RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/61
7 February 2001
(01-0595)
General Council
7, 8, 11 and 15 December 2000
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 7, 8, 11 and 15 December 20001
Chairman:  Mr. Kåre Bryn (Norway)
Subjects discussed Page
1. Accession of Lithuania....................................................................................................... .......3
(a) Report of the Working Party ................................................................................................ ......3
2. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration .............................................................7
(a) Report of the Committee .................................................................................................... ........7
3. Committee on Balance-of -Payments Restrictions................................................................15
(a) Consultations with th e Slovak Republic ..................................................................................15
(b) Consultations with Romania ................................................................................................. ...16
(c) Note on the meeting of 18 September 2000 .............................................................................16
4. WTO Pension Plan............................................................................................................. .....17
(a) Annual Report of the Mana gement Board for 1999 ................................................................17
(b) Transfer Agreement with the United  Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund ..................................18
(c) Election of two alternates to the Manageme nt Board ..............................................................18
5. Five-year review of the exemption provided under Paragraph 3 of the GATT
1994 ........................................................................................................................... ...............18
6. Waivers under Article IX of the WTO Agreement..............................................................21
(a) Harmonized System – Requests for extension of  waivers........................................................21
(i) Nicaragua .................................................................................................................. ..............21
(ii) Sri Lanka ................................................................................................................. .................21
(b) Zambia – Renegotiation of Schedule LXXVIII........................................................................22
(i) Request for extens ion of ti me-lim it ........................................................................................ ..22
(c) Decision on the introduction of Harmonized System changes into WTO Schedules of
tariff  concessions on 1 January 1996 .......................................................................................22
                                                     
1 This meeting was adjourned and will be reconvened to complete the consideration of item 12.
Minutes of the reconvened meeting will be carried in an Addendum the present document.WT/GC/M/61
Page 2
(i) Extension of  time-limit .................................................................................................... .........22
(d) EC – Autonomous preferential treatment to the countries of the Western Balkans .................22
(i) Request for waiver ......................................................................................................... ..........22
(e) Turkey – Preferential treatm ent for Bosnia-Herzegovina.........................................................23
(i) Request for waiver ......................................................................................................... ..........23
(f) Review of waivers pursuant to Ar ticle IX:4 of the WTO Agreement ......................................23
(i) Canada – CARIBCAN, granted on 14 October 1996 until 31 December 2006........................23
(ii) Cuba – Article XV:6, granted on 14 October 1996 until 31 December 2001...........................23
(iii) Hungary – Agricultural export subsidies, granted on 22 October 1997 until
31 December 2001 .............................................................................................................. .....23
(iv) United States – Andean Trade Preference Act, granted on 14 October 1996 until
4 December 2001 ............................................................................................................... ......23
(v) United States – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, granted on 15 November
1995 until 31 December 2005 ..................................................................................................2 3
(vi) United States – Former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, granted on 14 October
1996 until 31 December 2006...................................................................................................2 3
7. Work programme on el ectronic commerce .........................................................................24
8. Observer status for internationa l intergovernmental  organizations..................................36
9. Procedures for the appointmen t of the Direct or-General...................................................39
10. Internal transparency and eff ective participatio n of Members..........................................44
(a) Preparation and organization of ministerial conferences..........................................................44
11. Proposal to amend certain provisions of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes Pursuant to Article X of the
Marrakesh  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization ...............................47
(a) Submission by Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Japan, Korea, New
Zealand, Norway, Peru, Switzerland and Venezuela for examination and further
consideration by th e General Council ......................................................................................47
12. Date and venue of the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference ................................50
(a) Statement by  the Chairman................................................................................................... ....50
13. Trade facilitation – Status report on work carried out by the Council for Trade
in Goods under Paragraph 21 of the Singapore Ministerial Declaration .........................54
14. Report on the implementation of Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture .............55
15. Proposal for addition of an item to the General Council Agenda:  "Reports of
the Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and of the Council forTrade in Services, and of the TRIPS Council on the mandated negotiations on
agriculture, services and ge ographical indications"............................................................56
(a) Communication by Switzerland on the proposal by Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Kenya, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Pakistan, Slovenia, Sri
Lanka, Switzerland and Turkey ...............................................................................................56
16. Reports of the Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and of the
Council for Trade in  Services ...............................................................................................64WT/GC/M/61
Page 3
17. Review of WTO activities.................................................................................................... ...70
(a) General Council (WT/GC/W/421), Dispute Settlement Body, Trade Policy Review
Body, Sectoral Councils, Committees on Trade and Development, Balance-of-
Payments Restrictions, Budget, Finance and Administration, and Regional Trade
Agreements ..................................................................................................................... ..........70
(b) Committee on Trade and Environment ....................................................................................70
(c) Working Groups on the Relationship between Trade and Investment, the Interaction
between Trade and Competition Policy, and Transparency in Government
Procurement.................................................................................................................... ..........70
(d) Committees under the Pluril ateral Trade Agreements .............................................................70
18. Statement on the outcome of the APEC meeting in Brunei Darussalam...........................81
19. Accession to  the WTO ........................................................................................................ ....81
(a) Statement by Egypt.......................................................................................................... .........81
20. Statement by the Director-General on several matters related to recent
developments of rele vance to the WTO ................................................................................86
21. Announcement by the Chairman on the fo llow-up to the special meeting of the
General Council on amicus  briefs..........................................................................................88
The Chairman invited the Director-General to make a statement2 on developments in
international trade and the trading system, after which the General Council met3 as the Trade Policy
Review Body and held a full discussion on this matter.
1. Accession of Lithuania
(a) Report of the Working Party (WT/ACC/LTU/ 52 and Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1 and Add.2)
1. The Chairman welcomed H.E. Mr. Valdas Adamkus, President of Lithuania, as well as the
other members of the Lithuanian delegation.
2. He recalled that in February 1994, the GATT 1947 Council had established a working party
to examine the request by Lithuania for accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Having regard to the Decision adopted by the General Council on 31 January 1995, the GATT 1947
Accession Working Party had been transformed into a WTO Accession Working Party.  The report of
the Working Party was now before the Genera l Council in the documents WT/ACC/LTU/52 and
Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1 and Add.2.
3. Mr. Witt (Germany), Chairman of the Working Party, introducing the report, said that the
accession of Lithuania marked the completion of the accession processes for the three Baltic States.
Their membership in the WTO provided a solid foundation for sustained investment and economic
growth, and their negotiations had set the pace and tone for the accessions of other economies in
transition.  The Baltic States' accessions were fundamentally positive and outward-looking, and
provided an excellent platform for intensified integration globally, regionally and among themselves.Lithuania's accession to the WTO contributed to the political project of buildi ng a larger Europe, a
Europe which was outward-looking and globally-oriented.  In this context and speaking on behalf of
                                                     
2 The statement was circulated in WT/GC/41.
3 The minutes of this meeting are contained in WT/TPR/OV/M/3.WT/GC/M/61
Page 4
Germany, he had always considered it an honour and a privilege to be associated with that important
accession.
4. Lithuania's accession process had lasted almost seven years and, in tandem with the
multilateral exercise, interested Members had conducted intensive market-access negotiations in
goods, including agriculture and services, with Lithuania.  The accession process had been difficult attimes and as Chairman of the Working Party, he wished to pay tribute to the continuous efforts, good
will and spirit of compromise shown by all, which had enabled the Working Party to overcome the
many difficulties encountered in that accession process.  The traditional spirit of pragmatism of the
GATT/WTO had once again prevailed which and had allowed the Working Party to conclude its
work.  The results of the accession negotiations were contained in the following documents:  the
Report of the Working Party (WT/ACC/LTU/52), th e Schedule of Concessions and Commitments in
Goods (WT/ACC/LTU/52/Add.1 and A dd.1/Corr.1) and the Schedule of Specific Commitments in
Services (WT/ACC/LTU/52/ Add.2).  Members of the Working Party had noted with appreciation
Lithuania's efforts to put into place the necessary  legislation to implement the WTO agreements by
the date of accession.  Thus, Lithuania would become an effective participant in the WTO
immediately upon entry into force of the Protocol of Accession.
5. The representative of Lithuania, speaking as an observer
, said that after six years of intensive
and dedicated work, the accession process had reached its final stage.  As a result of the accession
negotiations, Lithuania's legislation now complied with the provisions of practically all relevant WTO
agreements and it was ready to join the rule-based multilateral trading system.  In parallel with the
accession negotiations, Lithuania had undertaken economic reforms to comply with WTO rules and
standards.  The negotiations had assisted Lithuania in its comprehensive institutional and economicreforms.  Since the beginning of the negotiations, Lithuania had adopted and implemented legislation
and the numerous requirements necessary to comply with the relevant WTO agreements.  Lithuania
undertook the commitment to implement, without transitional periods, several agreements among
which were TRIPS, ITA, TBT, SPS, Custom Valuation and Civil Aircraft.  Lithuania had also
undertaken a commitment to enter into negotiations on the Agreement on Government Procurementsoon after accession.  As a result of bilateral negotiations on market access, Lithuania had
considerably lowered its tariffs for industrial and agricultural products.  Its Schedule of Specific
Commitments in the services area was one of the most liberal and provided excellent market-access
opportunities.  Plurilateral negotiations on domestic support and export subsidies in the agricultural
sector, which had been the most complex part of the accession negotiations, had contributed to the
establishment of a more transparent, predictable and market-oriented agricultural policy in Lithuania.
6. During its accession negotiations, Lithuania had made substantial steps forward in creating an
open, efficient and competitive economy thus becoming more attractive and predictable for its trading
partners.  On the other hand, its accession to the WTO would improve market-access conditions for its
goods and services in other Members' markets.  Implementation of WTO principles in Lithuania's
trade policy created a new and more competitive environment for business, and new opportunities for
consumers.  Lithuania was now ready to join a li beral multilateral trading system which facilitated
economic growth.  Finally, he expressed gratitude to Mr. Valdas Adamkus, President of the Republic
of Lithuania, for his support, interest and encouragement to the Lithuanian negotiators, as well as to
Members for their efficient cooperation and to th e Chairman of the Working Party for his committed
and patient work.
7. The General Council approved the text of the draft Protocol of Accession of Lithuania, and in
accordance with the Decision-Making Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement
agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93) adopted the draf t Decision on the Accession of Lithuania.  The
General Council adopted the Report of the Wo rking Party in document WT/ACC/LTU/52 and Add.1
and Add.1/Corr.1 and Add.2.WT/GC/M/61
Page 5
8. The Chairman, on behalf of the General Council, welcomed the accession of Lithuania.
9. H.E. Mr. Valdas Adamkus, President of Lithuania, said that this was a historic day for
Lithuania who, after complex, intensive and often difficult work had completed its accession
negotiations.  Accession to the WTO was one of the crucial steps toward Lithuania's full reintegration
into the world economy.  The WTO had become an instrument capable of effectively regulatinginternational trade and streamlining its development.  WTO principles had encouraged further
liberalization of the world markets and had allowed the creation of a stable, effective and transparent
global trading system.  Lithuania was strongly committed to participating in the multilateral trading
system.  Lithuania was an open economy and its trade accounted for 80 per cent of its GDP.
10. With its accession to the WTO, Lithuania would secure its position in the global network of
economic interdependence.  WTO rules and regulations represented better guarantees for domestic
and foreign investors.  Membership should also facilitate access to international financial markets.Lithuania had finalized its accession in the post-Seattle period, which was not an easy period for the
WTO.  World-wide integration of economies raised more and more concerns.  Globalization was
sometimes blamed for problems such as poverty, unemployment and environmental degradation.
Such an approach had pooled the opposition against the efforts to further liberalize global trade and
promote investments by launching another round of multilateral trade negotiations.  It was true thatglobalization required adjustments that might be difficult to accept.  However, expanding
international trade and increasing openness of national markets had consistently generated wealth and
economic growth.  As a result, open economies had enjoyed higher social standards.  Open economic
policies were instrumental in reducing poverty, raising employment, and improving conditions for
public health and education.  Therefore, Lithuania welcomed the efforts of Members, the Director-General and the Chairman of the General Council to rebuild confidence in the WTO.  Significant
success had already been achieved, the best evidence being the launching of negotiations on
agriculture and services, the establishment of a mechanism for a more efficient implementation of the
Uruguay Round commitments, and the ongoing efforts to ensure transparency and effective
participation of all Members in the work of the WTO.  The success of these undertakings shouldencourage a new round of multilateral trade negotiations, which would deliver benefits to all.
11. The WTO had contributed greatly to the upturn of the global economy and would certainly
continue to do so in the future.  From a national perspective, membership to the WTO would further
promote economic and legal reforms in Lithuania.   The accession process had already played a
significant part in shaping its trade regime and environment for foreign investments.  Lithuania was
now encouraged to further eliminate the remaining barriers to trade and increase competition under
bilateral and multilateral agreements.  Lithuania was undertaking an examination of the variouspractices in the world trade system with the view to  integrating them into its legal environment.  By
today's decision, the General Council had acknowledged Lithuania's progress, endorsed its legal and
institutional reforms and accepted it as a reliable and attractive trading partner.  Lithuania was
committed to further pursue the principles of libera l trade.  The WTO guaranteed equal treatment of
Members in the complex system of international trade and, more importantly, provided Members withthe optimum outcome for their people.
12. The representatives of Estonia, Latvia
, European Communities , United States , Poland  (on
behalf of the CEFTA Members), El Salvador  (on behalf of GRULAC ), Canada , Norway , Croatia ,
Singapore (on behalf of the ASEAN Members ), Lesotho , Switzerland , Egypt  (on behalf of the Arab
Members), Nigeria , Georgia  and Iceland  welcomed the President of Lithuania, Mr. Valdas Adamkus,
and the accession of Lithuania and looked forward to working with Lithuania in the WTO.  The
representatives of Estonia and Latvia  said that Lithuania was one of the most important trading
partners of their respective countries and with Lithuania's accession to the WTO, these economic linkswould be further reinforced.WT/GC/M/61
Page 6
13. The representative of Estonia said that the accession process had not been easy but as a final
result, the commitments on goods, services and TRIPS undertaken by Lithuania offered concrete
guidelines to apply a more transparent and predictable trade regime.  Membership to the WTO would
help Lithuania to further open up its markets for goods and services and thus gain the benefit of more
competitively-priced imports.  In turn, Lithuania would gain similar rights and terms of access in
other Members' markets.  Lithuania's accession was an important step in integrating the world
economy and would strengthen Lithuania's growth and investment prospects.
14. The representative of Latvia said that with the accession of Lithuania, all three Baltic States
had received full recognition of their open economies and trading regimes.  As a member of the Baltic
Free Trade Area, Lithuania had developed strong and reliable regional trade relations with Latvia.
Her delegation welcomed Lithuania's substantial efforts to transform its economy and to establish a
liberal trade regime.  Lithuania's accession would be beneficial for both Lithuania and the WTOmembership as a whole.
15. The representative of the European Communitie s said that the President of Lithuania was
marking this event by his presence.  With Lithuania's accession, all three Baltic States would now be
Members of the WTO.  The accession of Lithuania was an important step in the process of its
integration in the global economy.  During the accession negotiations, the Community had had closeworking cooperation with Lithuania.  These contacts had ensured that Lithuania's future WTO
commitments would not conflict with the Comm unity's own WTO commitments at the time of
Lithuania's accession to the European Union.  It was very gratifying for the European Union that
Lithuania, which was one of the candidate countries for European Union membership, would now be
a WTO Member.  This event promised well for a timely accession to the European Union.
16. The representative of the United States said that Lithuania's accession package represented an
important milestone in its economic transformation.  Lithuania's participation in the WTO
complemented its broader policy objectives and would make an important contribution to its drive for
increased economic growth through economic reform, liberalization, and diversification.  The
adoption of WTO provisions, and Lithuania's own commitments to the basic principles oftransparency, predictability, due process, and rule of law, would contribute to the development of a
legal framework necessary for further growth and development.  Lithuania had developed a solid
structure to meet the competitive challenges of the global economy.  During the last two years,
Lithuania had successfully implemented a TRIPS-compatible intellectual property regime, revised its
regulations to provide for the implementation of the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement, and had
committed itself to establishing a non-discriminatory and transparent system of applying standards
and sanitary measures to imports.  Lithuania had eliminated quantitative restrictions on imports,stopped the use of minimum import values, and reformed the excise tax system to remove most
elements of discrimination.  Lithuania had also expressed its interest in becoming a member of the
Agreements on Government Procurement and on Trade in Civil Aircraft.
17. The representative of Poland, on behalf of the CEFTA Members
, said that Lithuania's long
accession process had proved its determination and great resolve to carry out fundamental economic
reforms enabling its full integration into the world trading system.  The accession process had
certainly been an important factor in streamlinin g those reforms.  Heavily dependent on its foreign
trade, Lithuania had demonstrated its strong attachment to the idea of trade liberalization in its
commitments on services and goods, market-access commitments, as well as in a network of free-
trade agreements.  The CEFTA Members had been witnessing Lithuania's accession with greatsympathy and had demonstrated support for the possible speeding up of the process.  The CEFTA
Members were confident that this new accession would contribute to the further strengthening of the
multilateral trading system.WT/GC/M/61
Page 7
18. The representative of Canada, said that the signature of the Protocol of Accession of
Lithuania, which was to take place later that day, was an important element in rebuilding confidence
in the multilateral trading system in the post-Seattle environment.  Lithuania's accession would not
only contribute to ensuring its economic development but also to strengthening the multilateral
system.
19. The representative of Norway said that her country had worked closely with Lithuania on a
bilateral basis as well as in intergovernmental fora.  As a member of EFTA, Norway was party to a
free-trade agreement with Lithuania.  In 1999, Norway had succeeded Lithuania to the Chair of the
Council of the Baltic Sea States, where a number of issues of common interest had been addressed
and where an "Action Plan 2000" had been agreed upon by Ministers.
20. The representative of Croatia, said that as the most recent WTO Member, Croatia was fully
aware of the significant and far-reaching efforts that Lithuania had undertaken in its accession
negotiations and of the importance of its accession to the WTO in the context of the reform process of
the economies in transition.
21. The representative of Singapore, on behalf of the ASEAN Members , said that Lithuania had
intensified its pace of accession over the last few months and as the result, Members were today able
to welcome Lithuania as a new Member.  Lithuania was to be commended for its intensive anddetermined preparation for accession to the WTO.  Lithuania's commitment to reform its trade regime
would not only contribute to its sustained economic development but also to the strengthening of the
multilateral trading system.
22. The representative of Lesotho said that as a small country, Lesotho appreciated the efforts
made by Lithuania in its accession negotiations.
23. The representative of Switzerland congratulated Lithuania for its efforts in completing its
accession process successfully.  As a small open economy like Lithuania, and as an EFTA member,
Switzerland looked forward to wo rking with Lithuania in the WTO in the same good and open-
minded spirit that had guided their bilateral relations to date.
24. The representative of Nigeria hoped that Lithuania's accession to the WTO would provide
incentive to further liberalize its economy and would facilitate its integration in the multilateral
trading system.
25. The General Council took note of the st atements and expressions of support.
2. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration
(a) Report of the Committee (WT/BFA/51)
26. The Chairman drew attention to the report of the Committee on Budget, Finance and
Administration contained in document WT/BFA/51.
27. Mr. Chabert, Director of the Finance and Ge neral Services Division, on behalf of Mr. Akil
(Turkey), Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration, introducing the
Committee's report on its meetings on 27 September, 3 and 9 October, 9, 21, 24 and 30 November,and 5 and 6 December 2000, said that the Committee had examined, inter alia , various administrative
updates and progress reports, the WTO performance against budget for 2000, the report of the
working group on non-governmental donations to the WTO, the performance award programme, the
assessment of contributions of new Members a nd the Director-General's budget proposals for 2001.WT/GC/M/61
Page 8
With regard to the Director-General’s budgetary and financial report for 1999 and the report of the
External Auditor thereon, the Committee recommended to the General Council to approve the
transfers between WTO budgetary sections, and transfers between Appellate Body budgetary sections
(paragraphs 6 and 7 of the report).  As to the assessment of contributions of new Members, the
Committee recommended to the General Council to approve the recommendations regarding Albania,Oman and Croatia (paragraphs 38 to 40 of the report).  With regard to the WTO performance against
budget for 2000, it appeared that by the end of the year an overall savings of Sw F 30 0,000 for the
WTO Secretariat and a similar amount for the Appellate Body were foreseen.
28. The Committee had proceeded to a detailed examination of the 2001 budget estimates and
had examined in particular the issue of integra ting technical assistance activities into the regular
budget.  After intensive deliberations, the Committee had reached a compromise and recommended to
the General Council to approve for 2001 a budget of Sw F 134,083,610, which represented an overallincrease of 5 per cent over the 2000 budget.  That increase covered inflation and statutory
adjustments, contribution to the ITC, five new posts for the WTO Secretariat, four new posts for the
Appellate Body, an amount of Sw F 1,500,000 relate d to technical assistance services, and an amount
of Sw F 1,500,000 for the translation services (paragraph 20 of the report).  The Committee
recommended to the General Council to approve that  the credit balance of Sw F 1,627,110 in the 1999
surplus account be allocated to the Appellate Body Operating Fund (paragraph 19 of the report).  On
the basis of the report of the Working Group on Non-Governmental Donations to the WTO, the
Committee had set up guidelines on the voluntary contributions, gifts or donations from non-
governmental donors as contained in the document WT/BFA/W/41/Add.6 and recommended their
approval by the General Council (paragraph 32 of the report).
29. The Committee had examined in detail the WTO award performance system and, as a
Member had felt that further clarifications were needed, it had been agreed that the Committee would
meet during the second half of January 2001 to conti nue the discussion.  However, in order to avoid
any further delays in introducing the system and pending a final decision on the details of this
performance programme, the Budget Committee recommended to the General Council to direct theSecretariat to carry out the necessary preparatory technical work (paragraph 37 of the report).
30. The General Council took note of the statement, approved
 the Budget Committee's specific
recommendations in paragraphs 6, 7, 19, 20, 27, 32,4 37, 38, 39 and 40 of its report in WT/BFA/51
and adopted the report.
31. Most delegations who spoke expressed gratitude to the Committee Chairman and the
Secretariat for their tireless efforts throughout the negotiating process of the budget.
32. The representative of the United Kingdom said that in his delegation's view a larger budget
increase would have been justified for 2001.  Members were making increasing demands on the
Secretariat, such as settlement of disputes, assist ance to developing countries in the implementation of
their commitments, basic training of trade policy officials, and translation, interpretation and
document reproduction.  Therefore to be consistent, Members should provide the means to the
Secretariat to enable it to meet these requests.  A consensus on a regular budget funding of technicalcooperation activities should have been secured.  The status quo, whereby such activities were funded
from voluntary contributions, was unsatisfactory because it denied predictability to technical
cooperation funding.  The Secretariat had recently carried out a major review of technical cooperation
activities, which hopefully would lead to improvements and his delegation would have liked to be
able to back these activities by a switch to regular budget funding.  The compromise, which washowever reasonable, left open that issue and reinforced the Secretariat by approving 13 additional
                                                     
4 The Guidelines for Voluntary Contributions, Gifts or Donations from Non-Governmental Donors
were subsequently circulated as document WT/L/386.WT/GC/M/61
Page 9
posts, and additional out-sourcing of translation work.  This would reduce some of the pressure on
certain divisions of the Secretariat.  In the meantime, the Secretariat and Budget Committee members
could consider whether ways could be found to make it easier for senior management to meet future
challenges by re-deploying staff from one division to another.
33. The representative of the Netherlands said that his delegation felt both frustrated with the
annual budgetary process and disappointed with its outcome.  The 5 per cent increase of the 2001
budget had been determined by what some Members could accept instead of being the result of a
reasonable financial assessment of the tasks Members were jointly requesting the WTO to perform.
The Budget Committee had to whittle down the Director-General's proposals continuously to meet
that arbitrary growth rate.  At this stage of development, the WTO could not be compared to mature
international organizations.  The size of its budget and staff still reflected a very lean organization as
compared to its heavy responsibilities and the challenges ahead.  His delegation was disappointed bythe 2001 budget which only provided an amount of Sw F 1.5 million for technical assistance and no
extra funds for trade policy courses.  The Netherlands regarded both instruments, which assisted
developing countries to implement their WTO obligations, as a core task of the organization.  His
delegation shared the views expressed by the Director-General that on-budget funding of technical
assistance activities would provide predictability  and would allow for proper planning, which alone
improved its quality.  The issue of fair burden-sharing could no longer be ignored.  Funding of
technical assistance had been too dependent on a few volunteers for too long.  To have a substantial
amount in the regular budget for technical assistance and cooperation activities was the best way to
express shared responsibility and ownership of all Members as well as a fair burden-sharing.  This did
not imply that the Netherlands would not consider extra-budgetary contributions in the future.  Hiscountry would continue to finance technical assistance activities such as the WTO training
programme.  It was difficult, however, to understand how Members could attach great importance to
address implementation problems of developing countries but were not willing to shoulder at least a
substantial part of the financial responsibility for technical assistance.  The Netherlands therefore
invited the Director-General to re-launch in 2001 his pre-Seattle proposal for a phase-in of on-budgetfunding for technical assistance.
34. The representative of Pakistan expressed dissatisfaction with the approved 2001 budget.
Members had been unable to adopt some of the proposals made by the Director-General who had
asked for a reasonable increase in funding for technical assistance, which included the creation of
additional posts for technical assistance, training and translation.  If one took into consideration the
needs of developing countries, these proposals al though modest were a good start.  Unfortunately,
these proposals had met resistance from some Members and the quantum of increase in these areashad been substantially slashed.  For example, the original proposal for technical assistance of
Sw F 10 million had been reduced to Sw F 1.5 million and the proposal relating to training activities
had met a fate which was even worse than technical assistance.
35. He recalled that at the time of the 2000 budget adoption, his delegation had stated the
following concerns:  (i) the WTO Secretariat needed  to be restructured in order to enable it to
discharge the new and enlarged responsibilities entrusted to it since the adoption of the Marrakesh
Agreement;  (ii) Pakistan had long been concerned with the imbalance in the composition of
Secretariat officials and staff.  There was a lopsided representation of officials from certain countries
and groups of countries, and exclusion of other countries, particularly a number of developing
countries, including Pakistan;  and (iii) given the expressed commitment of the WTO and of the newDirector-General to the interests and participation of developing countries in the multilateral trading
system, the budget of the WTO would have to reflect this commitment in a more tangible way, i.e.
through the commitment of resources from the regular budget to technical cooperation and assistance
in order to enable developing countries to participate in the multilateral trading system.  These
concerns had not been addressed so far and his delegation reserved the right to raise these importantWT/GC/M/61
Page 10
issues in the General Council.  Furthermore, if these issues were not addressed during 2001, his
delegation would not be in a position to join a consensus for the 2002 budget.
36. The representative of Norway said that the transition from GATT to the WTO had brought
about substantial changes.  Membership was growing rapidly, the scope of the organization had
changed from tariff reductions through subsequent rounds of negotiations to, inter alia , increased
focus on the particular problems of the majority of the membership, i.e. developing countries.  The
DSU had proved to be a success, attracting an increasing number of panel cases and negotiations were
underway in important areas.  These were only a few recent developments that would require
additional resources.  These factors, and the issue of how the Secretariat could increase its ability to
efficiently service the needs of an expanding organization, did not seem to have been taken into
consideration in the recent budget process.  On the contrary, the ultimate objective of the Budget
Committee members seemed to have been the necessity to avoid increases beyond a certainpercentage.  Consequently there seemed to be an urgent need for a revision of the budget process so
that the overall objectives for the WTO would determine the budgetary needs.
37. Since the first extra-budgetary fund allocated to technical assistance, there had been an
increasing number of requests for such assistance.  Over 1999, the need for technical assistance had
been raised in almost every WTO body.  Obviously this assistance required funds.  The ad hoccharacter of the present funding of these activities inhibited priority setting and effective use of
resources.  Norway, among others, had proposed that technical assistance be fully integrated in the
WTO budget.  Financial costs of technical assistance had amounted to Sw F 10 million in 1999.  The
amount allocated in the budget to technical assistance and related activities for 2001 of Sw F 1.5
million.  There was therefore an obvious need for additional funds.  Norway had been among thelargest voluntary contributors to this organization since its establishment in 1995 and had no intention
of ending this practice.  Her delegation noted with satisfaction that other major contributors shared
that same view.  These voluntary contributions, how ever, were not a permanent solution to technical
assistance problems but only a stop gap.
38. The representative of Switzerland said that the budget process had been a tedious, frustrating
and sometimes surrealistic exercise.  His delegation had welcomed the initial budget proposals of the
Director-General as corresponding to a genuine structural break in taking into account legitimate
needs of Members in such crucial areas as technical assistance, training and translation, and also in
taking into account the rapidly increasing workload of the Appellate Body.  Switzerland had therefore
been disappointed to discover throughout discussions that Members seemed to operate under the
assumption that the WTO should do increasingly more with more or less the same resources.  As a
result, the Budget Committee discussion had fallen into an accounting exercise on possible savingsregardless of the potential implications on WTO activities.  With respect to technical assistance and
training to which his country attached great importance,  Switzerland was disappointed that the ideas
of bringing technical assistance activities into the regular budget and of doubling training activities
had literally been dispelled from this budget.  Unless technical cooperation was financed through the
regular budget there was simply no way to ensure predictability and continuity and to do properplanning of activities.  In addition, Switzerland was somewhat surprised that Members attached more
and more importance to technical assistance activities, and made increasing demands in this area
while, at the same time, denying the necessary resources to implement these requests.  Such a lack of
coherence had to be flagged for Members' consideration.  It was up to Members to show
responsibility and consistency and Switzerland called for more coordination between the differenttechnical committees, the Committee on Trade and Development and the Budget Committee.  This
process should start in early 2001 through informal joint sessions in order to avoid being trapped into
rough budget negotiations.  Switzerland believed that there was no vision in the 2001 budget.  The
objectives set in the initial proposals of the Director-General could have been phased-in over a couple
of years, as suggested in proposals by Norway and others during the lead up to Seattle.  This wouldhave sent a very clear signal that Members were serious in dealing with technical assistance andWT/GC/M/61
Page 11
training and were devoting the necessary resources in these areas.  This was not only a missed
opportunity but it cast doubts about Members' objectives.  Switzerland strongly encouraged the
Director-General and developing-country Members to continue their efforts in this direction.
39. The representative of Hong Kong, China expressed satisfaction that an agreement on the 2001
budget had been reached  and said that the agreed guidelines for voluntary donations from non-
governmental sources was also an important step.  The quantum of increase of 5 per cent for the 2001
budget was less than his delegation would have wished for.  However, within that increase a solid
start had been made by increasing funding for technical assistance and improving resources for
translation.  His delegation believed that a serious discussion at a political level should now take place
on what the WTO should be doing and how to ensure the funding.  These discussions should not take
place in the Budget Committee whose objectives were not policy issues.   Members had embarked the
WTO on a widening range of duties and issues with an ever-increasing membership but had notsufficiently examined the funding aspect.  His delegation believed that Members should make an
assessment of WTO activities and their funding and that this should be a priority issue for 2001.
40. The representative of Chile shared the views expressed by previous speakers and said that his
delegation was concerned about the gap between statements and decisions that were adopted in
relation to budget matters.  Political statements of Members on technical assistance, capacity-buildingand greater participation of developing countries did not have any budgetary support.  His delegation
would be interested in determining whether this lack of budgetary support was due to some political
considerations or to financial accounting reasons.  The budget proposals that had been dispelled
would have been beneficial to developing countries, such as the proposal on improving trade policy
courses.  Like Switzerland, he also believed that this budget had no vision.  The initial budgetproposed by the Director-General had a vision, which was the modernization of the WTO
management in this new century.  Members would have to recover this long-term vision and give a
political response with an appropriate budget.  The General Council should further reflect on this and
should provide some political guidance within the budget process which should not simply be an
accounting exercise.
41. The representative of India said that the budgetary process had involved lengthy and
protracted negotiations.  His delegation had reluctantly joined in the consensus decision of a
5 per cent increase despite its reservations on two issues.  The WTO was a young and growing
organization.  Its membership and functions were expanding as well as demands made on it by
Members.  It was only reasonable that the organi zation be funded with adequate resources to meet
these increasing demands so that its customary efficiency was not gradually eroded.  In the absence of
adequate resources, some WTO activities might not continue to receive the attention and resourcesthat they deserved, such as technical cooperation activities.  The Director-General had proposed an
additional allocation of Sw F 10 million which his delegation considered to be reasonable and entirely
warranted.  This would have been most beneficial to LDCs and would have helped them in
understanding their obligations under the WTO agreements, which were recognized by all to be
complex.  The final additional allocation to technical assistance activities amounted to onlySw F 1.5 million as some Members had had difficulties in accepting the principle behind the Director-
General's proposal.  His delegation understood their point of view but would request them to
reconsider their stand as LDCs needed the helping hand of the WTO at this stage.  His delegation
would be ready to consider any other suggestions  on providing technical assistance and wished to
express gratitude to donors for their financial assistance.  He also wished that the issue of increasedfinancing for technical cooperation activities be focussed on in the coming year.
42. The representative of Brazil also welcomed the approval of the 2001 budget which gave
Members predictability as to the functioning of the WTO for the coming year.  His delegation noted
that a substantial part of the budget increase would be allocated to the litigation part of the WTO and
hoped that this would not give undue credence to some sectors of the outside world, which believedWT/GC/M/61
Page 12
that the WTO was geared to become more a litigating organization than a negotiating one.  He hoped
that the time would come when the WTO returned to its main tasks.
43. The representative of Malaysia said that the Budget Committee had spent considerable time
discussing the quantum and rationale for an increase in the 2001 budget.  The 2001 budget
deliberations had been complex with the introduction of new issues such as the need to regularize thetechnical assistance budget, additional staffing, translation and the increased costs of the Appellate
Body Secretariat.  Regarding the technical assist ance budget, while the additional amount of Sw F 1.5
million in the regular budget was welcomed, this amount should continue to be supplemented by
voluntary contributions.  Putting technical assistance into the regular budget should not see a dilution
in the contributions to the Global Trust Fund.  He concurred with Switzerland in emphasizing the
importance of technical assistance activities but was disappointed with the amount allocated to the
technical assistance fund.  Members should not believe that this small allocation was the consequenceof developing countries' disinterest.  They had asked for increased technical assistance funding but at
the same time noted that other areas also required funds, in particular the area of the settlement of
disputes, including the Appellate Body.  In this context, he also expressed concern that the WTO
might become a litigating body and this should  be avoided.  Members should examine how to
rationalize the cost of the organization in other areas.  Financing WTO activities had increased overthe past few years and indefinite yearly increases, which involved higher contributions from
Members, might pose difficulties for developing countries, including Malaysia.  Like others, Malaysia
also believed that Members should seriously consider some rationalization of the WTO expenditure
and activities so as to be able to achieve minimal budget growth as soon as possible.  Regarding non-
governmental contributions, Members needed to ensure that acceptance of such contributions wouldnot give rise to a conflict of interests.  As such, the Budget Committee should scrutinize such
contributions carefully and be ready to reject them if they compromised the WTO's integrity and
objectives or its intergovernmental character.  Malaysia supported the guidelines on voluntary
contributions from non-governmental donors only on the understanding that consensus would be
upheld in any decision to accept such contributions.
