RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/56
12 September 2000
(00-3521)
General Council
Special Session on Implementation
22 June and 3 July 2000Original:  English
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 22 June and 3 July 2000
Chairman:  Mr. Kåre Bryn (Norway)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Programme and calendar of work...........................................................................................2
2. Discussion of impl ementation issues......................................................................................11
(a) GATT 1994................................................................................................................... ............11
(i) Balance-of-Payments provisions of GATT 1994 ............................................................11
(ii) Paragraph 3 of GATT 1994 ...........................................................................................14
(iii) "Enabling Clause" .........................................................................................................15
(b) Agreement on Agriculture .................................................................................................... ....15
(c) Agreement on the Application of Sani tary and Phytosan itary Measures .................................19
(d) Agreement on Textil es and Clothing ........................................................................................22
(e) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade...............................................................................35
(f) Agreement on Trade-Relate d Investments Measures ...............................................................37
(g) Agreement on Anti-Dumping ................................................................................................... 38
(h) Agreement on Cust oms Valuation............................................................................................43
(i) Agreement on Ru les of Origin................................................................................................ ..47
(j) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ...........................................................49
(k) Agreement on Safeguards..................................................................................................... ....51
(l) General Agreement on Trade in Services .................................................................................52
(m) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Pr operty Rights.....................................54
(n) Dispute Settlement  Understanding ...........................................................................................5 9
(o) Special and Differ ential Treatment.......................................................................................... .60
3. Activities under way in the WTO that may be of relevance to addressing
implementation issues (Job (00)/4217) ..................................................................................60WT/GC/M/56
Page 2
1. Programme and calendar of work
1. The Chairman said that before moving to considering the programme and calendar of work,
he wished to make some observations regarding the process Members were launching, and the broad
parameters for their work.  It had taken a long time to set up this very important process, which he
believed was a major achievement.  He knew that all delegations were approaching it in a serious and
positive spirit.  It was the same spirit in which Members had approached the intensive consultations
that had been under way in recent weeks to prepare for this first Special Session and to reach some
understandings on the organization of work at these meetings, as well as an indicative schedule until
the end of this year.  The process of consultations had resulted in a draft text that was considered at an
informal meeting of the General Council  the previous day.  This was, in his view, a balanced textwhich would provide a basis that would enable all to begin the substantive work that lay ahead.
Agreeing on this text would not prejudice any Member s' substantive position;  it would help initiate
the process, not predetermine its outcome.  He also emphasized, in response to comments at the
previous day's informal meeting, that this was definitely an action and result-oriented process.  The
General Council decision of 3 May, which was quoted in the preamble to the draft schedule of work,committed Members to assess the existing difficulties , identify ways needed to resolve them, and take
decisions for appropriate action.  These objectives governed the whole programme of work, and he
suggested that delegations read the draft text in this light, as he did.  Members collectively aimed to
fulfil the mandate of 3 May faithfully, and he counted on the co-operation of all delegations in the
work necessary to do so.
2. Regarding the second tiret of the first bullet point on page 1 of the draft – which read "provide
an opportunity for identifying activities under way which may be of relevance in addressing
implementation concerns" – he said that this point simply aimed at ensuring that delegations could
have all the facts that might be relevant at their disposal as they considered specific implementation
issues;  it was in no way a substitute for that consideration.  As a contribution to improving Members'information base, he proposed to make a report at the resumed meeting on 3 July concerning activities
already under way in the WTO which might be of relevance to addressing implementation concerns.
Of course, delegations should also feel free to  inform the Council about any such activities they
themselves or other agencies were undertaking, and he hoped they would.
3. In addition to the organization of work and schedule of meetings outlined in the draft text
available to delegations in the room, he proposed that the basic order in which they took up the issues
should be that of the WTO compilation of the legal texts of the results of the Uruguay Roundnegotiations.  Within this basic framework Members would be able to take up specific issues and
concerns at the Special Sessions, giving first priority as agreed to those identified in paragraph 21 of
the draft Ministerial text of 19 October 1999.  For example, at the present Session, Members would
start with the issues raised in paragraph 21 of the 19 October text under the Balance-of-Payments
provisions of GATT 1994, followed by those on Agri culture, and so on.  The possible cross-cutting
issue of provisions for special and differential treatment would be raised at the end, if they were not
addressed under each Agreement.  Similarly, Members could retain this basic sequence when they
took up the other proposals on implementation, and address any remaining cross-cutting issues at the
end.  He proposed that the General Council agree to the organization and indicative schedule of
meetings in the draft text before it and to the sequencing of issues as he had outlined.
4. The General Council so agreed.
1
                                                     
1 The text of the agreed Organization of Work and Indicative Schedule of Meetings was circulated as
Job 3859, dated 22 June 2000.WT/GC/M/56
Page 3
5. The representative of Morocco, speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that many
African countries, and in particular the least-developed countries, were not in a position to examine
each agreement and to evaluate where they might have problems with implementation.  A systematic
effort would have to be undertaken to assist these countries, focused on finding out the problems they
were facing.  He recalled that in 1996 the Committee on Trade and Development had drawn up aquestionnaire aimed at evaluating whether agreements were being implemented and, if not, whether
the problems were those of capacity or some other.  He suggested that the Secretariat enter into a
systematic stocktaking exercise along similar lines with the African countries that needed it most, so
as to determine exactly which countries had problems, the nature of the problems and how to address
them.  This would have to be done early enough so that the discussion in the process that Members
were now embarking on would be meaningful.  Many African countries, for example, could not relate
to any of the urgent or non-urgent matters reflected in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the 19 October textbecause some of them were simply not in a position to make an evaluation of their implementation
problems.  As a result, even if all the proposals in those paragraphs were addressed, the problems and
concerns of African countries might not be covered.  One could not assume that, because a concern
was raised by a developing country or a country in Africa, all the other African countries or the LDCs
in Africa would have the same kind of problem.  He urged the Chairman and the Secretariat to moveon this task, and to get in touch with the chairmen of the Committee on Trade and Development and
other WTO bodies to produce an updated questionn aire on the basis of which an evaluation could be
undertaken and the emerging issues discussed in the informal consultations to be conducted by the
Chairman and the Director-General with the aim of finding solutions to the urgent problems.
6. The Chairman said that the issue raised by Morocco was very important for the whole
process.  The Secretariat would do its utmost to assist the African countries, and he asked the African
Group to get in touch with the Secretariat in order to identify their needs, so that those could be taken
on board as the process moved along.
7. The representative of the European Communitie s said that he had noted carefully Morocco's
statement on behalf of the African Group.  The Communities were willing to examine any issue on
the table in the area of implementation, and noted that considerable progress had been made during
the preparatory process for Seattle, and at Seattle itself, in considering these proposals, both in terms
of methodology and in identifying precise items where early progress was possible.  Since then,
Members had taken a decision at the General Council meeting of 3 and 8 May to establish an
implementation review mechanism, and had agreed at the present meeting on the organization of work
and indicative schedule of meetings in that process.  Progress was also being made in regard to the
TRIMs transition period issue following the framew ork agreed at the May Council meeting, and in
relation to the implementation problems in the cu stoms valuation area.  The Communities, together
with Canada, Japan and the United States, had put forward earlier in the year some specific ideas
relating to the implementation concerns in the TBT, SPS and other areas, and in the necessary
component of technical assistance and capacity building.  Clearly, technical assistance was not and
could not be the solution to all problems, and the Communities had stressed this in the past.  However,they were determined to press forward with this area of work, and noted that Members were now
beginning to hold first discussions in relation to improving the Integrated Framework, in which the
Communities would play a positive and active part.  There had been some comment in the work thus
far on implementation to suggest that perhaps undue emphasis had been given to procedural
questions.  Procedure, however, was vital to progress in this area, given the long and complex list ofvery different proposals.  In adopting the programme and calendar of work at this meeting, Members
had essentially put procedure behind them and the way was now open to move forward.  The
Communities believed that other WTO bodies would also have a role in the consideration of some of
the implementation proposals, and that this should not be seen in any way as a tactic to bury items or
to ensure that they were dealt with by technica l experts alone.  The Communities genuinely believed
that the General Council was not always the best forum for the adequate consideration of some of the
very complex and technical issues involved, and looked forward to playing a role at the level of bothWT/GC/M/56
Page 4
the General Council and subsidiary bodies for this reason.  For their part, the Communities were close
to completing a reexamination of each of the proposals on implementation in the light of the recent
General Council decisions and other initiatives, including that of the Quad, and also in the light of the
current state of play in relation to the WTO work programme.  Much would now depend on the
consultations to be conducted by the Chairman and the Director-General.  The Communities lookedforward to playing a full and positive part in those consultations, which he hoped would begin at an
early date.
8. The representative of Japan said his delegation was fully aware that the exercise Members
were now engaged in was aimed at confidence-building.   Japan would be engaging in this exercise in
the strong belief and hope that it would facilitate the launch of a broad-based new round of
negotiations.  As his delegation had stated repeatedly, a broad-based round was the only way to
achieve the optimal goal of further trade expansion reflecting the varied interests of the membershipas a whole.  It was important to set out clearly the parameters under which Members were to conduct
their work.  The Geneva Ministerial Declaration stated, in paragraph 8, that "full and faithful
implementation of the WTO Agreement and Ministerial Decisions is imperative for the credibility of
the multilateral trading system and indispensable for maintaining the momentum for expanding global
trade …".  It went on to state, in paragraph 9, that "… we decide that a process will be establishedunder the direction of the General Council to ensure full and faithful implementation of existing
agreements …".  This was the very basis of Members' work on implementation.  They should not lose
sight that their aim was to discuss how best they could ensure the full and faithful implementation of
existing agreements and take necessary actions toward s it.  Naturally, in so doing, Members needed to
address the problems encountered in implementation and the consequent impact on the trade anddevelopment prospects of Members.  On the basis of the above and the 3 May General Council
decision on implementation-related issues, he wished to elaborate on how the individual issues should
be dealt with, including those contained in the documents cited in the 3 May decision.  He hoped that
Members would be able to solve in a timely manner the issues and concerns raised in the course of
their work.  However, since the objective of the exercise was to ensure full and faithfulimplementation of existing agreements, this work should also focus on how those Members in need
could be assisted in complying with the required obligations, and on how to clarify and elaborate the
meaning of some clauses of existing agreements that were found to be ambiguous so as to make them
more operational.  The issues whose solution required revision of the rights and obligations in the
existing agreements were beyond the scope of the implementation exercise and needed to be taken up
as part of a future round of negotiations.  Japan had no intention of prejudging the outcome of the
present exercise.  However, an agreement to take up a particular issue in the context of the futureround of negotiations should also be considered as one of the decisions or actions envisaged in the
work programme.
9. As regards modalities, he drew attention to the second tiret of the first bullet point of the text
just agreed on the organization of work and indicative schedule of meetings.  Examination of
implementation issues was a complex task.  The General Council needed to benefit from the inputs ofall WTO bodies conducting relevant work on these issues in order to have a full and balanced picture.
It needed timely inputs from theses bodies as well as from the Secretariat.  He was not asking for
value judgements but rather factual inputs.  He welcomed the Chairman's intention to report on 3  July
on activities under way in the WTO that might be of relevance to addressing implementation issues,
and hoped that that report would include mention of seminars and other educational activities as wellas technical assistance programmes carried out not only by the WTO but by other organizations as
well.  Japan intended to listen very carefully to the implementation-related issues and concerns of
Members at the present meeting, and hoped to have a better understanding of the concerns of
developing-country Members in doing so.  Implemen tation concerns were not limited to developing-
country Members, however, and Japan had its own concerns – although much smaller in number –which it hoped would be addressed in an appropriate manner in this exercise.  He stressed that
although Members would be looking into texts that were tabled before Seattle, they were nowWT/GC/M/56
Page 5
working in a context different from that of the pre-Seattle period.  This fact had an important bearing
on this work, and realism and pragmatism on the part of all was the key to a successful outcome.
10. The representative of Brazil said that he had noted with satisfaction the comments by the
European Communities, particularly on the general thrust of their engagement in this important
exercise, and also the points by Japan, particularly on the confidence-building nature of this work.That was how Brazil understood this exercise, and believed that it was a necessary and important step
on the road to further negotiations.  In this context, Brazil continued to believe that the issue of
transition periods should be examined in its entirety, that this was the opportunity to do so, and that
the notion of due restraint should still remain as the basis of this work.  Confidence-building,
especially in the implementation area and in the light of paragraph 8 of the Geneva Ministerial
Declaration just referred to by Japan, would prov ide the means to developing countries to comply
fully with the commitments set out in individual agreements.  That was the whole purpose of thisexercise, and he hoped that delegations would engage in a positive and constructive spirit on the many
proposals that they would soon be addressing.
11. The representative of Poland, speaking also on behalf of the Czech Republic, Hungary and
the Slovak Republic, said that they approached the coming process of consultations and discussions in
good faith and with realism.  While progress on implementation might, on the one hand, accelerate the
way to the early launch of a new round of negotiations – a goal they fully supported – , the most
difficult implementation problems could, on the other hand, only be resolved through negotiations that
were best placed in the framework of a new roun d. As their delegations had stated previously, they
favoured a broad-based and balanced agenda for the new round, which should include
implementation-related issues.  Discussions and consultations on implementation issues should beconducted in a transparent way and enable Members to examine sufficiently the nature and origins of
the possible problems.  It was essential to be able to assess the real dimension of the concrete
implementation problems in the multilateral trading system, keeping in mind the diversity of factors
which might be at their origin in particular countries.  He hoped that in dealing with implementation
issues, Members would be guided by the spirit of the further strengthening of the multilateral tradingsystem and a determination to achieve as quickly as possible the objective of new negotiations and to
conduct effectively, in the meantime, the process of new accessions.
12. The representative of the United States said that implementation was a matter of concern to
all Members, and that it was important to have set aside the time to discuss implementation-related
issues and how to move forward.  It had taken a wh ile to get to this point, but Members now had a
good format and a good schedule.  She welcomed the statement by Morocco on behalf of the African
Group, which reflected what the United States had been saying for a long while.  Members needed tolook at all that was being done in all the different WTO bodies to help them get where they wanted to
on implementation.  The General Council could reinforce and complement that work, and in this
context Members would benefit from the update on the activities under way in the WTO of relevance
to addressing these issues that the Chairman would provide.  There had been several seminars on
services, for example, and a TBT seminar was being planned for the following month, and in her viewmuch greater publicity about these events was necessary.  In addition, the United States along with
other countries had taken numerous initiatives in the area of technical assistance to facilitate
implementation, and although technical assistance  was not the only answer to implementation
problems, it was certainly a part of it.  At the May General Council meeting, her delegation had
indicated that the United States was providing additional funds in the area of customs valuation, andother Members might also wish to advise the Secretariat of implementation-related assistance that was
being provided so that one could get a better idea of the overall input.  In certain areas, the WTO had
entered into cooperation agreements with other institutions, such as WIPO and ITU, and an update on
how this assistance was being utilized would also be helpful since these arrangements were
specifically targeted to assist with implementati on problems.  With such information as background,
Members would be able to move forward in a practical and constructive way, and be able toWT/GC/M/56
Page 6
determine what practical steps could be taken to address legitimate implementation concerns.  Finally,
as all delegations were aware, the context of the present discussion on implementation had changed
somewhat with the lack of agreement on an overall agenda at Seattle. That being said, the United
States recognized that this exercise did not prejudge Members' positions on the issue of negotiations.
For its part, the United States was prepared to listen to the concerns of its partners, and to participate,not only in the present discussion but also in the discussions and consultations in the following
months, and looked forward to finding constructive, positive and real ways to address all of the
implementation concerns.  Of course, as the Chairman had stated, all Members were engaged in this
exercise without prejudice to their rights and obligations under the WTO Agreements.
13. The representative of the Dominican Republic, speaking also on behalf of Bolivia, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, said that the delegations of these countries
had contributed to the identification and discussion of problems in implementation since September
1998.  They had faith in the present exercise, since it constituted the only hope of building confidence
in the multilateral trading system, which had yet to fulfill its objectives.  This had led to three main
problems in this area:  (i) a lack of further liberalization in sectors of interest to developing countries;
(ii) significant imbalances between rights and obligations, as well as in market access conditions; and
(iii) a lack of benefits from existing agreements, which all contained special and differentialprovisions for developing countries.   This implementation review mechanism under the General
Council initiated a new phase in the process which had been under way since the second Ministerial
Conference.  If this mechanism was to increase the confidence of developing countries in the
multilateral trading system, it would be important that all Members worked with a common
understanding on the meanings of the "ways needed" to resolve the problems in implementation and
"completing" the process, as mentioned in the decision of 3 May.  It was only in this was that
Members would know what result they were looking for in this process.  For the countries on behalf
of which he was speaking, the "ways needed" to resolve implementation problems meant decisions of,
or interpretations by the General Council, as well as measures adopted at national level, if appropriate,
to resolve each problem.  They believed that the process would be "completed" when each one of theproblems identified in implementation had been resolved through these "ways".  According to this
decision, the process should be "completed" not later than the Fourth Session of the Ministerial
Conference.  Only a positive result from this pro cess would regenerate confidence in the multilateral
trading system.  This confidence was essential, since the citizens of these countries also had a say in
the decisions which their governments would take in the future, when one took into account the new
aspects of the WTO's work programme.  It was from this point of view that these countries had joined
the consensus on the text on the organization of work and indicative schedule of meetings.
14. The representative of Canada said that his delegation welcomed the opportunity to move
forward in this important area of work.  Addressing implementation concerns raised by Members
would contribute significantly to efforts to building confidence in the WTO.  Prior to and at the
Seattle Ministerial Conference, addressing the issues in the area of implementation had been difficult
and divisive, and had contributed to the lack of success at that conference.  This new process was agolden opportunity to try to redress the whole issue.  Like others, his delegation believed that progress
on implementation would reinforce the chances for the successful launch of a new round of trade
liberalization initiatives.  Canada was open to considering different proposals that Members would
wish to put forward, and would engage fully in the discussions in the General Council, in the technical
work in the subsidiary bodies and in the consultations  to be held, and would show as much flexibility
as possible.  There was, however, a note of caution which he wished to sound.  The list of items that
Members had put forward in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the 19 October text was extensive and
ambitious, and the discussions on implementation would need to be balanced and realistic.  In some
instances, where proposals might require a complete reopening of existing agreements, it might be
necessary to address the issue in the context of wider negotiations where Members would have a fullrange of new opportunities and flexibility.  This was not to say that progress could not be made in the
Special Sessions.  Canada firmly believed that progress could be made in the present and subsequentWT/GC/M/56
Page 7
meetings.  If Members were selective, pragmatic, and prioritized the many issues before them, there
was no reason they could not succeed in addressing the concerns put forward and improving the
positions of all in this organization.  Members were engaging in this exercise as part of a fuller
agenda, which entailed that progress was also needed in the mandated negotiations in agriculture and
services to move the organization forward.
15. The representative of Pakistan appreciated the Chairman's statement that the present process
would be action-oriented and should lead to decisi ons.  His delegation believed that this was not an
academic exercise, nor a safety valve to blow off steam.  His delegation was looking for appropriate
decisions, as envisioned in the decision of 3 May.  Like other developing countries, Pakistan's
response to other initiatives would, to a great extent, be conditioned by the progress made on
implementation issues.
