also toother aspects of Article XXIV:7 negotiations, namely the elimination of discriminatory measures and
the expansion of coverage.  The delegation of Canada introduced a submission on Discriminatory
Provisions in the Agreement (Job No. 6604).  The Group also had before it a list of documents
containing the submissions that had been made previously by various delegations as well as the notes
by the Secretariat relating to these elements.  The Secretariat had made available a note on theModalities Used in the Past for Negotiating Schedules to the Agreement (Job No. 7055).  Under this
item, the view had been expressed by some delegations that coverage issues should be addressed in a
broad manner.  Regarding the status of work on the revision of the text of the Agreement, the view
had been expressed that the proposals on the table constituted a good basis for the negotiations on the
revision of the text of the Agreement, it being understood that delegations were free to make
additional proposals at any time.  Finally, delegations had had an exchange of views regarding the
development of a plan of action for carrying forward work on all elements of the review.  Somedelegations had informed the Group that intensive consultations were being pursued internally on
GPA-related issues and that they needed more time before they could agree to a time-frame for further
work on the negotiations under Article XXIV:7.  It had also been suggested that the discussion on the
revision of the text at each of the future meetings would focus on selected categories of issues.  Some
delegations suggested that the possibility of early results in some areas should be considered.  Somedelegations stressed that the elements of the review regarding the elimination of discriminatory
provisions and expansion of coverage would be take n up in parallel with the work on the revision of
the text.
54. Regarding the next informal meeting which would be held on 20 February 2002, the
Secretariat note, "Suggested Drafting Changes to the 1994 Agreement" would be revised toincorporate the comments made at the present meeting.  Those delegations who expected to suggest
new draft texts or amendments to earlier proposals had been invited to do so by 20 January 2002.  The
Group would have a focused discussion on tendering procedures (Articles V II-XV and Article XV III,
paragraphs 1, 3 and 4); technical specifications (Article VI);  definitions related to these two issues
(the United States proposal in Job No. 2867);  and provisions on developing countries (Article V andthe proposal by Switzerland in Job No. 1274).  Th e Group would revert to the discussion of BOT
contracts (the United States proposal in Job No. 2867 and Job No. 6800).  The Group would continueGPA/M/16
Page 11
its discussion on how to move forward on the othe r elements of the negotiations.  Prior to this
meeting, the Chair would have informal consultations with a view to making a proposal for a
timetable and work programme for all elements of the work under Article XXIV:7.
F. ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2001 TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL
55. The Committee agreed to the arrangements for the adoption of its Annual Report for 2001 to
the General Council on the basis of a draft prepared by the Secretariat.  The report was subsequently
adopted and circulated as document GPA/58.
G. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
56. The Committee agreed to hold its next meeting on 21 February 2002 .
__________