44. The representative of Denmark expressed disa ppointment on the final outcome of the budget
process.  The original budget proposals might have been a little bit ambitious and he had not been
surprised by the meagre results obtained.  However, Members had not been able to go into the
substance and to examine how to improve the functioning of the WTO.  Members wanted the WTO to
do more and be more efficient in serving the increasing number of Members but were not willing to
give the Secretariat the necessary means to fulfil  these requirements, in particular in the area of
technical assistance.  Like previous speakers, his delegation was concerned that Members had notbeen able to agree on including a higher amount for technical assistance in the regular budget.
Denmark had been among those who had been willing to finance the non-budgetary activities and
would continue to do so under the present circumstances but it had hoped to see technical activities
financed to a higher degree through the regular budget.  On-budget funding would greatly contribute
to an equitable burden-sharing, ownership, shared responsibility, predictability and proper planning.Therefore, Denmark encouraged the Director-General to continue his laudable efforts to phase-in
more substantial funds for technical cooperation in the next regular budget.
45. The representative of Hungary also wished to draw attention to the excessive increase of the
budget allocated to dispute settlement and the Appellate Body.  While not denying that the dispute
settlement system was one of the corner stones of the multilateral trading system embodied in theWTO, certain Members should be from pushing hopeless cases or to having recourse to unnecessary
appeals.  A means of discouraging Members could be to ask them, especially the losing side, to
contribute to the cost.  That would encourage these countries to try and reach amicable solutions in
the consultation stage.WT/GC/M/61
Page 13
46. The representative of the United States said that while the US followed a general policy of
zero nominal growth in the budgets of internationa l organizations, they had joined in the consensus on
the 2001 budget.  That budget would provide important new resources for technical cooperation,
implementation and translation, and would also relieve strains on the dispute settlement system.  As a
consensus compromise, the approved 2001 budget did not represent the ideal result for manydelegations, including her own.  However, it represented a responsible approach to the needs of the
organization and the demands placed upon it.  With respect to technical cooperation, the Budget
Committee discussions reflected the differing views among both developed and developing countries
on the best way to fund it.  Despite disagreement over funding mechanisms, there was no
disagreement on the importance of technical cooperation.  The United States had provided
approximately US$600 million in trade-related technical assistance through US aid programmes over
the past two years.  The US recent contribution of Sw F 1 million to the Trust Fund was a clear
demonstration of their commitment to technical cooperation provided through the WTO.  At present,
the US President had called for further funding for the Trust Fund in his proposed budget for 2001.
The approved WTO budget for 2001 would provide significant reinforcement to the Secretariat's
ability to participate in technical cooperation activities.  All Members agreed on the importance of the
Secretariat's expertise in these activities.  The United States welcomed further discussions in theappropriate WTO fora on how to deliver technical cooperation in the most efficient manner.
47. The representative of Japan referred to the disappointment expressed by some delegations on
the modest increase of the budget, especially in relation to technical assistance activities and said that
in his delegation's view that the budget would stre ngthen the capacity of the Secretariat in key areas
such as dispute settlement, translation as well as technical assistance and training in a balancedmanner.  For these reasons, Japan found the 2001 budget reasonable and appropriate.
48. The representative of Germany said that his government had recently announced a donation
of DM 5 million for a five-year programme to strengthen the participation of least-developed
countries in the WTO.  On 13 December 2000, the Parliamentary Secretary of State had signed a
memorandum of understanding with the WTO Director-General on the disbursement of the firsttranche of DM 2 million.
49. The representative of the Philippines said that his delegation was aware of the financial
difficulties of most countries including its own whose contribution to the WTO had been delayed
because of its budgetary situation.  With regard to the initial 2001 budget proposals, the Director-
General's proposal for technical assistance activities was probably too ambitious considering the
global situation but at least it had a vision and he commended the Director-General for that.  The
approved 2001 budget did not meet that vision.  Developing and least-developed countries were stilllooking to the promise of increased technical assistance.  In this regard, he wished to express gratitude
to donor countries who made voluntary contributions to finance technical assistance activities.  What
he could not reconcile was the fact that some Me mbers, who attached great importance to technical
assistance, did not agree to its funding through th e regular budget, which would thus provide security
and improve the planning of priorities.  With respect to the approved guidelines for contributions fromnon-governmental sources, he believed that this w ould alleviate the difficulties encountered in this
area.  As regards dispute settlement, he understood the need for increased funding in this area which
was a safeguard to Members' rights but hoped that in the next two years, Members would come back
to their ambitious vision as regards technical assistance aimed at capacity-building in developing
countries and their greater participation in WTO activities.
50. The representative of Ecuador said that the WTO budget was an important tool which enabled
it to achieve objectives determined by Members.  The agreed amount allocated to technical assistance
activities was far from what would have been reasonable in order to meet the tremendous technical
assistance needs of developing countries and to help them to meet their obligations within the WTO.
His delegation hoped that this situation would be redressed over the coming year particularly throughWT/GC/M/61
Page 14
the rationalization of the increasing expenditure alloca ted to areas of a lesser priority.  In this context,
the Secretariat could carry out internal work in order to identify areas where savings could be
introduced to the benefit of technical assistance for developing countries.  In contrast, he recalled that
as the result of the new calculation formula, Members' contributions for 2000 had increased.
51. The representative of the European Communities said that as Members were aware, the
Community's contribution to the WTO was built up from the contributions of individual member
States who had a constant and close interest in the effective functioning of the WTO.  As pointed out
by previous speakers, the WTO was a new and deve loping organization whose responsibilities were
expanding and who should have, predictably, the means of assuming them, in particular in the area of
technical assistance.  The Community had undertaken a number of initiatives with respect to technical
assistance and would continue to do so and invited other Members to follow suit.
52. The representative of Venezuela shared the same frustration voiced by previous speakers with
regard to technical cooperation.  He believed that a greater effort should be made in that area.  With
regard to the increased amount allocated to dispute settlement, he fully shared the views expressed by
Brazil and in particular the view that the WTO should not become a litigation body but should remain
a negotiating one.
53. The representative of Egypt said that his country had supported the initial budget proposals
presented by the Director-General, in particular the proposal related to the three–year phase-in of
Sw F 10 million for technical assistance.  The outcome of the Budget Committee discussions had been
disappointing and the approved budget was modest.  His delegation hoped that the major donors
would be more forthcoming in the future as demands on technical assistance increased.  In his
delegation's view, technical assistance programmes  should be funded from the WTO regular budget,
complemented as needed by extra-budgetary contributions.
54. The representative of the Czech Republic shared the views expressed by Brazil and Hungary
concerning the financing of dispute settlement.
55. The representative of Jamaica said that his delegation had pointed out on previous occasions
that the growth rate of the WTO budget had been relatively high over the past five years.  This was
partly due to the transition from the GATT to the WTO.  The relative share of the budget borne by
developing countries was quite substantial.  At the same time Jamaica recognized that critical areas of
the budget, such as technical assistance, were under-funded.  Jamaica appreciated the fact that
technical assistance would receive increased, although inadequate funding in the 2001 budget and
welcomed the voluntary contributions that had been announced and which would supplement the
funds approved in the regular budget.  Members would have to address the issue of increased and
more predictable funding for technical assistance which was a core business of the organization aswell as the issue of restraint in budget increases especially in respect to developing countries.  This,
therefore, implied that the organization would have to look at the rationalization of activities in the
very near future.
56. The representative of Uganda said that his delegation had been encouraged by the Director-
General's initial proposal on technical assistance which some Members had qualified as ambitious but
which, he believed, was a realistic one particularly in view of the amount allocated to litigation.  His
delegation was therefore disappointed by the modest outcome of the budget process, more particularly
in relation to technical assistance in the context of the integrated framework for the LDCs.  His
delegation regretted that it had not been possible to include, in the regular budget, increased resources
for technical assistance activities in order to make them more predictable.  He wished to put on recordhis gratitude to donor countries who had contributed to extra-budgetary resources for technical
assistance.WT/GC/M/61
Page 15
57. The representative of Cuba underlined that his country would have preferred no budget
increase.  Should an increase have been necessary, it should have been of a minimum amount and
should have been allocated to areas which would be beneficial to developing countries, such as
technical assistance.  Like previous speakers,  Cuba was disappointed by the modest budgetary
allocation to technical assistance for 2001.  He recalled that his delegation had supported the Director-General's proposal to include sufficient funding for technical assistance in the regular budget of the
WTO as a legitimate way of finding a long-term solution.  He also shared the concerns voiced by
several delegations with regard to the high costs resulting from the operation of the dispute settlement
system and  particularly the Appellate Body.  There had been a high increase in this area and
alternative solutions should be found which woul d make those Members who most used the dispute
settlement mechanism contribute to its running operation so that other Members not using it would
not have to bear that burden.  In this context and as suggested by Hong Kong, China, a discussionshould take place to examine that aspect.  He finally wished to express gratitude to donor countries for
their voluntary contributions to technical assistance activities.
58. The representative of Mexico said that his delegation would have preferred a zero-increased
budget but it did not object to the consensus.  He wished to point out that Mexico had always fulfilled
its budget obligations in a serious manner.  Proof of this was that since its entry to the GATT and nowthe WTO, Mexico had never been in arrears in the payment of its contribution despite economic
difficulties encountered at certain times during that period.  He also wished to underline that by
adopting the 2001 budget, Mexico had not committed itself with respect to future increases beyond
2001.  In his delegation's view, rather than thinking of future increases, Members should examine how
to make the WTO budget more efficient in particular with respect to the sums received.  This could beachieved through setting out priorities for the WTO during the period under consideration and through
seeking a greater proportion between the costs and the users of different services such as dispute
settlement, or between donor countries and beneficiaries in relation to technical assistance.  Such
issues should be examined in detail in the future.
59. The General Council took note of the statements.
3. Committee on Balance-of-Payments Restrictions
(a) Consultations with the Slovak Republic (WT/BOP/R/52 and Corr.1)
(b) Consultations with Romania (WT/BOP/R/53 and Corr.1)
(c) Note on the meeting of 18 September 2000 (WT/BOP/R/54)
(a) Consultations with the Slovak Republic (WT/BOP/R/52 and Corr.1)
60. Mr. Hovorka (Czech Republic), Chairman of the Committee on Balance-of-Payments
Restrictions, said that at the consultations wi th the Slovak Republic on 18 September 2000, the
Committee had welcomed the significant improvement in its external situation and had encouraged
the continuation of its stabilization programme.  Members had congratulated the Slovak Republic on
adhering to its phase-out schedule and the elimination of its surcharge by the end of the year 2000.The Committee had agreed that the Slovak Republic was in full conformity with its obligation under
Article XII of GATT 1994.
61. The General Council took note of the statement and adopted
 the report on the consultations
with the Slovak Republic (WT/BOP/R/52 and Corr.1).WT/GC/M/61
Page 16
(b) Consultations with Romania (WT/BOP/R/53 and Corr.1)
62. Mr. Hovorka (Czech Republic), Chairman of the Committee on Balance-of-Payments
Restrictions, said that at the consultations with Romania on 18 September 2000, the Committee had
commended Romania for its macroeconomic performance and encouraged it to continue with its
stabilization programme.  Members had welcomed Romania's adherence to the phase-out scheduleand had appreciated that, in spite of existing conditions, it would terminate the import surcharge by
the end of the year 2000.  The Committee had agreed that Romania was in full conformity with its
obligations under Article XII of GATT 1994.
63. The General Council took note of the statement and adopted
 the report on the consultations
with Romania (WT/BO P/R/53 and Corr.1).
(c) Note on the meeting of 18 September 2000 (WT/BOP/R/54)
64. Mr. Hovorka (Czech Republic), Chairman of the Committee on Balance-of-Payments
Restrictions, said that the note on the meeting of 18 September related to the Committee's discussion
on a communication from Pakistan (WT/BOP/19) stating that, due to unavoidable circumstances,
resumed consultations could not be held on 25 September 2000, and requesting that these be
postponed until the second half of November 2000.  Subsequently, the consultations with Pakistan
had been resumed on 20 and 21 November.  Although the report5 had not yet been circulated, he
wished to report on the conclusions of the consultations with Pakistan and said that the Committee
had welcomed Pakistan's commitment to the principle of liberal trade.  Members had expressed
appreciation for Pakistan's decision to implement its existing phase-out plan, in spite of the existing
fragility of the balance-of-payments situation in Pakistan which the Committee had recognized at its
May 2000 meeting.  The Committee had taken note of Pakistan's commitment to remove the firsttranche of balance-of-payments restrictions within the next two weeks and to remove in two tranches
all the remaining restrictions by the end of June 2001 and 2002 respectively, in accordance with the
scheduled phase out; on this understanding, the Committee had concluded that Pakistan was in
conformity with its obligations under Article XVIII:B and the Understanding on the Balance-of-
Payments Provisions of the GATT 1994.  Members ha d noted that Pakistan was willing to accelerate
its phase-out plan should market access for its exports, and the sustainability of its balance-of-
payments, improve.
65. He then referred to the review of developments  in the international tr ading system that had
been held in the TPRB on the same day and said th at the results of the consultations with the Slovak
Republic, Romania and Pakistan had also to be added to the long list of positive developments during
the period covered by the review that had emerged from the Annual Report by the Director-General
and Members' interventions.  The steps taken by the Slovak Republic, Romania and Pakistan testifiedthese countries' commitment to the principle of liberal trade.
66. The General Council took note of the statemen t and of the communication in WT/BOP/R/54.
                                                     
5 Subsequently circulated as WT/BOP/R/56.WT/GC/M/61
Page 17
4. WTO Pension Plan
(a) Annual report of the Management Board for 1999 (WT/GC/W/426)
(b) Transfer Agreement with the United Nati ons Joint Staff Pension Fund (WT/GC/W/420)
(c) Election of two alternates to the Management Board (WT/GC/W/424)
(a) Annual Report of the Management Board for 1999 (WT/GC/W/426)
67. The Chairman said that the Annual Report of the Management Board for 1999 was submitted
to the General Council in accordance with Article 5(d) of the Regulations of the Pension Plan6.
68. Mr. Lee (Korea), Chairman of the Management  Board, introducing the Annual Report of the
Management Board for 1999, recalled that the Management Board had been set up by the General
Council on 26 March 1999.  In the course of 1999, the Board had focussed its attention on the
formulation of the Pension Plan’s investment strategy and on the establishment of the structure for theimplementation of that strategy.  The Board had held 11 meetings in 1999 devoted largely to the
determination of the appropriate strategy for the investment of the Plan’s assets, taking into account
the liabilities that the Plan would have to meet.  By August 1999, the first pillar of that strategy had
been in place, with the assignment of four passiv e investment mandates to Barclays Global Investors,
a world leader in passive fund management.  Work had continued throughout 1999 on the remainingpillars, namely the selection of two active investment managers and of the Plan’s global custodian
responsible for the safekeeping of assets under active management.  That work had been brought to a
conclusion in April 2000 with the signing of contracts with Northern Trust as the Plan’s custodian and
with ING Investment Management and Wellington Management International as the Plan’s two active
fund managers.  The word “active” signifying that the manager should be seeking not to track but tooutperform a given investment index.  Some 58 per cent of the Plan’s total assets were under passive
management and the remainder under active management.  Furthermore, some 68 per cent of those
assets were invested in equities and 32 per cent in bonds.
69. As Members would have noted from the Board’s report, the inevitable delay in the launching
of the Plan’s investment strategy had had some impact on the return on investments in 1999.  The realrate of return in 1999, after adjustment for inflation, had been 3.62 per cent, which was nevertheless
above the long-term target of 3.5 per cent.  With the strategy now fully implemented, the Management
Board was looking to build on that first result, subjec t of course to the trends in the markets.  The
Plan’s investment strategy was designed as a prudent compromise between risk and return, taking into
account the fact that over the first 12 years of its existence the Plan could afford to be slightly more
aggressive in its approach as a result of its very favourable ratio of active participants to beneficiaries.
Apart from the key issue of the investment strategy, the Management Board had also devoted itsattention to the selection of a consulting actuary and had begun work on the elaboration of rules of
procedure.  Unfortunately, time had not permitted the Board to complete that work.  It was the Board's
intention to submit those rules to the General Council for approval early in 2001.  The Board had also
recently taken a decision on the outsourcing of the Plan administration, which was seen as the most
cost-effective way of proceeding, subject to the Bo ard’s retaining continuing on-line access to all data
and guaranteed recovery of all data in the event of contract termination.  The Management Board had
taken due note of the comments made by the External Auditor in his report and was very grateful for
his advice and suggestions.  These would be duly considered and acted upon by the Management
Board in 2001.  As to the late submission of the Annual Report for 1999 to the General Council and
participants, this reflected the considerable pressure of work that the Management Board had had toface in this initial period of the Pension Plan’s existence.  He was confident that the Board would be
in a position to submit its next annual report at an earlier date in 2001.
                                                     
6 WT/L/282.WT/GC/M/61
Page 18
70. The General Council took note of the statement and of the Annual Report of the Management
Board for 1999 in document WT/GC/W/426.
(b) Transfer Agreement with the United Nati ons Joint Staff Pension Fund (WT/GC/W/420)
71. The Chairman recalled that Article 10 of the Regulations of the WTO Pension Plan7 provided
for the conclusion of transfer agreements with Member governments and intergovernmental
organizations in order to secure the continuity of pension rights for participants in the Pension Plan.
A transfer agreement had been drawn up by the Management Board of the Pension Plan with the
United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund and was submitted in document WT/GC/W/420 for the
concurrence of the General Council.
72. Mr. Lee (Korea), Chairman of the Management Board, said that the purpose the agreement
between the WTO Pension Plan and the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF) contained
in WT/GC/W/420 was to ensure the portability of accumulated pension rights between the two plans.
This agreement would have a crucial role to play in the free movement of staff between the WTO and
the organizations of the UN system since it would allow transferring staff to have their prior
pensionable service in the releasing organization credited in an actuarially neutral way in the
receiving organization.  The agreement was based on similar agreements concluded between the
UNJSPF and the pension plans of other partner organizations and would enter into force on 1 January2001.  That agreement was before the United Nations General Assembly for its approval at its current
session.  The Management Board intended to develop further such agreements with other
organizations where a free interchange of staff would be sought.
73. The General Council concurred with the transfer agreement contained in document
WT/GC/W/4208.
(c) Election of two alternates to the Management Board (WT/GC/W/424)
74. The Chairman recalled that Article 4(a) of the Regulations of the WTO Pension Plan9
provided, inter alia , for the election by the General Council of four members and four alternates, each
for a three-year term.  He had been informed th at Mr. Akil (Turkey) and Ms. Wiedmer (Switzerland)
were no longer available to serve on the Management Board.  Accordingly, following consultations,he wished to propose the election of Mr. Jean-M arc Mignon (France) and Mr. Stig Traavik (Norway)
to hold office during the remainder of the above three-year term, expiring on 28 March 2002.
75. The General Council so agreed.
10
5. Five-year review of the exemption provided under Paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994
(WT/GC/W/228)
76. The Chairman recalled that paragraph 3(a) of the GATT 1994 provided an exemption from
Part II of GATT 1994 for specific mandatory legislat ion that prohibited the use, sale or lease of
foreign-built or foreign-reconstructed vessels in commercial applications between points in national
waters or waters of an exclusive economic zone.  On 20 December 1994, the United States had
invoked the provisions of paragraph 3(a) with respect to specific legislation that had met the
requirements of that paragraph.  The United States invocation of this exemption had been
                                                     
7 WT/L/282.
8 Subsequently circulated as WT/L/383.
9 WT/L/282.
10 The proposal adopted by the General Council was subsequently circulated as WT/L/382.WT/GC/M/61
Page 19
acknowledged by the Director-General on the same day.  The exemption under paragraph 3 of the
GATT 1994 provided in sub-paragraph 3(b) for a five-year review after the date of entry into force of
the WTO agreement in order to examine whether the conditions which had created the need for the
exemption still prevailed.  The exemption would thereafter be reviewed every two years for as long as
it was in force.  The General Council had initiated the five-year review of the exemption underparagraph 3 of the GATT 1994 in July 1999, had continued to consider this matter at its meetings in
October and November 1999, February, May and July 2000 and had agreed to revert to it.  No
conclusions could be agreed during these discussion s.  Furthermore, he had been made aware that one
Member did not consider the review to have taken place.  In accordance with the provisions of
paragraph 3(b) of the GATT 1994 this exemption would have to be reviewed again in 2001 and the
matter would be on the agenda of the General Council for that purpose.
77. The representative of the European Communities regretted that there had been no substantive
discussion on the key purpose of this review, i.e., to examine whether the conditions that had given
rise to the need for this exemption still prevailed.  As the result of the US position, many Members,
including the Community, had been disappointed not to have been able to undertake such a
substantive review.  The US had offered no argu ments to support the continued need for the
exemption from GATT rules.  The Community looked  forward to seeing the US responses to the
outstanding questions from Panama (WT/GC/W/409).  The Community recognized the Chairman's
efforts to move the process forward during informal consultations, which he had held in September.
The Community had been ready to explore the possibility of a Chairman's statement that would have
indicated the meagre results achieved and an outline of the reasons for the failure of the General
Council to undertake this mandated review.  The Community still saw value in having such astatement that would reflect the view of a number of Members, as expressed in the General Council,
that the US needed to substantiate their case for continuing to benefit from this exemption and that
they had not been able to do so.  This would th en become the starting point for the follow-up review
that was mandated for 2001.
78. The representative of Japan said that there was apparently a marked difference of positions on
the scope of the review between the United States on the one hand, and Japan and other Members who
had participated in the five-year review on the other.   Japan intended to participate in the follow-up
review in 2001 and hoped that in that examination Members would be able to have more substantive
discussions.
79. The representative of Panama noted that the Chairman's statement was made under his own
responsibility and expressed gratitude to him for attempting to give a balanced summing-up and, in
particular, to mention that one Member, which was Panama, could not go along with the position ofthose Members who believed that a review pursuant  to paragraph 3 of GATT 1994 had begun.  In his
delegation's view, the General Council had neither st arted nor concluded a review as described in that
paragraph.  From the very outset Panama had maintained that prior to any review under paragraph 3
of GATT 1994 one should first determine whether the legislation notified could benefit from the
exemption under the terms stipulated in that paragraph, which determined specific conditions thatshould be met.  Moreover, if the legislation that complied with the requirements of paragraph 3 of
GATT 1994 had not been notified, there was no review to conduct.  As previously stated, Panama had
serious doubts that the legislation notified by the United States in 1994 had met the requirements of
paragraph 3 of GATT 1994.  If this was the case, then there were no exemption to review because
there were no other notifications.  For this very reason and until this question was solved, Panamawould not be able to agree that the General Counci l had started or conducted any such review.  This
would be equivalent to agreeing that there was a notified legislation that complied with these
requirements.  Panama believed that this was not the case.  Moreover, Panama did not agree with the
Chairman's perception that the General Council had started the review.  Panama was part of the
General Council and had never agreed that the revi ew had begun.  Panama, however, agreed that this
agenda item had been dealt with in several General Council meetings and that no conclusions hadWT/GC/M/61
Page 20
been reached.  In that respect, he wished to expr ess satisfaction that in his summing-up, the Chairman
had mentioned that among the conclusions that had not been reached was the point on whether or not
the review had begun.  In his statement, the Chairm an had also stated that the US had invoked the
provisions of paragraph 3 of GATT 1994 and that this invocation had been recognized by the
Director-General on that same day.  In his delegation's view what had actually occurred was that theUS had notified the legislation which they had thought met the requirements and the Director-General
had simply acknowledged receipt of that notification.  For him, an invocation was a means of defence
against types of complaints that had been brought against a legislation, and this was significantly
different from what had happened, i.e., a notification of a legislation.  Finally, Panama wished to state
that if there was nothing that could benefit from the exemption,  there was nothing to be reviewed.
Panama looked forward to receiving replies from the United States to their latest series of questions.
80. The representative of Australia recalled that his country had expressed concerns about this
issue at previous General Council meetings and had associated himself with previous speakers who
had recorded their preoccupation about the lack of sati sfactory character of the review of this issue to
date.  Australia looked forward to participating in a more substantive discussion on this issue under
the next review in 2001.
81. The representative of the United States recalled that this item had been on the agenda of the
General Council since its meeting in July 1999 and that her delegation had been engaged in discussing
the matter ever since.  The US was grateful to the Chairman for holding informal consultations on this
issue in September 2000.  The US had answered several sets of questions from several Members
including from Panama.  Some had still to be answered but her delegation was concerned about
Panama's last set of questions, which seemed to go beyond the scope of the review.  She regretted thatPanama appeared to be questioning the very invocation by the United States of the exemption and did
not believe that this was the forum for such inquir ies.  The purpose of the review was to examine
whether the circumstances had changed since 1994 when the legislation had been notified and not to
question the legitimacy of the original invocation.  After the last set of questions, she believed that
there would be another set of questions because there was a certain lack of willingness to completethis review.  As already stated, there had been no statutory or other changes extending the scope of the
notified legislation or in any way decreasing its conformity with Part II of GATT 1994.  This review
had been engaged since July 1999 and had been continued in General Council meetings in October
1999 and February and May 2000.  Panama had been engaged in all of those meetings, even posing
very detailed questions.  Therefore, it was a little late to suggest that the review had not taken place.
On the other hand, if Panama did not recognize the very existence of the review, it should not be
concerned with whether the review was terminated.  Such an approach might help Members to bringthis matter to an end this year.  She had hoped that it would be clearly understood that the provisions
of paragraph 3 of GATT 1994 were not a waiver but a key part of GATT 1994.  That paragraph had
been drafted and included in the Uruguay Round package to deal with non-conforming provisions of
domestic legislations of a non-discretionary character in a specific area addressed by this exemption.
The purpose of the five-year review was to examine whether the conditions giving rise to the originalneed for the exemption still prevailed.  The exemption would be reviewed every two years as long as
the legislation remained in force and the conditions gi ving rise to the original need for the legislation
remained.  This provision had been agreed to by all Members and was a central part of the Uruguay
Round results.  On 20 December 1994, the US had invoked the provisions of paragraph 3(a) with
respect to specific legislation that met the requirements of that paragraph.  The US invocation of thisexemption had been acknowledged by the Director-General that same day.  The invocation carried
with it an obligation to provide Members with annual statistical reports pursuant to paragraph 3(c),
which the US had fully abided by.  In summary, the General Council had now spent a year and a half
on what should have been a very simple exercise, namely reviewing whether the original conditions
creating the need for the exemption still prevailed.  The US had made it very clear that theseconditions still prevailed.  In her delegation's view, the United States had complied with the reporting
requirements, had engaged in bilateral consultations and had provided considerable additionalWT/GC/M/61
Page 21
information concerning the Jones Act provisions.  Therefore, she hoped that the General Council
could move on as the United States had met the necessary requirements.
82. The representative of Panama said that in view of the US statement, he wished to make the
following clarifications.  The US had expressed concern that the last series of questions from Panama
went beyond the scope of the review and that Panama had a divergent view as to what the scope of thereview should be.  Panama had put these questions forward because the US had indicated their
willingness to answer questions on the operation of the notified legislation.  Panama's questions along
these lines did not imply that Panama had particip ated in the review.  Answers to these questions
would clarify its original doubts as to whether there should be a review.  Panama expressed gratitude
to the US for their answers to a whole series of  questions from some countries including his own.
Panama's second set of questions had been put to the US as a complement to the first set and not as a
sign of lack of willingness.  With regard to th e US statement that paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 had
been agreed to by all Members during the Uruguay Round negotiations, he recalled that Panama had
become a Member after these negotiations and regardless of what the understanding among the
Uruguay Round negotiators might have been, Panama's rights and obligations were limited to the text
of the Agreement.  Panama had serious concerns as to whether or not there was compliance with the
text of paragraph 3 of GATT 1994.  His country had participated in the Chairman's informalconsultations in September 2000 as well as in bilateral contacts and had attempted to move the
process forward in the most expeditious way.  Like others, Panama would also have liked to close this
agenda item and in this regard it had proposed a language which had not been accepted by the United
States.  Panama would continue to try to reach a solution which would be satisfactory to all.  He
expressed gratitude to the Chairman for his summing-up of the divergent positions on the issue.
83. The Chairman proposed that the General Council take note the statements and agree to revert
to this matter in the context of the review of  the exemption provided under paragraph 3 of the
GATT 1994 to be conducted in 2001.
84. It was so agreed.
85. The representative of Panama sought clarification as to whether this item would appear in the
agenda with the same wording.
86. The Chairman said that the wording of the agenda item would have to reflect paragraph 3 of
GATT 1994.
87. The General Council took note of the statements.
6. Waivers under Article IX of the WTO Agreement
(a) Harmonized System – Requests for extension of waivers
(i) Nicaragua (G/L/394, G/C/W/227)
(ii) Sri Lanka (G/L/391, G/C/W/225)
88. The Chairman drew attention to the requests from Nicaragua (G/L/394) and Sri Lanka
(G/L/391) for extensions until 30 April 2001 of waivers previously granted in connection with their
implementation of the Harmonized System, and to th e related draft decisions (Nicaragua - G/C/W/227
and Sri Lanka - G/C/W/225).WT/GC/M/61
Page 22
89. Mr. Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay), Chairman of  the Council for Trade in Goods, reported on
the consideration of these requests by that Council.
90. The General Council took note of the report and, in accordance with the Decision-Making
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93),
adopted the draft decisions in G/C/W/227 and G/C/W/22511.
(b) Zambia – Renegotiation of Schedule LXXVIII
(i) Request for extension of time-limit (G/L/393, G/C/W/226)
91. The Chairman drew attention to the request fr om Zambia (G/L/393) for an extension until
30 April 2001 of the waiver previously granted in connection with the renegotiation of its schedule,
and to the related draft decision (G/C/W/226).
92. Mr. Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay), Chairman of  the Council for Trade in Goods, reported on
the consideration of this request by that Council.
93. The General Council took note of the report and, in accordance with the Decision-Making
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93),
adopted the draft decision in G/C/W/22612.
(c) Decision on the introduction of Harmonized System changes into WTO Schedules of tariff
concessions on 1 January 1996
(i) Extension of time-limit (G/C/W/228)
94. The Chairman drew attention to the draft decision in document G/C/W/228 to suspend the
application of the provisions of Article II of GATT 1994 until 30 April 2001.
95. Mr. Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay), Chairman of  the Council for Trade in Goods, reported on
the consideration of this request by that Council.
96. The General Council took note of the report and, in accordance with the Decision-Making
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93),
adopted the draft decision in G/C/W/22813.
(d) EC – Autonomous preferential treatment to the countries of the Western Balkans
(i) Request for waiver (G/C/W/178)
97. The Chairman drew attention to the reques t from the European Communities for a waiver
from its obligations under paragraph 1 of Article I of the GATT 1994 until 31 December 2006 and to
the related draft decision (G/C/W/178).
98. Mr. Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay), Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, reported on
the consideration of this request by that Council.
                                                     
11 The Decisions were subsequently circulated as WT/L/376 and 377.
12 The Decision was subsequently circulated as WT/L/378.
13 The Decision was subsequently circulated as WT/L/379.WT/GC/M/61
Page 23
99. The General Council took note of the report and, in accordance with the Decision-Making
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93),
adopted the draft decision in G/C/W/17814.
(e) Turkey – Preferential treatment for Bosnia-Herzegovina
(i) Request for waiver (G/C/W/217)
100. The Chairman drew attention to the request from Turkey for a waiver from its obligations
under paragraph 1 of Article I of the GATT 1994 until 31 December 2006 and to the related draft
decision (G/C/W/217).
101. Mr. Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay), Chairman of  the Council for Trade in Goods, reported on
the consideration of this request by that Council.
102. The General Council took note of the report and, in accordance with the Decision-Making
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93),
adopted the draft decision in G/C/W/21715.
(f) Review of waivers pursuant to Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement
(i) Canada – CARIBCAN, granted on 14 October 1996 until 31 December 2006 (WT/L/365)
(ii) Cuba – Article XV:6, granted on 14 October 1996 until 31 December 2001 (WT/L/370)
(iii) Hungary – Agricultural export subsidies, granted on 22 October 1997 until
31 December 2001 (WT/L/369)
(iv) United States – Andean Trade Preference Act, granted on 14 October 1996 until
4 December 2001 (WT/L/372)
(v) United States – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, granted on 15 November 1995
until 31 December 2005 (WT/L/373)
(vi) United States – Former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, granted on 14 October 1996
until 31 December 2006 (WT/L/371)
103. The Chairman recalled that in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article IX of the WTO
Agreement, "any waiver granted for a period of more than one year shall be reviewed by the
Ministerial Conference not later than one year after it is granted, and thereafter annually until thewaiver terminates", and that paragraph 3 of the respective waiver decisions provided that an annual
report should be submitted by the Member to whom the waiver was granted, on the operation or
implementation of the waiver, with a view to facilita ting the annual review provided for in paragraph
4 of Article IX.  Reports on the following waivers were before the General Council for review:
Canada – CARIBCAN (WT/L/365), Cuba – Article XV :6 (WT/L/370), Hungary – Agricultural export
subsidies (WT/L/369), United States – Andean Trade Preference Act (WT/L/372), United States –
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (WT/L/373) and United States – Former Trust Territory ofthe Pacific Islands (WT/L/371).
                                                     
14 The Decision was subsequently circulated as WT/L/380 and Corr.1.
15 The Decision was subsequently circulated as WT/L/381.WT/GC/M/61
Page 24
104. The General Council took note of the Chairman's statement and of the reports in documents
WT/L/365 and 369 through 373.
7. Work programme on electronic commerce (G/L/421, S/C/13, IP/C/20, WT/COMTD/26)
105. The Chairman recalled that in July 2000 the General Council agreed that the three sectoral
Councils and the Committee on Trade and Development should reinvigorate their work in the field of
electronic commerce and report back to the General Council at the end-of-year meeting.  This
agreement was made on the basis that work in the WTO on electronic commerce would proceed on a
practical basis.  In July, the General Council also agreed that it would further consider how best to
organize the work on electronic commerce at the level of the General Council and that the Chairman
would be consulting Members about the possible establishment of an ad hoc task force to assist in the
Council's consideration of the subsidiary bodies' reports and any identified cross-sectoral issues.  TheGeneral Council had now received the reports from the subsidiary bodies and building upon the
Chairman's statement in July, which was generally accepted by all Members, there seemed to be
broad agreement on certain points that were central to future work.