16. The representative of Colombia said that the creation of the WTO engendered many
expectations in developing countries – the strengthening of binding rules, non-discriminatory
treatment and disciplines in new areas – which should have resulted in a balance in the rights and
obligations, the benefits of which were to be distributed equally among all Members.  However,
provisions for special and differential treatment, which had been announced as the triumph of
developing countries in the Uruguay Round negoti ations, ended up being simply a list of good
intentions with limited application.  The non-binding nature of these provisions had reduced the
possibilities of appropriate application.  For this reason, the present process was of fundamental
importance for developing countries, since it was not only a serious commitment to seek solutions to
implementation problems, but also a response to the legitimate concern of developing countries on the
need for immediate measures in this area.  Making progress in this exercise would increaseconfidence in the multilateral trading system, and it was thus important that all Members commit
themselves to working in a positive and constructive manner, and in a spirit of compromise.  It was
unfortunate that, when developing countries had started to open their economies and set up
development strategies in the 1980's, developed countries had increased their use of trade remedies
against their exports.  Barriers in the area of sanitary measures and exaggerated use of agriculturalsubsidies made market access for developing countries difficult.  Certain provisions in the Subsidy,
Safeguards and Anti-Dumping Agreements were drafted in such a manner that some developing-
country exports were subjected to the rigor of these agreements, despite their small market share.  For
this reason, his delegation had submitted proposals on these agreements in the preparatory process for
the third Ministerial Conference, with the aim of improving their implementation.
17. The representative of Ecuador said that the number of proposals which had been submitted on
implementation was evidence of the problems which developing countries faced in this area.  These
problems stemmed from not only the structural deficiencies in these countries, but also the lack of
implementation of the agreements by developed countries.  This lack had led to insufficient
liberalization in the sectors of interest to developing countries, affecting their access to developed
markets for the few products which they could export.  Finally, he wished to reiterate the growing
concern of developing countries at the non-implementation of the provisions for special anddifferential treatment.
18. The representative of India appreciated the Chairman's clarification that the exercise would be
result and action-oriented, since the decision of 3 May had stated that the aim of the exercise would be
to take decisions as appropriate.  His delegation believed that this decision and the Chairman's
statement on that occasion were important for this exercise, since it was governed by what had beenlaid out there.  With regard to any future negoti ations, he respected the views of some who sought to
launch a round of multilateral negotiations rapidly, but he was sure that those Members would also be
sensitive to the views of delegations such as his.  In the context of this exercise, as the Chairman had
stated on 3 May, Members were embarking on this exercise without prejudice to the position of any
one of them on any future round.  It had been agreed that this process would be led by the GeneralWT/GC/M/56
Page 8
Council, and the role of the subordinate bodies was laid out in the work programme, and his
delegation believed that the process should remain under the purview of the General Council, taking
inputs from the subordinate bodies where necessary.  The issues to be addressed had been under
discussion for some time, and it had been stated that perhaps the context in which they should be seen
had now changed.  His delegation believed that the only change in context was that considerable timehad been lost.  His delegation hoped that all Members would participate in the process in good faith,
and that issues would be resolved as the exercised progressed, not at the very end.
19. The representative of Korea said that, like others, his country attached great importance to
addressing the difficulties in implementation faced by developing countries.  His delegation hoped
that the present process would produce viable solutions to the issues raised, but also that Members
would be able to avoid repeating the discussions on these issues held prior to the Seattle Ministerial
Conference.  These discussions had led to a deeper understanding of the issues, which could serve as abasis for the present process, but going back to the starting-point of the previous year would be
neither efficient nor productive.  His delegation believed that there was an even greater need for
flexibility and pragmatism than before Seattle.  The lesson which had been learned in recent months
was that addressing the concerns of developing countries should be one of the priorities of the WTO.
However, the absence of a broader framework in which Members could consider implementationissues might limit the range of solutions acceptable to all.  For this reason, only a flexible, realistic
and pragmatic approach could bring the process to a successful conclusion.  A number of
implementation issues involved amendment of the relevant agreements, and while his delegation did
not wish to rule out the possibility of finding agreement on such amendments in the present process, a
realistic assessment would tend to be rather cautious of such a possibility.  For this reason, hisdelegation believed that addressing issues involving amendment of existing agreements in a broader
context of a new round of multilateral trade negotiations would offer a greater chance of success.
20. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that implementation was one of the priority
issues facing the WTO at the present time.  It was a vital part of the confidence-building process, and
while his delegation agreed that progress in this area was not linked to progress in other areas, it wasclear that progress on implementation would affect the atmosphere in which work in other areas could
be advanced.  It was important to address the issues involved in a realistic manner to allow a strong
work programme in the future.  Implementation was an issue which concerned all Members, not just
developing countries, since it affected the future health of the organization, and all Members should
thus play a constructive part in the work.  In this process, his delegation was looking for an orderly
and focussed discussion, an adequate allocation of time so that the issues could be properly dealt with,
and flexibility on all sides and results.  In this respect, his delegation was pleased that the workprogramme was action-oriented, as also stated by the Chairman.  Finally, Hong Kong, China had its
own areas of interest in implementation, which were not necessarily limited to the issues raised in
paragraphs 21 and 22 of the 19 October text.
21. The representative of Cuba said that his delegation agreed with others that the present process
was aimed at re-establishing the confidence which should have always existed between Members,
with a view to facilitating future work.  Conc rete discussions on implementation issues had been
foreseen since before the Seattle Ministerial Conference, and the fact that such discussions were now
to take place justified the insistence by some Members that these issues needed to be addressed.
Least-developed and the less-advanced developing countries were those which had endured the most
problems stemming from the implementation of th e Uruguay Round Agreements.  The problems were
not caused only by deficiencies in the area of technical assistance, but also by the criteria and time-
frames contained in the provisions of the agreements, which were impossible for these countries to
respect.  To assist future work in the organization, including a possible round of negotiations, it was
important to address these fundamental problems.  This implied reforming the existing agreements,
not only to re-establish balance, but also to make special and differential treatment effective.  TheWT/GC/M/56
Page 9
objectives of the WTO could only be achieved if all Members accepted that not all countries were
equal and developing countries needed special and differential treatment.
22. The representative of Egypt said that the decision of 3 May and the Chairman's statement on
that occasion provided three key elements to guide the process being launched in the present meeting.
In addressing the implementation issues, the Genera l Council would assess the existing difficulties,
identify ways needed to resolve them, and take decisions for appropriate action.  Her delegation had
joined the consensus on the programme of work on the basis of these elements, and it believed that the
process should be conducted in and by the General Council and cover all the outstanding
implementation issues contained in paragraphs 21 and 22.  Her delegation looked forward to a
constructive and meaningful exercise with a successful outcome.  The Chairman had characterized the
process as action-oriented, and this was also reflected in the decision of 3 May.  Her delegation
believed that a successful outcome was not beyond reach if all Members adopted a constructiveattitude and displayed the necessary political will.  Her delegation further believed that addressing the
difficulties faced by developing countries in implementation and adopting effective measures for
capacity building in these countries would create  an environment conducive to agreement on the
future WTO work programme.
23. The representative of Djibouti said that, like Morocco, his delegation believed that it would
be necessary to look at the specific problems faced by African developing countries in adopting
multilateral rules and disciplines.  The least-developed countries in particular would need help in
understanding how the WTO functioned and how techni cal cooperation activities could assist them.
24. The representative of Costa Rica said that his delegation hoped that the present process would
have a successful outcome and lead to a new round of negotiations on further trade liberalization in
the near future.
25. The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation supported a pragmatic and flexible
approach to the present process, as long as it was systematic and as coherent as possible.  At this
stage, his delegation would be mostly listening, since the aim of the exercise was to allow developing-
country Members to identify their implementation concerns.  However, all Members shouldparticipate actively in the stocktaking and consultation phases.  He wished to highlight three aspects
which might guide the work.  First, it might be necessary to gauge, from time to time, the relative
weight and significance of individual implementation issues, so the General Council might need to
obtain information from the Secretariat on the real extent of actual situations where difficulties had
arisen, so that the relative importance of issues could be fully understood.  Second, implementation
was a high priority, but Members would need to be aware that there might be several different and
constructive pathways to solutions.  It would be necessary to adopt both short and medium-termperspectives for results.  Third, the concepts of a balance of interests and a broad-based perspective
should be kept in mind, and these were key and ongoing themes underlined in the Geneva Ministerial
Declaration.  It was that Declaration which had given impetus to the implementation question, and it
had done so in the context of the trade liberalization objectives of the WTO, aimed at lifting living
standards.
26. The representative of Switzerland said that his country approached the present process in a
positive and constructive manner, since it believed that implementation problems concerned all
Members.  In this respect, Members had committe d themselves to full implementation of the WTO
Agreements at the Marrakesh, Singapore and Geneva Ministerial meetings and this was the overall
objective.  The present exercise was aimed at resolving the problems which had been met in attainingthis objective.  The work in this exercise should be efficiently organized, and the subordinate bodies
would have a role to play in both dealing with so me issues and providing relevant information to the
General Council.  The work should also allow the technical assistance needs of developing countries
to be identified, which would allow this assistance to be better targeted.  His delegation agreed thatWT/GC/M/56
Page 10
technical assistance alone was not enough to resolve all the problems.  The resolution of some of the
issues raised in paragraphs 21 and 22 could have important repercussions on the balance of rights and
obligations of Members.  Tangible solutions to this type of problem would be more easily found in the
context of a round of negotiations than in the im plementation review mechanism.  Switzerland had
long supported the launch of a comprehensive round of negotiations, and it hoped that this mechanismwould lead to the preparations for such a launch.  The scope of such negotiations would have to be
balanced, and allow for implementation problems to be fully addressed and resolved.
27. The representative of Norway said that her delegation welcomed the opportunity to start the
process of addressing implementation issues and consolidating the results of the Uruguay Round.
This was important to ensure that the WTO was truly multilateral.  Her delegation agreed with
Morocco that some developing countries would need assistance in identifying and addressing their
problems.  It would be important to ensure that all implementation concerns were fully addressed,including issues beyond those already raised, so that the multilateral trading system remained relevant
to a changing global economy.  This would have to be undertaken in the framework of a broad-based
new round of negotiations.
28. The representative of Malaysia said that his delegation had accepted the text of the paper on
organization of work and indicative schedule of meetings only after the Chairman had clarified in the
informal meeting that the taking of decisions was not precluded at the October meeting.  The
Chairman had further stated at the outset of the present meeting that this was an action and result-
oriented process.  He wished to recall that the process was guided by the decision of 3 May and the
accompanying statement by the Chairman.  His delegation had been heartened by the statements by
some Members, particularly Norway, to the effect th at if the WTO was to be truly multilateral, it had
to be sensitive to the concerns of all Members, particularly developing countries and the poorest
among them.  Addressing implementation issues went in the right direction.  But Members should not
begin this exercise with the preconceived idea that addressing the imbalances in the existing
agreements had to be pursued in the context of any future new work in the WTO.  He wished to recall
that the implementation issues raised by developing countries were not only aimed at full and faithfulimplementation but also at addressing the imbalances in some of the agreements, which had limited
the development and policy options of these countries.
29. The representative of the Philippines said that the implementation of the WTO Agreements
was politically sensitive in his country, as in many other developing countries, and there was a feeling
that many economic difficulties stemmed from it.  Confidence in the ability of WTO to bring about
the promised benefits from trade liberalization had not materialized.  The true context in which the
implementation review mechanism would have to work was one where political, economic,employment and income aspects were fundamental.  There was a wide expectation in these countries
that the agreements should be redressed in some way.  The decision of 3 May was aimed at
confidence building, and if at the end of the process there was no visible result, he wondered where
WTO would stand.
30. The representative of Indonesia said that, while it could agree to the Chairman's suggestion on
the sequence in which the issues would be taken up, her delegation believed that, in order to be able to
take appropriate action on each issue, it would be important to distinguish the nature of the problem in
each case, be it technical, procedural or legal.  This would facilitate a focused discussion, and the
General Council might request the Secretariat to assist in categorizing the issues.  Her delegation
believed that implementation issues should be discussed solely in the General Council, but it did notrule out the possibility of the General Council giving relevant subsidiary bodies specific instructions
to discuss an issue within a specified time-frame.  Her delegation supported the suggestion that the
Chairman and the Director-General be invited to assist the process through further consultations on
specific issues as appropriate.   Her delega tion hoped that the issue of implementation would beWT/GC/M/56
Page 11
resolved in advance of the fourth Ministerial Conference, and before the consideration of any other
issues, including the launch of a new round.
31. The representative of Argentina said that his delegation supported the present exercise as a
further step in improving the atmosphere in the WT O, believing that it would contribute to confidence
building.  It should not be linked to progress in other areas, but it should be efficient, focussed andaimed at rapidly identifying concrete results acceptable to all.  Like Hong Kong China, his delegation
believed that implementation was an issue which concerned all Members, and it hoped that the
consultations which would be held would be wide enough to allow all Members to evaluate the
actions under discussion.
32. The representative of Singapore said that her delegation agreed that the issue of
implementation was important for all Members, developed and developing.  The list of proposals was
extensive, and her delegation believed that a realistic, pragmatic and flexible approach was necessary.While the General Council would oversee the exercise, her delegation saw a useful role for the
subsidiary bodies, particularly on the more technical issues.  Progress in this area should not be linked
to progress in other areas, and vice versa.  It would be important to keep in mind the Geneva
Ministerial Declaration, which was the basis for this work, and that addressing implementation issues
should be seen in the context of furthering the trade liberalization objectives of the WTO.
33. The representative of Thailand said that it was widely recognized that the Uruguay Round
was a major achievement for the multilateral trading system, yet the content of the agreements was
complicated and overwhelming for many Members, in particular developing countries.  This exercise
was the opportunity for the difficulties which had come to light in the implementation of the
agreements to be addressed, guided by the decision of 3 May.  The efforts many Members had put into meeting their obligations should be recognized in  the process.  If solutions were not found to the
problems being encountered by some Members, it would not bode well for the future of the
organization.  Political will should be nurtured in the process, to allow the organization to continue its
trade liberalization agenda.
34. The representative of Mauritius appreciated the clarification on the nature of the process by
the Chairman.  Many Members had expressed their willingness to examine the issues under
implementation, and also their flexibility on these issues.  The statements made in the present meeting
showed the importance of these issues to all Members, not only developing countries.  His delegation
hoped that this confidence-building exercise would continue in the same spirit, and that positive
results would be achieved.
2. Discussion of implementation issues
35. The Chairman recalled that in addition to the framework for consideration of implementation
issues and concerns that Members had just agreed, they had also agreed to focus at this meeting in
particular on the implementation issues reflected in paragraph 21 of the draft Ministerial text of
19 October 1999.  Looking at the sequence of agreements in the WTO compilation of the legal texts
of the results of the Uruguay Round negotiations in the light of the proposals in paragraph 21, he did
not see any dealing with the Agreement Establishing the WTO.  He proposed therefore that Membersmove first to consideration of proposals on GATT 1994, followed by those on Agriculture, and so on.
(a) GATT 1994
(i) Balance-of-Payments provisions of GATT 1994
36. The representative of India said that paragraph 21(j) of the 19 October text listed two
proposals on the balance-of-payments provisions of GATT 1994:  (i) only the Committee on Balance-WT/GC/M/56
Page 12
of-Payments should have the authority to examine the overall justification of BOP measures;  and
(ii) the Committee should keep in view that Article XVIII was a special provision for developing
countries and should ensure that Article XVIII did not become more onerous than Article XII.  His
delegation had submitted a paper in the preparatory process for the third Ministerial Conference on
Article XVIII:B which had formed the basis for thes e proposals (WT/GC/W/364).  With regard to the
first proposal, there were some complex issues involved which could be a problem for developing and
developed countries alike.  This involved the manner in which the legislative bodies of the WTO
could utilise their role of rule-making or interpretati on in the light of the role of the dispute settlement
system.  On a number of occasions, situations had arisen where functions which should be exercised
by the membership as a whole in the General Council or a subsidiary body were being carried out by
panels and the Appellate Body.  His delegation believed that this had created certain difficulties and
would create more in the future.  Such difficulties were clear in the discrepancy in the manner inwhich the provisions of Article XXIV and the ba lance-of-payment provisions of the GATT were
being interpreted in the dispute settlement system.  Paragraph 12 of the Understanding on the
Interpretation of Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and the footnote in the Understanding on the Balance-
of-Payments Provisions of GATT 1994 contained id entical language, but these two provisions had
given rise to two differing rulings in dispute settlement cases.  In the case of Article XXIV, a panelhad taken the view that the compatibility of a Member's agreement with a customs union would not be
taken up since this compatibility had to be examined in the light of the overall economic and political
considerations, and only the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements was competent to do so.  In
the case of the balance-of-payments provisions, both the panel and the Appellate Body had ruled that
they were competent to examine the overall justific ation of the balance-of-payment measures taken by
a country.  These rulings showed that different approaches were being used to the question of political
decision-making and whether this role belonged to the legislative bodies or to the panels and
Appellate Body.  His delegation would shortly circulate a paper containing the details of its arguments
on this issue.  Turning to the second proposal, he said that Article XVIII:B was a special provision for
developing countries in the early stages of development and was aimed at allowing flexibility in theirtrade policies so that the wider interest of development was maintained.  Article XII had been used in
the past by developed countries for maintaining quantitative restrictions for balance-of-payments
purposes.  As a consequence of interpretations by panels and Appellate Body, it was easier for
developing countries to invoke the provisions of Article XII to maintain quantitative restrictions for
balance-of-payments reasons than Article XVIII:B, which was supposed to be a provision for
developing countries.  The proposal was aimed at es tablishing a general understanding to remedy this,
to guide panels and the Appellate Body in the future.
37. The representative of Hong Kong, China disagreed with India on the question of
interpretations by panels and the Appellate Body.  His country had been a third party to the panel
involving India and Turkey on certain textile products in the context of the Customs Union
Agreement between Turkey and the European Communities.  His delegation's understanding of the
Panel and Appellate Body reports differed from that of India.  His delegation found no mention thatthe forum competent to take up the examination of the articles relating to either balance-of-payments
or regional trade agreements should be confined to the respective committees.  The Understanding on
the Interpretation of Article XXIV of GATT 1994 was extremely clear that the Dispute Settlement
Understanding could be invoked with respect to any matters arising from the application of the
provisions of Article XXIV.  In the case of balance-of-payments provisions, there was no any explicitexclusion of Article XVIII from Appendix 1 of the DSU, in which case any panel had full jurisdiction
to examine any measures relating to Article XVIII.  For this reason, his delegation believed that the
interpretation by India was not entirely correct.  His delegation also believed that the proposal itself
would have some institutional problems, since it suggested that only the Committee on Balance-of-
Payments should have the authority to examine the overall justification of BOP measures.  However,under Article IV.7 of the WTO Agreement this Committee had been established by the Ministerial
Conference, and it was thus subject to direction by the General Council.  It would not be correct,
therefore, that the Ministerial Conference and the General Council should cease to have authority overWT/GC/M/56
Page 13
such a matter.  For this reason, the first proposal was not appropriate and his delegation would not be
able to accept it.
38. The representative of Malaysia fully supported the statement by India.  Hong Kong, China
appeared to believe that the Dispute Settlement Body had the right to create jurisprudence on all
existing agreements.  His delegation believed that there were limits to the jurisdiction of that body,and in the case of balance-of-payments provisions, it could not rule on the justification of such
measures.  This was a political question to be addressed by the membership as a whole.  Questions of
application of those measures were, however, within the jurisdiction of the DSB.