106. First, not enough time had passed since the July meeting to permit the subsidiary bodies to
substantially deepen the work they had done on electronic commerce, as was reflected in their latestreports.  All the subsidiary bodies concluded that further clarification and educative work was needed.
Second, the work to date in the subsidiary bodies had demonstrated that electronic commerce fell
within the scope of existing WTO agreements.  While e-commerce was a fairly new development, it
did not appear in need of new WTO rules.  There were some areas that had been identified as needing
additional clarification as to how current rules should be applied in particular circumstances, but theseareas were limited.  Third, Members had all become aware, through this exercise, of the tremendous
potential of e-commerce and the Internet to contribute to infrastructure capacity building and market
access, particularly for developing countries.  The faithful application of the liberal multilateral
trading system's rules and principles, and the avoidance of unnecessary restrictive measures to this
sector, could only help to promote the growth of e-commerce and, consequently, the contribution itcould make.  Fourth, he noted the very positive statement on electronic commerce from the
APEC Conference in Brunei and the call for the establishment of an ad hoc task force in the WTO, as
discussed in July.  He hoped that Members could continue to reflect on the possibility of setting up
such a body or any other procedure to organize the General Council's work on electronic commerce in
order to prepare for the next Ministerial Conference.  He intended to pursue consultations on this issue
early in 2001.
107. The representatives of Colombia, Thailand
, United States , European Communities , Costa
Rica, Hungary , India , Australia , Malaysia , Panama , Jordan , Uganda , Lesotho , Czech Republic ,
Uruguay, Switzerland  and Hong Kong, China , thanked the Chairman for his introductory statement.
108. The representative of Colombia recalled the importance of electronic commerce and the
development of the Internet for the economic growth of developing countries.  For this reason,
unnecessary regulations and undue restrictions to electronic commerce should be avoided.  The timewas nearly ripe to establish an ad hoc task force, in which his delegation would be interested in
playing an active role.
109. The representative of Singapore said that the reports of the four subsidiary bodies indicated
that the earlier work of these bodies continued to be relevant.  At the same time, Members had
identified a number of issues, both sectoral and cross-sectoral, that needed to be further addressed.Members were well aware of the potential benefits that e-commerce would bring to their economies,
which was why they had committed themselves to the 1998 Declaration for a duty-free cyberspace
environment and a work programme to examine issues relevant to trade.  It was important forWT/GC/M/61
Page 25
Members to create an environment conducive to electronic commerce as they sought to realize its full
benefits.  In this respect, Members should agree that electronic commerce fell within the scope of
existing WTO agreements and avoid unnecessary measures restricting the use and development of
electronic commerce.  The cross-sectoral issues that had been identified by delegations clearly
required further reflection and deliberation.  One example was the classification of digitized products,a cross-sectoral issue which would ultimately determine the relevant WTO provisions applicable to
such products.  While some were of the view that it should be classified as services and hence subject
to the GATS disciplines, there were also other schools of thought.  This issue could only be resolved
through further substantive deliberation, including on how national treatment and market access could
be granted to products that currently enjoyed such treatment in the physical world if they were
delivered online and classified as services under the GATS approach.  This was the case of products
such as software which when stored in a carrier media such as floppy disks and CD-ROMs, had beentraditionally treated as goods and hence ensured national treatment and market access, given zero
tariffs under the Information Technology Agreement.  If they were delivered online and classified as
services, Members could not ensure that there would be no difference in treatment, given that national
treatment and market access were subject to scheduled commitments in the GATS.
110. The creation of an ad hoc task force would provide the necessary horizontal platform and the
best forum to take the work forward.  The ad hoc ta sk force should have narrow terms of reference as
well as a fixed time-frame for its existence.  One logical time-frame would be until the next
Ministerial Conference and the subsidiary bodies could continue to discuss the sectoral issues within
their competence during this time.  The ad hoc task force and the four subsidiary bodies could report
back to the General Council, which would ultimately report to the Ministerial Conference.  TheGeneral Council had to take a decision as soon as possible on how to deal with cross-sectoral issues,
some of which had been pending discussion for more than 12 months.
111. The representative of Thailand said that his delegation could support the establishment of an
ad hoc task force to examine the cross-cutting and technical issues which Members would have jointly
identified, as long as the work undertaken by this task force did not duplicate the work of the foursubsidiary bodies.  Members should look at issues contained in the initial work programme as well as
those identified by the four subsidiary bodies, as a basis for determining the terms of reference of the
task force.  Issues which were clearly cross-cutting in nature, such as capacity building for developing
countries, and issues which did not fall exclusively within the competence of one subsidiary body or
required some technical understanding, such as classification, should be taken out of the mandate of
the relevant subsidiary bodies.  This task force should be given a mandate until the next Ministerial
Conference.  Before that time, the subsidiary bodies and the task force should report to the GeneralCouncil, which would report to the Ministerial Confer ence.  The Ministers could then decide the next
steps the WTO should take in the area of electronic commerce.
112. The representative of the United States said  that Members should continue work to ensure
that the WTO played a positive role in encourag ing the development of electronic commerce.  The
work programme to date had performed a useful role in educating delegates about the benefits ofe-commerce and clarifying how WTO rules applied.  While many issues needed further discussion,
Members had spent a significant amount of time on some issues where general consensus was within
reach, as documented in the July 1999 subsidiary bodies' reports.  In light of these reports and their
recent updates, Members should base future work on the premises that: (i) electronic commerce fell
within the scope of existing WTO agreements;  (ii) in keeping with the trade liberalization goals of the
WTO, Members should avoid unnecessary measures restricting the use and development of
e-commerce;  and (iii) electronic commerce had a vital role to play in enhancing development,
consistent with WTO objectives.  The General Council should examine the cross-cutting issues
identified by Members and should report to the next Ministerial Conference with recommendations in
accordance with the 1998 WTO Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce.  Moreover, the GeneralWT/GC/M/61
Page 26
Council should examine in January 2001 the possibility  of creating an ad hoc task force to enable
Members to examine cross-cutting issues.
113. The representative of Brazil agreed with the Chairman's statement that not enough time had
passed to allow the subsidiary bodies to complete their work and that much remained to be done.
Hence, the work programme on electronic commerce was still useful and necessary.  The subsidiarybodies still had an important role to play and he hoped that they would be able to produce substantive
reports with their conclusions in 2001.  It was only after receiving such comprehensive reports that
Members would be in a position to fully ascertain that electronic commerce fell within the ambit of
WTO agreements.  His delegation took note of APEC's declaration and of the Chairman's intention to
pursue consultations early in 2001 on the issue of creating an ad hoc task force or any other
mechanism and he looked forward to taking part in this process.
114. The representative of Cuba said that his delegation hoped to see work continuing in the
subsidiary bodies in order to shed light on possible tasks in the WTO on electronic commerce.  Much
remained to be done in the subsidiary bodies and answers could still be provided to many pending
questions, including the issue of classification, in order to prepare a final report for the next
Ministerial Conference.  He appreciated the fact that more delegations seemed to agree that restrictive
measures on electronic commerce should be avoided.  Cuba did not feel it had open and clearconditions to fully take part in electronic commerce, given that the technology came from the United
States and that US businesses could not provide Cuba with the technology.  Such restrictions did not
allow for equal participation of developing countries in electronic commerce and he hoped these
issues could be resolved so that his country could accomplish more in this area.
115. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation remained to be
convinced about the need to establish an ad hoc task force.  The work programme was set up to clarify
how existing WTO rules and commitments applied to electronic commerce.  The 1999 reports of the
subsidiary bodies showed that there was an emerging consensus on a number of issues but that some
issues remained open, as there had been too little  time before the present meeting for further results.
His delegation was encouraged by the constructive spirit of the joint WTO-ITC seminar that tookplace on 30 November 2000, which provided a number of concrete examples on how certain
developing countries had seized the opportunities of information technology and electronic
commerce, as called for by the Committee on Trade and Development in its 1999 report.  This work
on the development aspects of electronic commerce should be pursued in the Committee on Trade and
Development.  The Community had also submitted papers in the TRIPS and GATS Councils in order
to focus work on the relevant remaining issues an d he looked forward to receiving comments from
other Members.  Finally, with a view to completing  everyone's understanding in the perspective of the
market-access negotiations, a reasonable deadline should be set to conclude the work programme on
electronic commerce.
116. The representative of Costa Rica said that Members should continue to avoid applying any
restrictive measures limiting the use and development of electronic commerce.  Work on e-commerce
should continue to clarify the importance of WTO rules for this type of trade and how it couldcontribute to countries' development.  Although th e work of the subsidiary bodies had to be carried
forward, the General Council should create a technical group to consider cross-cutting issues.  His
delegation was looking forward to participating in future consultations on this matter.
117. The representative of Japan recalled that electronic transactions entailed many different
aspects.  The ordering of books, for example could be done by electronic means, while the subsequent
delivery of the goods could be carried out through the traditional way or even via electronic means.
This was a typical example of combined trade of goods and services, and financial services could also
be relevant at the time of settling payments.  As digital products could be delivered by electronic
means, more work was necessary to assess whether su ch transactions fell within the scope of trade inWT/GC/M/61
Page 27
goods or services.  Furthermore, these traded goods or services could have a certain asset, which
would be protected under intellectual property rights.  A transaction could only be safely and
smoothly carried out when all aspects of trade were duly taken into consideration.  The objective of
his delegation was thus to analyse this new and important sector of trade, both in a holistic manner
and in terms of each individual aspect.  In the subsidiary bodies' reports, several issues had beenidentified as cross-cutting issues, such as the development issue, including capacity building, the
classification of digital products, competition, jurisdiction and applicable laws.  Members now had to
focus on these substantial issues in a more suitable and structured way.  His delegation supported the
idea of establishing an ad hoc task force under the General Council with the participation of experts
and he hoped that this debate could be concluded by January 2001.
118. Japan was of the view that electronic commerce fell within the scope of the existing WTO
framework, and that Members should avoid adopting any unnecessary measures that would restrictthe development of electronic commerce.  He agreed with the United States that electronic commerce
had a vital role to play in enhancing development,  but at the same time, the problem of the "digital
divide" could not be overlooked.  This issue was one of the major topics of discussion among the G8
leaders at their meeting in 2000 in Okinawa, Japan.  To make electronic commerce beneficial to every
Member, especially to developing-country Members, capacity building in this field was vital.  At theOkinawa Summit, Japan announced its plan to make available some US$15 billion over five years to
address the information technology-related issues for the benefit of developing countries.  He hoped
that this initiative would be useful for the capacity building of developing countries in the field of
electronic commerce as well.
119. The representative of Argentina said that his delegation believed in the enormous potential of
electronic commerce and in the importance of continuing work on this matter in the WTO.  The work
programme had, to a certain extent, revealed the existence of horizontal issues, among which were:
(i) the classification of certain electronically transmitted products;  (ii) questions relating to technical
assistance and capacity building in the developing countries;  and (iii) the relationship and possible
substitution effect between traditional forms of trade and electronic commerce.  His delegation hadthree alternatives on how to address these horizontal issues, namely a task force, a working party, or a
special session of the General Council.  It seem ed that a formal working party would not fully
guarantee the horizontal focus which had to be maintained.  Moreover, it was not clear at this stage
how an ad hoc task force would operate and how transparent its discussions would be.  Therefore,
Argentina was in favour of convening a special sess ion of the General Council, formal or informal, to
deal with horizontal issues.
120. The representative of Hungary stressed the importance for Members to avoid unnecessary
restrictive measures which could hinder the full use and enormous potential of this trade.  A special
session of the General Council would provide an ideal, political level setting to discuss the horizontal
or cross-cutting issues that emerged from the work of the subsidiary bodies.  His delegation still
remained to be convinced of the need for inserting a task force as a third additional level between the
subsidiary bodies, where the technical work was best placed, and the General Council, whereMembers should try to find political solutions, until the next Ministerial Conference, for the issues on
which no agreement could be reached at expert level.
121. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that there had been a long gap since the WTO,
at any level, had examined matters of substance related to electronic commerce.  Some issues had to
be considered by the WTO, both to assist in fa cilitating the e-commerce environment and to try to
ensure that the "digital divide" was narrowed and not widened.  He agreed that WTO rules applied to
trade through electronic commerce and, given the fast evolving nature of e-commerce, there were a
few areas identified by the subsidiary bodies where clarification was needed as to how the rules
applied.  His delegation looked forward to future consultations on the possible establishment of an ad
hoc task force, as recently endorsed by APEC.WT/GC/M/61
Page 28
122. The representative of India recalled that her delegation had agreed at the meeting in July 2000
to resume work in the four subsidiary bodies on the premise that this resumption was without
prejudice to Members’ position with respect to the 1998 Declaration on electronic commerce and their
rights and obligations, and these aspects continued to be relevant.  Considering the complexity and
novelty of electronic commerce, it was not surprising that the subsidiary bodies did not have enoughtime since July to engage in substantive discussions on the various issues set out in the work
programme.  It was also important to bear in mind that other international organizations were trying to
see how best to deal with issues arising from the rapid developments in e-commerce within their areas
of competence such as jurisdiction, and various aspects of private contract law.  Clarifications of these
issues had implications for progress in the WTO's work.  Thus, there was a need to substantially
deepen work in the subsidiary bodies to help forge a common understanding and appreciation of the
issues involved.  The mandate given by the Ministers through the 1998 Declaration on electroniccommerce was to examine all trade issues related to global electronic commerce, including to draw
out how existing agreements applied and the agreem ent to further deepen th e work in the subsidiary
bodies predicated on this understanding.  The three sets of reports of the subsidiary bodies of March
1999, July 1999 and the ones introduced at the present meeting identified a number of key issues that
needed to be examined and appreciated in the context of the applicability of existing rules andprocedures to electronic commerce, including intellectual property rights, standards and rules, and the
GATS.  Thus it was not possible at this stage to draw a conclusion that electronic commerce fell
within the scope of existing WTO agreements.
123. The issue of classification of electronically delivered products had to be resolved, as it had
serious implications on many other issues set out in the work programme.  This question should bedealt with well before considering the trade principles on electronic commerce and in order to
generate a proper and practical understanding of the suggestion that unnecessary measures restricting
the use and development of electronic commerce should be avoided.  In relation to the point made by
the Chairman regarding capacity building, her delegation agreed that the development dimension of
electronic commerce was very important and that it was crucial that the resumed work took intoaccount the economic, financial, and development needs of developing countries and brought out
clearly how the "digital divide" could be bridged.  Members should collectively consider ways and
means of enhancing the participation of developing countries in electronic commerce, and enabling
them to overcome the constraints of a deficient infrastructure and to put in place a modern
infrastructure.  Members should continue consultations on the need to set up a non-negotiating ad hoc
task force to consider cross-cutting issues or any other mechanism to deal with such issues.  At this
point in time, her delegation was not convinced of the necessity and merits of setting up an ad hoctask force.
124. The representative of Albania said that in k eeping with the trade-liberalizing goals of the
WTO, Members should avoid unnecessary measures restricting the use and development of electronic
commerce, due to the fact that electronic commerce did fall within the scope of existing WTO
agreements.  In the course of the work programme, Members should continue to clarify how WTOrules were relevant to the growth of electronic commerce and how electronic commerce facilitated
capacity building for developing countries.  His delegation supported the establishment of an ad hoc
task force by January 2001.
125. The representative of Australia said that the subsidiary bodies' reports and discussions to date
had indicated the following areas of common understanding.  First, existing WTO rules appeared to
apply to electronic commerce, and ongoing work should identify if any gaps existed and how such
gaps should be addressed.  Second, Members supported a minimalist, industry-led regulatory
approach.  Third, the WTO assisted developing countries in understanding the potential of electronic
commerce as a trade facilitation tool, devoting particular attention to access to infrastructure and
technology.  Fourth, Members should not impose measures that would unnecessarily restrict thedevelopment of electronic commerce.WT/GC/M/61
Page 29
126. In terms of the work of the subsidiary bodies, he agreed that the work programme on
e-commerce needed to be reinvigorated, given that work had not progressed since mid-1999.  The
General Council should direct the subsidiary bodies to continue discussion of the sector-specific
issues identified in their reports, as well as those that may be identified in the future.  Five cross-
cutting issues, i.e. issues that spanned the competence of more than one WTO subsidiary body, hadbeen identified in the subsidiary bodies' reports so far.  First, the goods, services or intellectual
property classification issue.  Second, jurisdiction issues, for example with respect to intellectual
property and possibly privacy regulation and consumer protection.  Third, technical assistance,
including access to infrastructure and technology.  Fourth, competition issues and fifth, the
moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions.  On the desirability and scope of an ad hoc
task force, he noted that such a group should not be a negotiating group and it should only address
specified cross-cutting issues with the objective of providing feedback to the General Council on
ways to deal with such issues before the next Ministerial Conference.  The group should have a sunset
clause of the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  His delegation looked forward to the consultations
foreshadowed by the Chairman on this question.
127. The representative of Malaysia said that his delegation could not commit at this juncture to
the assertion that electronic commerce came fully within the scope of WTO rules, given the rapid and
varied developments on this issue.  This was some thing that Members would need to consider further.
It was unfortunate that no substantive discussion had taken place in the subsidiary bodies since July
2000 as there remained many issues to be discussed in these bodies.  Other issues of a cross-sectoral
nature needed to be substantially addressed by Members in the General Council.  Thereafter, it would
be appropriate to examine the possibility of establishing an ad hoc task force to consider thesematters.  Many developing countries were lacking in their capacity to harness e-commerce and thus in
future discussions, Members needed to ensure that the "digital divide" be bridged.
128. The representative of Norway agreed that there had not been enough time since the General
Council meeting in July to allow the subsidiary bodies to finalize their work on electronic commerce
in a fully comprehensive manner and she welcomed the subsidiary bodies' continuation of their workin 2001.  The work in the subsidiary bodies suppor ted the view that electronic commerce fell within
the scope of existing WTO agreements, although their reports identified certain areas where further
clarification was needed as to how current rules applied.  These areas, together with additional issues
arising from the continued work, should be addressed in the appropriate fora.  Through ongoing work,
electronic commerce had revealed its potential in contributing to capacity building and market access,
and a faithful application of the rules and principles of the multilateral trading system to electronic
commerce would help promote its growth.  To this  effect, her delegation supported the notion of a
tariff-free cyberspace.  In order to continue the work, Members should deal with cross-cutting issues
and assist the General Council in preparing for the next Ministerial Conference.  This could be done
through an ad hoc task force as mentioned by AP EC, a special session, formal or informal, of the
General Council, or any other viable mechanis m.  Additional consultations on possible format,
mandate and time-frame should take place early in 2001.
129. The representative of Sri Lanka said that more work had to be done before her delegation
could reach the conclusion that electronic commerce fell within existing WTO rules.  She attached
significant importance to the development of electronic commerce, which could bring benefits to
developing countries and particularly to small- and medium-scale enterprises in securing new market
opportunities in the competitive international tradin g environment.  Her delegation was open to the
establishment of an ad hoc task force to examine and study the cross-cutting issues identified by each
subsidiary body, but it should not be a negotiating group and its mandate, contents and working
procedures should be clear.  Finally, on the question of extending the moratorium, a focused
discussion should take place in the General Council before any decision could be taken on this
subject.WT/GC/M/61
Page 30
130. The representative of Korea agreed that electronic commerce fell within the scope of the
WTO and that its principles were relevant to electronic commerce.  The rapid and widespread
development of electronic commerce in recent years necessitated urgent discussion on how to deal
with electronic commerce in the WTO context.  There had not been much substantive progress made
by the subsidiary bodies since their July 1999 reports because of the difficulty in clarifying the cross-cutting issues, particularly the issue of classification.  While the cross-cutting issues were supposed to
be dealt with by the General Council, such issues would be better addressed in an ad hoc task force,
which would provide a momentum to revamp the discussion on electronic commerce in the WTO.
131. The representative of Canada welcomed the work undertaken as part of the 1998 WTO work
programme on electronic commerce and stressed the importance of the matter for his country, as well
as developing countries.  Electronic commerce could have an equalizing effect and presented an
opportunity to bridge the "digital divide".  Although much work remained to be done, a lot of progresshad been made in understanding electronic commerce and how WTO rules applied to it.  Based on the
work completed thus far, his delegation believed that electronic commerce fell within the scope of
existing WTO agreements.  He recognized the right of governments to regulate, and acknowledged
the importance of avoiding unnecessary measures restricting the use and development of electronic
commerce.  Time was also a variable in the equation given the speed with which the sector wasmoving outside the WTO.  His delegation endorsed the establishment of an ad hoc task force, which
could take up horizontal issues already identified by the subsidiary bodies in their reports.  Such
issues included the classification of electronic deliverables that could have a physical equivalent, the
applicability of customs duties, the development-re lated aspects of electronic commerce, competition
issues and the underlying tensions between e-commerce and geographically based rules.  SomeMembers had also highlighted other cross-cutting issues  in the course of the subsidiary bodies' work,
including jurisdiction, applicable law, electronic contracts and enforcement.  The ad hoc task force
should not be a negotiating body and its work should be reviewed by the General Council up to the
time of the next Ministerial Conference.  In addition to APEC's statement endorsing electronic
commerce and the creation of an ad hoc task force in the WTO, many other experts and practitioners,from both developed and developing countries, had endorsed the concept of such a holistic approach
by the WTO, as was highlighted at the WTO/ITC e-commerce forum held in November 2000.
Finally, consultations should continue in 2001 and a special General Council meeting in early January
should help focus attention and enhance Members' understanding of the value of establishing a task
force.
132. The representative of Slovak Republic said that considering the growing importance of
electronic commerce for all Members and economies, the subsidiary bodies should continue their
work to clarify a number of outstanding issues.  In  the course of future work, the link between the
General Council and the subsidiary bodies should be preserved.  The General Council should examine
the cross-cutting issues identified by Members in th e subsidiary bodies and help prepare the report for
the next Ministerial Conference.  Members should avoid unnecessary barriers to trade and maintain
the practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions.  Her delegation believed thatelectronic commerce fell under the scope of existing WTO agreements but that Members should seek
clarifications as to how WTO rules were relevant to this particular issue.  An ad hoc task force should
concentrate on helping Members to better understand and clarify the cross-cutting issues and should
not be a negotiating body.
133. The representative of New Zealand said that as mandated by the 1998 Declaration on
electronic commerce, the WTO had an important role to play in deepening the understanding among
Members of the ways in which WTO rules regulated electronic commerce transactions.  This required
the membership to explore the range of substantive issues which some Members had raised in the
course of the work programme.  In this connection, embarking on a substantive discussion should be
Members' key priority.  From the work carried out to date in the various subsidiary bodies, four keypoints could be highlighted, some of which coincide d with the Chairman's opening comments.  First,WT/GC/M/61
Page 31
the WTO already provided a framework of rules for trade in relation to electronic networks,
particularly the Internet.  Second, such rules could be found not only in the GATS, but also in the
TRIPS Agreement, as well as the GATT.  Third, the fa ct that a full range of WTO rules applied in the
e-commerce area was an important foundation for discus sions.  Fourth, failure to recognize this point
would effectively put at risk the "technologically neutral" commitments undertaken by Members inthe context of the Uruguay Round.  His delegation looked forward to an early substantive and focused
discussion on e-commerce, and to early consensus on the vehicle to effectively facilitate this
substantive discussion.
134. The representative of Nigeria said that electronic commerce was a source of both interest and
concern for his delegation.  The interest came from the vital role of electronic commerce in countries'
economies and in the entire globalization process.  The concern stemmed from the fact that in spite of
the huge gains from electronic commerce, developing countries, and particularly African countrieswere yet to derive significant economic benefits.  In light of the increasing dominance of e-commerce
in the global economy and the need to further examine this trend with a view to extending benefits to
all Members, subsidiary bodies should continue their work and further clarify how WTO rules were
relevant to e-commerce.  He supported the establishment of an ad hoc task force to examine and
analyze the cross-cutting issues in a more holistic manner, as long as this task force in no way fulfilleda negotiating role.  It should have an analytical role and it should be able to deliver an objective and
factual report at the end of its mandate.  The development dimension also had to be taken fully into
account because of the inability of developing countries to be active stakeholders in global
e-commerce.  He looked forward to participating further in work in this area.
135. The representative of Panama said that his delegation could support the creation of an ad hoc
task force to deal with horizontal issues which required a more comprehensive approach than that of
the subsidiary bodies in their respective areas of competence.  This ad hoc task force should be under
the direct supervision of the General Council and should report to it.  Its mandate should be specific,
limited in time, and should not be of a negotiating nature.  The work should also continue in the
subsidiary bodies.  While there was no consensus on the horizontal issues, some of them, such as theclassification of electronic transmissions, had the support of a vast majority of Members and could
therefore be entrusted to a task force.  This did not preclude new topics that would emerge in the
course of future work in the subsidiary bodies from being passed on later to the task force.  Without
prejudice to their right to revert to the subject, Members should also accept:  (i) that the status quo
ante continued and that no country should impose tariffs on electronic transmissions for the moment;
and (ii) that no country should be applying any such tariffs in the foreseeable future, so as to allow
time for a discussion to take place on the effects of such an extension and the possible benefits of anew political decision on this question.  This was also a matter that could be taken up by an ad hoc
task force.
136. The representative of Egypt said that before embarking on an exercise that would eventually
aim at setting contractual rules within the WTO, a level playing field among Members in their use of
electronic commerce or in comprehending the different aspects involved should be sought.  Pastnegative experiences with some agreements, such as TRIPS, should be avoided.  Efforts at this stage
should be directed towards enhancing the capacity of developing countries to use this tool, thus
narrowing the "digital divide".  The study process within the work programme should also be allowed
to continue in the four subsidiary bodies.  Although the moratorium on customs duties on electronic
transmissions contained in the 1998 Declarati on on Global Electronic Commerce had lapsed, her
delegation was ready to consider any proposal by Members regarding its extension for a reasonable
period of time.
137. The representative of Pakistan recalled that he was speaking without prejudice to his country's
position on the 1998 Declaration on electronic commerce.  His delegation concurred with the first
three points made by the Chairman in his introducto ry statement.  With regard to the fourth point,WT/GC/M/61
Page 32
since no substantial discussion had taken place in the various subsidiary bodies for over a year,
Members should seek additional input from the subsidiary bodies in another round of discussions
before holding further consultations on the question of establishing an ad hoc task force.  Finally, he
recalled that the Chairman had promised to start consultations on the establishment of three working
groups to deal with the relationship between trade and transfer of technology, trade and debt and tradeand finance and he looked forward to seeing this process started.
138. The representative of Venezuela said that his delegation had the greatest interest in the
continuation of work in the subsidiary bodies and in the creation of a task force to examine all the
horizontal issues that the subsidiary bodies had not yet managed to assess and which were clearly
interrelated, such as those mentioned by Australia.  Electronic commerce was already a central topic
on the agenda of other international organizations and it was necessary for the WTO to define what
WTO rules applied and what sectors had special characteristics that needed to be clarified.  This wasone of the fundamental tasks that Members had to deal with before the next Ministerial Conference.
Venezuela had liberalized its telecommunications sector in the hope that a sector such as electronic
commerce could become, through the Internet, a tool for its development.  Thus, his government had
issued a special decree aimed at encouraging the use of information technologies, providing
incentives and developing general policies to stimulate research and development in that sector.  Hisdelegation hoped that the WTO could clarify the true implications of electronic commerce for
developing countries.  This would ensure confiden ce and predictability to those who invested on the
basis of state policies such as those elaborated by Venezuela, aimed at promoting participation and the
use of new communication tools.  Developing countries had to overcome the legal limitations and
lack of transparency, which could act as a disincentive for their active participation in electroniccommerce of certain productive sectors.  Clarity in both domestic and international regulations in this
area was of the utmost importance to guarantee the necessary confidence.
139. The representative of Jordan said that his delegation shared the views expressed on the vital
role of electronic commerce for development, as it could enhance productivity, increase openness of
markets and create opportunities for small and medium enterprises to benefit from producing andproviding products and services to world markets.  As electronic commerce was a form of trading, it
fell within the scope of existing WTO agreements.  The subsidiary bodies should continue their
clarification work and report back to the General Council.  An ad hoc task force should also be
established to examine the cross-cutting issues under the umbrella of the General Council.
140. The representative of Jamaica said that the WTO should press ahead with the work
programme on electronic commerce.  While there was scope for further work in the subsidiary bodies,
some of the issues could usefully be examined in a forum that might be better suited to move the
discussion forward, specifically on some cross-cutting issues.  There should not be a lack of clarity
regarding such an important issue as to how WTO rules applied to electronic commerce and the likely
implications.  His delegation would look favorably on the establishment of a specialized group to
assist the discussions.  Further consultations could serve to bring clarity to the precise nature of such a
forum.  Notwithstanding any decision that might be taken on this matter, there was much importantwork left for the subsidiary bodies to undertake part icularly with regard to the development-related
aspects of electronic commerce, including capacity building.
141. The representative of Uganda said that his delegation believed efforts should be made to
narrow the "digital divide".  Developing country Members should not be left behind in the progress
being made in the area of e-commerce.  With rega rd to the work programme, much work remained to
be done in the subsidiary bodies, which should clarify certain points and make recommendations to
the General Council.  His delegation was willing to examine positively the suggestions made on how
to move forward in relation to cross-cutting issues , including the creation of an ad hoc task force or
the convening of a special session of the General Council and Members should consider the merits of
each option in the course of future consultations.  His delegation would only be able to agree to theWT/GC/M/61
Page 33
creation of an ad hoc task force on the basis of a clear mandate, and on the understanding that it would
not be a negotiating group.  Moreover, the implications of extending the moratorium agreed to by
Ministers in 1998 would have to be clarified before his country could take a decision on this matter.
The moratorium did not address itself to a particular goods or services sector, but was targeting a
specific mode of conducting commercial transactions in goods or services.  This opened an entirelynew chapter in the scope of WTO work and had to be examined further.  He wished to be involved in
any future consultations on the subject.
142. The representative of Philippines said that his delegation agreed with APEC's conclusion that
Members should not impose new barriers to the smooth flow of e-commerce and that a task force
should be established to look at cross-cutting issues.  His delegation was of the view that Members
should agree on the cross-cutting issues, with the understanding that engaging in discussions on these
issues would not prejudice Members' position on the future applicability of WTO rules.  He did notagree that electronic commerce fell within the purview of WTO agreements, as this would mean that
all applicable rules could immediately be imposed on electronic transactions, even if they were not
favourable to the smooth flow of e-commerce or to the specific interests of most Members.  However,
there might still be measures and provisions in the different agreements that would be applicable to
electronic transactions, as was noted in the subsidiary bodies' reports.  On the development aspect ofe-commerce, he said that a high threshold of technological competence and knowledge was required
to bridge the "digital divide" and increase the participation and capacity building of developing
countries, whereas no particular measures or financing were available to mitigate this situation.
Development considerations should be an important part of the discussions on cross-cutting issues and
more emphasis should be placed on the work done in the WTO and other organizations, such as theITC and UNCTAD.  The WTO itself should lead the way, in the same manner as it had conceived an
integrated framework for least-developed countries.  Finally, consultations on these questions should
start at the earliest.
143. The representative of Lesotho said that as work on e-commerce continued, Members should
take active steps to ensure that unnecessary restrictive measures on the use and development of
e-commerce were avoided.  Members should also work towards creating an environment that would
facilitate investment and technology transfer, which were critical to the effective participation of
developing countries in the information technology sector.  There was a need for the WTO to
critically analyse and consider the implications of electronic commerce for developing countries and
contribute to efforts undertaken throughout the international community in seeking out strategies
aimed at narrowing the "digital divide".  His delegation looked forward to participating in
consultations on this issue.
144. The representative of Morocco said that her delegation wished to emphasize the importance
of electronic commerce for trade and development as a whole and the role that the WTO should play
to help least-developed and developing countries take an active part in electronic commerce, thus
reducing the "digital divide".  This type of trade should fall within the ambit of WTO rules.  The
decision to set up an ad hoc task force in ch arge of analyzing cross-cutting issues should be
subordinate to the "needs" criteria.  However, he r delegation would show the necessary flexibility in
case there was a clear consensus in favour of such a group.  An ad hoc task force should have a very
precise mandate and should not be a negotiating group.  Morocco was in favor of extending the
moratorium for a fixed period of time, during which Members would agree to avoid all measures
restricting this type of commerce.
145. The representative of Mauritius shared the view of some African delegations that many
developing countries, including his, were far behind in the development of electronic commerce.  In
order for work to move forward more effectively, his delegation would not stand in the way of any
consensus.  Several issues had been identified in the various WTO bodies but more work remained to
be done.  Members now had to work towards greater coordination to build up the necessary synergyWT/GC/M/61
Page 34
in order to make the benefits of electronic commerce available to countries with greater needs.
Members also had to strike the right balance of their rights, obligations and interests.  The subsidiary
bodies should be allowed to pursue their work and address the remaining issues identified.  Electronic
commerce was essential to support his country's efforts to achieve sustained economic growth and
development.  However, to this end, resources and assistance were urgently needed to build supplyand institution capacities.  In an interdependent multilateral trading system, such support had to come
from trading partners in a more privileged position.  The time factor was also crucial, as electronic
commerce continued to contribute to increasing efficiency for exports through new digitized
marketing and selling techniques, thus eroding the competitiveness and productivity of developing
countries.
146. The representative of Bolivia said that her delegation also recognized the importance of
electronic commerce, not only from an economic point of view, but also for the dissemination of
education and culture, especially in developing countries.  Members should go further in the study of
this matter and to this end, an ad hoc task force should be created.  Such a group should work in a
transparent manner and should not have a negotiating mandate.