39. The representative of Saint Lucia said that the statement by India raised an important
systemic issue.  Article IX.2 of the WTO Agreement provided that the General Council had the
exclusive authority to interpret the WTO Agreements and this provision had not been used.  Clearly,
panels and the Appellate Body could misinterpret facts and misapply the law, and this could beoverturned by a consensus of the membership under  this provision.  But the membership had yet to
exercise this power.   It was important to have a proper division of power in all cases where both
political and legal decisions were possible.  This held true in the areas of Article XVIII and
Article XXIV, but also for the definition of a small supplier which was an important issue for her
delegation.  It would be important to address the issue of Article IX.2 in the consultations to be held.
40. The representative of Hungary appreciated the arguments contained in the statement by India
and his delegation shared many of the concerns raised.  His delegation agreed on the distinction
between application and justification.  There was a danger that not only would Panels and the
Appellate Body take over the role of the Members, but also that they might be expected to clarify the
many provisions which were vague.  This might require negotiation which should only be done by theMembers.
41. The representative of the Philippines supported the statement by Saint Lucia.
42. The representative of India said he wished to respond to the doubts raised by Hong Kong,
China on the panel report to which he had referred.  This report stated that it was not the panel's task
to substitute itself for the CRTA and that the panel could not rule on the legality of the measuresforming the object of the complaint in the absence of agreed conclusions on the consistency of the
Turkey/EC agreements with Article XXIV.  In his earlier statement, he had not been suggesting that
balance-of-payments provisions and Article XXIV were different from other provisions, since
Article 11 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding set out the assessments to be made by panels in all
cases.  If the interpretation given by Hong Kong, China was correct, there would be no need for the
footnote in the BOP Understanding.  He had attempted to point out the distinction between
interpretations of the language in the two provisions  only as an example.  It had also not been his
intention to rule out the role of the General Council or the Ministerial Conference.  The General
Council could clearly assume the powers of the subordinate body, and he agreed with Hong Kong,
China on this point.
43. The representative of the United States said that, exercising its right as a Member of the WTO
legislature which had consensus as the paramount element of its decision-making process, the United
States had serious reservations about the proposal on the BOP Committee.  However, her delegation
would listen to all the other issues raised in the exercise and respond accordingly later in the process.
44. The representative of Japan said that his delegation would further consider the points raised
by India, but, at the present time, it held a differing view of this issue.
45. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation's understanding of the
jurisprudence established by the panel and Appellate Body reports mentioned by India was based onWT/GC/M/56
Page 14
paragraphs 9.52 to 9.55 of the Panel report in document WT/DS34/R, paragraph 60 of the Appellate
Body report in document WT/DS34/AB /R, and also a relevant Appellate Body report on balance-of-
payments restrictions in document WT/DS90/AB/R .  These reports showed that the Appellate Body
had ruled clearly on this matter, and the latter report stated that "if panels refrained from reviewing the
justification of balance-of-payments restrictions, they would diminish the explicit procedural rights ofMembers under Article XXIII and footnote 1 to the BOP Understanding, as well as their substantive
rights under Article XVIII:11".  He was not su ggesting whether the Appellate Body was right or
wrong in its ruling, but just wished to recall wh at the Appellate Body had stated in this regard.
(ii) Paragraph 3 of GATT 1994
46. The representative of the European Communities sa id that he wished to raise one other issue
under GATT 1994, but not with a view to making any particular recommendation or request.  The
Communities, along with a number of other delegations, had submitted a proposal before the SeattleMinisterial Conference relating to paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of GATT 1994.  His delegation assumed
that the opportunity to discuss this proposal would arise in the forthcoming consultations on
implementation issues.  This issue was also under discussion in the General Council in a different
context.
47. The representative of the United States said that her delegation had noted the statement by the
European Communities with respect to paragraph 3(a) and it would be prepared to discuss any issue
raised in the present exercise, as well as other implementation issues that her delegation itself had
raised in other contexts, including the Dispute Settlement Body.  However, her country had respected
the provision for a five-year review of the exemption provided under paragraph 3 and had answered
all the questions submitted.  Her delegation was as disappointed as others that no solution to this issuehad yet been found, but it did not understand how such an issue could be raised in a meeting aimed at
addressing real implementation problems
48. The representative of Japan said that his delegation believed that the issue raised by the
European Communities was effectively an implementation issue.
49. The representative of the Dominican Republic recalled that at the last regular meeting of the
General Council it had been agreed that the Chairman would initiate informal consultations on the
issue of paragraph 3.  His delegation suggested that these consultation be initiated rapidly, if they
were not already under way.
50. The representative of the Philippines said that there seemed to be confusion about the nature
of paragraph 3(a) and its relationship to implemen tation issues.  There appeared to be two views on
the issue of paragraph 3(a).  Some believed that the exemption under paragraph 3(a) had been granted
for five years and unless an extension was decided under the review, this exemption lapsed.  The other
view was that the exemption was valid until revoked.  In either case, his delegation believed that this
was an implementation issue.  If the first view was correct, then this was a transition period issue.  If
the second view was correct, this issue was a perpetual waiver, which was in effect a TRIMs measure
in favour of certain developed countries.  In this case, it was a valid implementation issue in respect of
the balance of rights and obligations of Members.  Other Members were being taken to task forexercising their right to request an extension of the transition period under the TRIMs Agreement,
while in this case some other Members were in effect maintaining that the GATT 1994 granted them a
perpetual extension.  For this reason, his delegation believed that there was an imbalance and that this
issue should be addressed as an implementation issue.WT/GC/M/56
Page 15
(iii) "Enabling Clause"
51. The representative of the Philippines said that  he wished to recall that the ASEAN Members
had submitted a proposal on compliance with the "Enabling Clause" which addressed the manner in
which MFN obligations were enforced under the GATT 1994.  He drew the attention of Members to
this proposal for their further consideration.
(b) Agreement on Agriculture
52. The representative of Pakistan said that, during the Uruguay Round, most developing
countries had signed agreements such as TRIPS and TRIMs mainly as a result of the projected
benefits to them under at least two other agreements, one of which had been the Agreement on
Agriculture.  With the objective of establishing a fair and market-oriented system in the agriculture
sector, this Agreement provided that Members would:  (a) reduce agriculture support and protection
substantially and in a progressive manner;  (b) tariffy non-tariff barriers;  and (c) take into account theparticular needs and conditions of developing countries by providing for greater improvement in
market access opportunities for agricultural products.  When these objectives were weighed against
the empirical evidence, the present picture was not encouraging.  In the light of recent developments
in agricultural trade, his delegation did not believe that the playing field was level, and a WTO study
had substantiated this.  The share of agricultural exports originating from developing countries hadremained at 4.5 per cent from 1990 to 1997.  No-one could deny that the sector remained highly
protected in developed economies, and this was mainly due to the inequities and imbalances inherent
to the Agreement and the lack of will in developed countries to fulfil their commitments under the
Agreement.  The studies undertaken prior to the conclusion of the Uruguay Round had predicted that
further liberalization under that round would lead to a significant increase in world income andgrowth, boosting income by 1 per cent per year, or $200-$500 billion.  Agriculture was expected to
contribute at least 10-30 per cent of the overall benefits.  However, these predictions had not
happened and the sector remained protected in developed economies.  In two of these economies,
farmers made up less than 5 per cent of the labour force, and produced less than 2 per cent of GDP.
In comparison, almost 70 per cent of the labour force in Pakistan was engaged in the agriculturesector, which generated 25 per cent of GDP.  If linkages between agriculture and other industrial
sectors were taken into account, this contribution rose to almost 66 per cent.  In that light, agriculture
was an important sector for Pakistan.  This also highlighted the inequity in the Agreement, under
which developed economies could to continue to apply distortive measures, whereas developing
countries could not, despite their continuing need to support their agriculture sectors.  In most
developed countries, agriculture had reached its optimum level, whereas in developing countries the
sector remained to be exploited.  There was a need for a wider development perspective in theAgreement, since the inequities were undermining developing-country efforts to develop this sector.
53. In a paper submitted in the preparatory process for the third Ministerial Conference
(WT/GC/W/161), his delegation had highlighted some of the factors it believed were contributing to
this distortion of the level playing field, such as tariffication through overvaluation of tariff
equivalents, selective tariff reductions and tariff escalations, the continuation of domestic support todomestic producers and the ability of the developed countries to re-balance domestic support,
commitments on an aggregate basis to undertake much lower commitments, the discriminatory and
non-transparent tariff rate quota administration by allocation of MFN tariff quotas to preferential
suppliers, better access to state trading enterprises, limitations on imports of particular products and
broadly-defined quota commitments, and making imports under tariff quotas conditional on adoptionof domestic production of the product concerned, besides other non-tariff border measures.  One other
important element was the Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative
Effects of the Reform Programme on Least- Developed and Net Food -Importing Developing
Countries.  This decision was a binding commitment and none of its provisions had been implemented
to date.  This was a valid implementation concern which needed urgent resolution and unless theseWT/GC/M/56
Page 16
imbalances and inequities were corrected or removed from the Agreement, it would be difficult for
developing countries to undertake any further liberalization commitments, whether in the mandated
negotiations or in any round of negotiations.
54. The representative of Mauritius associated his delegation with the statement by Pakistan on
the need to operationalize the Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative
Effects of the Reform Programme on Least- Developed and Net Food -Importing Developing
Countries.
55. The representative of Cuba associated his delegation with the statement by Pakistan.  His
delegation, along with the Dominican Republic, E gypt, El Salvador, Honduras, India, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Uganda, had submitted a paper in the preparatory process
for the third Ministerial Conference (WT/GC/W/354)  setting out proposals in several areas including
agriculture.  These proposals were still valid since developing countries needed greater flexibility inthe use of support.  These economies, which were in the main based on agriculture, needed sufficient
flexibility in the green box to be able to adequately address their non-trade concerns such as food
security and rural employment.  Support provided by these countries for non-trade concerns, even if
outside the ambit of the green box, should be exempt from the AMS.  For this reason, his delegation
continued to propose that, if in the calculation of the AMS, domestic support prices were lower thanthe external reference price, so as to ensure access of poor households to basic foodstuffs, thereby
resulting in negative product specific support, then Members should be allowed to increase their non-
product specific support by an equivalent amount .  A suitable methodology should be adopted for
taking into account the high levels of inflation while making the domestic support notification.  In
addition, TRQ administration should be made transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory, in orderto allow new/small-scale developing-country exporters to obtain market access.  Imports by
developed countries under TRQs should not be made conditional to absorption of domestic
production.  To this end, notifications submitted to the Committee on Agriculture should include
details on guidelines and procedures of allotment of TRQ.  Furthermore, the Ministerial Decision on
Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developedand Net Food-Importing Developing Countries should  be revised, before 1 January 2001, in order to
ensure its effective implementation, which had not the case to date.  His delegation had also co-
sponsored a proposal with Dominican Republic, E gypt, El Salvador, Honduras, Sri Lanka, Uganda
and Zimbabwe (WT/GC/W/374), and these countries expected that the overall assessment of the
Agreement on Agriculture in this proposal would be taken into account in the discussion, since many
doubts had been expressed as to the way in which the Agreement had been of help to developing
countries.  The proposal addressed issues in the areas of market access, domestic support andprovisions relating to special and differential treatment.  These provisions had remained ineffective
and should be further developed and become binding.  Furthermore, the issue of sanitary and
phytosanitary provisions was addressed in this paper, and the proposals made in this area were also
valid.  The delegations sponsoring the proposal hoped to hear reactions to it and that it would be
addressed in the forthcoming consultations.
56. The representative of Honduras said that proposals on agriculture submitted by his delegation
and others in the preparatory process for the third Ministerial Conference were contained in the
19 October text.  These proposals related to market access through a significant reduction of tariff
peaks, reduction of tariffs within tariff quotas and the reduction of the volume of such TRQs.  These
countries suggested that the provisions relating to special safeguards should not be applied to productsof interest to developing countries.  Furthermore, greater flexibility should be ensured for developing
countries to enable them to draw up domestic support programmes.  The proposals also refered to the
need to address non-trade concerns, such as food security in developing countries, particularly small
and vulnerable economies, through a range of specific measures which should also aim at maintaining
living standards of rural populations.WT/GC/M/56
Page 17
57. The representative of Bolivia said that her delegation would support any measure aimed at
redressing the imbalances in the Agriculture Agreement.  This Agreement was unjust, and it
negatively affected an important sector of the economy of her country.  In Bolivia, it had hampered
development, further impoverished the population, and encouraged delinquency and poverty by
encouraging many to leave rural areas.
58. The representative of Egypt associated his delegation with the statements made by Pakistan
and Cuba.  Like others, his delegation believed that the Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning
the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing
Developing Countries had been not implemented and had remained ineffective.  This Decision should
be revised in order to ensure its effective implementation through the incorporation of concrete
operational and contractual measures, including provisions for technical and financial assistance that
were both effective and responsive to the special needs of LDCs and net food-importing developingcountries.
59. The representative of India said that his delegation shared the concerns on agriculture
expressed by the previous speakers.  His delegation had always supported the mandated negotiations
in agriculture and services, but this did not mean that some of the issues which had been raised as
implementation issues could be put off or pushed into the negotiations.  The implementation concernsof his delegation and others had been raised almost two years before the mandated negotiations
started.  For various reasons, no progress had been achieved to date on these, but they were genuine
and real concerns that had to be addressed.  While his delegation was committed to the successful
completion of the mandated negotiations, it believed that it was important to look at the
implementation concerns separately with a view to helping countries which had real problems inagriculture, some of which had a high depe ndency on agriculture.  Among the proposals on
agriculture, full and timely implementation of Article 10.2 of the Agreement was very important,
since it might be that disciplines in this area developed in another organisation were being taken as
binding on Members of this organisation.  His delegation believed that this proposal should be
addressed in the forthcoming consultations.  Another important issue was found in the secondproposal in paragraph 21(k), which referred to the calculation of AMS for some developing countries
where domestic support prices were lower than the external reference price, so as to ensure access to
food articles for poorer families.  In cases where negative product-specific support resulted, the
proposal was that those Members should be allowed to increase their non-product specific support by
an equivalent amount.  One other issue discussed just before the Seattle Ministerial Conference and in
the Committee on Agriculture concerned some developing countries which faced a disadvantage
because the external reference price they had used for their domestic support price had been based ontheir local currency and devaluation had created a problem.  These three issues should be addressed
without any linkage to the mandated negotiations.
60. The representative of Bangladesh said that his delegation shared many of the concerns raised
by some developing countries on agriculture.  However, for least-developed country Members, such
as Bangladesh, the debate on resolving the issues under discussion was not so important in theimmediate term.  For these countries, the question of food aid and not food importing was of the
essence.  These countries could not be termed net food-importing since they were rather net food-
receiving, and this would have to be taken into consideration in any future negotiations.  This group of
countries, which depended on food aid from the World Food Programme and donors, such as the
European Union, the United States and Australia, were concerned to see that donors were divided on
these issues.  These net food-receiving countries could not import since they did not have enough
money, and binding special and differential measures would be necessary to address their needs.
61. The representative of Argentina said some of the proposals on agriculture in paragraph 21
were linked to the implementation of the Agriculture Agreement.  With regard to Article 10.2, there
was a commitment to complete work on this issue by the end of the year.  It was well known that aWT/GC/M/56
Page 18
solution to this issue was far from being found, so his delegation saw no reason not to discuss this
issue in the General Council.  His delegation was open to consideration of any of the issues listed in
the paragraph but some would be easier to address than others.  There were some practical
suggestions, such as on the application of quantitative restrictions, and these could be addressed in the
light of the decisions taken in the Committee on Agriculture.  His delegation also agreed that it wasnecessary to address issues relating to the needs of net food-importing countries.  Some other issues in
the list presented a greater degree of difficulty and perhaps could not be easily resolved in the
forthcoming consultations.  Nevertheless, his delegation had no objection in working on any of these
issues.
62. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire said that her country's success was based on agriculture
and this had been used as a slogan in her coun try for decades.  This showed the importance of
agriculture to Côte d'Ivoire, and was the reason wh y it would support any measure aimed at promoting
market access in the agriculture sector, in particular any measure that would allow it to become self-
sufficient or import food supplies.  Like others, her delegation believed that any future agreement on
agriculture should meet the fundamental needs of developing countries.  The WTO had an obligation
to encourage countries which were making major efforts in this sector.  Agriculture represented a
large share of GDP for many of these countries, and it was important that any issues concerningagricultural pricing and market access be taken into account in the negotiations.
63. The representative of Norway said that her delegation supported the general thrust of the
proposals under discussion, which was to see how the Agriculture Agreement could meet the needs of
developing countries in a more efficient way.  Her delegation fully shared the objective of securing
sufficient flexibility for developing countries to address non-trade concerns and would work withthem on this issue in the ongoing negotiations.  With regard to the calculation of AMS, her delegation
supported the content of the proposal but was unsure whether this might rather be an issue for
negotiation.  Finally, her delegation fully supported calls for effective implementation of the
Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform
Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries.
64. The representative of Brazil said that while he could offer comments on the proposals under
discussion, that was not the point of the exercise.  What the proponents of the proposals wished to
hear was whether the developed countries accepted the proposals as they stood, proposed
amendments, or needed further clarifications on them.  That would be the positive engagement that
was needed and that was how the exercise should be conducted.
65. The representative of Indonesia said that his country, as a predominantly agrarian economy
with many poor and small farmers, believed that th ere should be sufficient flexibility in the green box
to adequately address non-trade concerns such as food security and rural development and
employment.  Specific and concrete special and differential treatment for developing countries, such
as Indonesia, should be established to take account of their development, financial, trade and non-
trade concerns, including food security.  Furthermore, effective assistance to enable these countries to
take full advantage of preferential treatment and market access, including facilitating increased levelsof investment in agriculture to promote productivity, should be enhanced.  Finally, particular attention
should also be paid to the situation of net food-importing developing countries and small island
developing economies.
66. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation was in the process
of completing a re-examination of the proposals in this area, including those in paragraphs 21 and 22,
with a view to making substantive contributions in the forthcoming consultations.  With regard to the
Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform
Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Im porting Developing Countries, his delegation
believed that the General Council should work out recommendations designed to improve theWT/GC/M/56
Page 19
effectiveness of the Decision.  His delegation hoped that this approach would be taken up in the
context of the consultations.
(c) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
67. The representative of Bolivia said that the SPS Agreement was of particular interest to her
country and for this reason, her delegation had taken an active part in the work in this area throughout
the preparatory process for the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  Her delegation believed that adoption
of the measures proposed in paragraph 21(c) of the 19 October text should not be complicated since
Members had signed the Agreement with the intention of applying its provisions.  Adoption of the
proposed measures would be proof that the Agreement had been negotiated and agreed to in good
faith.