147. The representative of United States welcomed the affirmation of the role of electronic
commerce in levelling the playing field for developing countries.  It was only logical that many
delegations recognized that electronic commerce fell within the scope of the WTO.  Another
significant feature of the 1998 Declaration's mandate, which included the moratorium, was the
element of development.  Several other international organizations had become active in helping to
bridge the "digital divide".  The ITU, WIPO, IT C and other UN agencies had been doing outstanding
work to heighten the educative process.  The United States had launched and enhanced itsdevelopment capacity-building efforts in electronic  commerce.  In addition to the Okinawa Summit
activities mentioned by Japan, the US had enhanced the "Leland Initiative", which was designed to
extend the benefits of e-commerce to sub-Saharan Africa including connection to the Internet and
other global information infrastructure technologies.  The initiative sought to empower developing
countries to develop and utilize the Internet to energize their economies and gain access to knowledgethat could improve standards of living and foster th e free flow of ideas.  Also, after concluding the
1998 Declaration on e-commerce, the US had launched a new "Internet for Economic Development
Initiative", which was a pilot project including Ghana, Guinea, Mozambique, South Africa, Uganda,
Egypt, Morocco, Bulgaria, Guatemala, Haiti and Jama ica.  This initiative was recently extended to a
number of other developing countries.  Her country also had major cooperative activities and
technical assistance projects with India, which had proved itself to be highly active in e-commerce,
particularly in the export of electronic software and software development.  The US had, with India, ajoint understanding to roll over the moratorium.  The job of the WTO was obviously to complement
parallel activities bilaterally and internationally to foster increased developing country participation
by providing a more certain, liberal trade environment and clarifying how existing rules applied.  The
seminars held at the WTO during the course of  the work programme and the recent ITC briefing
hosted by the WTO Director-General showed that th ere were developing-country participants from all
parts of the world, who appealed to developed countries to help enhance the liberal trade environment
which would provide an attractive climate for e-commerce companies from the developed world in
development capacity-building efforts.  This was particularly reflected in the commitments
undertaken in Okinawa.  Therefore, the approach taken in the WTO would be important in
determining how players in both the developing and developed world were able to proceed andprovide that connection, and for governments and countries overall to experience large gains from
e-commerce.
148. The representative of Indonesia said that it was important for the WTO to continue its
clarification work and discuss how electronic commerce should be treated in the WTO, as well as to
identify which WTO agreements and rules were relevant to electronic commerce.  In order to havemore focused and substantive discussions on issues related to electronic commerce, an ad hoc groupWT/GC/M/61
Page 35
should be established by the General Council and consultations should be held on this matter.  The ad
hoc group should not be a negotiating group and should report to the Council General before the next
Ministerial Conference to enable Ministers to take a decision on this issue.  While the WTO continued
the discussion thereon, the moratorium on the imposition of custom duties on electronic transactions
should be extended until the next Ministerial Conference and unnecessary measures restricting the useand development of electronic commerce should be avoided.  The WTO should take the necessary
steps to ensure that electronic commerce did not remain beyond the reach of developing countries and
that their capacity to play a more active role in this area was improved.
149. The representative of Uruguay said that electronic commerce was an important issue, not only
for all Members but for the WTO itself and this was why his delegation wished to continue to
progress in this work.  Although the subsidiary bodies had not completed their mandate, the work on
e-commerce had gone into a new phase.  At this juncture, a substantive and well focused debateshould be open on the issue of e-commerce.  This debate could be an opportunity to revisit the
principles under which e-commerce should be carried out, clarify certain problem areas that had been
identified in the subsidiary bodies and define which were the horizontal issues that should be dealt
with in the future as well as the relevant WTO rules in this field.  It would also be important to carry
out a general assessment of the situation as it stood and to lay down certain guidelines for future workin the subsidiary bodies and the General Council, considering both technical and political aspects of
the whole issue.  The creation of an ad hoc task force as proposed by APEC was one of the options to
consider for the future but in any event, a substantive and well focused debate on all aspects of
electronic commerce should be carried out in the framework of an informal session of the General
Council.
150. The representative of Switzerland said that it was important, if not unavoidable, to undertake
work in the area of electronic commerce under the direct auspices of the General Council.  The time
had come to give a new impetus to work on this topic within the WTO.  Cross-cutting issues had been
identified and the General Council had to start dealing with them.  The decision regarding
classification, for example, required a political decision which the subsidiary bodies could not take.He agreed with the fact that the subsidiary bodies should continue to work on the questions that had
been entrusted to them, but this work may not be sufficient to prepare Members for a decision to be
taken on electronic commerce at the next Ministerial Conference.  With regard to the application of
WTO rules to electronic transactions, different aspects would need to be clarified, both within the
subsidiary bodies and at the General Council level.  Therefore, his delegation was in favor of avoiding
measures that would impose superfluous restrictions on electronic transactions.
151. The representative of the Czech Republic agreed that the work should continue in a more
focused and result-oriented manner, allowing Members to consider cross-cutting issues.  His
delegation remained to be convinced that an ad hoc group should be established to deal with cross-
cutting issues, but would still consider the issu e positively.  The present meeting should send a
positive message testifying to the importance the WTO attached to electronic commerce.  It was also
necessary to clarify not only the relevance of the existing WTO rules to e-commerce, but also howthese rules contributed to the growth of e-commerce and increased capacities in developing countries.
152. The representative of Turkey said that his delegation agreed with the principles underlined by
the Chairman in his opening statement.  E-commerce fell within the mandate of the WTO and
Members should develop ways and means to promote e-commerce.  In this regard, it was important to
clarify how WTO rules related to e-commerce.  His delegation attached great importance to the workdone in the subsidiary bodies.  Considering the na ture and growing importance of e-commerce, his
delegation would not be against the creation of an ad hoc task force, as long as it did not impede the
work in the subsidiary bodies.  A special session of the General Council should be held to allow
Members to discuss the issue in depth and take a decision on future action.WT/GC/M/61
Page 36
153. The Chairman thanked delegations for their contribution to the debate.  All delegations that
had spoken, indicated a willingness to move on with a constructive debate on electronic commerce
and this constituted a good basis for starting further consultations.
154. The General Council took note of the statements.
8. Observer status for internationa l intergovernmental organizations
155. The Chairman recalled that this was a pending issue on the General Council's agenda.  There
had been further consultations on observer status for international intergovernmental organizations
(IGOs) since the subject was last discussed, but unfortunately no progress had been made.  The
General Council would therefore have to revert to the matter again in 2001.  Given the importance of
the issue, he urged Members to reconsider their positions so that a solution could be found as soon as
possible in 2001.
156. The representative of the United States said th at this was an important issue for her delegation
and she thanked the Chairman for the efforts he had made to bring the work forward.  The United
States had made a proposal aimed at resolving this issue and remained committed to find an agreeable
approach to observer status, bearing in mind that opening up the WTO to broader observership was
critical to the overall understanding of the work in the WTO.
157. The representative of Egypt thanked the Chairman for his consultations on this issue and
encouraged him to continue with these consultations.  The position of her country remained
unchanged but she hoped that delegations, which had difficulties in joining a holistic solution on this
issue would be in a position to do so in the weeks ahead.
158. The representative of Hungary encouraged the Chairman to continue his consultations on this
important issue.  As time went by, Members were making pledges to strengthen their outreach and
increase transparency, while the gap between words and action was widening.  He hoped that in the
near future a solution would be found to this issue which, if unresolved, could challenge the
credibility of the organization.
159. The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation appreciated the efforts undertaken by
the Chairman to resolve the issue at hand.  Observer status to IGOs had been a pending issue for some
time and this was a cause of embarrassment for the WTO.  His delegation's position on this matter
was well known to the membership and remained the same.  The exercise to grant observer status to
the outstanding requests was political in nature and therefore called for a political solution.  To this
end, Members would have to move away from techni calities and consider all 27 pending requests for
observer status together as a package.  Any process of weeding out organizations was unacceptable to
his delegation.  Pakistan had a keen interest in granting observer status to all the organizations,especially the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Islamic Development Bank.  He urged
Members who had reservations in joining the consensus to reconsider their position and he
encouraged the Chairman to carry on with the proces s of consultations in order to break the deadlock.
160. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation had tried to find
solutions to this issue and that Members should continue trying, as they had come very close to a
solution.  It was unfortunate that this issue had become a political one in an organization that had a
good track record in avoiding politization of some of the difficult questions it had to deal with.  The
present stalemate of the situation applied to the organizations on the last updated list of outstanding
requests for observership.  Therefore, Members should agree to consider other requests than the ones
currently on the list of pending requests.  This would constitute a minimal understanding betweenWT/GC/M/61
Page 37
Members, while the major issue remained to be solved.  His delegation was anxious to find a solution
to this matter as soon as possible.
161. The Chairman said that it was difficult for him to believe there would be no problems in
granting observer status to organizations other than the ones currently on the list.  One of the major
difficulties was that there were a number of orga nizations which had observer status under the GATT
Council and which were now blocked from having observer status in the General Council.  That was
perhaps an indication of what the situation would be like for future requests.
162. The representative of the Czech Republic stressed that Members had to be consistent in
dealing with the issue at stake.  His delegation had great concern with regard to the lack of progress
on the question of observer status for IGOs, as this was one of the elements that should contribute to a
better understanding of WTO activities and greater coherence in global policy-making.  He urged all
Members to intensify their efforts so that appropriate action could be taken on pending requests,taking into account existing rules on the matter.
163. The representative of Venezuela expressed his delegation's concern at the lack of movement
in the General Council on this topic and its linkage to the efforts made in the subsidiary bodies.
Members had to move forward on this important issue of observer status for IGOs and show more
flexibility in granting observer status, thus ensuring that the WTO was seen as a more transparent andtruly universal organization.  He urged the Chairman to continue consultations to overcome this
situation.
164. The representative of Brazil said that the lack of a decision on this point was becoming an
embarrassment for the WTO and for the governments of IGOs that had requested observer status.
There was a question of consistency and coherence of national positions regarding this subject.  Hisdelegation was dedicated to a rapid resolution of this matter and hoped the Chairman could maintain
his efforts on this issue.
165. The Chairman said that he appreciated the fact that delegations encouraged further
consultations.  However, consultations would not lead to any results if positions remained unchanged.
There were some problems underlying this question which were entirely unconnected.  Somedelegations had suggested that it was not a matter of examining organizations individually to see if
they qualified under the guidelines but that a holistic or package solution, which incorporated all
pending requests, was preferable.  Such a position had contributed to stopping the progress on this
matter.  Consultations were useless unless there was a change of attitude amongst some delegations.
166. The representative of Canada said that his delegation associated itself completely with the
representative of Hungary.
167. The representative of Norway said that Members had to accept that there was still no political
willingness to reach a final solution and for further consultations to be meaningful, a clear signal to
the contrary would be necessary.  Her delegation was concerned with the state of the matter given that
at present, only seven IGOs had been granted observer status to the General Council while close to
30 requests were still pending, in addition to the unresolved applications to the subsidiary bodies.  As
stated before in the course of discussions on external transparency, such a situation could only deepenthe perception of the WTO as a closed society.  Among the applicants were international
organizations with a global membership, such as UNDP and the WHO.  The WTO was in the process
of promoting cooperation with UNDP in the Integrated Framework and was also involved in a joint
project on essential drugs with the WHO.  In the field of intellectual property rights and TRIPS, there
was a pending request for observer status by th e Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which
could give valuable input to ongoing processes as well.  Members' continued failure to deal with this
situation was likely to further strengthen the impression already prevailing in the private sector thatWT/GC/M/61
Page 38
the WTO was unable to take decisions.  Consequently, she urged delegations, which had been
prevented from moving forward on this question due to  conflict with national interests, to endeavor to
arrive at less restrictive positions in the new year.
168. The representative of Israel thanked the Chairman for his efforts to progress on this important
issue.  His delegation attached great importance to the issue of observer status for IGOs and was ready
to continue consultations and try to contribute to successfully resolving the matter.  It was imperative
for Members to ensure that applicant organizations demonstrated that their activities and policies were
compatible with the objectives and principles of the Marrakesh Agreement.  This was a very
important rule that should be followed no matter what solution was adopted.
169. The representative of Tunisia said that his delegation supported the statements made by the
representatives of Egypt and Pakistan.
170. The representative of Jamaica said that his delegation also had concerns at the continuation of
this unacceptable situation.  The ACP secretariat, which was on the list of pending requests,
represented the interests of 71 developing countries and also had observer status in the GATT
Council.  Observership in the General Council would greatly facilitate the work of the ACP secretariat
and he hoped that the situation could be resolved in the interests of the WTO membership.
171. The representative of the European Communities, clarifying the statement he had previously
made, said that the stalemate prevailing on the question of observer status applied to the current list of
pending requests from IGOs, as well as to the International Labour Organization, with which there
was also a problem.  Aside from these IGOs, Members should be ready to consider any other request
for observer status.
172. The representative of Chile said that as stated by the representative of Brazil, the prevailing
situation was uncomfortable and embarrassing.  The fa ct that Members were unable to take a decision
on a simple issue which did not concern Members rights and obligations raised doubts as to their
capacity to handle more complex issues.  The WTO rules and regulations provided for other types of
decision making and Members should further reflect on this.  One approach to consider was the
adoption by Members of certain guidelines for the acceptance of observers.  Those IGOs meeting the
minimum requirements established in the guidelines and agreed upon by consensus would be
automatically granted observer status and Members would deal in the General Council with the
requests that did not fall within such guidelines.  There were several approaches to decision making
on this issue and since the present decision-making mechanisms were apparently not functioning,
Members should look into other alternatives.
173. The Chairman recalled that in the summer of 1999, Members had tried to adopt more specific
supplementary guidelines building on the existing ones but this attempt had failed.
174. The representative of Colombia echoed the concern expressed by many delegations on the
question of observer status and the lack of a solution thereon.  He endorsed the statements made by
the representatives of Hungary and Chile.  He also shared the Chairman's view that as long as there
was no willingness on the part of Members to solve this issue, no progress could be made and this
would be unfortunate for the WTO's image.
175. The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to the matter in 2001.WT/GC/M/61
Page 39
9. Procedures for the appointment of the Director-General
176. The Chairman recalled that at General Council meeting on the 17 and 19 July 2000, he had
submitted a number of questions to delegations to facilitate future discussions on this matter.  At the
10 October 2000 meeting, it was agreed that this matter would be on the agenda of the present
meeting.  When the question of the appointmen t of the Director-General was solved in 1999,
Members also agreed to try to develop guidelines for future procedures by September 2000.  Although
this deadline had not been met, Members involved in the discussions in the early part of 1999 had a
duty to try to draw on their experience in developing such guidelines, to avoid in the future situations
like the one faced at the time of the previous appointment.  The questions posed to Members in July
2000 were the following:  (i) Should there be established qualification criteria for the Director-
General?  (ii) How long should the terms of office be and what should be specified with respect to
renewals of appointment?  (iii) Should governments be invited to make nominations or shouldcandidates be identified through a selection process?  (iv) Should a selection committee be established
and if so, how should it be composed?  (v) Should a selection committee have established guidelines,
geographical or others, or a high degree of flexib ility?  (vi) How long should the selection process
take if there were to be fixed deadlines?  (vii) Should there be a special decision mechanism for
forcing matters if consensus proved impossible?  (viii) Was it desirable to have specific rules for therole of Deputy Director-General in the transition period?  He hoped that a discussion on this list of
issues could help identify common views and develop some more specific guidelines to supplement
the existing ones.
177. All delegations who spoke thanked the Chairman for launching the discussion on the
procedures for appointment of the Director-General.
178. The representative of Hong Kong, China said th at it would be useful to draw up in advance an
objective list of qualification criteria and attributes to look for in a Director-General in order to avoid
a purely political selection exercise.  Such criteria may however vary depending on the needs of the
organization at any given time.  Terms of office should be for four years, with a possibility of
renewal.  Governments should make nominations, having regard to the qualifications required for theposition.  A selection committee could be a useful tool, but would probably need some accompanying
guidance, in terms of the elements it should take into account and the type of consultation process it
would be expected to engage in.  The composition of such a selection committee would have to be
decided well in advance and could be defined in terms of some of the Chairpersons of major WTO
bodies at the time.  Since the Guidelines for Appoint ment of Officers to WTO Bodies made reference
to the need for balanced representation, this element would be automatically built-in.  Decisions
should continue to be made on the basis of consensus and a selection committee with accompanyingconsultations could be useful in terms of building such consensus.  Some form of an informal "straw"
poll or even a more formal voting procedure coul d be considered, but any such procedure would have
to be used solely for the appointment of the Di rector-General and would have to be completely
insulated from decision making as regards other business of the organization, which would continue
to be based on consensus.  Furthermore, there should be some form of staggering in the appointmentof the Director-General and Deputy Directors-Gene ral, so as to avoid depriving the organization of
the Director-General and Deputy Directors-General at the same time.
179. The representative of Singapore, on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, said that some of the
rules and procedures for the appointment of the Di rector-General should be elaborated to restore
greater public confidence in the WTO system and es tablish a predictable, transparent, equitable and
time-bound selection process.  It was also incumbent upon Members to ensure that the process leading
to the appointment of the Director-General was conducted with due and proper respect for the
candidates as well as the integrity of the process.  It was somewhat impractical to establish definitive
qualification criteria for the position of Director-General, as Members themselves would nominate the
most credible and qualified candidates for the position.  The Director-General should be eligible forWT/GC/M/61
Page 40
an appointment of four years, and renewal of appointment could be decided upon by Members.  The
1986 Decision of the CONTRACTING PARTIES on Proced ures for the Appointment of the Director-
General had called for consultations to be conducted by the Chairman of the General Council.
However, in the course of the previous selection process, some Members had expressed a clear wish
that the two functions, namely chairing the General Council and conducting consultations with a viewto appointing the next Director-General, should be dissociated.  A number of alternative options had
been suggested by delegations, in which consultations could be conducted by either a single
individual, a group of persons to be appointed by Me mbers, or a group of persons consisting of Heads
of Mission already appointed as chairpersons of major WTO bodies.  The ASEAN Members were
ready to explore these options in the course of future consultations.  The most prominent element of
the selection process should be a fixed and clear time-frame that should be strictly adhered to.  In
establishing this time-frame, thought should be given to the time required for comprehensive andthorough consultations involving all Members.  A clean cut-off process was preferred to a
prolongation of the process that would leave both Members and candidates in an untenable situation
and which could adversely affect the workings of the WTO.  Finally, the appointment of the Director-
General should be made by consensus, in keeping with the decision-making rules of the WTO.  With
maximum transparency throughout the selection process, Members would be aware of the level ofsupport for the respective candidates and could thus build consensus around the candidate with the
greatest level of support.
180. The representative of Bulgaria said that his delegation agreed with the Chairman that
Members who took part in the last selection process owed this additional effort to the organization.
On the first question, he did not believe that qualification criteria were necessary.  The MarrakeshAgreement did not foresee such criteria and therefore, it was up to Members to take the political
decision as to which candidate was the most appropriate in the particular circumstances.  The
introduction of general criteria would limit Members' rights to take such a decision.  The current four-
year term appeared reasonable, but in any case it should not exceed five years and there should not be
more than one renewal of appointment.  Furthermore, the nomination of candidates should be madeby WTO Members only.  Pursuant to Article VI.2 of the Marrakesh Agreement, the Ministerial
Conference was responsible for appointing the Director-General.  Therefore, to delegate this function
to another body, such as a selection committee, could lead to a circumvention of that provision and
undermine the intergovernmental character of the WTO.  The function of any appointed "facilitator"
should be of a technical nature only, namely to help the Chairman ascertain the amount of support for
each candidate.  There should be a fixed deadline for the nomination of candidates, not less than six
months before the appointment, and this deadline should not be extendable.  After the nominationswere made, depending on their number, strict deadlines should be fixed for each of the consecutive
stages of the selection process.  If there was more than one candidate, such stages would be necessary
for a reduction of the number of candidates.  On the question of consensus, Article IX:1 of the
Marrakesh Agreement provided the necessary rules for taking decisions where consensus could not be
achieved and no other mechanism was therefore required.  Moreover, no special rules for the role ofDeputy Directors-General in the transition period were necessary, as the very purpose of adopting a
set of rules and procedures for the appointment of the Director-General was to avoid a repetition of
the experience of the previous selection process.  These procedures should be clear and strict enough
to ensure an appointment within the set deadlines and would make a transition period unnecessary.
Finally, one of the basic rules that emerged in the course of the last selection was that if there wasmore than one candidate, a reduction of the number of candidates should be undertaken by
eliminating the candidate with least support and repeating the process until there was only one
candidate left.  The elimination of candidates should be undertaken by decisions adopted within
deadlines strictly fixed in advance.  Where decisions could not be reached by consensus, the
provisions of Article IX:1 of the Marrakesh Agreement would apply.
181. The representative of Canada said that specific qualification criteria should not be decided by
Members in advance, as this may lead to needless division and inadvertantly exclude worthwhileWT/GC/M/61
Page 41
candidates.  The current arrangements of a four-year term for the Director-General, renewable once,
should be maintained.  Given the government-to-government nature of the WTO, candidates should
be nominated by Members.  A selection committee could be useful if there was a large number of
candidates, and could be composed of the Chairs of all WTO Councils and Committees, as it was the
case for the Appellate Body selection committee.  Such a committee should have flexibility andshould not be provided with guidelines on geographic representation.  Such a committee could consult
Members to narrow down the list of candidates to three or four and the General Council could then
debate the merits of the top candidates.  The process should be launched well in advance of the expiry
of the incumbent Director-General's term, e.g. one year in advance, and such a deadline should only
be enforceable if there was a vote.
182. If Members agreed to vote to break deadlocks, the deadline for selection by the General
Council should be six months in advance of the expiry of the incumbent Director-General's term.
Failure to reach consensus on the new Director-General by the six-month deadline could lead to a
double majority vote at the following General Coun cil meeting, namely a vote determined by the
majority of Members and the majority of trade weight based on the figures used to calculate budget
shares.  Canada supported voting in relation to the selection of the Director-General, as this did not
affect the rights and obligations of Members.  Moreover, his delegation would prefer to see suchvoting constrained by an explicit amendment to the Marrakesh Agreement relating solely to the
selection of the Director-General.  If this coul d not be achieved, any procedure adopted should be
explicitly temporary and strictly for the purposes of the selection of the Director-General.  Lastly, if
the principles of a deadline and voting were established, there should be no need for a complicated
transition between two terms of appointment.
183. The new Director-General could be selected six months in advance of his term and could
begin to select new Deputy Directors-General during that time.  If Members did not agree to a
deadline or voting, or if there was any other delay between the departure of the incumbent Director-
General and the arrival of the new one, incumbent Deputy Directors-General should continue in their
roles, with the senior Deputy Director-General ac ting as Director-General until the new one assumed
duty.  Under any scenario, the new Director-Gener al should not be prevented from re-appointing
incumbent Deputy Directors-General.  Finally, it migh t be useful to contemplate reaching out to other
organizations and systems or bringing in one or two former WTO Directors-General to share views
and consult with Members.
184. The representative of Egypt said that at this stage, it was necessary for Members to launch a
discussion on the principles to govern future appoin tments of the Director-General before starting to
draft procedures.
185. First, in accordance with the nature of the WTO, an equitable geographical rotation between
candidates from developed and developing countries had to be taken into consideration.  Second,
nominations should be made by governments and the process of selection should be done through the
General Council.  The idea of establishing a selection committee might be problematic with regard to
its composition, although drawing a list with possible names might be helpful to the General Councilprocess.  The decision on the selection of the Dire ctor-General should be taken by consensus through
a fully transparent process and the option of an informal straw poll could be considered.  The areas of
competence of the Director-General and his Deputies should be clearly defined, also taking into
account the equitable geographical distribution.  The four-year term of appointment should be
maintained.  With regard to the procedures themselves and the qualification criteria, Members shouldlook for candidates with political and managerial skills and an in-depth knowledge and understanding
of the substantive functioning of the organization.  Egypt was ready to engage constructively in any
discussion and consultations to follow on this matter.WT/GC/M/61
Page 42
186. The representative of Norway recalled that guidelines on the appointment of the Director-
General already existed although they had proved insufficient at the time of the last selection process.
First, there had been drafted criteria on how to evaluate the candidates, which were to a certain extent
helpful but which did not prevent a crisis when it became clear that the Membership was equally split
on the matter.  Second, there had been a selection committee consisting of two prominentambassadors with a mandate to consider the merits and the support for each candidate, but not to
present an ultimatum.  Third, there had been an understanding of a normal term of four years which
was changed to accommodate the "split solution".  Fourth, there had been a practical deadline of
30 April 1999, when the former Director-General st epped down, but no further directions on what to
do when he left.  For this reason, the seventh question raised by the Chairman concerning the adoption
of a special decision-making mechanism in the absence of consensus was crucial.  Whether indicative
or weighted, voting would be part of the solution, and whether the mechanism would be triggeredautomatically in the absence of consensus by a certain date were questions that could be addressed in
future consultations.  Her delegation was of the view that such a decision mechanism was necessary.
However, as pointed out by Hong Kong, China, any mechanism for forcing a decision would have to
be set up solely for the purpose of appointing a Director-General, in order to avoid the political
implications of reverting to a vote under Article IX of the WTO Agreement.
187. The representative of Colombia said that cons idering the type of issues dealt with and the
length of time required to negotiate in view of launching a round, a term of appointment of six years
for the Director-General, with a possible re-election for one further mandate, would be more
appropriate in giving stability and continuity to the work undertaken in the WTO.  Furthermore, the
nominations should be made by Member governments.  Establishing in advance the requiredqualifications for candidates should not be necessary, as governments would hopefully select
candidates with the adequate profile.  There had to be some kind of voting or other interactive
mechanism to deal with situations where no consensus was possible, and such mechanism had to be
set up before the next selection process.  A selection committee that would act as a facilitator or fulfil
any other task should have a clear obligation to report back to the General Council.  Furthermore,there should be a reduction in the number of Deputy Directors-General, who should be assigned more
executive tasks within the organization.  This would make it possible for the Director-General to have
someone to fill in for him in his absence.  Finally,  a geographical balance should be maintained in the
selection of the Director-General and Deputy Directors-General to preserve the legitimacy of the
WTO.
188. The representative of India said that the Chai rman's initiative on this subject was timely for
two reasons.  First, the people who would be taking part in the elaboration of guidelines were
experienced in the process and could therefore contribute positively.  Second, Members were more
likely to be objective as no reference could be made to any particular individual.  An established
profile for the Director-General could be a basis for discussions and help governments nominate the
right type of candidate.  It did not necessarily have to be used as a screening device.  The profile
should be made up in such a way as to provide an opportunity for candidates with a politicalbackground, as well as candidates without a political background but with political sensitivity and
appreciation, to compete for the position.  The term of appointment should be of four or five years
with one possibility of renewal.  It should also be left to governments to nominate the candidates
whom they consider appropriate.  The prominent role of the Chairman of the General Council,
responsible for consulting with the membership in vi ew of arriving at a decision, should be preserved.
However, the option of having the Chairmen of the DSB and the Trade Policy Review Body assisting
the Chairman of the General Council in the process of selecting the Director-General should also be
explored.  Although a balance between developed and developing countries could be taken into
account, the overriding consideration should be the merits of the candidate.  The selection process
should start one year before the expiry of the incumbent Director-General's term and should becompleted in approximately six months, so as to give the new Director-General a six-month
preparatory time.  If Members were willing to adhere  to this type of time-limit in a consensus-basedWT/GC/M/61
Page 43
organization like the WTO, they would have to consider adopting some special decision-making
mechanism, strictly for the appointment of the Director-General, to arrive at a decision in a reasonable
time in the absence of consensus.  With regard to the principle of consensus in the WTO, a distinction
could be drawn between decisions affecting the rights and obligations of Members, and a matter like
the appointment of the Director-General.  Finally, in order to ensure continuity at the seniormanagement level, adjustments should be made to the existing system so that the Director-General
and his Deputy Directors-General do not change at the same time.
189. The representative of Australia said that most of the questions raised in relation to the
appointment of the Director-General were answered in  existing procedures.  From the list of questions
prepared by the Chairman, two seemed to be threshold questions.  The first one was the question
relating to the decision-making mechanism.  Although consensus was obviously the preferred
approach, an additional mechanism may be required to help Members reach that consensus.  Variousmodels, such as straw polls, could be considered in the course of further consultations.  The second
important issue raised was the question of the Deputy Directors-General.  The fact that there was no
overlap in the terms of office of Deputy Dir ectors-General and new Directors-General was a
managerial problem which had to be addressed.  Finally, other issues could also be considered in the
course of future consultations, such as the number of Deputy Directors-General, a political cabinet forthe Director-General and the creation of another position between the Director-General and his/her
cabinet and the Secretariat, with increased management responsibilities.
190. The Director-General said that he had already agreed with his successor that the current
Deputy Directors-General would stay on for one mont h after the end of his term, to allow the new
Director-General to get to know them and form his opinion.
191. The representative of Uruguay said that his delegation did not think it was necessary to have
qualification criteria or any profile for the candidates and that nominations should only come from
governments.  The mandated term of office should be four years renewable only once.  The criterion
of geographical rotation was an important element but the quality and the merits of the candidate were
more relevant.  Moreover, his delegation did not think there should be a selection committee.  Somedelegations had referred to the possibility of bringing in Chairpersons of other WTO bodies, namely
the DSB or the TPRB.  However, adding such an additional task to their mandate could influence the
appointment of Chairpersons to these positions.  The time spent in appointing a selection committee
could be better used in selecting the Director-General.  Therefore, the Chairman of the General
Council should continue to fulfil this task.  Finally,  all efforts should be made to select the Director-
General by consensus.  However, experience had shown that some additional mechanism, e.g. a straw
poll, may be necessary to force a decision if reaching a consensus became impossible.
192. The representatives of the United States and the European Communities
 said that the
discussion at the present meeting had been useful and that in further consultations other ideas might
be put forward.  They would wait for further consultations before making their comments on this
matter.
193. The Chairman said that there seemed to be a surprising number of common elements which
had run through the debate.  He intended to try to take the issue further before the end of his mandate.
194. The General Council took note of the statements.WT/GC/M/61
Page 44
10. Internal transparency and effective participation of Members
(a) Preparation and organization of ministerial conferences
195. The Chairman recalled that at the General Council meeting on 7-8 February 2000 internal
transparency and effective participation had been identified as one of the priority issues for
consultations among Members.  Members had since engaged in a series of informal and formaldiscussions on how to improve consultative practices.  At the meeting of  the General Council on
17 July 2000, Members had taken note of the Chairman's statement on the consultations conducted
prior to that date, including a number of points reflecting the mainstream of the discussions on two
clusters of issues.  As agreed on 17 July, he had carried out informal consultations on the preparation
and organization of Ministerial Conferences on 2 and 7 November.  Members would also recall that in
the convening fax for those consultations he had produced a non-exhaustive list of questions to
facilitate the deliberations on this issue, focused, inter alia, on the conduct of the preparatory process,the format of Ministerial Declarations, advance decision on Chairs and negotiation structure, the role
of the host country, and the role of the Director-General and the Secretariat.  In addition, he had asked
delegations to consider the suggestion by some Members that Ministerial Conferences could be held
annually and that such conferences should be political events to discuss the developments in the
international trading system on a more regular basis.
196. He expressed his appreciation to all delegations for their constructive approach to these
questions and highlighted a number of points which he believed reflected the mainstream of the
discussions on the preparation and organization of Ministerial Conferences.  First, Members generally
seemed to consider the main functions of the Ministerial Conference to be to provide the possibility
for political involvement in the ongoing work of the WTO, give political guidance for futurepriorities, and allow for decision making by Ministers.  Whether this would be in the form of a
Ministerial Declaration would depend on the agenda of each individual Ministerial Conference.
Second, Members saw merit in having a maximum of flexibility in the process leading up to, and
including, Ministerial Conferences.  Any guidelines for the preparation and conduct of Ministerial
Conferences should be broad and flexible taking into account the agenda of each Conference.  Third,there was broad recognition of the need to establish an efficient, Geneva-based preparatory process
which would allow for solutions to be worked out in advance for most issues, particularly when
decisions by Ministers were required.  The setting up of any negotiating structure and working groups
as well as chairmanships should also be agreed during the preparatory process.  Fourth, there seemed
to be broad agreement among Members that the Chairman of the General Council with the support of
the Director-General and the Secretariat should assume a central role in the preparatory process as
well as during the Ministerial Conference, especially in the negotiation of any agreed outcome.  Ahost country would normally provide the Chairp erson of the Conference who would chair the
ministerial debate.  Fifth, Members generally considered that the Marrakesh Agreement already
provided the flexibility needed regarding the frequency of Ministerial Conferences.  Sixth, Members
reiterated that Ministerial Conferences should be held at the WTO Headquarters unless the Ministerial
Conference or the General Council decides to accept an offer by a Member to host a MinisterialConference.  Seventh, it remained clear that a strong, inclusive, and transparent process leading up to,
and including, Ministerial Conferences, was fundamental in order to ensure a successful outcome.
Furthermore, there seemed to be a common understanding throughout the Membership that the
working methods during the preparatory process as well as during the Ministerial Conference, should
be built on the positive experiences which had evolved within the organization over the past year.
197. The Chairman said that he had been greatly encouraged by the interest and co-operative spirit
shown by delegations throughout the discussions on the different aspects of internal transparency and
the effective participation of Members.  He noted the appreciation among Members that the practices
and way of doing business in the WTO had improved.  That was a collective achievement and itWT/GC/M/61
Page 45
remained clear that these issues would, indeed should, remain with the Members in all aspects of
future work.
198. The representative of Poland, on behalf of the CEFTA Members and Estonia and Latvia ,
welcomed the Chairman's statement as a balanced account of the mainstream of the discussions on the
preparation and organization of Ministerial Conferences.  His delegation was prepared to treat thestatement as a common guideline in preparation for the fourth Ministerial Conference.
199. The representative of Bulgaria welcomed the Chairman's statement.  On the issue of internal
transparency his delegation believed that Members should attempt to formulate principles and agree
on ways of implementing these.  This would ensure that internal transparency and effective
participation of all Members became permanent features in the WTO decision-making process.  It was
clear that more remained to be done to improve inte rnal transparency and the effective participation of
all Members in the activities of the organization.  On the issue of Ministerial Conferences hisdelegation believed that one of the most important lessons to be drawn from Seattle should be to avoid
last minute proposals agreed among some Members in exclusive small group meetings and tabled
immediately for adoption by the Conference.  With a view to enhancing transparency and avoiding a
recurrence of the practice of last minute decisions Bulgaria had made a proposal, circulated as
document WT/GC/W/422, for an increase of the time-frames foreseen for the submission of draftdecisions.  This would require an amendment of the Rules of Procedure which currently provided that
proposals and amendments to proposals should be introduced and circulated to Members only
12 hours before the meeting at which they were to be discussed.  He said that this was not adequate
for a transparent and inclusive decision-making process and did not provide sufficient time for an
orderly domestic coordination process.  While this proposal, if adopted, would not by itself ensurecomplete transparency of decision making in th e WTO it would provide a minimum guarantee for
such transparency.  It would also help to approach regular Ministerial Conferences as political events
to discuss the developments in the international trading system and exclude the possibility of last
minute decisions which have not been thoroughly prepar ed with the participation of all Members.  His
delegation believed that such an amendment would remove an existing inconsistency in the Rules ofProcedure, which required, on he one hand, that documentation "be circulated not later than the day
on which the notice of the meeting is to be issued" as stated in Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the
General Council and, on the other hand, that proposals and amendments to proposals were circulated
to representatives "not later than 12 hours before the commencement of the meeting at which they are
to be discussed" as stated in Rule 28 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Council and Rule 23 of
the Rules of Procedure of the Ministerial Conference.  His delegation's proposal provided for the
necessary flexibility and did not exclude the possibility of making progress in negotiations andstriking bargains at Ministerial Conferences.  He said that decisions could be taken ad referendum on
drafts, introduced after the circulation of the convening notice and should enter into force, if no
additional objections were raised, after the expiry of a period of time, identical with that between the
date of circulation of the convening notice and the date of the meeting.  He said his delegation looked
forward to discussing this proposal at future meetings of the General Council and requested that areference to document WT/GC/W/422 be included in the relevant item of the agenda.