68. The representative of India said that his delegation believed that no Member should be
prevented from adopting or enforcing the measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life,
and that the goals of the SPS Agreement included improving human and animal health, and the
phytosanitary situation in all Member countries.  However, developing countries such as India had
faced two types of problem during the course of the implementation of this Agreement.  First, existing
market access for developing-country exports was impeded by barriers in this area.  Second, new
market access opportunities had not come about since new barriers had been erected and newstandards had been elaborated without developing -country participation.  Furthermore, developing
countries also faced problems of personnel resources and expertise in their participation in
international standard-setting organisations.  The proposals in paragraph 21(c) had to be seen in the
light of these problems.  Like many provisions on special and differential treatment throughout the
agreements, paragraph 10 of the SPS Agreement had not been made operational, and was not legallybinding.  The proposal was that the provision in Article 10 should be made mandatory, since the
existing language in the first paragraph of this Article, which addressed the special needs of
developing-country Members and in particular the least-developed, was diluted by the words "take
account of".  Paragraph 2 of that Article mentioned that longer time-frames for compliance for the
phased introduction of new sanitary or phytosanitary measures should be accorded on products ofinterest to developing-country Members, and it woul d be useful to know what longer time-frames had
actually been made available.  The proposal was fo r a period of at least 12 months from the date of
notification for compliance with new SPS measures for products from developing countries, and in
particular the least-developed.  Paragraph 2 of Annex B of the Agreement also allowed for a
reasonable interval between the publication of a sanitary or phytosanitary regulation and its entry into
force in order to allow time for producers in exporting countries, particularly developing countries, to
adapt their products and methods of products to the requirements of the importing Member.  Hereagain, the proposal was for a period of 12 months to enable developing countries to adapt to those
requirements.  With regard to developing-country participation in international standard-setting
organizations, the problem was not simply a questio n of whether these countries were present, but
also whether they were able to participate effectively in the formulation of standards.  If they could
not, one could not contend that these countries should implement the standards.  In some of theseorganizations, decisions were taken on the basis of voting rather than consensus, and this also had an
impact on the implementation of the Agreement, at least from the point of view of developing
countries.  This was important, since the Agreement made the standards developed by the three
standardising bodies mandatory for all Members.  Developing countries had little choice in this
matter, whether they had been able to participate in the development of those standards or not, andwhether they had the resources to implement those standards or not.  His delegation believed that this
issue should be addressed with a view to ensuring that developing countries were present in
international standardising bodies, had the resources to participate effectively, and had the technical
assistance and resources necessary to implement the standards.  Finally, Article 4 of the Agreement
encouraged Members to accept each other's SPS regimes and to enter into equivalency agreements,but in reality not many developing countries were involved in equivalency agreements.  ThoseWT/GC/M/56
Page 20
Members which did have equivalency agreements tended to equate equivalency with sameness.  This
was not the intention in the Article, and as a result, equivalency agreements had almost never been
entered into with developing countries because their SPS regimes would never be able to qualify
under the test of sameness.  It was thus important to ensure that Members entered into equivalency
agreements only when they had determined that their respective SPS regimes provided similarprotection to plant, human and animal life.  The proposal in paragraph 21(c) was aimed at allowing
developing-country Members to benefit from Article 4, taking into account the work being done in
relevant international standard-setting organisations.
69. The representative of Pakistan associated his delegation with the statement by India.  His
country had co-sponsored the proposals in paragraph 21(c), most of which addressed the special and
differential treatment provisions of the SPS Agreement.  These proposals sought clarification of these
provisions, by making obligations mandatory and establishing reasonable time-periods.  Developingcountries had accepted some of the obligations under the Uruguay Round on the premise that S&D
provisions would take care of their particular needs, and this had not come about.  What these
countries now sought was ultimately only a reiteration of what had been said during the Uruguay
Round.
70. The representative of Egypt said that the proposals outlined by India, which his country had
co-sponsored, sought to make some of the provisions under the SPS Agreement mandatory, rather
than best-endeavour as at present.  For S&D measures to be effective, they would have to
complemented by sufficient technical assistance.  His delegation urged that technical assistance be
extended to strengthen the ability of developing coun tries to deal with scientific issues, in particular
risk assessment, and the complexity of the entire SPS Agreement.  It would be necessary to improvethese countries' laboratory facilities, including the financing of the technology needed to comply with
the requirements of the Agreement.  Such assistan ce was specifically mentioned in Article 9 of the
Agreement, and the provisions of that Article needed to be applied in full.
71. The representative of Cuba said that, as a co-sponsor of the proposals in paragraph 21(c), his
country supported the statements by India, Pakistan and Egypt.  Further measures were needed to
make the SPS Agreement more consistent with the interests and needs of developing countries.
72. The representative of Thailand said that the provisions addressed in paragraph 21(c) had been
agreed by Members when they accepted the SPS Agreement, and the problem was the implementation
of these provisions.  His delegation agreed with India that Article 10 of the Agreement should be
made mandatory.  However, with regard to the participation of developing countries in international
standard-setting organisations, his delegation had doubts on how to ensure this, and it might have to
be discussed in greater detail at a later stage.  Nevertheless, his delegation fully endorsed all theproposals.
73. The representative of Jamaica supported the statements by the previous speakers on the need
to address the issues raised in the proposals on the SPS Agreement.  Her delegation was aware that the
SPS Committee had agreed to discuss Article 4 on equivalency and Article 10 on special and
differential treatment at its next meeting.  Her delegation expected that, as anticipated by the decisiontaken earlier in the present meeting, there would be free flow and exchange of proposals and results of
discussions between the General Council Special Sessions and the work of that subsidiary body.
74. The representative of Brazil said that his delegation was unsure whether the issues under
discussion should be addressed in the General Council or in the SPS Committee.  The proposal on the
provisions of Article 10.2 was clearly not aimed at re-opening the SPS Agreement.  The proponents ofthat proposal were asking the developed countries to consider extending the time-period for
compliance for products of interests to developing countries.  A reasonable period had been suggested
to allow developing countries to adapt to what were sometimes extremely tough and demandingWT/GC/M/56
Page 21
sanitary and phytosanitary measures.  This did not imply re-opening the Agreement, but rather
considering the merit of fixing a time-frame which would be acceptable to all.  India had also
mentioned special and differential treatment, and this was a good opportunity for demonstrating
special and differential treatment without re-opening an agreement.  His delegation hoped that others
would not be so reluctant to engage in the process that they would not even consider the issue of time-
frames, which was an issue with minimum political and technical costs.
75. The representative of the United States said th at all delegations seemed to agree that the SPS
Agreement was important, and discussions were also under way in the SPS Committee on the issues
raised.  Her delegation believed that it would be important to address these issues in that Committee.
Her country was a major provider of technical assistance in the area of SPS, and her delegation had
that day circulated a document in the SPS Committee listing some of the technical assistance provided
by her country since 1995 (G/SPS/GEN/181).  This assistance was not solely monetary, a large partwas in human resources, aimed at attempting to help trading partners move forward.  She encouraged
all delegations to look at this document to see how progress could be made in this area.  There were
misunderstandings on the issues being discussed, and while this discussion should continue in the
General Council, the decisions should be taken in the SPS Committee.  The SPS Agreement was a
good example of how it would be possible to progress in the present process, but her delegation wouldneed more time to look at the proposals before making suggestions on them.
76.  The representative of Saint Lucia said that her delegation was pleased to see that the positive
engagement being sought by Brazil was under way with the statement by the United States.  Her
delegation supported the statement by India.  With regard to the jurisdiction between the WTO and
international standard-setting organisations, a proposal submitted by Zambia, Jamaica, Kenya,Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe in the preparatory process for the third
Ministerial Conference suggested a new definition of international standards.  Her delegation hoped
that proposals such as this would form the basis of the forthcoming consultations to allow progress to
be made on these issues.
77. The representative of Canada said that her delegation was prepared to consider the proposals
under discussion in a spirit of pragmatism and flexibility.  As it had stated earlier in the present
meeting, her delegation believed that the subsidiary bodies had an important role in the work on some
of the proposals, because a number of them were extremely detailed and technical.  Her delegation
had actively participated in the discussion on these issues in the SPS Committee, since it believed that
it was important to look at ways of making the spec ial and differential provisions meaningful.  Canada
along with the European Communities, Japan and the United States had recently put forward some
suggestions on how to deal with some of the elements raised by developing countries with respect toimplementation.  These suggestions addressed issues with respect to least-developed countries as well
as to developing countries more generally, and called on the Director-General to co-ordinate efforts
with the relevant international standard-setting organisations to identify SPS and TBT-related
technical assistance needs and how best to address these.
78. The representative of India, referring to the statements by the United States and others, said
that the intention of his delegation was for the process to continue in the General Council and to
participate in the consultations that the Chairman w ould conduct on this subject.  Input to the process
could be sought from the SPS Committee, and his de legation would look at the document to which the
United States had referred.  However, his delegation believed that it was this body meeting in its
present configuration which should take a multilateral decision on the reasonable time-frameproposed by his delegation and others, so that countries were not left to make separate requests to
their trading partners.
79. The representative of the Philippines said that the SPS Agreement was an area where her
country faced much frustration.  The Philippines, along with other ASEAN Members, had activelyWT/GC/M/56
Page 22
participated in the review of the provisions of the Agreement on special and differential treatment and
technical assistance, and had raised a number of concerns similar to those which other developing
countries had raised in the present meeting.  The parallel discussion of these issues in the SPS
Committee had been constructive and the Committee could help the General Council to make
progress in this area.  Much technical assistance had been provided by developed countries, includingthe United States, but the number of technical assistance activities was not directly proportional to the
efficiency or the effectiveness of the assistance provided, and this was shown by the concerns
expressed by many developing countries.  There was still a wide gap in the implementation of the
Agreement and it was important to address these concerns constructively in the General Council.
80. The representative of the Dominican Republic said that his delegation appreciated the
constructive statements by the United States and Canada, which would raise the hopes of the
developing countries that some progress would be made in the sensitive area of SPS.
81. The representative of Egypt, referring to some statements made by developed Members, said
that the Decision on implementation-related issues taken at the 3 and 8 May General Council meeting
allowed for input to the process from subsidiary bodies if the General Council so decided.  The SPS
Committee had already circulated a possible input in document G/SPS/W/105 which summarized the
discussions on S&D treatment in the Committee.
82. The representative of Bolivia supported the statement by India that it was important to
conduct the present process in the General Council but that the General Council could request input
from the SPS Committee.
(d) Agreement on Textiles and Clothing
83. The representative of Hong Kong, China, also  on behalf of members of the ITCB that were
also Members and Observers of the WTO, said that, in his remarks before the adoption of the
Decision on implementation-related issues in the 3 and 8 May General Council meeting, the Chairman
had emphasized that the purpose of this exercise was to resolve implementation issues and concerns,
and that, in addressing these issues, the General Council would assess the existing difficulties, identify
ways needed to resolve them, and take decisions for appropriate action.  It was also important to recallthe wide-spread recognition, within the WTO and outside, that the implementation of some WTO
Agreements had given rise to serious concerns among many developing-country Members, and that
progress in addressing these implementation concerns would enhance confidence in the multilateral
trading system.  Few agreements had given rise to as many concerns as the Agreement on Textiles
and Clothing (ATC), because of the great importance of trade in textiles and clothing for developing
countries.  The sector accounted for about 20 per cent of their exports of manufactured products, and
for some developing countries, especially the least-developed, its share in their export earnings waseven larger.  Manufacture of clothing was a labour-intensive activity, and the sector was thus
particularly important for the creation of employment opportunities in these economies.
Unfortunately, implementation of the Agreement had failed to come up to developing countries'
legitimate expectations.  During the preparatory process for the third Ministerial Conference,
members of the ITCB had devoted considerable time and effort, pursuant to paragraph 8 of theGeneva Ministerial Declaration, to producing a detailed, factual critique of the implementation of the
ATC.  This had been submitted in August 1999 in document WT/GC/W/283, and the main elements
had been incorporated in the draft Ministerial text in square brackets.  But they had never been
discussed either before or at the Seattle Ministerial Conference, and a "Chairman's text" had appeared
towards the end of the Conference, incorporating a greatly diluted version and including a clausewhich was contrary to the views and interests of the ITCB members.  These members believed that
genuinely and deeply held views, based on fact, should not have been treated in this fashion.  The
impression had been given that some of those who opposed these members' views had wanted to
avoid any real engagement.  It could be justifiably said that the whole Seattle process ignoredWT/GC/M/56
Page 23
paragraph 8 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration in failing even to attempt a meaningful evaluation
of implementation of this symbolically and commercially significant agreement.
84. He believed that a new leaf had been turned in this respect, and that a genuine dialogue had
become possible.  It was in that spirit that he was approaching the matter in the present meeting.  The
ITCB evaluation paper (WT/GC/W/283) could be re-read by Members, and he wished to summarizesome of its key points.  Essentially, the Agreement had been in effect for almost six years, yet the
committed progressive liberalization of quotas had not materialized.  Although 33 per cent of trade in
the sector had been "integrated" by the restrain ing countries in a narrow technical sense, this
comprised mainly imports of products which had not been under restriction.  This had resulted in the
elimination of only a few quota restrictions (13 out of 750 by the United States, 14 out of 219 by the
European Union, and 29 out of 295 by Canada), thus leaving the great bulk of restrictions still in
place.  Additional access granted by restraining Members had been limited to the minimum increasesin quota growth rates under the Agreement, and had not resulted in any lessening in the restrictive
nature of quotas.  Developing countries, including small suppliers and least-developed countries, had
not received meaningful increases in their access possibilities.  Consequently, despite solemn
commitments, the process of liberalization had failed to be progressive in character.  It had not
allowed developing countries to benefit from strong consumer demand in major developed countrymarkets.  Indeed, they had made little effort to fa cilitate increased competition in their markets.  On
the other hand, major developed restraining Members had resorted to a number of trade restrictive
measures, including:  (i) a large number of unjustified safeguard actions for new restrictions,
involving also exports from small suppliers for whom the ATC in fact envisaged more favourable
treatment;  (ii) changes in rules of origin;  ( iii) unduly cumbersome customs and administrative
procedures; and (iv) anti-dumping actions targeting particularly products that had already been under
quota restrictions.  Based on this evaluation, which rema ined as accurate at the present as when it had
been produced, the ITCB members had also developed some practical suggestions for improving the
implementation of the Agreement.  These were contained in document WT/GC/W/357 dated
12 October 1999.  He wished to emphasize that these suggestions fell within the existing frameworkof the ATC and did not require any modification or changes to the Agreement.  The suggestions were
specific, and addressed the problems identified in the earlier paper on evaluation.  He would present
the full arguments of the ITCB members in the more detailed discussions that would take place.  In
the present meeting, he wished to highlight the proposal that at least 50 per cent of imports of
products that had been under specific quota limits should be liberalized by the start of the next stage
of implementation on 1 January 2002.  The ITCB members believed that it was not unrealistic or
unreasonable to expect liberalization of 50 per cent of the restrictions in what would amount to 70 per
cent of the transitional period of the Agreement.  Likewise, they proposed that the provisions of
growth-on-growth should be applied so as to contri bute to meaningful increases in access possibilities
for developing countries.  Accordingly, they suggest ed that the restraining countries:  (i) apply the
methodology employed by the European Union in implementing growth -on-growth for small
suppliers and extend the same treatment to least-developed countries;  (ii) advance the implementationof growth-on-growth for stage 3 to 1 January 2000 from 1 January 2002; and (iii) increase any
resulting growth rates lower than 6 per cent to that percentage.  Other specific proposals were
contained in the paper, relating for example to the use of anti-dumping, safeguard measures,
administrative procedures and rules of origin.  He wished to take this opportunity to point out that,
probably in the rush before Seattle, the draft Ministerial text contained in Job(99)/5868/Rev.1, dated19 October 1999, had mixed up the sequence of ITCB suggestions for improving implementation of
the ATC.  Furthermore in some instances, the drafting did not reflect accurately the ITCB language.
This might have caused some confusion and he wished, therefore, to request that the presentation be
re-arranged by the Secretariat, so as to facilitate more efficient consideration.
85. Developing countries had made tremendous sacrifices in accepting to live under quota
restrictions for a long period of time.  They had also had to offer significant concessions in the
Uruguay Round to secure an end to these restrictions, in a phased and progressive manner, evenWT/GC/M/56
Page 24
though the restrictions had never been GATT-consistent.  The ITCB members expected that the major
restraining countries live up to their promise and fulfil their leadership responsibilities.  The case for
immediate action, to deliver some credible and mean ingful liberalization was overwhelming.  Besides
assisting the developing economies, it could bring huge benefits for businesses and consumers in the
restraining countries themselves.  All analyses attested to that.  Indeed a recent study commissionedby the Swedish Minister of Trade concluded that EU import restrictions on textiles and clothing had
cost European consumers almost 25 billion Euro a ye ar, that was about 270 Euro per family of four in
the EU.  Unfortunately, it was a matter of regret that, recently, a major restraining Member had
announced its decision to demand additional market  opening from developing countries as a pre-
condition for meaningful liberalization of its own quota restrictions, even during the third stage of the
implementation of the ATC.  In this connection, he  wished to inform the General Council that the
ITCB members had considered this demand at a recent session of the ITCB Council ofRepresentatives held in Guatemala.  They had rejected attempts by some importing developed
countries to demand additional market access concessions from developing countries as a condition to
fully comply with their obligations under the ATC.  They had further emphasized that the importing
developed countries should live up to their commitments under the ATC and act in accordance with
its provisions.  The ITCB's Guatemala Communique w ould be circulated in a document2.  It was the
earnest hope and expectation of the ITCB members that the restraining developed countries would
engage in a constructive discussion on identifying ways to improve their implementation of the
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  This challenge was seen as the litmus test of whether they truly
cared about raising standards of living in developing countries.  If they could not respond
meaningfully, in the present meeting or in the near future, the appropriate conclusions would bedrawn and the cause of the WTO would be set back significantly.
86. Speaking only as the representative of Hong Kong, China, he said the notion of reciprocal
market access in trade in textiles and clothing was totally without a shred of credibility, as the
experience of his country demonstrated.  Hong Kong, China had not been able to export one single
extra piece of clothing, or been given a fraction of a percentage point of extra growth as a result of itscompletely open import regime.  Developing countries, rightly in the view of his delegation, regarded
the rhetoric about market reciprocity as insubstantive and purely tactical.
87. The representative of Thailand supported the statement by Hong Kong, China on behalf of the
ITCB members since his country was a member of the ITCB.  For the past four years, many Members
had raised genuine concerns on the issue of textiles and clothing.  Many of the benefits for developing
countries resulting from the Uruguay Round Agreements continued to be held back.  The sector of
textiles and clothing was not only symbolic but also valuable and meaningful to the development ofthese countries.  A large part of the trade in textiles and clothing continued to take place under rules
and disciplines inconsistent with the GATT, such as non-MFN treatment.  When developing countries
had accepted the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing in the Uruguay Round, it had been in the
expectation that its implementation would be progressive.  The seventh year of the implementation
period approached, yet only a tiny fraction of the textiles trades had been liberalized and integratedinto GATT rules and disciplines.  This caused a lo t of harm to developing countries such as Thailand,
because not only were they being deprived of the due benefits, but also it did not bode well for the
smooth transition envisaged in the Agreement.  Further delay in integration would only invite political
pressure.  The proposals by the ITCB members did not imply re-opening the Agreement.  They
represented a set of practical and reasonable suggestions on the way that importing restrainingMembers could inspire confidence among the developing-country Members.  The suggestion that 50
per cent of the restrained products be integrated immediately was not unreasonable, and nothing in the
Agreement prevented restraining Members from integrating restrained products or eliminating
restrictions earlier than scheduled.   Articles 2.10 and 2.15 of the Agreement provided for voluntary
autonomous actions in this sense, but neither had ever been invoked, with the possible exceptions of
                                                     
2 Subsequently circulated as document WT/L/359.WT/GC/M/56
Page 25
Norway and Canada.  These proposals were indeed the litmus test of the importing countries'
intentions, and there was no need to wait for a new round, what was suggest ed could be done now.
The tangible benefits could be enjoyed now and the aspiration of developing countries to raise their
living standards could take place due to progressive and meaningful liberalization of textiles and
clothing sector.  The expectation of these c ountries were high, and they awaited positive
developments.
88. The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation endorsed the statement by Hong Kong,
China on behalf of the ITCB members.  Pakistan had co-sponsored the proposals on textiles in
paragraph 21(e) of the 19 October text and the rationale of these proposals had been laid out in the
written submission by the ITCB members.  The te xtile and clothing sector was of prime export
importance for a number of developing countries including Pakistan.  His country was a cotton-
producing country and an exporter of textile products.  During the Uruguay Round, it had beenprojected that one third of the overall benefits would accrue from liberalization in the textiles sector.
However, instead of liberalization, new restrictions had been imposed, such as changes in rules of
origin, safeguard actions and repeated anti-dumping actions.  In reality, the textile sector had been
made more restrictive, against the objectives of the Agreement.  The demand for additional market
access from developing countries as a pre-condition for meaningful liberalization of one Member'squota restrictions went beyond the commitments undertaken under the Agreement and was
unjustified.  His delegation fully endorsed the statement by Hong Kong, China on behalf of the ITCB
members in that regard.  His delegation hoped that the concerns reflected in the proposals under
discussion would encourage the developing countries' trading partners to engage in a positive dialogue
in the present mechanism and lead to redressal of these concerns.
89. The representative of Indonesia said that his delegation supported the statements by the
previous speakers, in particular Hong Kong, China on behalf of the ITCB members, which had
presented a fair assessment of the situation.  In the preparatory process for the Seattle Ministerial
Conference, Indonesia had submitted proposals in this area along with other developing countries
(WT/GC/W/354 and 357), and considered these proposals to be still valid.  The major thrust of theseproposals was for the textile products of interest to developing countries to be fully and expeditiously
integrated under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  He wished to emphasize the need for
importing countries to apply grow th-on-growth for stage 3 earlier than 2002.  There was also an
urgent need for restraining countries to implement positive measures to manifest their commitments
toward liberalizing trade in the textile sector by integrating at the very least 50 per cent of the
products under restraint.  Other restraining countries should also apply the methodology employed by
the European Union in implementing growth-on-growth  for small suppliers.  It would be important to
address the issue of anti-dumping in this sector, since repeated investigations of products already
under quota restriction had had adverse effects on the trade of developing countries.  Like many other
developing countries, Indonesia believed that the textile sector was essential for growth.  WTO
Members had continuously promoted trade liberalization and market opening and Indonesia hoped
that this would also apply to the textiles sector.
90. The representative of Guatemala said that textiles and clothing was an important sector for his
country, and it was for this reason that the 31st Session of the Council of Representatives of the ITCB
had been hosted by Guatemala.  As stated by Hong Kong, China on behalf of the ITCB members,
textile and clothing-exporting developing countries had worked hard on a number of proposals for the
preparatory process for the third Ministerial Conference.  These proposals were still valid in the viewof his delegation, since they reflected the real difficulties faced by Guatemala in the textiles and
clothing trade.  These difficulties had not disappeared nor had they been taken into account by the
developed countries that were restricting trade in this sector.  The final communiqué (WT/L/359) of
the meeting held in Guatemala fully reflected the ITCB members' positions and problems in this
important sector, and these countries hoped that it would have the impact necessary for rapid solutionsWT/GC/M/56
Page 26
to be found.  Finally, his delegation fully endorsed the statement by Hong Kong, China on behalf of
the ITCB members.
91. The representative of Honduras wished to draw the attention of Members to document
WT/GC/W/357, submitted by the ITCB members including his country, which contained practical
suggestions to improve the implementation of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  Honduras had
a substantial interest in textiles, and, for this reason, fully supported the statement by Hong Kong,
China on behalf of the ITCB members.
92. The representative of the United States said that her country also had implementation
concerns under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, in particular on market access and
transhipment in the area of textiles.  The United States believed that it had implemented the
Agreement, and she wished to respond to some of the points made by other Members in the present
meeting, including by Hong Kong, China on behalf  of the ITCB and also on behalf of Hong Kong,
China.  The issue of textiles had been discussed at great length before the Seattle Ministerial
Conference, and would continue to be discussed, si nce many Members had concerns in this area, like
the United States.  In these discussions, when one quoted statistics, it was not only integration of
products that was important but also growth-on-grow th and the percentage of the market, and these
were substantial for the exporting countries in the US market.  The problem in the implementation ofthe Agreement was that some developing countries felt that they had not obtained what they had
believed they would at the end of the Uruguay Round.  However, the developing countries also made
use of safeguards, and that was part of the Agreement.  There would not have been an Agreement if
those particular provisions had not existed, and her delegation believed that, in the years to come until
2005, more Members would use those parts of the Agreement.  Her delegation wished to note thatsome Members had not implemented Article 7 of the Agreement and that there was a connection
between this article and implementation of the Agreement.  Article 8.12 allowed for growth-on-
growth to be taken back if there was not real market  access.  Everyone was aware of the difficulty that
the United States faced when asked to do more on textiles, and this was because it did not have the
market access in other countries.  The United States had eliminated quotas and accorded preferencesin the previous three or four months, and her delegation was amazed to hear some of the comments
that more needed to be done.  Perhaps some delegations needed to check what had already been
implemented in the area of elimination of quotas.  There was clearly a need for dialogue but without
repetitive statistics, since her delegation could also supply statistics.  What was needed was to look at
areas of compromise in order to make progress on some of the concerns on the issue of textiles.
93. The representative of Bangladesh supported the statement by Hong Kong, China on behalf of
the ITCB members.  Trade in textiles and clothing represented around 70 per cent of Bangladesh's
total of $5 billion of merchandise trade, compared to the 20 per cent for other ITCB members' trade
mentioned by Hong Kong, China.  Furthermore, over 12 million people worked in this sector in
Bangladesh, of whom around 1.8 million were women, and it was also a pioneer in the total
elimination of child labour.  Since Bangladesh was a least-developed country, it was in a special
category in the area of textiles and clothing, and his delegation requested the advanced developedcountries to keep this in mind.
94. The representative of Sri Lanka associated his delegation with the statement by Hong Kong,
China on behalf of the ITCB members.  Although in terms of paragraph 18 of Article 2 of the
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, Sri Lanka was a small supplier, the apparel sector was vital to its
economy since this sector contributed 41 per cent of industrial production and 68 per cent of industrialexports, providing employment to a large number of people.  This was a sector in which Sri Lanka
had both comparative and competitive advantage.  The Agreement had been expected to be the
principal area of benefit for developing countries from the Uruguay Round, providing more than one
third of the total benefits.  However, this had not materialized since the Agreement had only been
implemented in letter and not in spirit, and liberalization thus far had been neither progressive inWT/GC/M/56
Page 27
character, nor commercially meaningful.  Furtherm ore, Article 1.2 of the Agreement clearly stated
that Members agreed to use the provisions of Article 11.18 and Article 6.6(b) in such a way as to
permit meaningful increases in access possibiliti es for smaller suppliers and least-developed
countries, but the benefits remained marginal thus fa r.  It was thus necessary to ensure that smaller
suppliers and LDCs received these meaningful increases, and his delegation endorsed the proposalthat the provisions for growth-on-growth should be applied accordingly.  Like others, his delegation
regretted that a major restraining Member had recently announced its decision to demand additional
market opening from developing countries as precondition for meaningful liberalization of its own
quota restrictions, even during the third stage of implementation of the Agreement.  Sri Lanka had
embarked upon an autonomous trade liberalization process, removed restrictions on imports and
reduced tariffs, and substantially rationalized its tariff structure.  However, it had not been granted any
extra growth as a result of its autonomous open import regime.  His delegation thus viewed thisdemand with great concern.
95. The representative of Egypt supported the statement by Hong Kong, China on behalf of the
ITCB members.  This area of implementation was one of the utmost priorities for his country.  His
delegation hoped that developed countries would live up to their commitments to significant and
meaningful liberalization and integration of textile products of interest to developing countries, byeliminating all barriers impeding the exports of these countries, such as safeguard and anti-dumping
measures, administrative procedures and changes in rules of origin.  The proposals by the ITCB
members along with the proposals in paragraph 21 of the 19 October text represented the legitimate
expectations of developing countries, and should be seriously considered for appropriate action as
soon as possible.
96. The representative of India associated his delegation with the statement by Hong Kong, China
also on behalf of a number of other WTO Members.  The stated objective of the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing was liberalization of internatio nal trade in textiles through complete integration
of the textile sector into GATT 1994 on 1 January 2005.  During a transition period of ten years, the
Agreement was supposed to provide liberalization through two routes.  First, through progressiveintegration, at least to the understanding of developing countries when they negotiated the removal of
quotas.  And second, additional access for items continuing to be under quota through increased
annual growth rates.  However, as stated by Hong Kong, China also on behalf of others, this
liberalization was not being achieved.  When the Agreement had been under negotiation, it had been
meant to cover items under quota restrictions, and these quotas would have been eliminated
progressively.  By some strange logic, the Agreement ended up covering these items and also items
which were not under quotas, which resulted in an extraordinary Annex elaborated at the last minute.As could be seen from the figures already quoted by Hong Kong, China, these quotas were not being
removed.  The same was true for the growth factor route, where a developing country's increases in
access depended on its base level of the quota and the growth rate in its bilateral agreements, some of
which had been set very low, and some countries continued to have minimal increases in this access.
His delegation agreed with the United States that solutions had to be found, but it believed that theyhad to be based on increased access.  Other aspects of this process had also not been anticipated by
developing countries, such as changes in rules of origin and repeated anti-dumping actions on textiles
products under quota restrictions.  Reference had been made to non-implementation of Article 7 of the
Agreement, and in this regard, it was important to bear in mind the Chairman's statement in the Trade
Negotiations Committee at the adoption of the Final Act of the Uruguay Round on 15 November1993, which had been aimed at reassuring those who, even at that stage, had foreseen future problems
with the Agreement.  One could not avoid the political reality that a large number of developing
countries were disillusioned by the benefits from the Agreement.  It was not a question of the legal
provisions of the Agreement.   The lack of liberalization had arisen from the protectionist policies of
some major players, which were at the same time constantly promoting liberalization in other sectors,such as financial services and telecommunications.  These Members maintained that they had political
problems, but India could not remain silent since it too had political problems because of itsWT/GC/M/56
Page 28
commitments under the WTO Agreements and the disputes it faced.  The time had come to address
the problems faced by developing countries in this sector, if Members really wanted to enhance
credibility in the multilateral trading system, and build up the name of this institution.  He would not
address the details of the proposals under discussion, but the main thrust of them was to ensure
improved market access through removal of quotas faster than at present and the application ofgrowth factors earlier than envisaged.  The proponents of the proposals had been told that they were
trying to change the Agreement, and this was far from being true.  The WTO stood for trade
liberalization, and it would be extraordinary to argue that an agreement stood in the way of the
liberalization that was being sought by all.  His delegation was grateful that the United States had
stated that it was prepared to look at these issues, and this was the constructive engagement the
developing countries were looking for in the present meeting, which had not been the case on earlier
issues.  The forthcoming consultations should be undertaken on the basis of known views ofdelegations, since the whole exercise could be defeated if some major trading partners remained silent
on these issues.  If this were to be the case, the credibility of the exercise would be lost and
confidence further eroded.  There had to be a positive meaningful engagement otherwise the process
would not succeed.
97. The representative of Mauritius said that textiles and clothing was of crucial importance for
the development of the economies of countries such as Mauritius, and for this reason his delegation
wished to be involved in the forthcoming consultations, which should be transparent and inclusive.
98. The representative of Pakistan said the discussions in the present meeting appeared to his
delegation to be largely one-sided presentations by developing countries with little interaction from
the developed countries.  This would make the Chairman's task of evolving decisions onimplementation issues more difficult.  His delegation and others had sought to make their proposals in
a form that could serve as a basis for decision by the General Council.  If there were responses and
reactions to these proposals, there would be a dialogue in the General Council and the forthcoming
consultations, leading to consensus decisions.  But if there was no response, the common conclusion
of parliamentary practice was that there was no opposition.  In the absence of any reaction, theconclusion would be that these proposals were acceptable to the General Council, which should then
act accordingly.  In this case, new points should not be raised in the consultations, since this would be
contrary to recent professions of transparency.  If there were any problems with these proposals, they
should be raised in the present meeting, and not behind closed doors.  His delegation hoped that this
practice would be adopted.  Finally, the willingness of a large number of developing countries to
move forward in areas of interest to other Members would be conditioned by the nature of the
outcome of the discussions on implementation.  The confidence that had been built in creating thismechanism was not being sustained by the manner in which the mechanism was being used by some
Members.
99. The representative of Brazil said that Hong Kong, China on behalf of the ITCB members had
presented a very good summary of the implementation concerns of textile-exporting countries.  In
fact, the situation in the textiles sector was symptomatic of the difficulties developing countries facedwhen trying to gain improved market access in developed countries, especially for products or sectors
in which they had high competiveness.  If one analysed the results of the integration process thus far,
it became evident that the effective results of the process were modest and, for this reason,
disappointing to the exporting countries.  More than half of the period of the Agreement on Textiles
and Clothing had elapsed, and the level of liberalization attained had been poor.  Furthermore,attempts by some developed countries to condition the liberalization to which they were committed to
additional market access on the part of developing countries were of great concern to his delegation.
Brazil was undertaking a major re-structuring of its textile industry, which was being thoroughly
modernised.  For those competitive companies that re mained, the least that could be expected was fair
market access conditions in developed countries, and this was not the case at the present.  BrazilWT/GC/M/56
Page 29
believed the discussions on implementation were a good opportunity to address these imbalances and
to provide for a fairer environment for trade in areas not completely integrated in WTO rules.
100. The representative of Hong Kong, China agreed with Pakistan that it was disappointing not to
have responses from importing developed countries on this issue, which was so important.  There
were many good reasons for taking a broad perspective on the question of implementation of thisAgreement.  His delegation believed that the concerns which some Members had expressed about the
dangers of rolling back Uruguay Round commitments through the implementation mechanism did not
apply in the area of textiles.  On the contrary, taking up the suggestions that had been made was fully
in line with the spirit of progressive liberalization of restrictions under the Agreement and fully in line
with the spirit of progressive trade liberalization which permeated the ethos of the entire organisation.
Furthermore, taking up some of these suggestions would be good for consumers in the importing
countries.  The sensitivity of the sector was sometimes mentioned, but it was sensitive only from thenarrow perspective of domestic producers.  If importing countries were to take a broader perspective
they would of course realise that this was a win-win situation, both for developing countries and for
the consumers in developed countries.  Another good reason for making progress on the suggestions
was the symbolic importance of the textiles and clothing sector and the Agreement to developing
countries, and if progress could be made, then this would undoubtedly build confidence in the systemand lead to a healthier organization with a more positive agenda.  Finally, he wished to re-emphasise
the commercial significance of progressing th e implementation of the Agreement for developing
countries.  His delegation looked forward to hearing some sort of a response to the suggestions made.
101. The representative of the Dominican Republic endorsed the statement by Pakistan that there
was little constructive dialogue of the type that developing countries were looking for in the present
mechanism.  The absence of clear positions or reactions to the proposals that had been on the table for
some 15 months meant there was no disagreement.  In which case, his delegation's understanding was
that these proposals would be considered in the consultations to be conducted by the Chairman
between the present meeting and the meeting in Oc tober.  Decisions would then be taken in the
General Council on national measures which still remained pending, in order for developed countriesto comply with existing commitments.  His delegation hoped that this mechanism would thus serve
the purpose for which it was created and lead to increased confidence in the multilateral trading
system.
102. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation was not in a position
to give its final position with regard to the proposals on implementation in the present meeting.  The
European Commission was in the process of reviewing all the proposals, which would be completed
shortly, and the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing was a part of that overall review.  His delegationwas willing, and was working hard, to resolve in the short term those issues that could be resolved
without amendment to existing WTO Agreements or without substantive negotiations.  It considered
the current phase of the work programme to be an exercise designed to identify precisely what might
be resolved at the present or in the very short term, and what issues, either because they involved
amendments to agreements or because they were changes to what his delegation considered to be thebalance of the negotiated agreements, could only be addressed in the context of further multilateral
negotiations.  Under any objective analysis, his delegation believed that many, if not the vast majority
of the proposals did require revisiting, reopening or renegotiating various aspects of the WTO
Agreements.  It did, however, confirm its willingness to look at all the proposals in the context of new
negotiations.  In the meantime, after reviewing the proposals, his delegation would attempt to identify,together with others, those issues which could be  resolved in the short term.  Turning to the
organization of work, he said that the decision adopted in the present meeting reaffirmed the
possibility of discussions at the level of the specific committees.  For some issues, this seemed to his
delegation to be essential, partly for technical reason s in view of the complexity of some of the issues.
Many in the General Council were not the experts on the application of the Subsidies or Anti-Dumping Agreement, for example.  It was also nece ssary to de-politicise the debate on some of theseWT/GC/M/56
Page 30
issues, and to have a calm and objective look at them in the appropriate forum.  It was not a question
of whether these issues were discussed in the present meeting or behind closed doors, but simply that,
for his delegation, the General Council was not the appropriate forum.  The General Council could fix
deadlines for this work, which in most cases would be in the technical committees concerned.  There
was also a clear need for further consultations, as the General Council had mandated the Chairmanand the Director-General to undertake with a view to making rapid progress, and his delegation would
play a positive role in them.  In the course of the discussion on the Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing, some delegations had taken a position which suggested that implementation of the
Agreement by the Communities was somehow conditional on further market access by exporting
countries.  This was a misstatement of the Communities' position.  The European Commission was
finalising details for phase 3 of the Agreement, and would proceed to implement phase 3 in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement without attaching any conditions.  His delegation hadstated that there might be possibilities for going even further, if it believed that there had been
progress in the opening of the markets in many of those countries which retained very high or very
difficult tariff and non-tariff barriers.  But the Communities' implementation of the Agreement would
proceed unconditionally.