200. The representative of Singapore, on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, said that he wished to
highlight two points relating to the preparation of  Ministerial Conferences which would result in
effective participation by all Members.  First, in  any multilateral negotiation, following discussions in
open-ended meetings involving the entire membership, small-group consultations or otherissue-specific drafting groups were likely to be necessary.  Participation in such meetings should be
reflective of the diverse views and interests held by Members on the issues under consideration as this
would facilitate consensus building.  It was important that  in the preparation of Ministerial
Conferences as well as during the Ministerial Conference itself, consideration be given to the format
for attaining optimum negotiating efficiency and transparency.  This would best be achieved by acombination of a small group informal process to enable intensive negotiations or drafting, andWT/GC/M/61
Page 46
open-ended meetings to seek the views of all Members so as to achieve the widest possible consensus.
The outcome of discussions in the small group process should be promptly and regularly reported to
the entire membership.  Open-ended meetings w ould provide the opportunity for all Members to
express their views on the position taken in the small group process, which should take this feedback
into account in its further work.  It was imperative that the planning and preparation for anyMinisterial Conference provided for this essential back-and-forth process as it would enable all
Members to react to the latest proposals and ensure that their views would be taken into account in the
final drafting exercise.  This would provide the necessary balance between the practical need for
intensive negotiations or drafting as appropriate on the one hand, as well as maximum transparency
and ample opportunities for participation to the membership at large.
201. He said that the second point related to the roles to be played by the Chairman of the General
Council, the Director-General and that of the host country in the preparations for and during theMinisterial Conference.  The ASEAN Members were of the view that the host country, the Chair of
the General Council and the Director-General shou ld play mutually supportive roles.  The host
country should be responsible for not only the logistics and security for the Conference, but also play
a key role as the Chair of the Conference.  The host country, as Chair of the Conference, should
normally be entrusted to steer the Conference and help forge a consensus.  In this respect, smoothcommunication links between the host country, the Chair of the General Council, the Director-
General as well as the WTO Secretariat in the run-up to the Conference were essential.  It was clear
that the host, acting as chair of the Conference, could assume the responsibility and role of the chair
only during the conference.  However, adequate preparations were crucial to the success of any
conference.  For instance, in order to allow for adequate preparation and to facilitate a smooth conductof the Ministerial Conference, the decision on the number of Working Groups and the Chairs of these
Groups should be taken by the Chair of the General Council working closely with the host country.
Preferably, this was a decision that should be taken and communicated at least one week in advance
of the Conference itself so that Members knew in advance how discussions during the Conference
would proceed.  This would assist in bringing greater transparency to the negotiations that were totake place during the Conference itself.  The Director-General should play an active supporting role
by providing advice to the chair on the substantive issues and by assisting, both in the lead up to and
during the Conference itself, in conducting informal consultations as entrusted by the Chair of the
Conference.
202. The representative of India welcomed the Chairman's statement.  His delegation certainly saw
merit in the political involvement which was what Ministerial Conferences were all about, but rather
than political guidance, perhaps policy guidance was a more appropriate term.  His delegation agreedwith the need for a maximum of flexibility in the preparations for a Ministerial Conference.
However, the reference to flexibility should not be construed to mean that new issues which had note
been discussed or agreed to could be introduced into the Ministerial Conference at the last minute
since India believed that domestic approval procedures in many countries sometimes required three to
four months.  As a result, issues should be introduced adequately in advance of a MinisterialConference to ensure that a meaningful discussion could take place.  His delegation endorsed the
Chairman's reference to the role of the Chairman of the General Council with the support of the
Director-General and the Secretariat.  However, he noted that the preparatory process in Geneva
remained a member-driven process.
203. The representative of Egypt commended the Chairman for his efforts in the area of improving
internal transparency and the participation of all Members and said that her delegation could go along
with the Chairman's statement.
204. The representative of the European Communities expressed his appreciation to the Chairman
for his statement and for the overall progress made in the area of internal transparency and effective
participation of all Members.  This was particul arly evident in the transparent approach adoptedWT/GC/M/61
Page 47
throughout the consultative process where a combination of smaller meetings and informal plenary
meetings had proved useful.  It was clear that this was an area where further improvements could be
made and it was perhaps premature to rule out agreeing on guidelines for internal transparency.  His
delegation also believed that it was necessary to continue to address the issue of external
transparency.
205. The General Council took note of the statements.
11. Proposal to amend certain provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes Pu rsuant to Article X of the Marrakesh
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
(a) Submission by Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Japan, Korea, New Zealand,
Norway, Peru, Switzerland and Venezuela for ex amination and further consideration by the
General Council (WT/GC/W/410 and Add.1)
206. The Chairman recalled that at its meeting on 10 October 2000, the General Council had
considered the above-mentioned proposal and had agreed that the Chairman conduct consultations on
how best to move forward thereon.  The General Council  had also agreed to revert to this matter at the
present meeting.  He informed delegations that he had continued to hold consultations on this matterwith the co-sponsors, but there was nothing to report at this stage.
207. The representative of Japan said that his co untry welcomed Chile's initiative to join the
co-sponsors of the proposal to amend certain provisions of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
(DSU).  He recalled that at the 10 October meeting of the General Council when this proposal had
been introduced by his country on behalf of the co-sponsors, Japan had stated that if this proposal wasadopted it would further strengthen the multilateral character of the DSU.  Japan believed that this
would be in the interest of all Members.  His country noted that, in general, there was a very large
degree of support among Members with regard to the ideas contained in the proposal.  Japan,
therefore, invited other countries to follow Chile's example and join the co-sponsors.  His country
supported the Chairman's efforts to conduct informal consultations to advance deliberations on thisissue and noted the Chairman's report at the present meeting.  Due to the circumstances surrounding
an ongoing case, which was relevant to this proposal, it had not been possible to make substantive
progress thereon.  However, Japan looked forward to future developments which would allow
countries to make substantive progress.  He encouraged the Chairman to continue his efforts and to
report back on this matter at the next meeting.
208. The representative of the European Communities recalled that at the 10 October meeting of
the General Council, the Community had expressed its readiness to work constructively on this
important issue.  However, an amendment of the DSU needed to address a large number of elements
which had been identified in the functioning of the DSU.  As it had also been made clear by a number
of delegations at the 10 October meeting, the Community could not be satisfied with amendments that
would only address part of the deficiencies, however important such amendments might be.  There
was a need to take a more comprehensive approach and further discussions were necessary to improvethe DSU in such a manner.  He noted that recent developments had demonstrated that important
systemic questions related to dispute settlement procedures needed to be addressed.  Therefore, the
Community supported any initiative aimed at re-launching a full discussion on the DSU
improvements.
209. The representative of Bulgaria said that like many other Members, Bulgaria shared the view
that there was a need to clarify the relationship between Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU in order to
ensure a proper procedural sequencing and a multilateral resolution of disagreements in the area ofWT/GC/M/61
Page 48
compliance with rulings.  However, his country was concerned about any shortening of the current
time-frames, as stipulated in the proposal.  This concern had already been raised by Bulgaria in the
course of the preparation of the text of the proposal.  The current time-frames provided for in the DSU
were already quite short as compared to other international judicial procedures, and any additional
reduction would create problems for his country, which did not have sufficient expertise on WTOmatters.  Therefore, Bulgaria would not accept any shortening of the time-frames provided for in the
DSU.  His country believed that in order to ensure a fair outcome, it was more important to provide
sufficient time for preparations during panel pro ceedings, both for the parties and the panel, than to
increase deadlines in procedures after a panel had issued its report.  Bulgaria also believed that
sequencing was already provided for in the DSU and that, instead of "paying" for it by means of
reduced time-frames, Members could solve the existing problem through an authoritative
interpretation under Article IX:2 of the Marrakesh Agreement.  As had been made clear at the Octobermeeting of the General Council, there was no consensus on the proposal and, at the same time, there
was a shared concern among the overwhelming majority of Members on the issue of sequencing
between Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU.  Bulgaria believed that if further consultations were to be
held, such consultations should focus on exploring th e possibilities for an authoritative interpretation
of the DSU, which had been referred to by some delegations at the 10 October meeting of the GeneralCouncil.
210. The representative of Bolivia said that her country wished to co-sponsor the proposal to
amend certain provisions of the DSU.16
211. The representative of Hungary said that the ambiguity of the current provisions of the DSU
with regard to the issue of sequencing between Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU had been identified as
the major shortcoming of the dispute settlement mechanism which weakened its multilateral
character.  In Hungary's view this assessment, as well as Members' apparent agreement on giving a
priority to resolving the issue of sequencing between Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU on an urgent
basis, remained valid.  Hungary supported the inte ntion to hold further consultations on how to move
forward on the proposal.  Such consultations should address the whole set of important issues related
to Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU.
212. The representative of Thailand reiterated his delegation's view, that a proposal on the
relationship between Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU – the so-called sequencing issue – appeared to be
reasonable and workable.  This particular element in the proposal should receive support from
Members.  At the same time, however, Thailand believed that a comprehensive approach was required
in dealing with the DSU amendments.  Therefore, Members should reflect further on the issue of
comprehensiveness and make suggestions, if needed.  With regard to procedural matters, hereaffirmed that his delegation was flexible with regard to the form of this exercise and the timing for
consideration of substantive issues.  His country would have no objection if the Chairman believed
that more time was required to conduct consultations.
213. The representative of Ecuador, speaking on behalf of the Members of the Andean Community
who had co-sponsored the proposal, said that the countries in question wished to strengthen the
disciplines of the multilateral trading system because in this way developing countries would feel less
vulnerable and less threatened.  The countries in question were concerned about the problems in the
area of implementation and about their systemic implications.  They were also concerned about the
situation of developing countries under the current DSU rules and the existing inequalities between
developed and developing countries despite the mechanism provided for under the DSU forelimination of discriminatory measures.  Ecuador considered that the proposal took into account the
systemic problems which needed to be solved.
                                                     
16 WT/GC/W/410/Add.2.WT/GC/M/61
Page 49
214. The representative of the United States said that her country continued to welcome the
opportunity to re-engage in discussions on needed improvements to the DSU.  The United States
hoped that in the coming months it might be possible to agree to the changes to the DSU to improve
its provisions on implementation of rulings of panels and the Appellate Body, and to enhance the
transparency of the dispute settlement process together with other technical changes.  The UnitedStates believed that the proposal did not go far enough in enhancing the transparency of the dispute
settlement process, nor did it provide a basis for the consensus that was required to adopt an
amendment to the DSU.  The United States agreed with the note contained in the text of the proposal
that the text could not be adopted without an agreement on appropriate transitional provisions and as
to whether amended procedures could apply to pre-existing disputes.  The United States was ready to
discuss improvements to the dispute settlement mechanism when the time was right and would listen
with interest to delegations' views on this proposal.
215. The representative of Argentina said that his country shared the systemic concern with regard
to the issue of sequencing between Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU.  As to the substance of the
proposal, Argentina had reservations with regard to certain of its elements, in particular with regard to
the shortening of some time-periods provided for in the DSU.  This could be particularly difficult for
developing countries and might harm their interests.  Argentina believed that further reflection wasrequired on this matter.  However, if there was a consensus for the adoption of some amendments then
one would have to take into account the need for transition periods to enable countries to bring their
legislations into line with any amendments.  Consultations should continue on the basis of a limited
mandate and should not be considered as a broad review process.
216. The representative of the Czech Republic said that his country believed that the proposal
focused too much on the issue of sequencing which was one of the most important issues, but it was
not the only problem in the DSU, as the practice had shown thus far.  Therefore, like many other
countries, the Czech Republic believed that a more comprehensive approach was needed in order to
address, in a balanced manner, the existing shortcomings of the system.  His country wished to
participate actively in any future work on this matter.
217. The representative of Brazil said that his delegation, which had participated in the discussions
on the DSU review, noted the proposal.  Like many other countries, Brazil also believed that the
question of sequencing between Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU was of particular importance.  Brazil
wished to participate in the consultations to be held on this matter in due course.
218. The representative of Turkey said that his co untry wished to participate in the consultations
aimed at improvements of the DSU provisions.  The recent problem with amicus  briefs demonstrated
that such a discussion was necessary.  However, Turkey wished to have a comprehensive discussion.The proposal before the General Council was only focused on one issue, and Turkey wished to
discuss it together with other proposals in order to have a comprehensive review of the dispute
settlement mechanism.
219. The representative of Malaysia said that his country had noted the proposal submitted by a
group of Members and was willing to study any additional proposals for amendments as long as such
proposals were related to the core areas of the DSU, namely those areas that would help to meet the
objectives of the dispute settlement mechanism.  However, any such proposals should take into
account the intergovernmental character of the WTO.  He urged delegations to be realistic in
submitting additional proposals since any unreasonable proposals that did not command the consensus
of all Members would only end up in a status quo with no amendments at all to the DSU.
220. The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter next year.WT/GC/M/61
Page 50
12. Date and venue of the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference
(a) Statement by the Chairman
221. The Chairman recalled that at its October meeting the General Council had agreed to seek to
take a decision on the date and venue of the next Ministerial Conference at the present meeting.  The
General Council had also taken note with appreciation of the invitation of Qatar to host theConference (WT/GC/33) and had invited any other Member wishing to host the Conference to so
inform the General Council in time for a final decision at the present meeting.  The General Council
had also invited the Secretariat to prepare a factual report to the General Council on the facilities and
logistics available in each proposed venue.  The report of the Secretariat on the facilities available in
Doha had been circulated after the October meet ing of the General Council in WT/GC/35.  A further
communication from Qatar on facilities available in Doha had been recently received and had been
circulated in WT/GC/33/Add.1.  In this communi cation, Qatar had informed Members that the
number of rooms available in Doha would be 4,400 instead of 2,800 as estimated in the initial
communication.  This new information appeared to elim inate reservations apparent in the Secretariat's
note in WT/GC/35.  In addition, in a recent comm unication (WT/GC/39), Chile had indicated that it
was seriously considering submitting the candidacy of Santiago as host for the Fourth Ministerial
Conference.  Chile had also indicated that this candidacy could be confirmed only in the second weekof December, before the 14 December, once the financial aspects of hosting the Ministerial
Conference had been examined.  Although this offer was not yet final, the Secretariat had been invited
to undertake a technical mission to Santiago and would shortly circulate a report on its findings.  He
understood that it was the Secretariat's conclusion that it would be feasible for the WTO to hold its
next Ministerial Conference in Santiago should the Chilean authorities decide to make a formal offer.
He therefore proposed that the General Council adjour n discussion of this item and return to it in the
resumed meeting of the General Council which would be reconvened on 15 December to consider the
WTO Budget.
222. The representative of Australia said that should there be two offers for hosting the next
Ministerial Conference, his delegation would hope that the decision between these offers would be
made through the good offices of the Chairman and the Director-General so that the General Council
would not have to get into the process of comparing them.
223. The representative of Cuba recalled that the South Summit of Heads of States and
Governments of the Group of 77 which had met in Havana in April 2000 had endorsed the candidacy
of Qatar as a venue for the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  He noted that Qatar had made constructive
efforts to meet the logistical requirements of the WTO.  He welcomed the offer of Chile, a Spanish-
speaking neighbouring country, but believed that it was important to take into consideration the high-level agreement reached at the South Summit.
224. The representative of Chile said that his auth orities were examining the points that had been
listed by the Secretariat to see whether it would be possible to finance the Ministerial Conference and
would give an answer to Members in the course of the coming week.  With regard to Cuba's statement
relating to the agreement reached at the South Summit meeting, with which his country concurred, hesaid that that text stated that that conference "welcomed" the offer by Qatar rather than "endorsed".
225. The General Council agreed to adjourn discussion on this item and took note
 of the
statements.
226. At the resumed meeting on 15 December, the representative of Chile recalled that his
authorities had recently begun considering the possibility of offering to host the Ministerial
Conference at the time when they had been under the impression that the offer previously made by
another Member was no longer on the table.  His authorities were still completing the analysis of theWT/GC/M/61
Page 51
figures provided by the Secretariat to assess the financial aspects involved by the Ministerial
Conference and were therefore not in a position to take any decision thereon.  He apologized to
Members for not being able to give a final answer at the present meeting and said that if the General
Council wished to take a decision at the present meeting, Chile would not raise any objections.
However, if the General Council were to give more time to Chile, this would to enable his authorities
to complete their assessment and come with a final position.
227. The representative of Qatar said that more than a year ago in Seattle, his country had been the
first one to offer to host the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha at the end of 2001.  Qatar had
recently revised its offer (WT/GC/33/Add.1) and had undertaken to provide 4,400 hotel rooms.  Doha
had all that was necessary to make the Ministerial Conference a successful and constructive event,
and its Convention Centre and Exhibition Hall represented excellent venues.  All other facilities and
offers by Qatar were also very generous (WT/GC/33).  Therefore, Qatar's offer was very suitable.Qatar remained committed to its offer and looked forward to a favourable decision by the General
Council on this matter.  Given the great effort and time needed to prepare for a successful Ministerial
Conference, it was important that the General Council make such a decision as soon as possible.
228. The Chairman said that since the General Council meeting on 22 November, he had
undertaken some consultations on this issue.  These consultations had not been as widespread as they
should have been because of his heavy schedule of work.  From these consultations, he had felt that
the General Council would not be in a position to take a decision at the present meeting and further
consultations would be needed before arriving at a conclusion.  He therefore proposed to adjourn the
present meeting and reconvene on short notice when Members would be in a position to draw
conclusions.  He believed that some general guidance on this issue would be useful and invitedMembers to comment thereon.
229. The representative of Pakistan said that this  issue was important both for systemic reasons
related to the functioning of the WTO and for political reasons since it involved the prestige of at least
one Member.  Qatar had offered to host the next Ministerial Conference over a year ago and the
General Council was obligated to reach a decision on this offer as soon as possible.  At its meeting on10 October, the General Council had agreed to take a decision on the date and venue of the next
Ministerial Conference at its end-of-year meeting.  Therefore, the General Council had to reach a
decision at the present meeting in order to provide certainty to WTO processes, as a courtesy to Qatar
and in order to enable the host country to make the necessary preparations.  Qatar had upgraded its
offer on the number of hotel rooms available and thus that shortcoming had been overcome.  Since
Chile had not yet made a decision, there was no alternative offer.  Moreover, it was his understanding
that Chile would not object, if the General Council was to take a decision at the present meeting.Therefore he could not understand why the General Council was unable to accept Qatar's offer.  He
believed that there was very little transparency in the process that led to the proposal of delaying the
decision.  This was most bewildering for his delegation and was eroding confidence which was sought
to be built into the WTO system.  He wondered whether some Members were more equal than others.
In the affirmative, Members should not pretend otherwise.
230. The Chairman said that he did not understand Pakistan’s statement which he interpreted as
serious allegations against his integrity.  As Members were aware, he had been under very heavy
workload over the past few days.  During that period however, he had tried to ascertain whether a
decision could be reached at the present meeting and had come to the conclusion that this was not the
case.  This had nothing to do with a lack of transparency.
231. The representative of Canada said that his delegation would have preferred to see a decision
on this matter by the end of 2000 in order to provide more predictability to the WTO's work and give
more time for preparations to the host country.  However, his delegation was prepared to accept the
Chairman’s proposal.  On the one hand, Chile had indicated that his authorities needed more timeWT/GC/M/61
Page 52
before deciding whether they would make a formal offer and had also indicated that if Members
wished to make a decision at the present meeting his government was prepared to accept that.  On the
other hand, Qatar had made a revised offer.  Like Chile, it was also Canada’s understanding that
Qatar’s first offer had been on the table then removed and subsequently replaced and revised.  Qatar
could have sought a decision on its revised offer at the present meeting but indicated that such adecision should be taken as soon as possible.  Therefore, Pakistan's intervention had not been helpful
and the motives it alleged were unbecoming.  He hoped that Members would follow the lead of both
Chile and Qatar and hopefully come to a decision in early January 2001.
232. The representative of the United States supported the Chairman’s proposal which might be
one way of moving the process forward.  Members had one formal and one informal offer on the
table.  Referring to the recent General Council discussions on transparency, she said that like
Pakistan, her delegation would want to look at how Members would follow up on all that had been
agreed upon and how to move forward the preparations for the next Ministerial Conference.  She
believed that the Chairman should hold further consultations and see how to move the process
forward, taking account of both formal and informal offers.  The next Ministerial Conference was a
very important event to all and Members should make sure that the right decision was made.
233. The representative of Pakistan said that he was very surprised by the Chairman’s strong
reaction to his delegation's disagreement with the Chairman's evaluation of the situation.  His
delegation had not participated in the consultations that had led the Chairman to conclude that further
consultations were needed.  His delegation had a particular interest in the matter because Qatar's offer
had been endorsed at the level of the Heads of State of the Islamic Conference, which included
Pakistan.  Furthermore, his delegation had been instructed to seek a decision by the General Councilto accept this offer as soon as possible.  He did not understand why Qatar’s offer could not be
accepted at the present meeting.  Should there be a problem, he should have been told.  It was obvious
that it was not the Chairman that was holding up the decision, but someone else.  He urged the
Chairman not to take it personally each time he disagreed with his views.  This was a democratic
process and everyone had the right to express his point of view even if it was unhelpful.  He believedthat it was unhelpful on the part of whoever was holding up acceptance of Qatar’s offer.  That offer
had been accepted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and by the Arab Group and had
been welcomed by the Group of 77.  Qatar’s revised offer had addressed the shortcoming relating to
hotel rooms, Chile had not put forward a formal o ffer and, in his understanding, it was ready to go
along with Qatar's offer should this be the General Council's decision.  Therefore, there was a problem
which was obviously not apparent and he believed that he had a legitimate right to raise the question
of transparency.  This was a systemic issue that would have to be examined.  A system would have tobe set up through which the hosting country would be designated in an automatic way and would
avoid politicizing the process.  Finally, referring to Canada’s statement he said that Qatar’s offer had
at no time been withdrawn.
234. The representative of Egypt said that his country supported Qatar's offer and expressed
gratitude to Qatar for having upgraded its hotel facilities.  With its revised offer, Qatar had fulfilled all
the necessary requirements for hosting the next Ministerial Conference and it was the only formal
offer on the table to date.
235. The representative of Canada, referring to his previous statement, said that his delegation had
had the impression that the initial offer from Qatar had been off the table and that now that it was
back on the table was not a problem.  With regard to Pakistan’s statement he said that he did notobject to Pakistan’s right to disagree but had taken exception to Pakistan in implying that someone
was holding up the process because "some Members were more equal than others".  He believed that
Members were only giving time to another Member who was seriously considering the possibility of
hosting the next Ministerial Conference to come quickly to a final decision.  At one point of time,
there was no offer to host the Ministerial Conference, then Qatar offered to host it and, to hisWT/GC/M/61
Page 53
understanding, withdrew its offer.  To fill the vacuum, several countries had then considered that
matter but only Chile continued.  Then Qatar’s of fer was back on the table.  Therefore, Members
might have to decide between two offers.  There migh t be only one offer to be considered if Chile did
not come forward with a formal offer in the new y ear and in that case Members' decision would only
be academic.  From Canada’s perspective, Members were only giving Chile the opportunity to put itsoffer on the table quickly.  This process should not be transformed into a bad problem which would
end up having the Ministerial Conference in Geneva headquarters because of Members’ disagreement.
236. The representative of Tunisia expressed appreciation to Qatar for its offer and to Chile for
considering the possibility to come forward with an  offer.  Although the Chairman was continuing to
build a consensus, this did not take away from the fact that Qatar's offer was the only official one on
the table to date.  The General Council had time to reflect but should seriously consider Qatar's offer
as a venue for the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  With regard to the positions of Pakistan and
Canada, he believed that the misunderstanding might be due to external factors.  Their views should
be taken into account since both were good.  Finally, he said that Qatar's offer was very interesting
and his delegation supported it fully.
237. The representative of Kuwait, also on behalf  of Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Oman and
Jordan recalled that Qatar had been the first country to offer to host the Fourth Ministerial
Conference.  Therefore, he supported Qatar’s offer and was fully confident in its ability to host such a
meeting.  He also supported the Chairman’s proposal to have further consultations on this matter with
the aim of reaching a consensus.
238. The Chairman said some of the statements indicated that Members needed more time for
consultations.  He therefore proposed to adjourn the meeting and reconvene the General Council as
soon as the issue was clarified.
239. The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation supported the Chairman's endeavours
to build consensus and stressed that these consultations should be open and transparent.  Pakistan had
not been involved in the recent consultations held by the Chairman on that issue and had not been
aware of the problems that had led him to conclude that a decision could not be taken at the presentmeeting.  It was in this context that his delegation had raised the issue of transparency.
240. The Chairman said that there might be a misunderstanding on the meaning of “consultations”.
Consultations had not been formally convened but he had taken every opportunity to consult
Members on this issue, including during a luncheon he had attended the day before at which Pakistan
had also been present.
241. The representative of the United States believed that all agreed on the importance of
transparency.  Like Pakistan, her delegation had also not yet been consulted.  It was her understanding
that the Chairman called for an opportunity to consult broadly before he could be in a position to send
a message to Members.  Therefore she supported the Chairman’s proposal to adjourn the meeting and
consult more broadly on this issue.
242. The representative of Pakistan said that he had not thought that the luncheon conversations
referred to by the Chairman were part of the informal consultative process.  Throughout the year, the
General Council had considered the issue of the consultation process and in particular the question of
promoting internal transparency and in that context, his delegation had always pressed for open-ended
consultations.  If the Chairman considered luncheon conversations as part of the consultations, then he
would recall that at that luncheon Chile had said that his country did not want to be part of the
problem.  Members would not have had the impres sion that Qatar had withdrawn its offer if open-
ended consultations had been held.  Therefore he hoped that this process would be dealt with in the
same open-ended and democratic way in which the General Council reached other decisions.WT/GC/M/61
Page 54
243. The representative of Brazil believed that the statements made by Tunisia and Kuwait were
particularly constructive because although they supported Qatar's offer, both said that Members
needed more time to make a decision.  Like Pakistan, he believed that there should be broad
consultations on this issue.  He was confident that Members would find a consensus and peaceful
solution.
244. The representative of the European Communitie s thanked Qatar for its upgraded offer and
said that the Community considered that offer with all the seriousness and respect it deserved.  At the
same time Chile had also indicated a very serious interest.  His delegation would prefer to follow the
Chairman’s recommendation to take a little more time because the Community had prepared for the
present meeting on the basis of an expectation that Chile would confirm its offer.  Since this had not
been the case, the Community believed that while acknowledging the quality and the seriousness of
the long-standing offer from Qatar, Members should give time to Chile.  The Community supportedthe Chairman’s proposal for further consultations which should be carried out as quickly and as
broadly as possible.  Finally, he wished to place on record that he had not participated in the
Chairman’s recent consultations either.
245. The Chairman said that as Members were aware there has been little possibility for carrying
out broad consultations during the last few days and he took every opportunity to have talks with
people.  These discussions had led him to the conclusion that more time was needed.  He therefore
proposed to adjourn the meeting, hold further consultations as soon as possible, and to reconvene the
General Council on short notice.
246. The General Council so agreed.
247. The representative of Cuba made a clarification with regard to his previous statement.  He
apologized to Chile for using the word “endorsed” rather than “welcomed” when referring to the
statement of the South Summit in Havana.  Paragraph 19 of that statement said that the parties
“welcomed the offer by the State of Qatar to host the Fourth Ministerial Conference of the World
Trade Organization and we would call for effective participation at that conference in order to achieve
the objectives and promote the interests of the southern states”.  He wanted this to be placed on recordfor any future consultation to be held on this issue.
248. The General Council took note of the statements.
13. Trade facilitation – Status report on wo rk carried out by the Council for Trade in
Goods under Paragraph 21 of the Singapore Ministerial Declaration (G/L/425)
249. The Chairman recalled that, paragraph 21 of the Singapore Ministerial Declaration directed
the Council for Trade in Goods to "undertake expl oratory and analytical work, drawing on the work
of other relevant organizations, on the simplification of trade procedures in order assess the scope for
WTO rules in this area".  At the present meeting, the General Council had before it a status report of
the Council for Trade in Goods on this work .  He invited the Chairman of that body
Mr. Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay), to introduce the report.
250. Mr. Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay), Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG), said
that in the year 2000, the CTG had held three informal meetings to continue work mandated by the
Singapore Ministerial Declaration, which directed it  to "undertake exploratory and analytical work …
on the simplification of trade procedures in order to assess the scope for WTO rules in this area."
Participation in these meetings had been very engaged and constructive, which was also reflected by
the fact that 16 written contributions had been received by delegations.  Several Members shared theirnational trade facilitation experiences in informal meetings of the CTG.  These presentations hadWT/GC/M/61
Page 55
addressed a number of common themes.  One was that trade facilitation measures were taken by
administrations both in developing and developed countries in response to real world problems such
as challenges arising from increasing trade volumes, stagnant administrative budgets, and greater
facilitation demands from the private sector.  Furthermore, the experiences had highlighted that
simplified official requirements were an important precondition for the application of informationtechnology.  The use of information technology, in  turn, was instrumental for the time savings and
efficiency improvements in the customs clearance process which Members had reported.  Other
elements of the national experiences had addressed the benefits which simplified procedures and
enhanced transparency could bring in particular to small and medium-sized enterprises.  Transit
problems experienced by landlocked countries had also been emphasized.
251. Further, Members had been exploring and analyzing trade facilitation measures and their
relationship with WTO principles.  In this respect, a number of measures had been suggested to
improve transparency and predictability of trade procedures.  Another important part of the Council's
work related to development and capacity-building aspects of trade facilitation.  Delegations had
noted that efforts of intergovernmental agencies, donors and recipient governments were not
sufficiently coordinated, resulting in an inefficient allocation of resources.  The importance of
developing comprehensive assistance programmes coveri ng the entire set of interdependent tools and
procedures relating to different stages of the trad e transaction had been noted.  In concluding, he said
that the discussions had been very constructive and had addressed a host of common and interrelated
topics, upon which the CTG would pick up in continuation of its work in this area early next year.  In
addition to this oral report, he had circulated a factual report on his own responsibility on the work
carried out in 2000 (G/L/425).
252. The General Council took note of the statement and of the status report contained in
document G/L/425.
14. Report on the implementation of Article 1 0.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (G/AG/6)
253. The Chairman recalled that at its Special Session on 18 October 2000, the General Council
had referred to the relevant WTO bodies a number of implementation-related issues.  The question of
the implementation of Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture had been referred to the
Committee on Agriculture which had been invited to report back on its progress on this issue to the
General Council at its last regular meeting of this year.  He said that the report of the Committee on
Agriculture had been circulated in document G/AG/6, and invited Mr. Suzuki (Japan), Vice-Chairman
of the Committee on Agriculture, to introduce the report.
254. Mr. Suzuki (Japan), Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, said that on
18 October 2000, the question of the implementation of Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture,
which related to the development of disciplines on agricultural export credits and related facilities,
had been referred by the Special Session of the General Council to the Committee on Agriculture.  He
recalled the General Council's instructions that this subject should be inscribed on the agenda of the
Committee's regular meetings and that the Committee should report back on its progress on this issueto the General Council at its last regular meeting of this year.  He also recalled that at the
14 November meeting of the Committee on Agriculture at which implementation of Article 10.2 had
been discussed, it had been agreed that the progress report should be submitted to the General Council
on his responsibility as Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.  That report was now before
the General Council in document G/AG/6, dated 28 November 2000.  This report contained a detailedsummary of the Committee's discussions on the question of the implementation of Article 10.2, as
well as a copy of a text introduced by Brazil on behalf of MERCOSUR Members – Argentina, Brazil,
Paraguay and Uruguay – as a contribution to further discussion and transparency in this area.  As
noted in the report, it was considered overall that the Committee's first round of discussions on thisWT/GC/M/61
Page 56
subject was useful.  The report had further noted that the question of the implementation of
Article 10.2 and of the related provisions of  the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision would, as
appropriate, remain on the agenda of the regular meetings of the Committee on Agriculture.
255. The representative of Brazil said that his delegation had noted the General Council's
instructions that this subject be inscribed on the agenda of the regular meetings of the Committee on
Agriculture, and welcomed the fact that the first round of discussions on this subject had taken place.
Brazil also noted that the discussion was useful and recognized that the subject would remain on the
agenda and that it would be dealt with at future meetings of the Committee on Agriculture.
256. The General Council took note of the statements and of the report of the Committee on
Agriculture contained in G/AG/6.
15. Proposal for addition of an item to the General Council Agenda:  "Reports of the
Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and of the Council for Trade in
Services, and of the TRIPS Council on the mandated negotiations on agriculture,
services and geographical indications"
(a) Communication by Switzerland on the proposal by Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Kenya, Liechtenstei n, Mauritius, Pakistan, Slovenia, Sri Lanka,
Switzerland and Turkey (WT/GC/W/425)
257. The Chairman said that this item was on the agenda at the request of the delegation of
Switzerland, on behalf of the co-sponsors of the proposal.
258. The representative of Switzerland recalled that at the General Council meeting on 10 October,
his delegation proposed that the General Council sh ould invite the Chairman of the TRIPS Council to
report on a regular basis to the General Council on the work being done on the protection of
geographical indications, as was the case for the bodies responsible for conducting other mandated
negotiations under the Marrakesh Agreement.  The General Council subsequently agreed to hold
further consultations on the proposal made by Switzerland.  Since the last General Council meeting,
the supporters of the Swiss proposal had decided to come up with a written proposal, in which 15delegations had expressed the view that such reporting to the General Council seemed only natural
and logical, given that negotiations relating to the protection of geographical indications were
mandated within the WTO framework, and that none of the mandated negotiations had a lesser status
under the WTO agreement.  These delegations considered that, by analogy with the procedure
adopted for the negotiations on agriculture and services, the General Council, as the overseeing organ
of the WTO, should be kept informed in like manner about all mandated negotiations.  Switzerland
had already raised this point at the 7-8 February 2000 General Council meeting, when it was decidedthat progress in the negotiations on agriculture and services should be reported directly to the General
Council on a regular basis.  At that meeting, Switz erland insisted on the parity of treatment among the
negotiations on agriculture and services and other mandated negotiations, namely on geographical
indications.  Parity of treatment for all mandated negotiations meant an equal reporting of the
respective subsidiary bodies to the General Council on the progress in all mandated negotiations,including the negotiations on geographical indications.  It also meant that the reporting on all
mandated negotiations should be done under one and the same item of the General Council's agenda.
259. The decision adopted by the General Council in February 2000 that there be regular reports to
the General Council on the negotiations on agriculture and services did not rule out a complementary
decision by the General Council to extend the same reporting arrangements to the negotiations ongeographical indications.  Some delegations had expressed doubts about this proposal and disputed
the fact that negotiations on geographical indications were indeed mandated negotiations.  However,WT/GC/M/61
Page 57
in 1996 the TRIPS Council had identified within the TRIPS Agreement three built-in agenda items
concerning geographical indications.  These three agenda items were Articles 23.4, 24.2 and 24.1 of
the TRIPS Agreement.  Section 3 of the 1996 Annual Report of the TRIPS Council was entitled
"Built-in Agenda" and in paragraph 26, reference was made to Article 24.1 in the following terms:
"Under Article 24.1, Members agree to enter into negotiations aimed at increasing the protection ofindividual geographical indications under Article 23".  At the time of adoption of the 1996 TRIPS
Council's report, no delegation had made any objection concerning paragraph 26.  Given that
negotiations on geographical indications had been identified as an integral part of the built-in agenda
of the TRIPS Agreement, there was no longer a need for a special mandate as called for by a number
of delegations.  In addition, the mere fact that Members unanimously agreed in 1996 to enter into
negotiations on the protection of geographical indications was in itself an acknowledgement that they
had decided to act on the mandate enshrined in the TRIPS Agreement.  Hence, such a decisioncompelled the conclusion that the mandatory character of the negotiations on the protection of
geographical indications had been corroborated by Members and that such negotiations were under
way since 1996.  Therefore, the status of negotiations on the protection of geographical indications
was in no way different from the status of negotiations on agriculture and services.
260. Against this background, Switzerland and the other co-sponsors of the proposal submitted that
the following item be placed on the General Council's agenda:  "Reports of the special sessions of the
Committee on Agriculture and of the Council for Trade in Services and of the TRIPS Council on the
mandated negotiations on Agriculture, Services and geographical indications", replacing the current
item concerning the reports made on the negotiations on agriculture and services.  He thanked the
Chairman for his efforts to find a way to resolve the issue of reporting on geographical indications.Even though the informal consultations called so far had not been as fruitful as his delegation had
hoped, he urged further consideration of this issue with a view to working out a mutually agreeable
solution.  He indicated that his delegation would request that the item be placed on the agenda of the
next General Council and asked the Chairman to continue consultations in the meantime.
261. The representative of New Zealand said that unlike the mandated negotiations on services and
agriculture, for which specific functional and reporting arrangements had to be decided by the General
Council, Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement expressly provided that negotiations on a system for
registration and notification of geographical indications on wines and, since the Singapore Ministerial,
also on spirits, would be carried out in the TRIPS Council.  Moreover, the TRIPS Council reported on
its activities on an annual basis to the General Council.  Accordingly, there was no point or value
added in making specific and rather selective reporting requirements for one specific TRIPS activity
already covered by the annual report.  Furthermore, the proposal was expressed in rather vague terms.For example, paragraph 1(b) of the proposal stated that:  “The terms of the relevant Articles of the
TRIPS Agreement indicate unequivocally that negoti ations relating to the protection of geographical
indications are mandated within the WTO framework.”  He asked whether the co-sponsors of the
proposal could clarify the “relevant articles” of the TRIPS Agreement they were referring to.  He
accepted that Article 23.4 provided a mandate for negotiations within the TRIPS Council for anotification and registration system for geographical indications on wines and spirits and in his view,
this was the only provision which mandated WTO-wi de negotiations in the area of geographical
indications.
262. The representatives of Australia, Chile
, Canada , and Uruguay  fully endorsed the statement
made by New Zealand.
263. The representative of the European Communities, supporting the Swiss proposal, said that
there was no doubt about the existence of a mandate to establish a multilateral register for wines and
spirits under Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, as many Members had explicitly recognized it in
the TRIPS Council.  Negotiations were also explicitly referred to in Article 24.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement.  WTO Members should bear in mind that negotiations on the multilateral register wereWT/GC/M/61
Page 58
launched a long time before negotiations started on agriculture and services and were therefore the
most longstanding negotiations.  Even if he accepted that the scope of the mandated negotiations on
geographical indications could be more limited than those on services and agriculture, there was no
reason to discriminate against them and exclude them from regular reporting requirements.  This
debate was not about the nature or scope of the negotiations on geographical indications, but aboutequity and parity of treatment.
264. The representative of Egypt said that Articles 23.4 and 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement clearly
indicated that negotiations relating to the protection of geographical indications were mandated within
the WTO framework.  In requesting to revise the title of the agenda item, the co-sponsors were not
trying to keep progress in one area hostage to developments in another area.  What the co-sponsors
were asking for was to have the same procedural treatment for all mandated negotiations, since none
of those negotiations had lesser status under the WTO agreement.
265. The representative of Australia said, in reaction to the argument by Switzerland that the
negotiations relating to the protection of geographical indications were part of the "built-in agenda"
and should therefore be reported to the General Council, that the term "built-in agenda" was simply a
term coined, for the sake of convenience, to refer to a great number of disparate activities set out in a
wide range of WTO agreements that indicated areas for further work by various councils andcommittees.  The so-called "built-in agenda" under the TRIPS Agreement included the review under
Article 24.2 of the Agreement's provisions on geographical indications, the review of Article 27.3(b),
and the negotiations by the TRIPS Council of a multilateral notification and registration system for
particular geographical indications.  These activities clearly foresaw a range of work on specific
elements of an Agreement, with varying time-frames and objectives.
266. The mandated negotiations on agriculture and services were clearly of an entirely different
nature.  Article 20 of the Agriculture Agreement and Article XIX of the GATS were in essence
continuation clauses, which foresaw the continuation of the fundamental trade liberalization reform
started in the Uruguay Round, but which were unable to be completed at that time.  Moreover, they
had potential implications for the entirety of th e Agriculture and Services Agreements and not just
specific elements of these agreements, which constituted a very important distinction.  In short, there
was no possible comparison between the "built-in agenda", a phrase which referred to a divergent
range of ongoing technical level work and had no legal status, and the mandated negotiations on
agriculture and services.  Australia also had serious systemic and practical concerns about the
suggestion to selectively pick one aspect, under one Agreement, of the WTO built-in agenda for
reporting to the General Council.  He asked where the line should be drawn and whether the co-
sponsors of the proposal were suggesting, for example, that there should also be regular reports onprogress on the Harmonization Work Programme under th e Agreement on Rules of Origin, or on each
and every review mandated under the TRIPS Agreement.  The TRIPS Council's annual report ensured
that the General Council was kept fully appraised of progress in all areas of the WTO, and there was
no justification, logic, or added value in deviating from this normal method of reporting on one single
issue.  Finally, he thanked Switzerland for providing Members the opportunity to review the
institutional history of the concept and construct of the "built-in agenda" and to distinguish between
what was a legally mandated negotiation, such as for agriculture and services, which bore on entire
agreements, and a shorthand way of organizing discussions and work in the WTO.
267. The representative of Chile said that unlike the GATS and the Agreement on Agriculture, the
TRIPS Agreement did not have a broad and comprehensive negotiating mandate.  The co-sponsors of
the proposal claimed that Article 24.1 gave a mandate to negotiate the extension of additional
protection, which the TRIPS Agreement only granted to wines and spirits.  Such a position was, in
Chile's view, a mere statement of wishes that had no legal grounds in any of the provisions of the
TRIPS Agreement.  Section 3 of the TRIPS Agreement provided three levels of protection for
geographical indications:  general protection for all products in Article 22;  additional protection forWT/GC/M/61
Page 59
wines and spirits in Articles 23.1 and 23.2;  and additional protection, solely and exclusively for
wines, in Articles 22.3 and 22.4.  There could be no grounds for weakening the balance of what was
negotiated during the Uruguay Round.  Therefore, countries that had an interest in this area should
wait until they were able to negotiate this issue.  In conclusion, it would not be appropriate, legally or
politically, to proceed as was suggested in the proposal.
268. The representative of the Czech Republic said that this issue was an important one for his
delegation, not only because of interests it had in the negotiations on the protection of geographical
indications, but also because of fundamental principles of a systemic nature raised in the Swiss
proposal.  He believed that there should be no doubt about the equality of treatment to be extended to
all mandated negotiations.  Should there be any proposal to report to the General Council on
negotiations on rules of origin, his delegation would be ready to give it favourable consideration.
Articles 22, 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement provided an appropriate legal basis for furthernegotiations aimed at increasing protection of geographical indications.  While Article 22 established
the basis for the protection of geographical indications, Articles 23 and 24 provided an opportunity for
taking actions, as may be agreed, to attain the objectives of Section 3 of the TRIPS Agreement.  The
first sentence of Article 24.1 provided the method for increasing the protection of individual
geographical indications, while the method of providing such additional protection was specified inArticle 23.4 by mandating negotiations in the TRIPS Council.  It sought to provide additional
protection to geographical indications of products not presently listed under Article 23.  Further,
Article 24.1 was clear in asserting the right of Members to seek to enter into such negotiations.
269. Moreover, when discussing the best suitable operational approach to the mandated
negotiations on agriculture and services earlier in the year, his delegation agreed to initiate them in thesimplest possible way.  He supported wholeheartedly this approach in anticipation of the positive
impact it would have on the built-in agenda negotiations in other areas, and despite the principle of
equal treatment of all built-in agenda negotiations.  At the General Council meeting in May, his
delegation offered further proof of its flexibility and goodwill with regard to the intervals at which the
Committee on Agriculture and the Council for Trade in Services should report to the General Council.Although there was no obligation to report after each special session and although it was not clear
what was meant by the originally agreed intention to report "on a regular basis", his delegation had
given sympathetic consideration to the idea of having the reports as a standing item on the General
Council's agenda.  He now hoped he could expect the same openness and flexibility from other
Members on the question of reporting to the General Council on the ongoing negotiations in the
TRIPS Council.  He urged Members who had difficulties to reconsider their position and be ready for
a consensus at this General Council meeting.  If this was not possible, he asked that the Chairman ofthe General Council conduct intensive consultations with a view to reaching an agreement, and that
the proposed item be included on the agenda of the next General Council meeting.  Finally, he
thanked the Chairmen of the General Council and th e TRIPS Council for their efforts to narrow down
differences on this matter.
270. The representative of Canada said that what the proposal was really asking for was special
status for the negotiations on geographical indications, which went beyond the debate on parity.  The
precedent setting nature of having special reporting on any subject would create a situation that would
break down the handling of such issues at the General Council.
271. The representative of the United States said that her delegation was not in a position to
support the proposal under consideration.  In February 1999, it had been recognized that there was a
distinction between the mandated negotiations on agriculture and services and the ongoing work of
the TRIPS Council.  It had not been agreed to ha ve regular reporting by the TRIPS Council at that
time, and it had been agreed that the existing pr ocedures could be used, which could include annual
reporting.  There was no consensus that the annual reporting from the TRIPS Council on all of its
work, including the work on geographical indications, was insufficient information for the GeneralWT/GC/M/61
Page 60
Council.  The TRIPS Council had recently devoted an entire day and a half to informal discussion on
the protection of geographical indications under Articles 23.4, 24.1, and 24.2 and important progress
was made in clarifying Members' views on the subject.  The United States was prepared to continue in
this substantive dialogue.  Even if there was support for regular reporting from the TRIPS Council on
geographical indications, there was no consensus in the TRIPS Council on exactly what were the"mandated" negotiations in the TRIPS built-in agenda on geographical indications.  Some delegations
argued that the TRIPS Council was only mandated to carry out negotiations under Article 23.4, while
other delegations argued that any use of the term "negotiation" indicated that there was a mandate to
be reported.  Moreover, there was no consensus that any TRIPS Council negotiations were on par
with the negotiations on agriculture and services .  Other subsidiary bodies had ongoing negotiations
on narrow issues falling within the scope of broader agreements and no one was proposing that these
negotiations be reported regularly to the General Council.  The GATS negotiations on governmentprocurement was but one example.  The question as to where the General Council would draw the line
on regular reporting had to be raised.  If Members were to adopt the Swiss proposal, it would seem
that every negotiation by a subsidiary body would have to be reported regularly to the General
Council.
272. The representative of Argentina said that as far as the legal aspects were concerned, his
delegation supported the interpretations made by New Zealand, Australia, the United States and Chile.
His delegation could not support the proposal by Switzerland at this time.  The proposal was out of
focus and did not reflect the TRIPS Agreement in this field.
273. The representative of Turkey said that parity of treatment had to be accorded to all mandated
negotiations and that the negotiation on geographical indications was a mandated one, according to
Article 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Moreover, Article 24.1 had priority over Article 23.4, as it
used the present tense rather than the future tense.  This was a TRIPS issue and could only be
negotiated in the TRIPS Council.  This important discussion should continue, the negotiations should
take place in this area as well as in other mandated areas, and the General Council should be kept
regularly informed of this negotiation.  Otherwise, difficulties might arise in the reporting of othermandated negotiations.
274. The representative of Bulgaria said that the negotiations on geographical indications under
Articles 24.1 and 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement were of the same mandated character as the ones
under Articles 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture and XIX of the GATS and should therefore be
treated in the same manner.  The proposal on reporting to the General Council on the negotiations on
agriculture and services had been made at the General Council meeting in May 2000, under "Other
Business" which might not be fully in line with the Rules of Procedure of the General Council.  Atthat time it had been argued that there should be such reporting to the General Council because these
negotiations were mandated, and because the reporting on these negotiations should be done under
one single agenda item.  In response to the statement made by Australia, he added that nowhere in the
proposal was the term "built-in agenda" mentioned.  What was raised in the proposal was whether the
negotiations on geographical indications were mandated, and not whether geographical indicationswere part of the built-in agenda.  Furthermore, whether this bore on the entire agreement or not was
irrelevant legally.  Now that the TRIPS Council had started dealing with geographical indications, the
reporting to the General Council should be done in the same manner and under the same agenda item
as for the other mandated negotiations.  The arguments supporting the proposal were the same as
those presented in May when the decision had been taken to have the reports on mandatednegotiations as a standing item on the General Council agenda.  If there would be no reporting on
geographical indications under the same agenda item as for agriculture and services, the assumption
on which this initial decision was taken in May would no longer be true.  Whether the extension of the
protection of geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits was a mere statement
of wishes or not was beyond the scope of the proposal.  Moreover, if the issue of geographicalWT/GC/M/61
Page 61
indications may have an impact on the balance which was negotiated in the Uruguay Round, so did
the negotiations on agriculture and services.
275. Another important aspect of the problem before the General Council was the right of
Members to place items on the agenda.  Any objection by a Member to the inclusion of a proposed
item on the agenda amounted to blocking that item.  Blocking the inclusion of the item proposed bySwitzerland and a group of countries would constitute a precedent and would open up the possibility
of blocking other items on the agenda of General Council meetings in the future.
276. The representative of Hungary supported the call for regular reporting from the TRIPS
Council on the mandated negotiations on geographical indications to ensure that all mandated
negotiations received equal treatment.  The fact that negotiations on agriculture and services may
potentially have a greater economic impact should have no bearing on the important principle that all
mandated negotiations should be given the same treatment.  This was not only a question of principlebut had a practical angle as well.  He hoped that regular reporting on the mandated negotiations on
geographical indications at the political level, namely at the level of the General Council, just as in the
case of agriculture and services, would give the needed political impetus for the talks in the TRIPS
Council.  Hungary had been waiting for real progre ss in Article 23.4 negotiations for some time, and
to deny equal treatment for mandated negotiations in different sectors would send an unfortunatemessage to many delegations.
277. The representative of Uruguay said that the TRIPS Agreement did not provide for
negotiations to be carried out on geographical indications in generic terms, but specifically indicated
what the subject of negotiations should be.  Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement stated that
"negotiations shall be undertaken in the Council for TRIPS concerning the establishment of amultilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines eligible for
protection in those Members participating in the system".  Accordingly, the negotiations were not on
geographical indications generically but concerned the establishment of a system of notification and
registration and were limited to wines.  No other provision, even Article 24 which determined
exceptions and restricted the applicability of the re sults, could be used as an argument to extend or
modify the subject of the negotiations.  The text was very clear and did not require any interpretation.
In this connection, Uruguay was not opposed to the idea of informing the General Council of progress
made in the negotiations, provided that the topic was properly worded and was presented as a
specifically identified part of the TRIPS Council's annual report.  The agenda item should be drafted
in such a way as to cover precisely what was indicated in Article 23.4 and should not refer in generic
terms to geographical indications, which were not the subject of negotiations.
278. The representative of India said that the question was whether negotiations were provided for
in the TRIPS Agreement, and not whether there were Members who were unable to agree on the
scope and content of those negotiations.  Although it  could be argued that they differed in scope,
Articles 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement clearly mentioned negotiations.  The co-sponsors of the
proposal were simply asking that the negotiations under Articles 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement
be reported upon, as were the negotiations provided for in Article XIX of the GATS and Article 20 ofthe Agreement on Agriculture.  In responding to the questions raised by New Zealand, he said that the
relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement were the ones mentioning negotiations, namely
Articles 23.4 and 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.  In responding to the question raised by Australia, the
line should be drawn in relation to the matter under negotiations, so that where negotiations were
mentioned, parity should prevail.  There should not be any kind of selectivity whereby Memberscould pick and choose the word 'negotiations' from  Article XIX of the GATS and Article 20 of the
Agreement on Agriculture and completely ignore the negotiations provided for in Articles 23 and 24
of the TRIPS Agreement.  The co-sponsors were not asking other delegations to agree in the General
Council on the scope and content of the negotiations, as this debate would continue to take place in
the TRIPS Council.  The proposal was simply asking for a certain minimum element of transparency,WT/GC/M/61
Page 62
so that the General Council would know about the state-of-play of the negotiations and eventually
provide guidance, as it already did in the case of services and agriculture.  Finally, he urged the
Chairman to continue consultations and requested that the item be kept on the agenda of the next
General Council meeting.
279. The representative of Slovenia said that his delegation was of the view that negotiations on
extension of protection of geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits were also
mandated.  Substantial results should not be expected in other mandated negotiations if no
development was made on geographical indications.  If the interests of all Members were not taken on
board, there would be no prospects of a successful outcome in other mandated negotiations.
280. The representative of Mexico said that his delegation could not go along with the proposal
because at the outset it was incorrect and imprecise.  First, the proposal was incorrect because it
would suggest that special sessions in the TRIPS Council were already taking place, while the only
special sessions agreed to were those under Articles 20 of Agreement on Agriculture and XIX of the
GATS.  Second, WTO Members decided to hold special meetings for agriculture and services in order
to keep it separate from ordinary work under those agreements, so as to have a clear mandate for the
negotiations.  The Swiss proposal was imprecise in that it sometimes referred to relevant provisions of
the TRIPS Agreement, and also to a mandate for negotiations on protection of geographicalindications in the WTO.  The proposal should be clearer as to the articles referred to, so that Members
would know exactly what might be the mandate of the negotiations.  This was not a matter of
transparency, nor a problem of parity amongst all these negotiations.  Insofar as transparency was
concerned, Members would have an opportunity at the present meeting to review all the activities of
the TRIPS Council, including the negotiations on geog raphical indications.  With regard to parity for
mandated negotiations under the TRIPS Agreement, it would not be enough to talk about reports to
the General Council, given that this already existed.  There should be talks about holding special
sessions in the TRIPS Council and about a clear and precise mandate for those special sessions.  The
underlying problem, as reported in paragraph 22 of the Annual Report (2000) of the TRIPS Council.
17
was that many countries wanted to extend protection of geographical indications to products other
than wines and spirits.  It would be more useful to consider a clear proposal that went to the crux of
the matter, namely whether Members wanted to extend protection of geographical indications to
products other than wines and spirits, rather than discussing a procedural matter.  The problem was
whether Articles 23.4 or 24.1 actually provided a basis to interpret that protection of geographical
indications could be extended to products other than wines and spirits.  In his view, in neither case
could there be any expectation created from the Uruguay Round that protection for geographical
indications could be extended to products other than wines and spirits.
281. The representative of Iceland emphasized that there could be no doubt that there was an
agreement to enter into negotiations to increase the protection of geographical indications.  As the
negotiations on geographical indications had been identified as an integral part of the build-in agenda
of the TRIPS Agreement, he did not see how the issue could be of a special mandated character.
Members already had the mandated negotiations, i.e. the necessary qualification was provided for toreport to the General Council, as was the case with all the mandated negotiations under the Marrakesh
Agreement.
282. The representative of Mauritius said that Articles 23.4 and 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement
made specific references to negotiations which were mandated in nature, whether comparable or not
to the scope of other mandated negotiations.  Such negotiations were not wishful thinking, neitherwere the special negotiations that required special reporting status.  In fact, not reporting on TRIPS in
a regular manner alongside agriculture and services would confer upon TRIPS a special status.  She
                                                     
17 The report is contained in document IP/C/22.WT/GC/M/61
Page 63
urged the Chairman to pursue consultations on this matter and looked forward to a more constructive
approach during such negotiations and consultations.
283. The representative of Honduras expressed his delegations's interest in this topic and wished to
participate in any future consultations on this matter.
284. The representative of Switzerland thanked all delegations which had offered comments on the
proposal.  It was obvious that there were diverse views among Members on the scope of the relevant
mandated negotiations, but he wondered why there could be divergence of views on how all mandated
negotiations should be reported to the General Council.  This was a question of recognition of the
status of mandated negotiations as far as geographical indications were concerned.  The co-sponsors
simply wanted to have the opportunity to examine in the General Council the progress made in all
mandated negotiations on a parity basis, without creating a special session for intellectual property.
This had nothing to do with granting a special status to this issue, it was simply a matter oftransparency.  The discussion held so far had show n that this topic deserved additional consideration
by all delegations and this item should be placed on the agenda of the next General Council meeting.
In the meantime, he hoped that the Chairman  would continue consultations on this matter.
285. The Chairman said that the consultations held so far had shown that both questions of
principles and practical questions were involved here.  The questions of principles, however, were not
easy to solve, and as long as the principles were more important than the practical solutions,
consultations had little chance of being successful.  He had offered practical suggestions before the
meeting, which had been turned down by the parties involved because of questions of principle.
Therefore, he encouraged the parties to consult among themselves and try to overcome these
questions of principles.  He wished to be informed of the result and would then get involved with theparties to find a practical way forward.
286. The Chairman proposed that the General Council take note of the statements.
287. The representative of Bulgaria asked whether in concluding item 15, the Chairman had said
that the General Council "took note of the statements made and would revert to the matter", given that
many delegations had proposed that the discussion be continued at the next General Council meeting.
288. The Chairman said that the General Council had taken note of the statement by Switzerland,
which indicated that it would be proposed as an agenda item at the next meeting.  The subject matter
would likely be raised again as an agenda item, just as it had been at the current meeting.
289. The representative of Switzerland recalled that his delegation said that considering that views
were still divergent on this issue, it may be necessary to revert to the issue at the next General Council
meeting, despite the fact that consultations may take place in the meantime.
290. The Chairman said that his understanding was also that the General Council would revert to
the matter at its next meeting if this was requested by Switzerland.
291. The representative of Bulgaria said that his understanding was that the fact that several
delegations had asked to revert to the matter at a later stage might have been sufficient for the
Chairman to state that the General Council would revert to the matter at its next meeting.
292. The Chairman said that the delegations which had proposed this item may request to have it
on the agenda again if they wished to pursue it.  Therefore, if in light of the consultations to be held in
the future any Member hoped to have the item on the provisional agenda, it would be included on the
agenda in the usual way.WT/GC/M/61
Page 64
293. The Secretary of the General Council said that since a number of countries had indicated that
they wished to revert to the item at the next meeting, the Secretariat would expect to receive from
these countries, prior to the preparation of the proposed agenda for the next meeting, a request to put
the item on the agenda again.
294. The General Council took note of the statements.
16. Reports of the Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and of the Council for
Trade in Services (G/AG/NG/4)
295. The Chairman recalled that at its meeting on 3 and 8 May, the General Council had agreed
that the reports of the special sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and of the Council for Trade
in Services be a standing item on the General Council's agenda for the duration of the mandated
negotiations in question.  The General Council had considered the reports of the special sessions ofthe Committee on Agriculture and of the Council for Trade in Services at its meeting on the 17 and
19 July and on 10 October 2000.
296. The Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Voto-Bernales (Peru), in introducing his
report, said that the Committee on Agriculture, meeting in special sessions to conduct the negotiations
for continuing the reform process under Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, was required toreport directly to the General Council.  As agreed by the special sessions, these reports had been made
to the General Council on the responsibility of the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.  His
short factual report on the fourth special session which had been held on 15-17 November 2000 was
now before the General Council in document G/AG/NG/4.  The fourth special session had first
considered two technical papers or submissions relating to matters within the framework ofparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Article 20 of the Agreement.  The Committee on Agriculture,
meeting in Special Sessions to conduct the negotiations for continuing the reform process under
Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, was required to report directly to the General Council on
(i) "Non-Trade Concerns"; and (ii) "Export Subsidies – Food Security or Food Dependance?".  Five
new negotiating proposals had been presented and examined at this special session which comprisedtwo proposals on "Market Access", one proposal  on "Domestic Support", one proposal on "Special
and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries in World Agricultural Trade", and one proposal
on "Tariff Rate Quota Reform".  In total, 19 negotiating proposals or submissions had now been
presented and examined as part of the first phase of the negotiations.  There would be full
opportunities for delegations to revert to any of the proposals at future meetings.  The deadline for the
submission of negotiating proposals as part of the first phase of the work of the special session was
the end of December 2000, although there was flexibility for the submission of further or moredetailed proposals thereafter in the run up to the end-March 2001 special session.  In the interests of
the continued efficiency of the negotiating process, delegations proposing to table submissions or
proposals were urged to do so at the earliest practicable stage.  An additional five background papers
had been prepared by the Secretariat at the request of the Committee and had been made available
before the November special session.  As noted in the report, further background papers were to beprepared, and other follow-up work undertaken by the Secretariat at the request of the Committee.  As
noted in paragraph 7 of his report, an additional "stand-alone" special session meeting would be held
in advance of the end-March 2001 stock-taking exercise on all proposals submitted.  This additional
special session meeting would be held on 5-7 February 2001.
297. The Chairman of the Council for Trade in Services, Mr. Marchi (Canada), in introducing the
report (S/CSS/4), said that since the last report  to the General Council, the Council for Trade in
Services, meeting in special session, had held two meetings on 1 December and 5-6 December 2000.
The first meeting was devoted to the modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalization
pursuant to Article XIX of the GATS.  The second meeting had been held on the 5-6 December andWT/GC/M/61
Page 65
the report covered both agendas of the two days.  The report was for consideration by Members and
he was ready to answer any questions concerning eith er one of those meetings.  At the last session, the
provisional schedule of meetings for 2001 had been discussed and, subject to confirmation,
provisional dates had been proposed.  Finally, in scheduling the stock-taking meeting, he had
consulted with the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and the intention was to try to holdsuch a meeting in the last week of March.  The Committee on Agriculture was proposing that its
meeting be held on 28 (afternoon) 29 and 30 March 2001.  Therefore, in order to avoid any overlap,
he suggested that the stock-taking meeting of the Council for Trade in Services be held on 26 and
27 March, subject to confirmation.
298. The representative of Uruguay reaffirmed his country's support for the proposal that the last
week of March 2001 should be devoted to the review – or stock-taking – of the scheduled negotiations
on agriculture and services.  On previous occasions, Uruguay had already indicated that it attachedvital importance to those negotiations.  Positive results would be instrumental in giving the
multilateral process the impetus it needed, in strengthening confidence in the organization, and in
creating the opportunity to discuss a broader negotiating agenda and to reach a consensus on such an
agenda at the political and technical levels.  After having raised the matter at the most recent special
session on services, Uruguay was now formally proposing that the stock-taking meeting onagriculture take place before the stock-taking meeting on services.  He proposed that the former be
held in the mornings of 26, 27 and 28 March and that the latter should begin in the afternoon of
28 March and should conclude its work on Friday, 30 March.  This proposal was not merely a
question of procedure, but was based on political considerations, and took into account the different
positions that had emerged regarding the ongoing negotiations.  He was convinced that all delegationsfully understood the practical reasons for such a proposal and were mature and sensitive to grasp the
wisdom of the proposed procedure.
299. He emphasized that Uruguay was committed to the achievement of significant progress both
in the negotiations on agriculture and services.  The positions held by his country were clear in this
regard.  Uruguay was convinced that an agreement on a substantive work programme for theagriculture negotiations in March 2001 would lead to equally positive results in the negotiations on
services.  At the present meeting, his delegation did not wish to open a debate on this proposal.  No
decision was required at this stage but Members should reflect on this matter.  At the present meeting,
Members could agree that the last week of March 2001 be devoted to evaluating the mandated
negotiations, and that consultations should be carried out by the Chairman on the exact sequence of
the two meetings.
300. The representative of Argentina said that the stock-taking exercise scheduled for the end of
March 2001 would mark the beginning of a new phase in the negotiation process.  The objective of
this new phase would be to draw up modalities for the adoption of new commitments to "substantial
progressive reductions in support and protection".  The establishment of such modalities would
require a considerable amount of technical work.  The Committee on Agriculture would have to
convene working groups or meet in informal special sessions for that purpose.  Argentina was flexibleregarding the number and type of meetings that might be held.  Its primary concern was that all
Members should have the opportunity to take part in those meetings and that the goal should be to
prepare the new commitments.  The new programme of work would have to provide for the Fourth
Ministerial Conference to review the progress achieved in these negotiations and perhaps to record
initial positive results.
301. Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture sought to guarantee continuity in the reform
process.  However, such continuity could not be ensured unless implementation periods followed each
other in seamless succession from the date set for the start of the negotiations, namely, one year
before "the end of the implementation period".  On 31 December 2000, the developed countries would
reach the end of the implementation period for their commitments to reduce subsidies and tariffs.  AsWT/GC/M/61
Page 66
from 1 January 2001, these countries would have no more reductions to implement.  To avoid any
interruption in the reform process, it would therefore be necessary to agree on formulas for developed
countries to continue cutting their subsidies and tariffs during the course of these negotiations.
Failure to move ahead on this matter would entail serious consequences.
302. Interruption in the process would lead to a new implementation problem (i.e. non-compliance
with the provisions of Article 20 on the "Continuation of the Reform Process").  Moreover, some of
the provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture depended on continuity in the reform process.  The
special safeguard provisions, for instance, remained in force as long as the process was under way
(Article 5, paragraph 9).  However, if it was interrupted the use of the special safeguard would also
have to be suspended.  In short, there was a need to consider and agree on ways of ensuring that the
reform process was not interrupted during the current negotiations.  He recalled that the Cairns Group
had put forward three proposals – one for each pillar of the Agreement.  All three referred to theconcept of down-payment, which was designed to secure continuity in the process.  Argentina
believed that the Fourth Ministerial Conference would provide an excellent opportunity to reach this
type of agreement.
303. Argentina attached crucial importance to the negotiations on services, and that was why it was
taking part in them with enthusiasm, conviction and dedication.  Its commitment was reflected in theconstructive and realistic proposals that his country was making.  Argentina believed that greater
liberalization of trade in services could lead  to stronger economic growth and would foster
development in developing countries, including in Argentina.  He emphasized that, as evidenced by
the statistics on trade in services, exports of services were concentrated in a small number of
countries, most of which were developed countries.  His country, as was the case for most developingcountries in Latin America and other parts of the world, was facing heavy trade deficits in the services
sector.  That was why Argentina believed that ensuring broader participation of developing countries
in services trade should be given top priority in these negotiations.  In Argentine's view, the
negotiations on services had progressed satisfactorily over the past year, and his country had made
constructive contributions at every stage in the process.
304. At the beginning of the year, a roadmap had been drawn up for the first phase of the
negotiations, based on a proposal by MERCOSUR countries.  This enabled Members to proceed with
work in an orderly and constructive fashion.  Likewise, at the latest special session of the Council for
Trade in Services, Argentina and 23 other devel oping countries (including MERCOSUR countries)
had presented a proposal for the establishment of negotiating guidelines and procedures, which were
provided for under the GATS.  This proposal, which demonstrated his country's commitment to these
negotiations, had been described by one of its main trading partners as the most advanced proposalreceived on the subject.  Argentina hoped to submit further proposals to the Council for Trade in
Services and to its subsidiary bodies in the coming months.  His country was working hard, together
with its principal trading partners, in particular MERCOSUR countries, to achieve that objective and
was conducting close consultations with its private sector.  The coming months would undoubtedly be
decisive in terms of progress in these negotiations.
305. In March, the Council for Trade in Services would have to take stock of what had been
accomplished thus far and to plan future courses of action.  Argentina would do everything in its
power to ensure that the session was productive and enabled Members to move ahead in these
negotiations.  However, the negotiations on services were not an isolated exercise.  Argentina viewed
the agriculture and services negotiations as a whole and considered it imperative that the twoprocesses advanced in parallel.  It could not concei ve of one of them making headway while the other
came to a standstill.  Thus, his country was greatly surprised by the boldness of the proposals made by
some trading partners in the services negotiations in conjunction with the reticence and even
intransigence shown by the same countries in the ag riculture negotiations.  The challenge of the stock-
taking meeting next March would be to ensure that significant progress was made in both mandatedWT/GC/M/61
Page 67
negotiations.  Argentina believed that the review meeting would also serve to reveal each Member's
degree of commitment and to determine what were the real possibilities of achieving consensus on the
possible agenda for a more comprehensive round of negotiations.