103. The representative of India said that Members had decided that the process would involve the
present discussions and then, in order to narrow differences, the Chairman and the Director-General
would hold consultations.  The European Communities had stated that it would participate more in the
consultations, but the consultations were not meant to replace the General Council meetings.  The aim
of the present meeting was to allow delegations to explain their positions and try to narrow their
differences.  If differences remained after this, consultations would be held with the aim of bringingthe trading partners together.  As he had already stated, his delegation believed that such consultations
should be open-ended, and not bilateral, since this was a multilateral organisation.  This was not the
first occasion that these issues had been discussed – they had been under discussion for two years.  A
lack of any response, even a negative response, might lead to a situation in other WTO bodies where
delegations preferred to come back to proposals submitted there much later in the same way.  Hehoped that the European Community would reflect further on its position.  Furthermore, nobody was
politicising this process under the General Council.  The developing countries had said from the start
that these were serious concerns and the Director-General and the Chairman had said that resolving
these issues was a matter of confidence building.  To  indirectly suggest that, in seeking solutions in
the General Council, developing countries were politicising the process was wrong.  His delegation
had consistently said that these issues had to be addressed with political sensitivity.  They could not
be dealt with by experts the specific committees, since a certain amount of political sensitivity wouldbe required to reach solutions on these issues.   With regard to the notion that developing countries
were trying to reopen the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, many delegations had stated their
belief that there was no need for changes to its provisions.  The Agreement was supposed to provide
for liberalization of trade in textiles and clothing, and any measure which liberalized trade could not
be against the spirit of this Agreement.  It would be entirely possible to provide relief to the concernsexpressed without changing the Agreement.  Reference had also been made to the balance of rights
and obligations, and his delegation had addressed this issue on many previous occasions.  Many
developing countries were facing enormous difficulties in implementing some of the obligations
which they had entered into without fully appreciating the implications, and in the areas of textiles
and agriculture, they were not obtaining the benefits they thought they would.  Finally, he wasgrateful to the European Communities for having stated that it would not impose any conditions on its
implementation of the Agreement, and that it would shortly come up with responses to the
suggestions by developing countries.  The decision adopted at the present meeting allowed for
flexibility in the scheduling of meetings, and his delegation would be prepared to attend a further
General Council Special Session to listen to the responses of the European Communities.
104. The representative of Canada said that the discussion seemed to be about two issues – the
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and the manner in which these meetings on implementation wereWT/GC/M/56
Page 31
being conducted.  With respect to the second issue, a number of delegations had made general
statements at the outset of the meeting, including her delegation.  In that statement, it had been clear
that her delegation was prepared to look at all the proposals that were on the table, give each one of
them full consideration and show flexibility.  But it had also been clear that this was going to take
some time and that there was an important role for s ubsidiary bodies, not to take over the role of the
General Council but to provide useful and valuable input.  And it had also been clear that her
delegation believed that the discussions on implementation would need to balanced and realistic and,
in some instances, proposals that required reopening of agreements would need to be addressed and
ultimately resolved in the broader context of a new round of multilateral trade negotiations.  This did
not mean that progress could not be made in the present discussions, and her delegation was prepared
to listen to see where there could be movement and where it could show flexibility.  In the light of
this, certain statements now being made seemed to be quite contrary to what a number delegations hadsaid at the outset.  Turning to the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, her delegation fully recognised
the importance of this sector to developing countries.  Canada had always fully complied with its
obligations under the Agreement and she wished to reaffirm her country's continuing commitment to
its full implementation.  Opening the Canadian market to imports had required the Canadian textile
and apparel industry to adjust significantly.  In the mid 1970's, the Canadian market had beenessentially supplied by domestic producers.  At that time Canada had had over 350,000 textile and
apparel workers.  Today this sector employed 100,000, producing to a considerable extent for the
export market while maintaining a less than 50 per cent share of the domestic market.  This transition
had been difficult for both Canadian industry and labour.  Her Government expected this transition to
continue, and to continue to be difficult, but the path had been set.  Canada would continue to complyfully with all obligations under the Agreement, incl uding the termination of all bilateral restraints by
1 January 2005.  A few examples of Canada's actions in this respect might be useful.  Canada had
significantly and meaningfully liberalized its restraint regime by removing quotas on products of
direct interest to developing countries.  This might not have been clear from some of the statements
made in the present meeting, but it had remove d from quota the following commercially significantly
products:  tailored collared shirts, rainwear, women and girls ensembles, women and girls knitted
blouses, children's blouses and baby outer-wear.  In  addition, in 1998, it had increased by 10 per cent
the restraint levels for winter outer wear, above a nd beyond the required growth rate specified in the
Agreement.  Imports had also been growing signif icantly in its market, because under the growth-on-
growth provisions of the Agreement, Canada's a nnual quotas were now growing at a fast rate.  In
terms of major suppliers, India benefited from an annual compound growth rate of almost 9 per cent,
Bangladesh enjoyed growth rates between 9 and 11 per cent, and Pakistan's growth rate was
expanding by 8.5 to 11.6 per cent.  With very few exceptions, Canadian growth rates for restrained
exporters were in excess of 8 per cent a year.  The small exporters' growth-on-growth provisions also
provided for meaningful and significant increases in quota levels for those products under restraint.
In the case of Canada, small supplier growth rates would in fact double by phase 3 of the Agreement.
For example, for Sri Lanka and Lesotho rates were expanding by 9 per cent, and for both Jamaica and
the Dominican Republic, growth rates were above 8 per cent.  At the same time, imports from small
exporters had been growing substantially.  For example, in the 1994-99 period the Dominican
Republic's textile and clothing exports to Canada  had surged by 218 per cent and Sri Lanka had
moved ahead by 21 per cent.  One of the main reasons for this was that Canada did not impose large
number of restraints on small exporters to start with.  Furthermore, various quotas would be removedthat were particularly important for small exporters, such as on tailored collared shirts and women's
blouses.  Moreover, in implementing the small suppliers growth-on-growth provisions, Canada had
applied the advance formula to 16 exporting developing countries, five more than strictly required by
the Agreement.  She wished to emphasize the importa nce that Canada attached to this sector and the
actions it had taken to ensure that developing countries could enjoy the trade liberalization that all hadbeen seeking in the Uruguay Round.  Canada recognised that the third stage of integration would be a
critical component of the confidence-building process and preparations were under way in Canada to
ensure that it would fully and meaningfully discharge its obligations.WT/GC/M/56
Page 32
105. The representative of Japan said that his country believed that full and faithful
implementation by all Members of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing was important.  But
besides the issue of textiles, statements of a general nature had been made in the present meeting and
he wished to make some general observation to clarify the intention of his delegation.  Some
developing-country Members had stated that they were disappointed by the lack of immediate
responses from developed-country Members and there seemed to be doubts on the usefulness of the
process because clear interaction was maybe lacking.  It was true that his delegation had remained
relatively quiet, but this should not be interpreted as a sign that Japan had little interest in the process.
As it had stated at the outset of the meeting, his delegation had been listening attentively and carefully
to the comments and concerns expressed by developing-country Members and intended to continue to
do so.  His delegation was taking careful notes of their comments and would report them to the
capital.  It had responded and would continue to respond to some of the comments, but at this stage itwanted to listen to and understand the rationale of  developing-country Members, since they were the
demandeurs on most issues.  His delegation regarded this exercise as being part of the confidence-
building activities, and it was better to spend some time on studying how it could respond positively
to the maximum extent possible to the issues raised.  His delegation would give its responses to the
Chairman and the Director-General through the forthcoming consultations.  Some had expressedconcerns about the possible closed nature of those consultations, but his delegation trusted that the
process would be transparent, so that all Members which had an interest in particular issues would be
informed of his delegation's views at that time.  His delegation would respond in good faith in order to
build confidence among Members, so that an atmosphere would be created conducive to the launch of
a broad-based round in the near future.  But as he had already stated earlier, his delegation might havesome limits to what it could do at this juncture.  He hoped the developing-country Members would
study the responses of his delegation from a pragmatic  point of view, to see how to achieve the best
result under the given constraints.
106. The representative of Cuba said that, like others, his delegation believed that trade in textiles
and clothing should be more balanced, since this was a sector necessary for the improvement of the
economies of many developing countries.   His delegation was also disappointed by the way in which
the discussions on implementation were taking place.  These meetings should make more progress
and be more subjective.  Before the Seattle Ministerial Conference, many developing countries had
worked hard to submit proposals on how to achieve greater balance in the results achieved in the
Uruguay Round.  These proposals had not received adequate responses, even at the Conference.  The
present process appeared to be just a repetition of old speeches, with no appropriate responses from
developed countries.  A more constructive spirit was needed, to take into account these proposals andlead to real progress.  One delegation had said that it was there just to listen.  His delegation disagreed
with this, Members were there to interact, to have an exchange of views on each one of the proposals.
The developing countries were looking for reactions to their proposals to be able to take into account
proposals which developed countries might make.  In this way it would be possible to construct the
confidence which all were seeking.
107. The representative of the United States said that her delegation had already responded to
some of the issues under discussion earlier in the present meeting.  The Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing was sensitive to all who had spoken, including the United States.  Her delegation was not
there just to listen.  She had already stated that her country had recently undertaken more
liberalization, for least-developed and developing countries, not only on textile products but also inagriculture products and many other areas.  She had also stated it would be necessary to send some
issues to the subsidiary committees to deal with the technical issues.  Her delegation was looking at
all the issues in a constructive way with other delegations, and she believed that the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing was an example of an area where more time would be needed.  That was not in
any way putting the issues off, and did not mean that her delegation was not willing to move forward.She agreed that this was a question of building confidence, but less time should be spent talking about
procedure and what had not been done in the past.  The United States was very positive onWT/GC/M/56
Page 33
implementation issues, and also had its own concerns.  She believed that it was time to move on in the
discussion.
108. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that, since there was no textiles committee in
WTO, time would need to be spent on textiles and clothing in the General Council.  He thanked
Canada for its statement, which had made clear that Canada had maintained fewer restraints thansome other importing developed restraining countries and had liberalized a somewhat higher
percentage.  Of the 295 quotas which Canada had maintained, 29 or nearly ten per cent had been
liberalized.  Ten percent after 50 per cent of the transition period was not a brilliant record, but it was
better than some others.  Canada could still do even better, since after forty years of adjustment it was
producing not only for its domestic market but also for export, to the expense of developing countries.
The US market had grown by about 60 per cent in 1994-99, and Canada's exports to the US had
grown by 130 per cent over that period.  This showed that there were still many distortions in themarket and the overall the picture was that restrained suppliers had not be able to benefit to the extent
that they should have been able to from increased demand in the major importing and restraining
developed countries.
109. The representative of Pakistan said that, like Hong Kong, China, his delegation was pleased
that Canada was doing more than other restraining countries, but perhaps Canada itself was pleased
that it was doing better in certain export markets.  Canada would clearly be able to provide greater and
accelerated access to the restrained countries.  The European Union was the largest exporter of
textiles, despite forty or fifty years of adjustment – more evidence of market distortions.  His
delegation was disappointed that there had been no specific response to the proposals on textiles in
paragraph 21, and concluded that there was no particular opposition to those proposals.  But if theopposite were to be the case, his delegation wished to know and hoped that any comments would be
made in the General Council, rather than through the private consultations which the Chairman and
the Director-General would hold.  This was absolutely essential to his delegation.  Since some were in
the process of studying these issues, he suggested that a Special Session on textiles be scheduled at a
very early stage, as soon as those delegations were ready with their responses.  His delegation wouldnot wish to conclude that, after having waited a year and a half, this continuing study was being put
forward as a way of putting off decisions on these proposals.  That could lead to a significant erosion
in confidence, at least on the part of the textile exporting countries, with perhaps quite important
consequences for their positions on other issues.  He wished to recall that, under Article IX of the
WTO Agreement, the General Council was empowered to interpret agreements.  The General Council
was to reach its decisions not only the basis of technical facts but also on the basis of its political
judgement of what was required for the proper functioning of the agreements.  For this reason, hisdelegation believed that the General Council was the proper forum for implementation issues to be
discussed and would resist strongly any effort to push this process into technical committees and
working groups, which would obviously have the effect, if not the design, of delaying action on these
proposals.  That course of action, if pressed by ot hers, would be another indication that the confidence
that some had in this process was in fact misplaced.
110. The representative of Honduras supported the statements by the Dominican Republic, India,
and Pakistan.  The present process had been created to resolve the implementation concerns that
developing countries had been expressing for two years.  Her delegation was disappointed that some
developed countries were still not yet ready to respond to these concerns, and hoped that in
subsequent meetings these concerns would be met in a positive way.  Future discussions on theseissues should held in the General Council, so as not to exclude the proponents of the proposals, and
the other approaches being proposed were unacceptable.
111. The representative of Uruguay supported the statements by Hong Kong, China and other
members of the ITCB.  His delegation believed the proposals submitted on textiles and clothing were
covered by the existing Agreement and required no changes to it.  Turning to the general approach toWT/GC/M/56
Page 34
the present exercise, some had stated that the majority of the proposals on implementation implied
changes in the agreements which could only be achieved in the context of a new round.  If this were
indeed the case, then this exercise would have lost a great deal of its interest and importance, because
the aim of it had been to attempt to solve the implementation problems faced by developing countries
without the need for a round.  His delegation fully understood that certain issues could not be resolvedwithout changes to agreements, and a round would perhaps be necessary for that.  But other issues did
not fall into this category and these should be resolved as promptly as possible.
112. The representative of Kenya supported the statements by India, Pakistan and Hong Kong,
China.  Referring to the statement by the United States, he noted that the quotas imposed on his
country's exports of textiles by the United States had been eliminated by the recent African Growth
and Opportunity Act.
113. The representative of the United States thanked Kenya for its statement.  The United States
had removed quotas for the Africa region and instituted new textile liberalization programmes for the
Caribbean Basin, which raised liberalization in that re gion to a level similar to that in its free trade
agreement with Canada and Mexico.  For other countries, the accelerated growth provisions had also
significantly increased access to the US market for textiles.  For example, India's access had increased
by 69 per cent since 1995 and she could supply more figures even higher.  These increases would notbe the case if the United States had not implemen ted the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, which
it had in accordance with what it had agreed.
114. The representative of Pakistan said that he remained concerned at what had not transpired in
the present discussion.  If were not possible to take decisions at the October meeting on these issues, it
would become inevitable that a concrete discussion of the proposals on textiles take place later, sinceit had not been the case in the present meeting.  In the absence of such a discussion, he did not see
how the Chairman and Director-General would be able to consult on the issues and how decisions
would be reached by October.  If decisions were not reached by October, his delegation, and perhaps
others, would not be able to move on other issues.  He reiterated his suggestion that a decision be
taken to convene another special meeting of the General Council, devoted to discussing the textilessector and perhaps other areas that might not have been sufficiently considered, once delegations were
able to respond to the proposals.  In the light of th at meeting, consultations could be held to prepare
the October session.  It was important to avoi d a situation where no progress would be made.
115. The Chairman, referring to the proposal by Pakistan, said that he was in the hands of the
General Council to decide whether to hold another Special Session for specific topics.  He believed
that this proposal could be taken up in consultations he intended to hold before the end of July on how
to conduct the consultation process.
116. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that if he understood correctly, the Chairman
intended to hold consultations about further consultations.  While he understood that this was a
difficult area, the proposals in question were far from new, since they had been on the table for a year.
Everyone had had more than sufficient time to consider them and it would be important to schedule
further work rapidly.  This could be a meeting or consultations to consider the proposals.  He wishedto reiterate that there was no dedicated committee to deal with textiles and clothing, so it seemed that
the discussion would have to continue in the framework of the General Council.
117. The Chairman said that he had been suggesting consultations about how to proceed on all
issues, not only on textiles and clothing.  The discussion on textiles had illustrated the need to reflect
on the further process, including the role of subsidiary bodies.  The time available before the Octobermeeting was limited, so it would be important to organise the agreed consultations on all the issues in
an effective manner, taking into account all the poin ts raised.  The proposal by Pakistan indicated the
need to have an understanding on how to conduct the consultation process, and textiles would be oneWT/GC/M/56
Page 35
important issue to address, bearing in mind that there was no specific substantive committee for that
issue.  However, it would be necessary to address the issues raised under all agreements, which would
be a huge task.  He believed that it would thus be necessary to consult in the coming days on how to
proceed with this work.
(e) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
118. The representative of Egypt said that one of the proposals on the TBT Agreement in
paragraph  21 suggested giving a specific mandate to the TBT Committee as part of its triennial
review work programme to address the problems faced by developing countries in both international
standards and conformity assessment.  These were the priorities on the list of issues to be addressed
during the review, however her delegation wished to address them in the present meeting, since they
were at the core of developing countries' implementation concerns in this area.  Egypt believed that
the benefit drawn by developing countries from international standards was minor and the process ofadjusting their national standards to them was difficult.  This could be attributed to two factors: (i) the
participation of developing countries throughout the various phases of setting international standards
was limited, resulting in them having to apply standards set without their participation and which
corresponded more to the market needs of developed countries; and (ii) some international standards
specified safety, health and environmental requirements applied by developed countries which weredifficult for developing countries to meet and carried financial and technical consequences.  Wider
participation for developing countries in international standards setting was now being widely sought.
However, Egypt could only accept new obligations on developing countries to participate in the
process of standards setting, if technical and financial assistance was provided to such countries by
the standardizing bodies to ensure their effective participation.  Furthermore, a number of obstacleswere being faced in conformity assessment.  First, the lack of established national accreditation bodies
negatively affected the process of concluding mutual recognition agreements and hampered the
facilitation of conformity assessment procedures.  These procedures varied between developing and
developed countries, as also among developing countries, which entailed that goods were subject to
multiple tests, leading to financial and technical bu rdens, particularly in developing countries, and
hampering trade flows.  Second, conformity assessment systems in developed countries were of a
sophisticated and advanced nature, and it was difficult for developing countries to apply them due to
their modest infrastructure, minimum technical experience and limited laboratories capacities.   Third,
developing-country economies relied mainly on small industries, and application of conformity
assessment procedures represented a financial burden on such industries.  For these reasons, Egypt
believed that the Agreement should only include obligations on the implementation of specific
conformity assessment systems or procedures once the means of assistance to be granted todeveloping countries to adjust to such systems or procedures was defined.  Finally, Egypt believed
that the proposed forms of technical assistance were not beneficial to developing countries, since they
only consisted of lectures, data assembling and preparation and dissemination of reports.  Technical
assistance should be aimed at effective implementation of the provisions of the Agreement.  It should
allow developing countries to make use of electronic means for information and documentationexchange, participate in the preparation of intern ational standards, establish conformity assessment
systems according to the international requiremen ts and the mechanisms for setting technical
regulations, and establish sound infrastructures and active enquiry points.  Precise criteria should be
set for measuring the efficiency of technical assistance, the results achieved and the positive effects of
implementation.  Such criteria could take the form of practicable executive programmes.
119. The representative of India supported the statement by Egypt, and said that the first proposal
in paragraph 21(d) was identical to one of the proposals for the SPS Agreement his delegation had
addressed earlier.  Developing countries did not appear to be present during the phases of standard
setting, and were standard receivers rather than st andard setters.  Furthermore, even if they were
present, they lacked the resources and the expertise to participate effectively.  Decision making insome international organizations did not take place by consensus, but rather by voting.  This resultedWT/GC/M/56
Page 36
in a situation where, even if developing countries were present, their views were not necessarily taken
into account.  The idea contained in this proposal was not new and was simply an elaboration of the
language contained in Article 12.5 of the TBT Agreement.  The second proposal was for the General
Council to give a specific mandate to the TBT Committee as part of its triennial review, which was
expected to conclude in December 2000, to address the problems faced by developing countries in theareas of standards and conformity assessment.  In this respect, his delegation welcomed the workshop
to be held by the TBT Committee on 19 and 20 July on technical assistance and S&D treatment.
However, his delegation believed that the Special Session had to go beyond this and take fully into
account the outcome of the workshop, as well as other issues raised.