306. He noted that the exercises carried out under services and agriculture were relatively
satisfactory.  Members were now about to enter into a new stage in both areas.  In the area of services,23 delegations had submitted a paper on modalities and it was expected that discussions on modalities
in the area of agriculture would start in March.  Therefore, this new exercise in March should be
assessed as a whole and should be conducted under the same heading.  Argentina believed that the
proposal made by Uruguay was reasonable.  With regard to negotiations on agriculture, one should
keep in mind that delegations would have to assess,  at the appropriate time, how to carry forward the
reform process and the continuity of this process.  In this respect, as from 31 December 2000, some
countries would be drawing to the end of their implementation period of the Uruguay Roundcommitments.  There was a need to  avoid any interruptions or breaks as otherwise one might be faced
with new implementation problems.  If the reform process did not continue then the use of special
safeguards would have to be halted.  There was a need to study and to examine possible formulas to
ensure that this reform process was not interrupted in the course of the present negotiations.  In this
respect, proposals had been made by the Cairns Group.  Argentina believed that at the FourthMinisterial Conference Members would provide an excellent opportunity to reach any such
agreements.
307. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that his delegation considered that the recent
meetings of the special session on services were highly successful.  He noted that the Secretariat had
now been charged with drawing up some draft negotiating guidelines and his delegation lookedforward to these being finalized for the stock-taking  meeting.  With regard to the statement made by
Uruguay, he was not sure whether the stock-taking meeting on agriculture should precede the one on
services.  This could set up some strong linkages which were not advisable at this stage.  He therefore
proposed that the two stock-taking meetings should proceed in parallel in March 2001.  If that,
however, created difficulties for delegations in terms of resources, a special session on services couldbe held on 26 and 27 March and then adjourned.  A special session on agriculture could take place on
28 and 29 March.  Finally, one could have a wrap-up of both special sessions at the same time on
30 March.  There were alternative scenarios for consideration at this stage.
308. The representative of Canada said that the proposal to ask the Chairman of the General
Council to consult on the actual dates of the two st ock-taking meetings was reasonable.  However, it
was not without difficulties or potential problems.  Canada supported what had been stated by
Uruguay to the effect that there was a need to have positive results and to build confidence.  However,one should not make the situation more difficult than it already was.  Uruguay had stated that its
proposal was not merely procedural.  However, there were enough substantive elements on both
agendas to test Members.  Like Hong Kong, China, Canada believed that both sessions had been, to
date, quite constructive and quite positive.  As he had stated in his capacity as Chairman of the
Council for Trade in Services, two dates had be en suggested in accordance with normal working
practices of committees.  The Committee on Agricult ure had, rightly or wrongly, suggested two and
half days, 28 (afternoon) and 29 and 30 March.  In order to avoid any overlap, he had suggested
26 and 27 March for the meeting on services.  He had only learnt at the last meeting on services about
the position of Uruguay and other countries on this issue.  He believed that under the circumstances,
the meetings could be held concurrently in order to avoid any linkages, as pointed out by Hong Kong,China.  However, in the end, this might amount to the same because if one was disheartened there
could be some impact on either the stock-taking on services or agriculture.  In the consultations to be
held on this matter Members should avoid any procedural wrangling before entering into the
substance.  Canada was ready to participate in such consultations.  The original idea to allow the
natural flow would have probably been the easiest a nd the best alternative.  He still hoped that the
procedure would not be allowed to trump the substance.WT/GC/M/61
Page 68
309. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation was not sure
whether the discussion on the dates of the stock-taking meeting on agriculture and services was an
item on the agenda of the present meeting.  Fixing dates for meetings was always one of the most
difficult and controversial questions, but the sensitiv ity of these issues was such that on this occasion
it was an even more delicate task.  He was not sure whether it was appropriate or efficient to use theGeneral Council's time to seek a decision on this matter at the present meeting.  Further reflection was
required thereon.  As Hong Kong, China had stated there were alternative ways of addressing this
problem and more time was needed to reflect on the views expressed at the present meeting.
310. The representative of Australia said that his delegation supported the statement made by the
Community.  He believed that the proposal made by Uruguay that more time was needed for
reflection and that consultations should be held on the question of dates was not a matter for
consideration by the General Council.  However, the issue underscored the importance of carefulconsultations on dates for such meetings and the need for Members to be careful, and as stated by
Uruguay, mature with regard to this matter.  There was a certain political reality that could not be
denied and in order to ensure the smooth progress of work in all areas there was a need to be
cognisant thereof.
311. The representative of Brazil said that his delegation supported the statement made by
Australia.  He believed that the issue was not to seek a decision at this stage but to point out that there
might be a problem at a later date.  With regard to the question of substance versus procedure, Brazil
considered that a stock-taking exercise was more than just stock-taking.
312. The Chairman said that he believed that cons ultations should be held on this matter but the
question was not that the Council for Trade in Servic es should review the negotiations on agriculture
and vice versa.  Each of the negotiating body would review its work separately.  However, there was a
need to see these issues in conjunction.  He was prepared to hold consultations on the matter and
proposed that the General Council take note of the statements and of the need to consult on these
issues.
313. The representative of Slovenia expressed concern about the Chairman's statement with regard
to the decision on the proposal which was not merely a procedural matter.  It was appropriate for the
General Council to take note of the views expressed by some delegations.  However, if the General
Council were to decide to carry out consultations on the proposal made by Uruguay, he would have to
point out that it was not up to the General Council to deal with the question of possible dates for
meetings of other WTO bodies.
314. The representative of Bulgaria said that his country supported the statement made by
Slovenia.  He believed that it was not appropriate to accept a decision to carry out consultations on
this proposal.  This issue went far beyond this agenda item and should have been inscribed under
"Other Business".  Since this had not been done, Uruguay could request that this item be inscribed
under "Other Business" at the next meeting of the General Council scheduled for February 2001.  In
this regard, Bulgaria supported Slovenia that the General Council should only take note of the views
expressed not even of the statements made, which had gone beyond the content of this agenda item.Like Slovenia, Bulgaria did not wish the Chairman to carry out consultations on this matter.
315. The Chairman said that he was not sure that he could agree with Bulgaria that the issue under
discussion went beyond the agenda item since it was related to the reports of the two negotiating
bodies.  He wished all Members to participate in his consultations, but  the matter could also be
solved in a different way.  There was a need to have orderly developments in the work of the GeneralCouncil and other WTO bodies next year and therefore it was  natural to consult on any issue that
might arise.WT/GC/M/61
Page 69
316. The representative of Uruguay said that, as he had indicated in his previous statement, it was
not his delegation's intention to open a discussion on this subject, but to ask the Chairman to carry out
consultations on this matter.  In response to the statement made by Bulgaria, he said that the dates for
the next meetings on agriculture had been scheduled tentatively.  Such dates had been discussed but
not determined with regard to services.  References had been made to those dates in the reportssubmitted at the present meeting.  Therefore, delegations had the right to raise this issue under this
agenda item.  Consultations should be held on this issue with a view to finding a solution which
would take into account the interests of all Members.  There was no reason for this matter to be placed
under "Other Business".  It was under this agenda item  that something had to be done.  With regard to
the form and substance of multilateral negotiations, all delegations with experience in such
negotiations, and who looked at things as they were  and not as they would like them to be, would
know exactly what was the basis for his earlier statement.  He did not wish to prolong the discussionand, once again, asked the Chairman to allow some time for reflection and to consult with all the
parties in order to determine the exact sequence of  these two meetings.  The proposal made by Hong
Kong, China should also be taken into account in the consultations to be held on this matter.
317. The representative of Mexico said that Members' concern about which meeting should be held
first depended on their respective positions in the area of agriculture and services.  In any negotiations
there was always a certain degree of mistrust.  It was therefore necessary to reflect on how to achieve
a positive synergy between the two areas.  The propos al made by Hong Kong, China could ensure that
neither side would expose itself too much and therefore could help to increase the level of ambition in
the two areas of negotiations.  Regardless of which meeting were to be held first the actual negotiation
should be simultaneous.  Once Members had an opportunity to reflect on negotiating texts informally,they would be fully aware of what had been obtained in the areas of their interest.  He said that the
Chairmen of the two negotiating bodies could be in touch with each other or consultations could be
held to ensure that there was no surprise on either side with regard to the adoption of negotiated texts,
which was the next step after the stock-taking meeting.
318. The representative of Brazil said that his country's position was in line with the position of
Uruguay.
319. The representative of Bolivia said that his country was among those delegations who had
supported the proposal made by Uruguay in the C ouncil for Trade in Services.  At the present
meeting, Bolivia wished to restate its support for the proposal and to point out that it was appropriate
for the Chairman to hold consultations in order to fi nd a satisfactory solution so that the negotiating
work in each of these bodies, the Council on Services and in the Committee on Agriculture, might
proceed in a positive manner.
320. The representative of Bulgaria said that his delegation noted the Chairman's statement on
whether or not the issue under discussion went beyond the agenda item.  His delegation continued to
believe that an attempt to solve the issues resulting from the reports in the General Council went
beyond the agenda item.  Bulgaria did not agree that, at the present meeting, the General Council
should take a decision to hold consultations on this matter.  This did not mean that the Chairmancould not hold consultations.  It was within the Chairman's prerogative to hold consultations on
whatever matter he wished.  However, Bulgaria disagreed that such a decision should be taken under
this agenda item.
321. The Chairman proposed that the General Council take note of the statements.  He said that he
intended to consult with the Chairmen of the two relevant bodies on how to proceed on this matter
and then decide as to whether broader consultations were needed.
322. The General Council so agreed.WT/GC/M/61
Page 70
17. Review of WTO activities
Reports of:
(a) General Council (WT/GC/W/421), Dispute Sett lement Body (WT/DSB/21 and Add.1), Trade
Policy Review Body (WT/TPR/86), Sector al Councils (G/L/419 and Corr.1, S/C/12 and
S/CSS/3, IP/C/22), Committees on Trade and Development (WT/COMTD/28), Balance-of-
Payments Restrictions (WT/BOP/R/55), Budg et, Finance and Administration (WT/BFA/50),
and Regional Trade Agreements (WT/REG/9)
(b) Committee on Trade and Environment (WT/CTE/5)
(c) Working Groups on the Relationship between Trade and Investment (WT/WGTI/4), the
Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy (WT/WGTCP/4), and Transparency in
Government Procurement (WT/WGTGP/4)
(d) Committees under the Plurilateral Trade Agreements (WT/L/374, GPA/44)
323. The Chairman recalled that under this item the General Council would be conducting a
review of WTO activities in pursuance of the Decision concerning procedures for an annual overview
of WTO activities and for reporting under the WTO (WT/L/105).  He drew attention to the annual
reports of the various Committees and Councils contained in the documents referred to under this itemand invited the Chairpersons of the respective WTO bodies to introduce their reports before turning to
the report of the General Council.
324. Mr. Stuart Harbinson (Hong Kong, China), Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, said
that during the period under review, the Dispute Sett lement Body (DSB) had held 23 meetings.  In the
course of those meetings, dispute settlement panels had been established in respect of 16 panelrequests.  Appellate Body and panel reports had been adopted with regard to 16 different matters.  In
seven of those matters the Appellate Body had modified the findings of panels and in three other
matters, the findings of panels had been upheld by the Appellate Body.  With regard to the other six
matters no recourse had been sought to the Appellate Body proceedings.
325. In the area of implementation, the DSB had heard status reports on progress in
implementation with regard to nine different matters.   With regard to five of those matters, the DSB
would continue to hear progress reports.  Reco urse to Article 21.5 of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding (DSU) had been sought by Members with regard to five new matters in order to
examine compliance with the rulings and recommendations adopted by the DSB.  The Appellate Body
and panel reports, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, had been adopted with regard to four matters.
In two of those matters, the Appellate Body had modi fied the findings of the panel reports and in the
other two the parties had not sought recourse to the Appellate Body proceedings.  In addition, withregard to one matter the proceedings of the panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU had resulted in a
mutually agreed solution.  During the period covered by the report, recourse to Article 22 of the DSU
had been sought with regard to two matters.  In one of those matters the DSB had authorized
suspension of concessions.  The other matter was due to be considered by the DSB shortly.
326. On 7 April 2000, the DSB had agreed to the recommendation of the Selection Committee to
appoint two new members to the Appellate Body to replace two outgoing members.  On 25 May
2000, the DSB had also agreed to appoint one additional member to the Appellate Body in order to fill
the vacancy, which had been left by the late Mr. Beeby.  Finally, a new updated version of the
Indicative List of Governmental and Non-Governme ntal Panelists had been circulated on 29 March
2000 in document WT/DSB/19, in accordance with the requirement that the List be updated every twoWT/GC/M/61
Page 71
years.  On a regular basis, the DSB had continued to approve additional names proposed for inclusion
on the List in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.
327. Mr. Carlos Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay), Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, said
that during the period under review, the Council fo r Trade in Goods (CTG) had met five times in
formal session and had considered a wide range of matters.  The Council had taken note of theprogress report of the Committee on Rules of Origin with respect to the continuation of the
harmonization work programme and had heard two periodic reports of the Committee on Market
Access.  Regarding the review of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXVIII of the
GATT 1994, the Council had mandated the Committee on Market Access to carry out the review and
at its meeting on 16 October 2000, the Committee had reported to the CTG that the review had been
carried out.
328. Regarding waivers under Article IX of the WTO Agreement, the CTG had considered nine
items.  With regard to the new ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, at its meeting of 5 April 2000, the EC
and the ACP countries had submitted to the CTG a request for a waiver in order to allow the
maintenance of preferential trade between the EC an d ACP countries.  Deliberations had been held on
the request and the Council had taken note of the various statements made at its meetings on 5 April,
7 July, 16 October and 15 November 2000.  Consultations were underway in order to find a solutionacceptable to all parties concerned.
329. With regard to the TRIMs Agreement, the CTG had begun the review of the operation of the
Agreement provided for in Article 9.  With respec t to requests for extension of the transition period
pursuant to Article 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement, the CTG had continued to consider requests for
extension made by Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Romaniaand Thailand.  Also, the CTG had adopted the terms of reference for the examination of ten free trade
agreements by the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA).
330. Finally, at the request of the Director-Gener al and on his behalf, the CTG Chairman had
conducted consultations regarding the appointment of the Chairman of the Textiles Monitoring Body
(TMB).  These consultations had been held with a large number of Members, including regionalcoordinators, both at the individual and plurilateral levels.  In light of these consultations, consensus
had been reached for the reappointment of the present Chairman, Mr. András Szepesi, for a period of
four years, beginning on 1 January 2001.
331. The General Council agreed that the present TMB Chairman, Mr. Szepesi, be re-appointed for
a further period of four years as of 1 January 2001.
332. Ms. Margaret Liang, in the absence of Mr. Chak Mun See (Singapore), Chairman of the
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, highlighted two main features of
the Council's work in the year 2000.  First, followi ng the expiry of the general transitional periods
under the TRIPS Agreement for developing countries and certain transition economies, the Council
had initiated a process of review of the national implementing legislation of the Members concerned,
along the lines of the reviews of developed countries' legislation which had been conducted in 1996
and 1997.  The Council was planning to complete these reviews by the end of 2001.  Second, withregard to the built-in agenda of the TRIPS Agreement, discussions on issues which had been
addressed in previous years had continued during the year, particularly on issues relating to
geographical indications, which were being discussed under Articles 23.4, 24.1 and 24.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement;  issues raised in the context of the review of the provisions of Article 27.3(b) concerning
the protection of plant and animal inventions;  and questions concerning the review of theimplementation of the Agreement under Article 71.1.  The Council had also discussed issues relating
to "non-violation" disputes in the context of the TRIPS Agreement.  In these various areas, theWT/GC/M/61
Page 72
Council had given special attention to developmental impact, as requested by the General Council at
its meeting on 7 and 8 February 2000.
333. Mr. Sergio Marchi (Canada), Chairman of the Council for Trade in Services, presented two
documents in reporting on the activities of the Coun cil for the year 2000.  The first document (S/C/12)
contained the Council's annual report to the General Council, which covered the regular activities ofthe Council.  Its Annexes contained the reports of the four subsidiary bodies, namely the Committee
on Specific Commitments, the Committee on Trade in Financial Services, the Working Party on
Domestic Regulation and the Working Party on GATS Rules.  He thanked the Chairpersons of these
four subsidiary bodies for their work.  The second document (S/CSS/3) contained the report on the
Special Sessions of the Council for Trade in Services devoted to the negotiations mandated by
Article XIX of the GATS.  This report covered the meetings held in Special Session since 7 February
2000.
334. Ms Philippa Davies, in the absence of Mr. Ransford Smith (Jamaica), Chairman of the
Committee for Trade and Development (CTD), said that in the course of the year, the CTD had
conducted cross-cutting discussions on development-related issues, many of which were also covered
by other WTO bodies in the context of the operation of specific agreements.  The main focus of the
CTD's work had been on special and differential treatment, implementation of the WTO agreements,participation of developing countries in world trade, and technical cooperation.  Secretariat
documentation on these topics cited in the annual report had provided the main factual basis for
discussions.  In order to deepen its understanding of specific issues, the CTD had organized a number
of seminars on special and differential treatment, implementation of WTO agreements and small
economies.  In each case, the seminars had been linked directly to a formal discussion in subsequentCTD meetings, and a report had been made under the Chairman's own responsibility.  It had been
generally felt that the CTD should continue to monitor developments under these various headings,
and the CTD would be consulting on future work in these areas.  At the request of the General
Council, the CTD had already made a report to the General Council on development aspects of
electronic commerce.  The issue of technical cooper ation and training had also occupied considerable
time in the CTD.  Two "Days of Reflection" on technical cooperation, held in July 2000, had focused
on how to balance demands for technical assistance against budgetary and personnel constraints, the
nature of the Two's role in technical assistance, how best to deliver such assistance, how to
collaborate more effectively with other internatio nal and national agencies, and how to monitor such
assistance more effectively.  Discussions had continued informally from September through to
November, mainly on the basis of a draft Secretariat paper on "A Strategy for Technical Assistance in
the WTO" and the current "Three-Year Plan (2000-2003)".  The strategy paper was in the process ofbeing finalized by the Secretariat on the basis of comments.  A large number of Members had
expressed support for the extension of funding for technical cooperation in the regular budget,
reducing reliance on trust funds, as it was felt that this would help plan WTO technical cooperation
activities.  The CTD had also been mandated to be the WTO's contact point for Members' input to the
UN High-Level Event on Financing for Development planned for the first quarter of 2002 and theChairman had been in contact with the Co-Chairs of the Preparatory Committee on this matter.  The
Secretariat had been preparing a background document which would be considered by the CTD in
mid-February 2001, and the deliberations of the CTD would form the basis of the WTO's political
input to the High-Level Event.
335. During 2000, the CTD had received notifications under the Enabling Clause on modifications
to GSP schemes and on regional trade agreements between developing countries.  It had also received
the report of the Joint Advisory Group on the UNCTAD/WTO International Trade Center and the
report of the Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries (LDCs).  This Sub-Committee, chaired
by Mr. Jónsson (Iceland), had presented several significant challenges.  One major continuing
challenge had been to improve the functioning of the Integrated Framework (IF) and for this purpose,a mandated review had been undertaken this year.  Much of the Sub-Committee's work had centeredWT/GC/M/61
Page 73
around the review of the IF, decisions which had been  taken thereafter by the six Heads of Agency to
improve the functioning of the IF, and the follow-up to this Joint Statement.  In 2001, the Sub-
Committee would continue its work on the IF, with a view to fully and effectively implementing the
new IF arrangements.  Informal consultations already underway had suggested that the full potential
of the IF was near realization.  The Sub-Committee had addressed other equally significantchallenges, including market access for products originating in LDCs, difficulties faced by LDCs in
implementing WTO agreements, and the Third United Nations Conference on Least-Developed
Countries (LDC-III).  The WTO had been fully comm itted to making contributions to the LDC -III
Conference and the Sub-Committee would play a leading role in collaborating with UNCTAD to
ensure that the outcome of the Conference would re sult in some deliverables for LDCs.  Looking
ahead, the CTD had begun discussions on a draft work programme for 2001, which had been
circulated in document WT/COMTD/W/81/Rev.1.  While this had yet to be settled, there were anumber of formal reporting requirements and plans for further discussions on special and differential
treatment, as well as on the participation of developing countries in world trade.  There had also been
proposals for further seminars on technology questions, e-commerce and policies strategies for trade
and development.  These would be linked, as before, to the formal meetings of the CTD.  In addition,
although this was not a direct CTD action, there would be a third "Geneva Week" for non-residentMembers and observers in October 2001.  Finally, the Sub Committee's work programme had been
agreed and was contained in document WT/LDC/SWG/IF/8/Rev.1.
336. Mr. Milan Hovorka (Czech Republic), Chairman of the Committee on Balance-of-Payments
Restrictions (CRTA), said that in the year 2000, consultations had been concluded with the Slovak
Republic and Romania, which as of the end of 2000 would no longer be maintaining restrictions for
balance-of-payments purposes, and with Pakistan, which had begun to implement its three-year phase
out schedule with final restrictions to be lifted by mid-2002.  Also, consultations were continuing with
Bangladesh, with a view to conclude with a submission by that government of a phase out plan for its
remaining restrictions.
337. Mr. Edsel T. Custodio (Philippines), Chairman of the Committee on Regional Trade
Agreements, said that in the course of the year, the Committee had continued its work on the
examination of regional trade agreements (RTAs) under GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V,
but had still not been able to conclude any examination.  There were at present 86 RTAs under
examination, 62 of which were in an advanced stage.  The Committee had carried out biennial
reviews of the operation of agreements based on reports received in 1999 and 2000.  Work on
procedures to facilitate and improve the examination process had focused on the format of the
examination reports, but had encountered the difficulties noted above.  Under systemic issues, theCommittee had finalized its identification of the principal legal issues and would proceed in 2001 to a
horizontal analysis of various RTAs, including, as a first step, coverage and exceptions, rules of origin
and denial-of-benefits rules, as well as liberalization processes and transitional provisions of various
RTAs.  In addition, the Secretariat had circulated a very useful "mapping" paper contained in
document WT/REG/W/41, which gave a picture of all the existing RTAs and those expected to beconcluded by 2005.
338. Turning to his own assessment of the situation,  he focused on two aspects of the Committee's
mandate, namely the examination of individual RTAs and consideration of RTA-related "systemic
issues".  The CRTA had been unable to conclude any of the examinations undertaken because of
various political and practical difficulties.  This paralysis, coupled with the growing logjam of reports,had affected other elements of the Committee's work.  In particular, the factual examination of
agreements had become less rigorous and the debate on "systemic issues" lacked vigor.  This had
vitiated the CRTA’s expected role of providing a coordinated and effective framework for overseeing
the emergence and development of RTAs.  Viewed against the backdrop of the increasing number,
scope and geographical dimensions of regional, sub-regional or interregional trade initiatives, heWT/GC/M/61
Page 74
wished to underscore the risks that the WTO, and world trade at large, faced in terms of possible
conflicts between the norms enforced within the different RTAs and under the multilateral disciplines.
339. The CRTA's mandate to assess the consistency of Members' actions with provisions of WTO
agreements was almost unique in the WTO.  However, it was expected that WTO Members, most of
which were parties to one or many RTAs in operation, passed judgement on the consistency orinconsistency of their own, as well as other Members' agreements.  Such consistency assessment was
seen as having possible consequences for dispute settlement processes and this was the main concern
which drove Members to oppose any judgment on the consistency of RTAs.  Furthermore, what had
been referred to as the "litigious culture" of the WTO added to concerns on the issue of consistency
judgments.  In addition, there was the everlasting controversy about the clarity of WTO rules against
which RTAs were assessed, namely Article XXIV  of GATT 1994 and Article V of GATS, and the
practical difficulties which hindered the examination process, including the diversity and individualityof RTAs.  It could be argued that through different provisions and different standards and processes,
RTAs could achieve similar objectives of integration but the difficulty resided in the applicability of
any common WTO standards or processes to achieve this objective in the different RTAs.  Another
difficulty met by the CRTA in its examination work resulted from the linkages drawn by Members
among the examinations of different RTAs.  In view of Members’ participation in a wide array ofRTAs, “looking over one’s shoulder” attitudes often led to concerns whenever the examination report
on any given agreement seemed to indicate a qualitative difference from another.  Since 1997, the
Committee had endeavored to overcome most of these problems.  In the past year, the focus had been
on seeking Members' support for a reporting structure which would respect RTAs' individual merits
while recognizing divergences in the Committee's assessment of their consistency with WTO rules.
However, no agreed phraseology had been found for different conclusions and it was clear that the
conclusion part of the report, namely the issue of examination of RTAs' consistency, remained the
stumbling block to the endorsement of any ex amination report.  The CRTA would meet again
informally before the end of the year to make one more attempt to resolve this issue.
340. The CRTA had also been required to consider broader issues by way of its systemic mandate.
As described in the report, the Committee had made progress in this area, albeit slowly, because of the
bottleneck situation in the examination process.  The Committee had gone past the technical phase in
attempting to breach the examination impasse and it therefore needed the General Council to provide
the political impetus for unbiased and objective debates that could lead to outcomes de-linked from
partisan interests on the systemic front.  Guidance from the General Council was needed to enable the
CRTA to continue discharging its mandate while coping with the examination process.  Some
elements of guidance could be considered by the General Council, including authoritative guidance onthresholds, parameters or guidelines to be used in interpreting the consistency provisions of the WTO
agreements, and clarification of the impact of CRTA reports on the dispute settlement process and
possible ways of insulating Members from the risk that the CRTA's reports be used in that process.  If
these two elements could not be agreed, consideration could be given to shifting the CRTA's emphasis
to transparency, as this goal was at present undermined by the requirement to assess consistency.However, such a change of emphasis would mean that some Members would have to lower their
ambitions to use the CRTA as a disciplinary tool  and accept that the Committee could be a normative
body which could instill a common standard of discipline in the development of RTAs through peer
pressure.  Such clarification of issues, or change of emphasis, could provide the necessary guidance to
Members in dealing with systemic issues in the Committee.
341. Mr. Patrick Malekou, in the absence of Mrs. Yolande Biké (Gabon), Chairperson of the
Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE), said that the CTE had continued to consider the items
under its work programme in conformity with th e Ministerial Decision adopted in Marrakesh on
Trade and Environment, and the interdependence of multilateral activities concerning the environment
and multilateral activities linked to trade.  The di scussions had been held under the chairmanship of
Mr. Major (Hungary) before Mrs. Biké replaced him as Chairperson.  The Committee had held threeWT/GC/M/61
Page 75
meetings on 29 February, 1 March, 5 and 6 July and 24 and 25 October 2000.  Clear progress had
been achieved in the Committee due to the manifest will of delegations to contribute to the
discussions on the work programme through writ ten communications and constructive declarations
supported by the Secretariat working documents.  Work had been enriched through reports on national
experiences and environmental assessments, which had allowed the Committee to go further in thesectoral analysis of the elimination of restrictions and distortions in trade, in particular with regard to
fishing.  The Committee had also organized two information meetings on multilateral environmental
agreements (MEAs) on 5 July and 24 October, the object of which was to identify new developments
in relation to any matter linked with trade in th ese agreements.  The WTO Director-General had been
present at the second information meeting, together with the UNDP Executive Director, and had
spoken of a close collaboration in order to construct synergies and reinforce complementarity.  These
two information meetings on environmental agreements had contributed to a better understanding ofthe existing evolution of the multilateral programme.   Furthermore, in order to make the links between
trade, environment and durable developments better known, the Secretariat had organized four
regional seminars for developing countries and in particular least-developed countries.  This type of
seminar had allowed for an improvement of the dialogue, eliminating the separation between the
respective ministries of trade and the environment.  These seminars had been held in South Africa,Argentina, Gabon and Malta.  Finally, requests for observer status which had been received from the
League of Arab States, the Gulf Organization for Industrial Consulting and more recently the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries were still pending.  As concerns future work,
three meetings were planned on 13 and 14 February, 27 and 28 June and 30 and 31 October 2001 and
an information meeting with the Secretariat of MEAs should be held in June 2001.  The Committeewould continue its in-depth analysis of all the as pects of its work programme.  He thanked delegations
for their active participation and for the high quality  of their interventions and added that within the
framework of technical cooperation, Members should help experts from developing-country capitals
take part in the work of the CTE, so as to allow for a truly universal exchange of views.
342. Mr. Ronald Saborío Soto (Costa Rica), Chairman of the Working Group on Transparency in
Government Procurement, said that in the year 2000, the Working Group had continued its work
pursuant to the Singapore mandate on the basis of a note by the Chairman listing the issues raised
since its establishment in 1997.  The discussions had focused particularly on the questions of
definition and scope of government procurement, procurement methods, time-periods, transparency of
decisions on contract awards, domestic review pr ocedures, application of WTO dispute settlement
procedures, and technical cooperation and special and differential treatment for developing countries.
Two new written proposals had been received from Members on the topics of a work programme fortechnical cooperation and the coverage of services within the scope of a future agreement on this
subject.
343. Mr. Kåre Bryn (Norway), Chairman of the General Council, said that the year 2000 had been
a year which saw considerable work done by the General Council on a wide range of significant
issues.  First, there had been the process established by the General Council to address outstandingimplementation-related issues and concerns through special sessions of the General Council.  Special
sessions had been held in June and October, as well as intensive consultations by the Director-General
and himself on these issues and concerns.  The General Council had made arrangements for
organization of negotiations mandated under the Agreements on Agriculture and Services.  The work
in the Committee on Agriculture and the Services Council, meeting in special sessions, was underwayand the General Council had been regularly informed of developments therein.  Arrangements had
also been made for participation of acceding countries as observers in the mandated negotiations on
agriculture, on services and on other elements of th e built-in-agenda.  An important area of work had
been related to the question of internal transparency and participation of Members, and an important
series of open-ended consultations had been held on these issues.  Other important issues which had
been brought to the General Council during the year had included measures in favour of least-
developed countries, the integrated framework of trade-related technical assistance to least-developedWT/GC/M/61
Page 76
countries, and capacity-building through technical cooperation.  In July 2000, the General Council
had agreed to reinvigorate the work in the WTO on electronic commerce on a practical basis without
prejudice to any delegation's position on the status of the 1998 Declaration and had made
organizational arrangements accordingly.  The General Council had also established three working
parties on accession and had adopted decisions authorizing the accession of five new Members.These decisions represented further steps towards WTO's universality.  The General Council had
granted a number of waivers and agreed to extend the time-limit on several waivers on various WTO
obligations.  It had also considered reports on waivers which had been granted for a period exceeding
one year.  On a number of important issues such as observer status for international intergovernmental
organizations, review of procedures for circulation and derestriction of WTO documents and revision
of guidelines for scheduling of meetings, work had continued but further efforts would have to be
made in order to find solutions.  Consultations had also been initiated on procedures for theappointment of the Director-General.  He expressed appreciation to Members for the spirit of
cooperation they had shown in the difficult work undertaken.  He also thanked the Chairpersons of all
WTO bodies and the Director-General for their hard work and determination and their valuable
assistance provided to him during this year.
344. The General Council adopted the report of the Committee on Trade and Development, took
note of the reports of the other WTO bodies, including the reports from the bodies under the
Plurilateral Trade Agreements, and took note of the introductory statements by the Chairpersons.
345. The General Council adopted the report of the General Council, on the understanding that the
Secretariat would make the necessary adjustments to the draft contained in WT/GC/W/421 so as to
include matters that had been considered at the present meeting.
346. The representative of Brazil, referring to the TRIPS Council's report, said that his delegation
had demonstrated its unambiguous commitment to Article 63 of the TRIPS Agreement by providing a
timely and complete notification of all its TRIPS implementing legislation to the Council.  Brazil
considered that the process of reviewing national legislation was extremely useful, since it gave
Member governments the opportunity to explain th eir views as to the compatibility of their own
intellectual property laws and their interpretation of  the TRIPS Agreement.  His government regretted
that one Member had decided to initiate dispute settlement proceedings against Brazil regarding its
industrial property law.  Such an initiative direct ly affected the review of Brazil's implementing
legislation in the TRIPS Council.  Brazil could not engage in this process while the same legislation
would, at the same time, be the subject of a litigation.  Brazil had not anticipated this situation when it
had agreed to be taken up in the schedule of reviews in the Council.  His government could not accept
the inclusion of his country's legislation in the schedule of reviews for 2001 as long as Brazil mightneed to clarify its position with regard to that legislation in ongoing dispute settlement proceedings.
347. The representatives of Australia, India
, Chile , European Communities , New Zealand , Japan ,
Korea, and Hong Kong, China  thanked the CRTA Chairman for his report and for bringing to the
attention of the General Council this long-standing impasse in the CRTA concerning examinations of
individual RTAs.
348. The representative of Australia agreed that the CRTA's failure to reach consensus on any
RTA was a major problem, particularly given that the proliferation of RTAs was likely to continue.
There was scope for more work to be done on identifying measures to ensure that RTAs did not
weaken or undermine the multilateral trading system.  The existing measures for the surveillance of
RTAs were inadequate and the experience of the CRTA, despite the best endeavors of its Chairman,bore this out.  His delegation had argued for new rules or the clarification of existing rules on
preferential trading arrangements, to be a part of any new multilateral round of trade negotiations.
This would include work on thresholds, parameters and guidelines, as suggested by the CRTA
Chairman.  However, until such time, Members need ed to consider interim solutions to enable theWT/GC/M/61
Page 77
CRTA to overcome the impasse.  In order to enable the General Council to provide the necessary
guidance, he proposed that the CRTA be requested, as  a matter of priority, to identify and present to
the General Council options for addressing the bottleneck in the examination process, including the
consideration of the mandate of the Committee itself.  This was an area in which Members,
collectively, should keep away from the dispute settlement processes.  With the proliferation of RTAs,it was clear that addressing the bottleneck in the CRTA became a matter of utmost importance for the
WTO to address.  For this reason, he supported the recommendations made by the Chairman of the
CRTA that the issue should be taken up by the General Council.
349. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the CRTA was one of the most vital organs
of the WTO.  For too long, Members had chosen simply to ignore the problems in the CRTA and the
Chairman's statement was forcing Members to confront this reality.  His delegation had examined,
and would continue to examine, individual RTAs on their merits, against GATT and GATS rules asthey stood.  The difficulty to reach conclusions on examinations was not surprising, as it was obvious
that the rules were imprecise, ambiguous and in some cases outdated.  At the Ministerial Conference
in Singapore, Ministers had noted that the expansion and extent of RTAs made it important to analyze
whether the system of rights and obligations, as it related to RTAs, needed to be further clarified.
Subsequently, the Ministerial Conference in Seattl e had failed to lead to an agreement to start
negotiations aimed at clarifying and, where appropriate, reinforcing the relevant rules.  Such an
approach was the best way forward and was preferab le to the option of dispute settlement.  In the
meantime, his delegation was not prepared to contemplate any reduction in the standards of
examinations.  Examinations should be rigorous a nd objective, according to the existing rules such as
they were, and should result in findings.  Nor was his delegation was prepared to accept any "dealmaking" between parties to different RTAs on their respective examination processes.  He endorsed
Australia's call for interim solutions, pending further negotiations, to increase the accountability of
RTAs to the multilateral trading system.  In particular, the CRTA could start by presenting options to
the General Council for addressing the deadlock.