120. The representative of Pakistan associated his delegation with the statements by Egypt and
India.  After almost five years of implementation of the TBT Agreement, his delegation believed that
there were three major sets of problems associated with its application.  First, the non or ineffectiveparticipation of developing countries in various international standard-setting organisations, which
was addressed by the first proposal in paragraph 21(d).  Developing countries did not have the
resources and expertise to participate in various standard-setting activities, and this situation needed to
be rectified.  Ways and means had to be developed to ensure the presence of countries at different
levels of development and from all geographical regions, throughout all phases of standard setting.The second set of problems stemmed from the unsatisfactory implementation of the provisions on
technical assistance and special and differential treatm ent.  Most of the problems identified in the this
area could easily be addressed in the TBT Committee as a part of its triennial review.  The third set of
problems were of a systemic nature and were faced by developing countries in both international
standards and conformity assessment.  These included the lack of clarity in the definition of aninternational standard, and the presumed definition shou ld be reviewed in the light of the participation
of developing countries in setting standards.  A narrower definition would be necessary, where only
standards formulated with the participation of developing countries would be treated as international
standards, and only if adopted by consensus.  Similarly in the area of conformity assessment,
developing countries faced a number of difficulti es, such as self-declaration by developing-country
exporters and its acceptance by importing countries, inclusion of developing countries in mutual
recognition agreements, and specific provisions for technical assistance in the area of adoption of
conformity assessment, and these needed to be addressed.
121. The representative of Japan said that some of the issues raised under the TBT Agreement in
statements by developing-country Members had been addressed in a contribution by Japan, along with
Canada, the European Communities and the United States in April.  These Members had suggested
instructing the TBT Committee to address the problems faced by developing-country Members as partof its work programme.  His delegation was unsure whether it was necessary for the General Council
to set a specific mandate for this, but it could agree to the General Council instructing the TBT
Committee to look into these issues matter as part of the triennial review.  With regard to enhanced
participation by developing countries in international standard setting, his delegation believed that it
was a question of how to enhance technical assistance in this field, and in the same contribution,Japan and the other Members had suggested requesting the Director-General to coordinate efforts with
relevant international setting organisations, to identify areas related to both the TBT and SPS
Agreements where technical assistance was needed.
122. The representative of Jamaica said that her delegation supported the statements by Egypt,
India and Pakistan.
123. The representative of the United States said that her delegation agreed with Japan that the
General Council could instruct TBT Committee to address some of the problems faced by some
Members as part of its work programme, in particular in the areas of international standards and
conformity assessment.  Her delegation also agreed that the Director-General could be requested to
co-ordinate efforts with the international standard-set ting organizations to identify, in particular, TBTWT/GC/M/56
Page 37
and SPS-related technical assistance needs and how to address them.  This should take into
consideration the importance of bilateral and regional technical assistance.  Her delegation would be
working with others to see what could be done in  this area, starting with the workshop mentioned by
India.
(f) Agreement on Trade-Related Investments Measures
124. The representative of India said that eight proposals had been submitted on the TRIMs
Agreement during the preparatory process for the third Ministerial Conference, two of which were in
paragraph 21.  The TRIMs Agreement also formed part of the work on transition period issues.  In the
proposal submitted by India in document WT/GC/W/203, the main point had been that the Agreement
denied the freedom to developing countries to channel investments in such a manner that fulfilled
their development needs, in particular with regard to local content requirements. Although mentioning
the need to take into account the developmental needs of the developing countries, the Agreementconstrained the degree of freedom of developing c ountries.  The fundamental concern of whether the
Agreement was friendly to the development needs of the developing country had to be looked into.
The two proposals in paragraph 21 suggested that the transition period mentioned in Article 5.2
should be extended and that developing countries should have another opportunity to notify existing
TRIMs which they would then be allowed to maintain until the end of the new transition period.  Thebasic point behind these proposals was that developing countries should not be required to remove
existing TRIMs immediately.  They needed more time.  In previous discussions on transition period
issues, his delegation had stressed that they should not be limited to bilateral solutions.  It was
important to extend the period in Article 5.2 and provide another opportunity to notify to countries
which had not done so, to keep the development needs of developing countries in view. Hisdelegation believed that both these decisions should be taken in the multilateral context.
125. The representative of Brazil said that, while his delegation could support many of the ideas
reflected in the two proposals in paragraph 21, it was confused that the issue of transition periods had
come to the fore in the General Council again.  It was not a question of the substance, more the
mechanics of addressing these issues.  One could not deny that some effort had been made to takecare of those countries which had notified and asked for specific extensions under the TRIMs
Agreement, and the General Council would return to this issue at some point.  The confusion might be
whether it should be addressed in the present meeting or in a regular meeting of the General Council,
as also for the same issue under the TRIPS Agreement.  His delegation had stated previously that it
believed that transition periods as a whole should be the object of a comprehensive and multilateral
decision.  Since this had not happened, his delegatio n would have to revert to expressing its support
for the proposals in the meetings on implementation.
126. The representative of Hong Kong, China, refe rring to the first proposal in paragraph 21(f),
said that the General Council had taken a decision in May on informal consultations to be conducted
by the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods on this issue, who hoped to achieve consensus
shortly.  His delegation had been positive on this proposal and on the applications for extension, and it
looked forward to a rapid conclusion of the consultations.  He wished to request the Chairman toclarify the relationship between the proposal in paragraph 21(f) and the consultations being conducted
by the Chairman of the Goods Council.  Unlike ot her implementation issues listed in paragraph 21,
work on the issue in this proposal was well advanced, in particular in the light of the May decision, so
he wondered what would be the institutional relationship between the present process and the process
led by the Chairman of the Goods Council.  His de legation was looking to the Chairman for guidance
on this question.
127. The Chairman said that the answer to th e question by Hong Kong, China was straight
forward, since any outcome of the process launc hed in the May General Council meeting and
presently being followed up in the Goods Council would have to be taken into account in looking atWT/GC/M/56
Page 38
any outstanding problems related to the proposal in the present meeting.  The earliest that the General
Council could take a decision on this issue was October, at which point the proponents of the proposal
would be able to amend it in the light of any results achieved elsewhere.  This was his understanding
of the relationship between the two processes.
128. The representative of Cuba said that his delegation supported the two proposals in this area.
His delegation believed that the TRIMs Agreement was linked to developing countries' prospects for
development, and flexibility should thus be shown by developed countries to allow the time-periods to
be extended, and any new Agreement could be considered at a later date.
129. The representative of Mexico said his delegation believed that, independently of efforts
undertaken by the Chairman of the Goods Council, the issue under discussion should be kept in the
context of the present discussions of implementation problems.  On the first proposal in the area of
TRIMs, his delegation could accept the time-period in the second set of brackets, which could also bereduced to have four years.  With regard to the second proposal, his delegation shared the view that
developing countries should have the opportunity of notifying existing TRIMs, since these measures
would be eliminated at the same time as those covered by the first proposal.  This would give equal
treatment to all countries which had had recourse, or could have recourse to TRIMs.  Furthermore, a
positive response to the requests by developing countries in this area would contribute to the creationof confidence that all had talked about.
130. The representative of Honduras said that his delegation supported the statement by India, in
particular the proposal that a new opportunity should be given to developing countries to notify their
TRIMs.
(g) Agreement on Anti-Dumping
131. The representative of Egypt said that misuse of trade remedy measures in the field of anti-
dumping by some developed countries, without due consideration to the provisions under Article 15
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, had become a significant barrier to the exports of developing
countries.  As a developing country that suffered from the application of anti-dumping measures in
this manner, Egypt had previously suggested re-e xamining certain provisions of the Agreement in
order to evaluate their adequacy and whether they could be amended in the light of the experience.  In
the present meeting, her delegation re-submitted these proposals which suggested that:  (i) Article 2.4
should include further details on how the investigating authority could effectively solve the problems
arising during the process of investigation with regard  to foreign exchange rates, as fluctuations could
affect the dumping margin calculations, causing difficulties for the investigating authority and
limiting its ability to easily determine the dumping action;  (ii) Article 3 should contain a detailed
provision dealing with the determination of the material retardation of the establishment of a domesticindustry as stipulated in footnote 9;  (iii) Article 15 should be modified in order to be more
comprehensive, operational and mandatory, and constructive remedies should be more specific and
reasonable for developing countries.  The lesser-duty rule should be applied to imports from
developing countries.  Repeated anti-dumping investigations by some trading partners on the same
product lines had resulted in trade harassment of developing-country exporters; and (iv) a newdetailed provision should be elaborated to set guidelines for all Members in conducting anti-
circumvention investigations.
132. The representative of the Philippines said that his country, along the other ASEAN Members,
had previously submitted proposals on Articles 2.4, 17, 5.3 and 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
(WT/GC/W/205).  The Philippines was concerned about the standard of review in Article 17 andbelieved that it should be aligned to the standards of review in all other areas of work in WTO.WT/GC/M/56
Page 39
133. The representative of Indonesia said that, as a member of ASEAN, his country supported the
statement by the Philippines.  Along with other developing countries, his country had submitted
proposals on anti-dumping before the Seattle Ministerial Conference, contained in documents
WT/GC/W/205, 354, and 355, and it remained committed to them.  His delegation wished to highlight
the importance of addressing and resolving issues related to repetitive anti-dumping investigations onthe same products, which it believed constituted trade harassment.  The abuse of existing provision
under the Agreement needed to be addressed.  If it was not, it would cause disruption of trade from
exporting countries which were not engaging in dumping, but rather being exposed to unfair
competition from uncompetitive industries in importin g countries.  In this regard, his delegation
supported the ASEAN proposal referred to by the Philippines, which highlighted the need to consider
Article 5.3, among others, to limit the scope for repeated anti-dumping investigations on the same
product.  Reviewing this Article would not lead to imbalances in the Agreement, but would lead to theimprovement of the Article, and prevent abuse for the sake of imposing trade barriers.
134. The representative of the European Communities said that anti-dumping was an important
area for many Members, and was also important in the context of movement towards new
negotiations.  For this reason, his delegation believed that this area merited substantive investigation
of the various proposals.  To his delegation, there appeared to be two categories of proposal.  Manycould be addressed in new negotiations and others were not negotiable.  Before reaching such
conclusions, his delegation believed that there should be a substantive investigation.  General
discussions could continue forever in the present forum, so his delegation suggested that these issues
should be sent to the relevant committee where the experts would be able to report back on what was
feasible and what was not.  This work could not be done in the present forum.  While this was notperhaps the preferred course of action for some delegations, his delegation urged them not to reject it
since it was the way to make progress.  This same approach should be applied in other areas where
proposals were detailed and experts would be required, such as subsidies and countervailing
measures, customs valuation and technical barriers to trade.  In the latter case, the question of how to
ensure that developing countries participated in standard setting needed to be looked at by experts,since it involved resources on the part of those countries.  There were technical issues in many areas
which needed to be looked at in more detail than delegations could do in the present meeting.
135. The representative of Colombia said that his country had submitted a proposal on the Anti-
Dumping Agreement in document WT/GC/W/315 and Add. 1 which addressed four specific issues.
First, to give effect to the provisions on special and differential treatment of products from developing
countries, the provisions of Article 9.1 on the application of duty less than the margin of dumping,
and Article 15 on the need for constructive remedies instead of applying anti-dumping duties, shouldbe made mandatory.  Second, under Article 5.8 on negligible imports from a developing country, this
concept should be applied when such imports were less than 7 per cent of the total.  Third, the
de minimis margin referred to in Article 5.8 should be increased from 2 to 5 per cent, expressed as a
percentage of the export price.  Finally, paragraph 4.2 of Article 2 should be clarified so that the
application of the rule establishing the comparison between the weighted averages of the normal valueand the export price involved obtaining those averages on the basis of the same time-period.
136. The representative of Chile said that in the area of anti-dumping there was no question of a
lack of implementation, but rather the reverse, even excessive implementation.  This was a source of
concern to many since what was being implemented was a set of unreasonable standards in
international trade, introducing imbalances, and affecting credibility, certainty for investors and thevalue of what had been negotiated.  There seemed to be a race between governments to adopt these
discriminatory instruments which had proved to be inadequate.  This was a problem which had
become truly multilateral.  His country's exporters had been affected by anti-dumping measures,
throughout South America and also in Central and North America.  Perhaps the only country that
Chile had not had problems with in the Americas was Canada, since the two countries had anagreement on the elimination of anti-dumping measures and a Free Trade Agreement.  This issueWT/GC/M/56
Page 40
needed a change of approach in terms of the go als of the multilateral disciplines involved, and
because of its major importance, it should be seen in a broader context of new round of multilateral
trade negotiations.  Nevertheless, there were sufficient proposals to allow a detailed investigation of
certain issues in the anti-dumping process, with the aim of identifying technical adjustments to
prevent selective and discriminatory protectionism.  The suggestion by the European Community forsuch an investigation pending a broader based consideration of the multilateral issues concerned was a
sensible one.
137. The representative of Guatemala, referring to her country's proposal on anti-dumping
contained in document WT/GC/W/330, said that Guat emala had suggested that certain definitions of
the existing Agreement needed to be improved.  The definition of "like product" in Article 2.6 was
one such improvement, since the current definition referred to a product which, although not alike in
all respects, had characteristics closely resembling those of the product under consideration.  Somecountries considered functional similarity or use as an important factor in determining whether
products were alike.  In other countries, particular emphasis had been placed on physical similarities
between products to determine likeness.  This le d to conflict between commercial reality and the
Agreement.  Furthermore, anti-circumvention practices tended to use the concept of "like product".
138. The representative of the Dominican Republic said that his delegation supported the
statements by Egypt and Guatemala.  With regard to the suggestion by the European Community for a
technical analysis of the issues in this area, one had to bear in mind that such issues might involve
changes in the text of the Agreement, as also in  the case of the Subsidies Agreement.  Any such
changes would have to be considered in the context of the procedures laid out in the Marrakesh
Agreement.  Article IX.2 of that Agreement stated  that the Ministerial Conference and the General
Council had the exclusive authority to adopt interpretations of the Agreements, and Article X
contained a procedure for amending the Agreements.  The authority to undertake this procedure had
been given to the Ministerial Conference, and, in the absence of a Ministerial Conference, the General
Council.  In the light of this, the General Council could decide on a role for the subsidiary bodies in
this process, in line with the May decision, but these bodies could not take the necessary decisions.The General Council was the only body authorized to take a decision on the nature of the
interpretations to be authorised or the amendments to be introduced to resolve the problems in the
area of implementation.
139. The representative of Japan said that his country had grave concerns about the abuse of anti-
dumping measures.  Compared with ten years ago, a larger number of countries were now making use
of these measures.  Japan was concerned that, if no attempt was made strengthen the disciplines in the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, the situation would aris e where countries would resort to counter anti-
dumping measures against measures taken by another country.  This kind of interaction could take
place in increasing numbers.  For this reason, Japan had long emphasized the need for negotiations
aimed at strengthening these discipline.  With regard to the proposals in this area in paragraph 21,
Japan believed that it would be necessary to study the concrete modalities of the various anti-dumping
measures which had been implemented, as well as a detailed interpretation of the relevant clauses inAgreement.  For this reason, Japan agreed with the European Community that the General Council
should instruct the subsidiary body to undertake a technical examination of these issues.  One
proposal in paragraph 21 addressed the lesser-duty rule, and Japan believed that this would entail
amending the Agreement.  Examination of the other proposals might lead to the same conclusion,
which was why Japan believed that these proposals should be taken up in the next round ofnegotiations.
140. The representative of Hong Kong, China said th at his country's approach to the issue of anti-
dumping was somewhat different from many other Members, since it believed that there was limited
value to amending the Agreement.  The Agreement concerned the implementation of Article VI of the
GATT, and it was Article VI itself which was the problem.  In this respect, his delegation agreed withWT/GC/M/56
Page 41
much of the statement by Chile.  His delegation would be open to most of the proposals in this area in
paragraphs 21 and 22, and it agreed with the Philippines on the need to look at Article 17.6 relating to
the standard of review.  Like the Philippines, his delegation believed that it would be beneficial if
normal dispute settlement provisions were to apply in this respect.  Finally, as before Seattle, his
delegation strongly objected to any proposal that th ere should be any form of presumption of dumping
in whatever situation might be envisaged.  He acknowledged that this refered to dumping by
developed countries to developing countries, but his delegation found the whole notion of a
presumption of dumping repugnant.
141. The representative of Bolivia said that her delegation believed that the present mechanism had
not been created in order to decide at a subsequent stage that it was not able to act.  Rather, it has been
created to ensure that the political element would he lp in the resolution of technical problems.  During
the course of the discussions before the decision on this mechanism had been taken, the possibility ofdeclarations of political intent to resolve the problems had been evoked.  There was no reason why
delegations should not bring to these General Council meetings experts to assist on the technical
aspects.  This would facilitate political deci sions, including those involving interpretations of
agreements.
142. The representative of Mexico said that his country had had problems in all aspects of the issue
under discussion, both as an importer applying anti-dumping measures and equally as an exporter
when such measures were applied against his country, perhaps frivolously.  Mexico thus had a
particular interest in this issue, which was not a purely technical problem.  His delegation believed
that a new approach was needed to establish a better balance between the export and import interests
of all Members.  This approach should be adjust ed to market realities, and be less legal and more
based on economics.  For this reason, his delegation believed that this issue should be addressed in the
General Council.  Finally, it had been agreed that this work in the General Council would be without
prejudice to whether there would be any link in the future to any further multilateral trade
negotiations.
143. The representative of Pakistan said that the application of anti-dumping measures was
allowed under the WTO as an exception to the general disciplines, but on the understanding that the
selective imposition of duties tended to lead to discriminatory trade policies.  Anti-dumping actions
caused significant adverse effects for trade and business, whether or not actual anti-dumping duties
were finally put in place.  His delegation believed that there was an in-built bias towards
protectionism in the anti-dumping proceedings, and this was reflected by the practice of some
developed trading partners.  In this respect his delegation agreed with Chile on the over-exuberance of
some of these partners.  Two cases involving his country in recent years had created doubts about themanner in which this trade policy instrument was being used.  One case involved bed linen, where an
investigation was initiated in 1994, followed by term ination and initiation of a second investigation
within a span of a two months in 1996.  The second case related to cotton fabric, where investigations
initiated on 20 January 1994 were terminated on 19 February 1996, and re-started on 21 February
1996 after two days.  One wondered what could have occurred in a span of two days to necessitate
such a re-initiation.  This could only reflect the intention by the trading partner involved to disrupt the
trade flow.   This was what worried his delegation, and the first proposal in paragraph 21(a) addressed
that concern, suggesting that no investigation should be initiated for a period of 365 days from the
date of finalisation of a previous investigation for the same product.  His delegation recognized that
anti-dumping provisions were aimed at addressing genuine concerns of unfair trade practices.  But it
was necessary to correct the bias in the Anti- Dumping Agreement to prevent the use of these
provisions to disrupt normal trade flows.  The second proposal addressed the lesser-duty rule in
Article 9.1, which laid out that it was desirable that the anti-dumping duty be less than the full margin
to dumping, and that this should be sufficient to remove the injury.  The problem was the word
"desirable".  The rationale of an anti-dumping duty was that it should be corrective, not punitive, in
which case the rationale of the lesser-duty rule was not difficult to understand.  Since it was termedWT/GC/M/56
Page 42
desirable, relatively few countries used this rule in practice, which led to a difficult situation for
exporting countries, and in particular developing countries.  The wording should thus be changed, and
the lesser-duty rule should be made mandatory.  The third proposal suggested that Article 2.2 should
be clarified in order to make appropriate comparisons with respect to the margin of dumping.  This
addressed the problems his country faced in the determination of the margin of dumping.  Hisdelegation believed that this provision was not clear, giving leeway to national authorities to
determine the margin of dumping however they wished.