350. The representative of Hungary, on behalf of Bulgaria
, Czech Republic , Estonia , Latvia ,
Poland, Romania , Slovak Republic  and Slovenia , said that he appreciated the efforts of the CRTA
Chairman to try to solve some of the outstanding issues hindering the possibility of making real
progress in the CRTA.  The Chairman's assessment of the situation was thought-provoking and
merited further informal discussions in the CRTA.  If Members were to consider any guidance on
thresholds, parameters or guidelines to be used in interpreting the consistency of WTO provisions,
these could not be applied retroactively and would have to apply only to the agreements concluded
after their adoption.
351. The representative of the United States said that the CRTA should finish its work, both in
completing its examination of RTAs and in building on its discussions of institutional issues.  She
commended the Chairman for his pro-active approach in steering the Committee to finish its work and
appreciated his sharing of his ideas with Members on how to move forward on this issue.  These
ideas, however, should be discussed further in the CRTA rather than engaging on them at this point inthe General Council.  Her delegation did not believe that the problems faced by the Committee had
resulted from a lack of political input.  In this regard, the CRTA Chairman had outlined an illustrative
list of themes for surveys of RTA provisions.  While the CRTA itself did not finalize its identification
of the principal legal issues that could be classified as "systemic", the illustrative list usefully set out
several items that had been identified by particular Members as being of systemic concern during thecourse of the Committee's deliberations.  In order to give direction to the Secretariat in preparing
background surveys on these topics, the Committee had agreed to begin with the items noted in the
Chairman's statement.  With respect to the logjam  in the CRTA, if it was a political reality that
Members were unable to agree on the same conclusion with respect to WTO-consistency of a
particular agreement, Members should recognize th e problem and try to move forward in a realistic
and productive manner.  The WTO membership had not considered, let alone negotiated, a mandate toWT/GC/M/61
Page 78
negotiate new meanings to the WTO disciplines concerning free-trade areas and customs unions.  The
WTO disciplines included GATT Article XXIV, GATS Article V, and the Enabling Clause, which
pertained to certain agreements between "less-developed” countries.  However, her delegation did not
see how this process could help the immediate work of the CRTA, with 86 agreements currently
under examination.  With respect to the impact of the CRTA on dispute settlement proceedings, it wasnot obvious how a decision by Members to “provide political cover to include value judgments in the
reports” would serve the CRTA’s disciplinary purpose.  However, the Chairman was right to point out
the benefit of additional transparency with respect to RTAs, as transparency was already one of the
Committee’s objectives and could serve to highlight the concerns that existed about WTO-
consistency.  Her delegation had doubts that emphasizing transparency was really a new direction for
the CRTA, but was prepared to support increased scrutiny of the agreements within the overall
mandate of the Committee to consider the WTO-c onsistency of each RTA.  With respect to the
dilemma on how to move forward and agree on conclu sions to individual reports, radical solutions
were not required.  Predecessors in the GATT 1947 faced similar practical difficulties in the working
parties set up to review RTAs in the decades preceding the WTO but were still able to complete these
reports, with Members reserving their rights and with all views being appropriately reflected.  It did
not serve the WTO to have committees facing a logjam and being unable to fulfil their mandate.Within the Geneva community, there was a strong desire by all delegations to make the CRTA work.
The CRTA had been trying, without success, in its informal processes to bridge differences through
creative drafting and redrafting of reports.  However, when confronted with the gravity of the
procedural roadblocks noted by the Chairman, it was clear that greater guidance would be needed
from capitals on how to proceed.  She urged other Memb ers to have their capitals look at this issue
again and see whether they could provide instructions to enable CRTA representatives in Geneva to
move forward on this issue early in the next year.
352. The representative of Iceland, on behalf of the EFTA Members
, fully endorsed the statement
made by the representative of Hungary, and encouraged the CRTA to finish the work it was mandated
to do.
353. The representative of India said that regrettably, the work in the CRTA had not led to much
progress as was noted by the Chairman himself.  The Chairman had tried to get the CRTA to decide
on some draft reports but for various reasons, the CRTA had been unable to reach a final view on
such reports.  It was unlikely that any country would accept a report that did not give unqualified
endorsement to its RTA with another country.  This was a systemic problem, which Members needed
to focus on collectively.  The lack of progress was largely due to differing interpretations of
Article XXIV of GATT and Article V of GATS, a nd apprehension of the impact of these reports on
the dispute settlement procedures.  The growing proliferation of RTAs was a matter of concern to his
delegation, since by definition, RTAs were a derogation from the MFN principle and had serious
potential to distort trade.  RTAs often went beyond WTO rules and regulations on issues such as TBT,
SPS and rules of origin, and some RTAs had sought to establish linkages between trade and non-trade
issues.  Currently, more than 90 per cent of imports of some major trading countries were on apreferential basis and this put other countries, which did not get preferential treatment, at a
disadvantage.  This situation had reached a critical stage and his delegation looked forward to
deliberating on these issues in the special meeting of the CRTA convened for 13 December.
354. The representative of Chile said that the statement of the CRTA Chairman raised two types of
issues for Members to reflect on.  First, it would not be possible to take note of any particular progress
with regard to the completion of the CRTA's mandate.  This was caused by the absence of clear-cut
rules or basic consensus as to how the provisions of Article XXIV of GATT and Article V of GATS
were to be interpreted.  The dimension of the problem and the proliferation of RTAs required that, at
the appropriate time and in the context of future negotiations, Members sought basic consensus on the
rules which should govern the completion and application of bilateral and plurilateral tradeagreements.  In the absence of such a consensus, the shortcomings identified could be settled throughWT/GC/M/61
Page 79
the dispute settlement system.  Second, the report suggested that the procedures for the examination of
different RTAs could be improved upon.  This did not require Members to wait for new rules to be
adopted in the course of future negotiations and could be done promptly to improve transparency and,
as a result, multilateral surveillance.  As noted by Australia, Members should give this matter priority
within the CRTA.
355. The representative of the European Communities welcomed the ideas put forward by the
Chairman as a useful basis for further reflection.  The problem did not stem from a lack of political
input, but rather from diverging views among Me mbers.  Through a new round, Members could find a
long-term solution to the problem but, in the meantime, Members had to deal with the existing logjam
and should try to find a short-term solution that would help conclude some of the outstanding RTA
examinations.  His delegation would try to be as constructive as possible in trying to find a pragmatic
solution.
356. The representative of said that RTAs and initiatives were proliferating, as was highlighted in
the Director-General’s recent overview of develo pments in the internatio nal trading environment.
This situation underlined even further the importance of ensuring that RTAs were consistent with the
relevant GATT/WTO rules, and that appropriate information on such agreements was brought
forward to enable Members to draw appropriate conclusions about such agreements.  It was difficultfor the CRTA to come to a shared conclusion on individual agreements but, at the same time, it was
necessary for Members to have enough information to determine their own views about the
consistency of individual agreements.  Clarification of the relevant rules in the CRTA was an
important objective but in the interim, Members shou ld find ways for the WTO to maintain its general
oversight in the area of RTAs.  The time had come to reflect on a new approach to the CRTA's workon examination of individual agreements, which reco gnized the difficulty of arriving at agreed
conclusions on the consistency of RTAs under examination, but also focused on delivering to the
General Council transparent information on the va rious RTAs examined in the Committee.  This
would be without prejudice to the possibility for the CRTA to deliver conclusions at a later point in
the process, should this be possible.  This type of approach would better serve the notion that theWTO was continuing to exercise some oversight over RTAs than the present situation, where no
information on the Committee’s discussions on such agreements was provided to the General Council,
as the goal continued to be that this information would only be provided when definitive conclusions
were reached.  He looked forward to participating in the consultations that the CRTA Chairman
would hold before the end of the year.
357. The representative of Brazil, on behalf of MERCOSUR
, said that the bottleneck situation
resulted from the fact that the existing rules were not being implemented and that there was a lack of
political will on the part of Members to apply these rules.  Engaging in a systemic discussion on this
subject was not a way to solve the main problems of the CRTA related to the pending examination of
a great number of RTAs.
358. The representative of Japan said that his delegation was of the view that the situation
prevailing in the CRTA was a major problem of implementation, partly due to a lack of political will.
At the same time, there was room to give more clar ity to existing rules, and eventually to strengthen
them.  He agreed with Australia and Hong Kong, China that there were a number of alternatives that
could be explored in the General Council.  First, Members should try to "de-link" the different RTAs,
so that each individual RTA could be assessed on its own merits.  Second, although Members could
not come to an agreed solution, there were ways to close the examination of RTAs by agreeing onbasic elements for the CRTA's conclusions and increasing transparency.  It was a major function of
the WTO to ensure that different RTAs were consistent with WTO multilateral rules and served as
building blocks to the multilateral trading system.  He therefore agreed with Australia and Hong
Kong, China that there were elements that could be considered in the General Council.WT/GC/M/61
Page 80
359. The representative of Korea said that it was disappointing that after repeated attempts,
Members could not agree on any formula that would allow the CRTA to adopt examination reports.
He shared the assessment made by the Chairman with regard to the reasons for the lack of success, all
of which were amenable to reaching a solution and required continued efforts by Members.  His
delegation was willing to engage in discussions in the General Council on ways to break the impassein the CRTA.  However, given the difficulty and complexity of the issues involved, Members should
be realistic about the basis for a consensus on this issue in the General Council at this stage.  He
welcomed the CRTA Chairman's initiative to hold an informal meeting later in the week and hoped
that CRTA Members would come to a reasonable compromise.
360. The representative of Mexico said that with regard to the situation in the CRTA, there were
two areas where improvements were needed.  First, there were rules for both trade in goods and trade
in services which, if needed, could be improved in the context of a broader round of negotiations.Second, there was a bottleneck of agreements subject to examination for which joint decision had not
been possible.  He agreed with Japan that one of the problems was that some Members drew linkages
between the different RTAs.  Many improvements had been made in methodology for conducting
examination of these agreements.  However, such methodology should make it possible for Members
to compare the quality of the various agreements.  If Members subjected all the agreements to the
same rigorous method of review, they would be able to judge which agreements were closest to an
ideal.  Such points of reference would make it eas ier for Members to make improvements, both in the
existing rules and in ensuring that RTAs were co mpatible with the multilateral trading system.  The
current problem in the CRTA was more related to the types of agreements negotiated by some
Members, than the actual rules of the multilateral trading system.  His delegation was nonethelessopen to any improvement of the rules in the context of broader negotiations.
361. The General Council took note of the statements.
362. The representative of Hong Kong, China recalled that the CRTA Chairman had solicited
guidance from the General Council to enable the Committee to continue discharging his
responsibilities related to both the examination of RTAs and the consideration of systemic issues.However, a number of Members had expressed the view that it would be more fruitful to pursue
discussions on this question at the level of the CRTA and while his delegation preferred that the
discussion took place in the General Council, given the deadlock which had prevailed in the CRTA
for four years, it was ready to go along with the wish of other delegations.  Nevertheless, the General
Council should at least ask the CRTA Chairman to report back to the General Council on the progress
of further discussions in a period of three months.
363. The Chairman of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements said that although the
discussion seemed to have acknowledged the problems he had highlighted in the CRTA, there were
still differences of views among Members on the best approach to tackle the issue.  He noted that he
would no longer be Chairman of the CRTA in thr ee months time and that it would be incumbent on
the next Chairman to report to the General Council on developments in the CRTA.  Some delegations
had mentioned that focusing on the systemic debate  could divert attention away from the examination
of RTAs and that consequently, the discussion should continue in the CRTA.  If this was the decision,
he would continue to work towards a solution in the Committee until he relinquished his
chairmanship.
364. The Chairman asked whether there was agreement among Members that the Chairman of the
CRTA would report to the General Council on developments in the CRTA in three months time, as
proposed by Hong Kong, China.
365. The representative of Bulgaria recalled that the last decision on reporting to the General
Council on special sessions on agriculture and services was taken under "Other Business" withoutWT/GC/M/61
Page 81
previous notice.  He did not feel his delegation could act on such a proposal without having received
previous notice.
366. The representative of Brazil noted that if the Chairman of the CRTA was to report to the
General Council, it could be the third or fourth stocktaking exercise due in March 2001.  He
mentioned this because at least one delegation had mentioned that the CRTA's solution may lie in anew round regarding rules.
367. The Chairman concluded that there was no agreement on the reporting by the CRTA and that
if delegations wanted to pursue this matter, Members would have to come back to it at a later stage.
368. The Chairman took note of the statements.
18. Statement on the outcome of the APEC meeting in Brunei Darussalam
369. The representative of Brunei Darussalam, speaking under "Other Business" on behalf of
APEC Members, said that he wished to report to the General Council on the outcome of the APEC
meetings that had been held in Brunei Darussalam from 12 to 16 November 2000.  He said that
APEC, which consisted of least-developed, developing and developed economies, had been firm in
promoting and strengthening the multilateral tradin g system.  The annual APEC gathering in Brunei
Darussalam in November 2000 had issued two important documents, the APEC 2000 Leaders'Declaration and the Joint Statement of the 12th APEC Ministerial Meeting, which had been circulated
in WT/L/375 and WT/L/375/Add.1, respectively.
370. APEC Leaders and Ministers had reiterated the need to expeditiously launch a new WTO
round for the benefit of all WTO Members, particularly least-developed and developing economies.
APEC Leaders had agreed that a balanced and sufficiently broad-based agenda that responded to theinterest and concerns of all WTO Members, should be formulated and finalized as soon as possible in
2001, and that a round be launched in the same year.  They had committed themselves towards
achieving meaningful progress in agriculture and services negotiations.  They had also agreed to
continue the preparatory work on industrial tariffs a nd other related areas, as part of the preparation
for a new round, without prejudice to the overall agenda for negotiations.  In addition, APEC Leadershad also reaffirmed their commitment to the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on
electronic transmissions until the next WTO Ministerial Conference and they had acknowledged the
importance of avoiding unnecessary measures restricting use and development of electronic
commerce.  They had also called for the establishmen t of an ad hoc analytical task force in the WTO
that would examine how WTO rules were relevant to the evolution of electronic commerce.  They had
also commended the confidence-building measures adopted by the General Council, which they
hoped would provide market access for least-developed countries and address developing countries'concerns over aspects of the implementation of the WTO agreements.  To increase the momentum
toward the launch of a new round, APEC had agreed to develop a strategic plan to assist its members
in building capacity to implement the WTO agreements.
371. The General Council took note of the statement.
19. Accession to the WTO
(a) Statement by Egypt
372. The Representative of Egypt, speaking under "O ther Business" on behalf of the Informal
Group of Developing Countries (IGDC), said that the accession process to the WTO was ofWT/GC/M/61
Page 82
paramount importance to the IGDC who supported the objective of achieving the WTO's universality
and enhancing the credibility of the multilateral trading system through participation of all countries,
the majority of which were developing countries.  Most acceding developing countries and economies
in transition viewed accession to the WTO as an  important landmark in their efforts towards full
integration into the multilateral trading system and the global economy.  With more emphasis beingplaced on the role of trade as an engine for deve lopment contributing to growth and employment, the
WTO membership became an indispensable part of the overall developmental objective of those
countries.  It was therefore regrettable that out of 41 requests for accession, which had been submitted
since the inception of the WTO in 1995, only 11 countries had joined the WTO thus far, with two
more countries being close to joining it shortly.  This was in contradiction with WTO Ministerial
Declarations.  Paragraph 8 of the 1996 Singapore Ministerial Declaration indicated that Members
would work to bring the applicants wishing to a ccede to the organization expeditiously into the WTO
system.  In paragraph 7 of the 1998 Geneva Ministerial Declaration, the resolution to proceed with
accession processes as rapidly as possible was renewed.
373. Acceding countries faced a number of difficulties in their accession processes, and the cost of
joining the WTO was extremely high.  It had always been stated that acceding developing countries
should not be asked to accept more stringent conditions and higher levels of commitments beyondthose that had been required of current developing-country Members.  However, accession
negotiations had revealed that demands and pressures were being placed on acceding countries to
accept a very high level of obligations, which was comparable to, or event exceeded that of many
developed countries.  In some cases, demands for commitments had even gone beyond the scope of
the WTO agreements.  Acceding countries, for example, had been pressured t bind their trade-relatedcommitments under structural adjustment programmes while, at the same time, certain practices
prohibited under those programmes were legitimate under the WTO agreements.
374. Furthermore, although adherence to the Plurilateral Trade Agreements should be governed by
their provisions, as stipulated in the Marrakesh Agreement, acceding countries were being requested
to adhere to these agreements upon their accession.  In the case of one Plurilateral Trade Agreement,all but one country that had acceded to the WTO since its establishment had participated therein,
while in 1995 only three developing-country Members of the WTO were signatories to that
agreement.  Furthermore, despite the unbinding legal nature of many provisions regarding special and
differential treatment provided for in the WTO agreements, acceding countries were being asked to
forgo their rights to benefit from some of these provisions.  In this context it was very significant and
alarming that out of nine LDCs that had requested to join the WTO, none had acceded thus far.  This
was not in line with the Decision on Measures in Favour of Least-Developed Countries, which was an
integral part of the outcome of the Uruguay R ound and which stipulated that LDCs would only be
required to undertake commitments and concessions consistent with their developmental, financial
and trade needs or their administrative and institutional capabilities.
375. The problems and difficulties faced by acceding countries were well summarized in the UN
Secretary-General's Report to the Fifth-Fifth Session of the General Assembly tat "accession to theWT has become increasingly difficult for developing countries and economies in transition, especially
for least-developing countries".  Many countries believed that there was a need to establish clear and
objective rules and disciplines on accession negotiations, in order to ensure that acceding countries
were not overburdened by excessive demands.  Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement did not
provide such detailed rules and disciplines and placed the accession process in a negotiatingframework in which acceding countries had the lower hand rather than a rule-compliance context.  In
addition, one accession request stood on its own in terms of the difficulties it had encountered.  She
noted that the accession request submitted by Iran on 19 July 1996 and renewed in 1998, had not been
brought before the General Council for the past five years.  Despite repeated efforts by the applicant,
the General Council had been deprived of its right to consider the request and to act upon it.WT/GC/M/61
Page 83
376. The organization and the process of the accession negotiations followed an established pattern
based on procedures set out in the Secretariat's note contained in WT/ACC/1, dated 24 March 1995.
These procedures had been based on those followed by the GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES.  The
Secretariat's note set out different stages of the accession process.  It noted that the General Council
should consider applications to accede under Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement and theestablishment of the Working Party.  The note then addressed every stage of the accession process in
the same manner.  Further, the Secretariat's Technical Note on the Accession Process contained in
WTACC/7/Rev.2 dated 1 November 2000, indicated on page 16 that the Director-General should
verify the requests submitted in writing by governments wishing to accede to the WTO, and should
transmit them to the General Council for considera tion t its next meeting.  This well-established
procedure had not been respected in the case of the request submitted by Iran.  she also noted that a
request for observer status submitted by Libe ria on 13 June 2000, had been brought before the
General Council at its first subsequent meeting in July 2000, but it had not been possible to establish a
working party at that meeting since one ember had requested that further consultations be held.  It was
therefore not acceptable that the normal procedure had not been followed in order to transmit the
accession request submitted by Iran to the General Council and inscribe it on the agenda of its next
meeting.  It was difficult to justify to the public, which closely watched governments' advocacy of thebasic principles and objectives of the multilateral trading system, in particular the establishment of
rule-based, transparent and non-discriminatory trade relations as well as its universality, when
practices were in contradiction with these rules and discriminated against developing countries
wishing to become part of that system and to respect the obligations.  This did, in no way, present a
challenge to the consensus rule.  Consequently, Egyp t, on behalf of the IGDC, requested that an item
entitled:  "Iran's request for accession to the WTO" be included on the agenda of the next meeting of
the General Council.
377. The representative of the United States said that her country took issue with the description of
the accession process that had been presented by Egypt.  The WTO was an agreement among its
Members to give each others trade certain treatment under agreed rules and to make mutuallybeneficial commitments on market access in goods and services.  This was an enduring value and
strength of the WTO.  Experience with both the GATT and the WTO accessions had demonstrated
many times that the accession process was essential in preparing countries that applied for WTO
membership for their future participation regard less of their economic system or their level of
development.  Members, including the United States , had been very sympathetic to the institutional
capacity and the developmental needs of LDCs bo th in conducting accessions negotiations and in
participation in the WTO after accession.  The United States was a major source of technicalassistance on WTO issues both in the context of accessions and membership.  Delegations that were
active in accession negotiations had been working with the Secretariat over the past two years to
streamline and simplify accession procedures and to minimize the amount of time and other resources
spent by applicants on negotiations in Geneva.  This had been done in particular to assist LDCs in the
accession process.  One or two out of nine LDC applicants were actively negotiating at this time.  ThUnited States believed that all would benefit from these efforts and her country's limited experience
had reinforced this.  However, the pace of accessions hat to be set by applicants.  Artificial
acceleration of the pace of the accession process for these countries would not help but harm them.
Their ability to strengthen WTO principles and th eir trade regimes would enable them to use the
WTO as a framework to reap the benefits of international trade for their economies.  For its part, theUnited States had been working to provide technical assistance to many LDC's to increase their
capacity to fully participate in accession negotiations and meet their obligations as Members.
378. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation supported the
statement made by Egypt to the effect that the accession process was not an easy task and it was much
more complicated to accede to the WTO than it had been to accede to the GATT.  This was becausethe WTO was a complex organization covering almost all areas of international trade most of which
were new to acceding countries.  In the EC's view it was not surprising that such a complexity hadWT/GC/M/61
Page 84
delayed the accession of new countries.  On the other hand, he wished to draw attention to two
considerations.  First, the WTO seemed to be catching up and the record for 2000 was impressive with
six new Members, including Lithuania, which had ju st recently joined the WTO.  The score for the
next year looked promising.  Second, the work carried out by 11 countries that had acceded had been
impressive and had been reflected, inter alia , by the fact that none of them had been an object of a
request under the DSU provisions.  This left the Community with a strong impression that the current
system of accession negotiations had a positive impact on acceding countries an on the system as a
whole.  However, the score was not impressive vis-à-vis LDCs.  Although, the accession request had
been followed up only in a few cases or with considerable delay, which was understandable, there was
a clear need to make the accession process more manageable for these countries.  This was why the
Community had presented an initiative in the General Council in 1999 aimed at facilitating the
accession of LDCs and had acted accordingly with the acceding countries ever since.  TheCommunity had presented this initiative at that time with an open spirit and stood ready to discuss
ways to improve the situation, which could also be beneficial for acceding countries.  He noted that
the procedures outlined by the Secretariat and agreed by the General Council were useful and should
be duly followed during the entire accession process.  The General Council should ensure that
accession demands were followed up and were promptly processed according to these procedures.
379. The Chairman drew attention to Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure which provided that
"representatives should avoid unduly long debates unde r 'Other Business'.  Discussions on substantive
issues under 'Other Business' shall be avoided, and the General Council shall limit itself to taking note
of the announcement by sponsoring delegations as well as any reactions to such an announcement by
delegations directly concerned".  He said that if delegations felt that there was a need for a generaldiscussion on this matter, it would be necessary to revert to it at a later date.  He urged delegations to
avoid a general debate on the issue of accession at the present meeting.
380. The representative of India wished to associate his delegation with the statement made by
Egypt on behalf of the IGDC.
381. The representative of Cuba said that his delegation also supported the statement made by
Egypt.  Cuba believed that the examples put forwar d by Egypt showed that the lack of internal and
external transparency worked against the multilateral character of the WTO.  It was not appropriate
that one or two countries could systematically raise non-trade reasons with regard to the accession of
some countries, such as in the case of Iran's accession.
382. The representative of Estonia said that his country, which had recently acceded to the WTO
also considered that the accession process was not an easy task and, in the case of Estonia,
negotiations had continued for nearly six years.  His country did not consider that the currentrequirements were excessive as this had a positive effect on its trade and development though it was
not easy to pass all the necessary laws and regulations.  He underlined that from the point of view of
the recently acceded countries who had t strictly abide by rules and obligations, it would be unfair to
lower the current requirements.
383. The representative of Israel said that in light of the Chairman's request, he would shorten his
statement.  In general, Israel supported certain ideas contained in the first part of the statement made
by Egypt, namely, that there was a need to reflect on possible ways to facilitate the integration of
acceding countries into the WTO system as well as to refrain from raising excessive demands which
went beyond the commitments made by Members.  At the same time, his country believed that it was
right, legitimate and justified to demand that acceding countries complied in full with the coreprinciples and rules of WTO agreements.  With regard to the second part of the statement concerning
Iran, he noted that Israel, which was a member of  the IGDC, had not been properly consulted on this
matter.  His country, therefore, wished to be dissociated from that part of the statement.WT/GC/M/61
Page 85
384. Israel praised Egypt for advocating the basic principles of the WTO such as non-
discrimination and the need for a rule-based syst em.  His country hoped that the same dedication to
these principles would continue to be demonstrated with respect to other matters referred to during the
WTO deliberations.  For example, with regard to the removal of the primary, secondary and tertiary
economic boycotts of Israel imposed by the Arab League, which contradicted the principles of therule-based system.
385. The representative of Turkey said that Egypt had made a substantive statement which was
important to the work of the WTO.  With regard to Iran's accession, he said that economically and
commercially Iran was an important country and it was an important trading partner of his country.  In
view of the bilateral relations between the two countries, Turkey supported the early access of Iran to
the WTO.
386. The representative of Albania wished to commend on his country's recent experience with its
accession process.  Overall, his country was satisfied with that process although it considered that the
process was not perfect.  Albania, like other acceding countries, had been provided with guidance by
the Working Party on the compatibility of its trade re gime with the WTO rules.  Also the Secretariat
had been helpful in providing guidance during the accession process and Albania had obtained
technical assistance to facilitate translation of WTO rules into domestic legislation.  While at times,Albania had found the accession process to be frustrating, it had been granted flexibility in order to
address sensitive issues.  Albania was confident that its trade regime was in full conformity with the
WTO rules.  The accession process had enabled Albania to obtain a solid understanding of WTO
rights and obligations.
387. The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation wished to be associated with the
statement made by Egypt on behalf of the IGDC.
388. The representative of Malaysia said that his delegation wished to fully endorse all the
elements reflected in the statement made by Egypt.
389. The representative of Indonesia said that his delegation wished to be associated with those
developing countries who had supported the statement made by Egypt.  That statement deserved
special attention, in particular since the WTO continued to make increased efforts with a view to
establishing a rule-based, transparent, non-discriminatory and universal trading system.
390. The representative of Australia said that his country had participated actively in all the
accession processes and believed that this was a very serious exercise, which for Australia was
entirely non-political.  Australia rejected the notion of excessive demands during the accession
process and noted that joining this organization was a demanding exercise.  In this respect, it
welcomed the comments made by those countries who had recently acceded to the WTO and waspleased that they were satisfied with the process.  Australia's experience on the accessions in which it
had been involved was that accession proceeded at the pace of the acceding country, and it was up to
the acceding country to determine the process.  In particular, from the perspective of the LDCs,
Australia fully recognized that technical assistance was an integral part of the accession process, and
Australia was a major contributor bilaterally and plurilaterally to programmes aimed at providingtechnical assistance to acceding countries.
391. Later in the meeting, after discussion on this item had been considered closed, the
representative of Egypt added that she wished to thank those delegations who had expressed support
for the statement made on behalf of the IGDC.  In response to the comment made by Israel, she saidthat all Members of the IGDC had been fully consulted on the content of the statement, which hadbeen circulated by the Secretariat to all Members, including Israel.  With regard to references made by
Israel, Articles XIII and XX of GATT 1994 provided for some exceptions with regard to situationsWT/GC/M/61
Page 86
related to national security matters, which applied to the case at hand.  The Chairman said that there
should be no discussion on this issue at the pres ent meeting since what had taken place in the IGDC
was not a matter for consideration by the General Council.  Following Egypt' s last intervention and
the Chairman's statement, the representative of Israel  requested the floor to indicate that his delegation
respected the Chairman's ruling and noted the statement made by Egypt.
392. The General Council took note of the statements made under this item.
20. Statement by the Director-General on severa l matters related to recent developments of
relevance to the WTO
393. The Director-General, speaking under "Other Business", said that in July 2000 he had
reported on a number of ideas, initiatives and housekeeping matters, which he had thought would
improve work and make the organization more effec tive.  The information to be provided at the
present meeting, had been shared at an informal meeting held with delegations on the 24 November
and at other meetings.  He noted that this was the first opportunity to place on record his appreciation
and the appreciation of the Secretariat for the work which the Government of Gabon had done on the
Africa Conference and to state that the intention was to follow-up on those workshops where several
hundred young men and women had expressed a desire to learn more about the WTO.  I will reportback on how this could be done..
394. There had been a great deal of discussion on how parliaments, parliamentarians and
legislative exports might become more familiar with the work of the WTO.  He noted that some
delegations were aware that the International Parliamentarian Union was actively engaged in
discussions with various parliaments on the possibility of organizing a meeting for parliamentarians inGeneva some time next year.  His advice to them had been they should also discuss how other
international institutions related to their owne rs.  The idea of such a meeting would be for
parliamentarians to familiarize themselves with the workings of the WTO in workshops and that we
should assist these agencies when they look at this idea, to the extent possible.  He would be reporting
back on that further.
395. He believed that the Geneva week had been successful.  At the informal meeting a number of
suggestions had been made on how to improve the situation, what had been learned, how to do it
again and how to improve it.  Those suggestions were constructive and most of them would be taken
on board.  He recalled that earlier in the year a questionnaire had been sent inviting delegations to
make suggestions on how the WTO could improve the services it offered to Members.  In particular,
small Missions who find it difficult to cope.  The WTO had received 40 replies to this questionnaire
with some constructive suggestions and was in the process of acting on those suggestions.
396. The range of ideas on how we could improve our work included:  (i) the provision of informal
summaries of meetings, including in the Daily Bulletin, to make it a little easier to follow and in more
than one language;  (ii) the provision of other types of bulletins with briefing notes and information on
WTO activities;  (iii) examination on how to make information technology tools work better for
delegations;  (iv) ensuring follow-up to the refere nce centre programme i.e. equipment, maintenance
upgrades;  (v) provision of briefing sessions for the benefit of new delegates arriving in Geneva;  and
(vi) the old complaint was made again, and it is a real one, about the number of meetings and how
they overlapped.  One ought to try to improve the situation here, but the truth of the matter was that
this might get worse not better as we become more transparent, as more informal meetings were to be
held and as Members were being overloaded with the work they wished to do.  The WTO wasworking on nearly all of these ideas.WT/GC/M/61
Page 87
397. He mentioned that in July efforts had been made to look at different ways of facilitating fuller
participation of non-resident Members in the work of the WTO.  Since the beginning of the discussion
on this matter there had been a useful surge of interest in other organizations who had been trying to
meet the needs of non-residents more effectively.  The agency for International Trade, Information
and Cooperation was going to set up a non-resident unit with a provision to provide office space forvisiting delegations.  The Commonwealth Secretar iat was developing a fellowship scheme which
would permit selected Commonwealth country officials attending WTO commercial policy courses to
stay on in Geneva a short while longer after completion of the courses.  The ACP Secretariat and the
Pacific Forum Secretariat were also considering Gene va-based initiatives.  Recently, in Paris he had
met with Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali who was looking at ways that to further assist his members in
their work in Geneva.  The WTO could make a contribution in helping to ensure there would be
adequate coordination and coherence with regard to these efforts.  Discussions were ongoing.
398. In July, he had mentioned the idea of establishing a Board to oversee the WTO's training
activities.  The idea was to ensure there is a systematic monitoring of training efforts and to get better
advice and expertise.  The idea was also to bring on to that Board other agencies such as UNCTAD
that provided WTO-related training to ensure greater coherence and more consistent standards.  He
would very much appreciate Members' ideas on this proposal because if he had Members' support, hewould like to move forward with it.  He had spok en to the leadership of UNCTAD who liked the idea
of involving themselves a little more with the WTO and this of course would also work the other way.
399. He recalled that there had been discussions on the establishment of a Advisory Board for the
ITC that could bring fresh private sector advice and suggestions regarding ITC activities.  He
emphasized that a Board of this nature would not in any way undermine or challenge ownership of the
ITC by governments.  When he had raised this matter informally some delegations had requested
further information and this would be done.  With Members' advice he wished to hold discussions
with colleagues in UNCTAD who were also share-holders in the ITC and if there was agreement,
after those discussions, he would raise the idea again for Members' approval.
400. He noted that the Third United Nations Conference for Least-Developed Countries would
take place in Brussels in May 2001.  The WTO was fully committed to working with UNCTAD to
assist in every way possible to ensure the success of the Conference.  The Secretariats of UNCTAD
and of the WTO had been in contact and were cooperating closely.
401. He had briefed the General Council on the Integrated Framework for the least-developed
countries in July, following the meeting of the Heads of the core IF agencies.  Since then officials of
the agencies had met on several occasions, including in informal consultations with WTO and
Development Assistance Committee members and LDCs.  He believed some progress has been made
in these consultations.  He was confident that the result of these consultations would lead to a more
effective implementation of the IF, which would assist LDCs to integrate into the trading system.
Many WTO donor Members had been instrumental with advice and resources so that the Integrated
Framework could be reorganized and transformed to make it work.  Because, bluntly, it had not
worked.  It ought to be a model of cooperation between the agencies.  He hoped to be able to reportback on this so that at the UNCTAD meeting in May 2001 there would be solid examples of results
and not just another good plan that was not working.  Those where a few housekeeping points he
though he should raise with Members and he would return to them at a later date.
402. The General Council took note of the statement.WT/GC/M/61
Page 88
21. Announcement by the Chairman on the follow -up to the special meeting of the General
Council on amicus  briefs
403. The Chairman speaking under "Other Business", sa id that following the special meeting of the
General Council held on 22 November 2000 to discuss the issue of amicus  briefs, he had met on
24 November 2000 with the Chairman of the Appellate Body and some members of the AppellateBody.  He had informed the Chairman of the Appe llate Body of the conclusions drawn at the end of
the special meeting and, in particular, of two operat ive points in his summing up.  First, that there had
been agreement to start consultations and that he would be in touch with the Chairman of the DSB on
the question of what rules should be developed in this area and what procedures should be followed.
Second, in the meantime, the Appellate Body s hould exercise extreme caution with regard to amicus
briefs.  He said that the Chairman of the Appellate Body had expressed his gratitude that he had been
informed about the views of Members and had taken note of the information.
404. The General Council took note of the statement.
__________