144. The representative of Brazil said that his country had an interest in many issues raised by the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, particularly the issues covered by the proposals in paragraph 22.  His
delegation wondered if it might be useful to hold consultations on the proposals in both paragraphs at
once, since they were similar.  Like Hong Kong, China, his delegation had a strong interest in the
question of the general standard of review.
145. The representative of India said that the first proposal in this area in paragraph 21 suggested
that to avoid back-to-back anti-dumping investigati ons, there should be an understanding that there
would be a moratorium of at least one year in anti-dumping investigations against the same product
from the same exporting Member.  Like Pakistan, his country had been subjected to this very situation
by a major trading partner.  There had also been cases where India's textile products had been keptunder anti-dumping investigation for a period of near ly six years, without provisional or final duty
being levied at any point of time.  His delegation believed that this was not the purpose of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  The second proposal was for the provisions of Article 9.1 to be made
mandatory, so that when the injury margin was lower than the dumping margin, the level of dumping
duty should be restricted to the injury margin.  The third proposal related to Article 2.2, suggestingthat constructed values should be used only when investigating authorities come to the conclusion that
the margin of dumping could not be determined by comparison with the export price to a third
country.  All three proposals were simple, straightforward proposals, and did not imply any
fundamental changes to the Agreement.  Provided there was goodwill, he believed that it would be
possible to develop understandings to give effect to these three proposals.  However, there appeared tobe different approaches to addressing the issues in this area.  Some believed the problem to be
Article VI itself, like Hong Kong, China.  Others believed that not much could be achieved on these
issues in this process and they should thus be dealt with in future negotiations, but his delegation had
often stated that implementation issues should not be linked to a future round.  Another approach was
to send these issues to the Anti-Dumping Committee,  since they were complicated, as suggested by
the European Community.   With regard to the last approach, his personal experience, particularly in
the area of textiles, had shown him that experts were not necessarily the best negotiators, since theyhad fixed views they were unable to change.  As he had said, these were simple, straightforward
proposals, and no great knowledge or expertise was required to deal with them.  With the necessary
goodwill and a political decision, these three issues could rapidly be resolved in the present forum
without sending them to any other committee.
146. The representative of Singapore said that her country looked at the issue of anti-dumping
from a broader context, since there had been an increase in the use of anti-dumping actions not only
by developed countries but also by developing countries.  Since the conclusion of Uruguay Round,
with greater opening of markets and reduction of tari ffs, countries had resorted to the use of the anti-
dumping instruments as a means to protect domestic industries.  Although most of the proposals in
this area were from developing countries, her delegation believed that the increased use of anti-dumping actions and in many instances, the abuse of such actions, should be a source of concern for
all Members.  Her delegation questioned whether the proposals truly sought a better balance in the
interests of importers and exporters, as some mainta ined.  The objective should be to tighten rules in
this area to ensure that the users of anti-dumping acti ons did not resort to these actions in an arbitrary
and frivolous manner.  Many of the proposals required substantial and technical examination, and herWT/GC/M/56
Page 43
delegation would accept any procedure, whether in the General Council or the Anti-Dumping
Committee.
147. The representative of Malaysia said that, like others, his country had concerns in the area of
implementation of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Malaysia had submitted proposals in this area on
behalf of the ASEAN Members before the Seattle Ministerial Conference, as mentioned by thePhilippines and Indonesia.  One proposal important to  Malaysia was that Article 5.8 of the Agreement
needed to be clarified with regard to the time-fra me to be used in determining whether the volume of
dumped imports was negligible under the thresholds stipulated in the Article.  With regard to the view
of some delegations that these were issues which should be relegated to the Anti-Dumping
Committee, his delegation believed that some of them could be dealt with in the General Council,
such as the first proposal in paragraph 21 on the 365 day moratorium on repeated anti-dumping
investigations.  Other proposals might need to be sent to the Committee, but this was for the GeneralCouncil to decide.  If work was sent to the Committee, the General Council should set a precise time-
frame, perhaps three months, within which the Committee would have to report back.   His delegation
continued to believe that any decision in this regard should be taken without prejudice to any linkage
to any new round of negotiations.  His delegation agreed with India that some issues should be
discussed in the General Council since they were political, while others were only clarifications orinterpretations that did not need to be relegated to the Committee.
148. The representative of Saint Lucia said that her delegation recognized the detailed nature of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, which some delegations had suggested would require the issues to be
addressed in the Anti-Dumping Committee.  At the same time, her delegation was concerned by the
lack of substantive movement on a number of these issues.  When one considered how long it had
taken to determine an appropriate length of an investigation in that Committee, her delegation was
unsure whether progress would be made on these issues, although some appeared to be of a technical
nature.  Her delegation had a particular interest in the treatment of small and medium size enterprises
under Article 6.13 and this issue could be added to the proposals being discussed.  She wondered
whether the suggestion by Pakistan for Special Sessions dealing with specific topics could beextended to inviting the necessary experts to thes e meetings, to assist the General Council in taking
what were largely political decisions on these issues.  Her delegation agreed with Malaysia that if any
issues were sent to the subsidiary body, clear terms of reference should be given in a time-bound
manner.  Her delegation preferred, however, all issues  to remain in the present forum, including those
on anti-dumping.
(h) Agreement on Customs Valuation
149. The representative of India said that the proposals by India on the Customs Valuation
Agreement drew upon the recognition in the Agreemen t that the provisions of Article VII needed to
be elaborated in order to provide greater unifor mity and certainty in their implementation.  The
Agreement required that the customs value should be based on the transaction value, or the actual
value.  The Agreement also recognised that a fair, uniform and neutral system for the valuation of
goods for customs purposes should preclude the use of arbitrary or fictitious customs values.  Indiaattached importance to both these dimensions of th e Agreement, which laid out that the actual value
would be the sale price in the ordinary course of trade and under full competitive conditions.  Uniform
customs valuation methods presented in a hierarchy under the Agreement had been advocated on the
grounds that importing countries should not use arbitrary values to restrict trade and that traders
would know in advance their duty liability with  certainty.  Implementation of the Agreement,
however, posed many problems particularly for the customs administrations of developing countries.
It was easier to rely on transaction values in adva nced countries where the duty rates were low, import
controls were minimal and not based on value, exchange controls were non-existent, corruption in the
public service was low, voluntary compliance was high and the judicial system was quick and
efficient.  But the situation in developing countries was different.  Moreover, the number of cases ofWT/GC/M/56
Page 44
fraudulent transactions might not be as high in developed countries as in developing countries.  The
World Bank Policy Research Paper entitled "Implementation of Uruguay Round Commitments: The
Development Challenge", of October 1999, observed that:  "Where tariffs are high, and where
accounting expertise and access to electronic information limited, shifting to a risk-based valuation
system that depends on in depth examination of a sample (15 or 20 percent) of shipments, might
increase rather than reduce the number of shipments on which importers attempt to under-invoice.
Traders might view the change as giving them a better, not a worse chance to get away with under-
invoicing".
150. India's specific proposals in this area were aime d at addressing these important provisions and
the need to deter fraud, facilitate genuine trade and protect revenue.  The first proposal in
paragraph 21 suggested a multilateral arrangement for the exchange of information on customs value.
The provisions of the Agreement did not address the situation where an exporter filed the correctexport declaration to the customs authorities, but th e importer unilaterally resorted to mis-declaration
of value to the customs authorities in the importing country to evade due customs duty.  To tackle this
problem, the practice of entering into bilateral ag reements for exchange of information regarding
customs value had evolved.  But this was not a practical and enduring solution to the problem.  In this
regard the World Bank Paper stated that:  "At least for basic goods, a valuation system based onobserved world prices might offer a better opportunity to introduce transparency, objectivity and
accountability into the system.  At periodic reviews of these "reference prices" both import users and
import-competing interests might be given "standing" and could be offered the opportunity to submit
evidence in support of revisions.  It might also be possible to establish a collective system of reference
prices, over which no one government had control.  Schedules of reference prices might bedetermined by an intergovernmental group, their preparation and circulation might be contracted to an
independent agency".   The Agreement did not explicitly provide for adoption of reference values as a
method of valuation.  However, there might be no objections to using such values for price
comparison purposes to test the truth and accuracy of declared values and for rejection of the
transaction value method.   Successful implementation of the Agreement and proper valuation ofgoods traded internationally required international cooperation.  One way could be through securing
administrative assistance from the customs administration of the exporting country when there was
doubt regarding truth and accuracy of the value declared.  This was not a new idea, since the
International Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance for the Prevention, Investigation and
Repression of Customs Offences (the Nairobi Convention) acknowledged in its preamble that
"offences against Customs law are prejudicial to the economic, social and fiscal interests of States and
to the legitimate interests of trade" and that "action against Customs offences can be rendered moreeffective by co-operation between Customs administrations".  This Convention had been ratified by
only 38 countries, of which only 28 had ratified Annex II relating to valuation frauds, and most of
developed countries had not done so.  Thus, while developing countries had a binding obligation to
apply the Agreement, there was no such binding obligation on developed-country Members to render
assistance to verify customs values even in doubtful cases.  India's proposal was accordingly todevelop a multilateral solution that enabled customs administrations of importing countries to seek
and obtain information on export values contained in the export declaration from the customs
administrations of exporting countries in doubtful cases, in a time-bound manner.  The second
proposal addressed the cost of services, such as engineering, development and design.  Under
Article 8.1(b)(iv) of the Agreement, the addition of the cost of such services, supplied directly orindirectly by the buyer free of charge or at reduced  cost for the production of goods under import, was
permitted only if the services were undertaken other than in the country of importation.  This
provision provided for the import value to be split, by claiming that part of the services had been
rendered in the importing country itself.  India's proposal was that the cost of such services, which
were integral to the value of the imported goods, should be included in the valuation irrespective ofwhether they had been undertaken in the country of importation.  The third proposal addressed the
determination of customs value under the residual method in Article 7 of the Agreement.  Paragraph 2
of this Article prohibited, inter alia, the determination of customs value on the basis of:  (i) the priceWT/GC/M/56
Page 45
of goods in the domestic market of the country of exportation; and (ii) the price of the goods for
export to a country other than the country of importation.  The exclusion clause (c) in paragraph 2,
however, created a situation of dichotomous trea tment.  Under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, a
product was to be considered as being dumped (introduced into the commerce of another country at
less than its normal value) if the export price of the product was less than the comparable price for thelike product sold in the domestic market or the export price in a third country where there was no sale
in the domestic market.  While the Anti-Dumping Agreement recognized the domestic price and
export price in a third country, the Customs Valuation Agreement explicitly excluded such a
possibility.  India proposed that the residual method of determining customs value appropriately under
Article 7 should be inclusive of all residual eventualities, thus allowing valuation based on domestic
market price or export price in a third country with appropriate adjustments.
151. The representatives of Cuba, Honduras
, Pakistan  and Sri Lanka  supported the statement by
India, since their countries had been co-sponsors of the proposals in paragraph 21(h).
152. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that, with regard to the first proposal on
customs valuation in paragraph 21, his delegation believed that there had been some developments
since the 19 October text which would provide a better basis to take the matter forward, in the
consultations or further discussion in the General Council.
153. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation was not in a position
to provide a detailed position on the issues under discussion, and it believed that this was an area
where an exchange at expert level would be necessary.  His delegation's preliminary reaction to the
proposals was that most of them would entail negotiation, since they appeared to question the
fundamentals of the Customs Valuation Agreement.  In the case of the proposal relating to theexchange of information between authorities, it was difficult to envisage how to make such a system
operational in a way which would not result in a burden on the services concerned.  His delegation
wondered whether the proposal addressed more the symptoms rather than the underlying problem,
which was the effective application of the Agreement.  He wished to draw attention to proposals in
this area on which his delegation had been working.  The first addressed extensions for developingcountries in difficulties coupled together with an implementation programme for the countries
involved.  The second covered the broader issue of enhanced technical assistance to build capacity, on
which his delegation had submitted a specific proposal, in the belief that this was the key to both good
and timely implementation of the Customs Valuation Agreement.  This approach could serve as a
model for other agreements where some least-developed countries had especially acute resource
problems.  His delegation was keen to make progress on these two issues, which it believed would
remove many of the implementation problems in the area of customs valuation.
154. The representative of Japan said that his delegation believed that the first three proposals in
paragraph 21(h) would involve altering the right and obligations under the current Agreement and
they would most appropriately be addressed in further negotiations.  The first proposal would
probably entail changing his country's domestic regulation and the third proposal would involve a
considerable burden on customs authorities and would imply technical complexities.  With regard tothe fourth proposal, his delegation believed that this issue was being adequately dealt with in a
separate process.
155. The representative of the United States said that her delegation appreciated the statement by
India on the justification for its proposals.  However, her delegation was concerned that some of the
issues raised involved re-negotiating the provisions of the Customs Valuation Agreement, and itbelieved that the Agreement was sufficient as it stood.  With regard to the first proposal, the
Agreement adequately addressed the issue of verifying the truth or accuracy of statements and
declarations made by importers.  However, her delegation was willing to engage in further
consultation on some means of facilitating the objective sought in the proposal, short of opening upWT/GC/M/56
Page 46
the Agreement.  On the second proposal, her delegation was concerned that the proposal would
discourage the design and development of products by domestic workforces in the importing country.
Her delegation did not see how these related to the transaction value, but it would be ready to explore
further clarifications.  Equally, the third propos al might change the fundamental character of the
Agreement, since it explicitly recognised these methods of valuation as being inappropriate toapproximate transaction value.  Her delegation also agreed with the statement by the European
Community in this respect.  Since these proposals had been made there had been demonstrative
progress on the issue of transition periods and more was being done in the area of technical assistance.
While technical assistance was not necessarily a solution to all implementation issues, Customs
Valuation was one area where it was applicable.
156. The representative of Morocco said that, as a developing country, Morocco fully associated
itself with the statement by India.
157. The representative of India said that the Customs Valuation Agreement provided for the
declared transaction value to be the basis for customs valuation.  The first proposal addressed the
discrepancies which existed between the value declared by the exporter to the exporting customs
authority and the value declared by the importer to the customs authority of the importing country.  In
a number of countries, this led to fraud and a leakage of revenue.  Some delegations believed that thisproposal would change the balance of rights and obligations in the Agreement, but since the existing
provision was not effective, a way should be found to allow customs administrations in importing
countries to obtain the cooperation of those in exporting countries when they had strong reasons to
believe that there was a discrepancy.  One could not reject the aim of dealing with fraud through
seeking the help of exporting countries by saying that the existing balance of rights and obligationswas correct.  No major burden would result from this proposal, since the documents existed in most
cases.  The argument that it would require a change in domestic laws for some Members was not also
not valid, since many Members were struggling to change their laws to implement the WTO
Agreements.  It was extraordinary that many developed and even some developing countries could be
opposed to this simple proposal, and this was a matter for reflection.
158. The representative of the United States said th at her reference to the balance of rights and
obligations in her earlier statement had been with regard to other proposals, not the first one.  She
wished to reiterate that the existing provisions were adequate to verify the accuracy of declarations
made by importers.  Her delegation acknowledged there was a problem in this area, and this could be
addressed without reopening the Agreement.  Her delegation was ready to work towards such a
solution in the consultations.
159. The representative of Japan, responding to the statement by India, said that the true objective
of the first proposal was not the supply of information on export values, but rather accurate
assessment of the value of the particular commodities.  The proposal addressed the means to
overcome the problem, but the real objective was elsewhere.  He agreed with others that custom
valuation was a highly technical area, and to make progress in this area it would be appropriate for
experts to be involved.  Japan had certain limits in its domestic regulations on supplying export valueinformation, which was why experts would be necessary.  Experts would also have to be involved in
addressing the issues in the second and third proposals, since some solutions might change the nature
of customs valuation.
160. The representative of Switzerland supported the statements by the United States on all the
proposals and the European Communities on the latter three.  On the first proposal, his delegation did
not oppose looking for solutions in this area, but it agreed with the Community that the question of
practical feasibility of supplying information was a factor.  It would be unfortunate if such a system
resulted in an avalanche of requests by the importing countries to the customs authorities of exporting
countries.  Furthermore, the proposal omitted to mention export value declaration, which would give aWT/GC/M/56
Page 47
different dimension to what was proposed and allow delegations to examine it from a different view
point.  Another problem in the exchange of information was the variety of domestic legislation across
Members, and this should be taken into account.
161. The representative of Canada supported the statement by Japan.  Her delegation believed that
of the issues under discussion in this area were complex and technical, and Members' domestic
systems had different rules and regulations.  Therefore these issues should be referred to the technical
experts.  With respect to the fourth proposal, work on this issue was taking place in the Customs
Valuation Committee, and her delegation believed that efforts should continue in that forum.
(i) Agreement on Rules of Origin
162. The representative of India said that his delegation was satisfied with the work carried out in
the Technical Committee on Rules of Origin.  In May 1999, this Committee had sent to the
Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) its final report on the technical aspects of the HarmonizationWork Programme on non-preferential rules of origin in accordance with its mandate.  The CRO had
worked until November 1999 to try to meet the deadline for completing its work, however, this had
not been possible.  This work had covered issues relating to overall architecture as well as product-
specific issues.   According to the Agreement on  Rules of Origin, this work should have been
concluded by July 1998, at which point the CRO had agreed to make best endeavours to conclude thework by November 1999, or the third Ministerial Conference.  This deadline had been seen to build in
the necessary political impetus for completion of the harmonization work.  But this deadline could
also not be met.  These slippages in meeting the deadline were serious matters.  The CRO had since
continued its discussions in accordance with a detailed management plan for the year 2000 for
resolving all outstanding issues, on the understanding that it would simultaneously deliberate andagree upon a reasonable deadline.  The work under the management plan had been less intensive than
in 1999, and indeed the meetings in the current year had seen more of a repetition of known country
positions than any real negotiation or flexibility.   Her delegation believed that the key obstacle to
completion of the work was the lack of collective understanding of the complex trade policy
implications that underpinned rules of origin.  India and other developing countries had repeatedlytried to generate a serious discussion through the submission of papers, however this discussion had
always been postponed.  Some Members had been using rules of origin transitional arrangements for
the protection of domestic industry and as instruments to pursue trade objectives directly or indirectly,
contrary to Article 2(b) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.  It was also evident that through their
proposals for harmonizing non-preferential rules of origin, some Members were attempting to dovetail
them to their existing preferential rules, which was unfair to other Members and lacking in purpose.
In the preparations for the third Ministerial Conference, India had proposed that this work beconcluded by July 2000.  During informal discussions, Members had agreed that 31 December 2000
was achievable.  In the ongoing discussions on the deadline, an impasse had been reached.  All agreed
that a fixed deadline was necessary to complete the work and that it should be reasonable in order not
to further erode the credibility of the WTO.  However, no one was willing to suggest an alternative to
India's proposal other than to merely state that it was unrealistic.  Unlike most areas where deadlineshad been agreed, rules of origin was an area where Members had domestic experience and where they
had spent more than five years generating a collective appreciation of the negotiating elements.  What
was required was not a statistical assessment of the outstanding work, but rather the will to give and
take.  Her delegation believed that:  (i) the CRO should complete its remaining work on harmonizing
non-preferential rules of origin in a reasonable time-bound manner, and, in the meanwhile, no newinterim arrangements should be introduced;  and (ii) special and differential treatment for developing
countries in the disciplines during the transition period should be provided, including suspension with
effect rules or of the operation of interim arrangements on origin introduced by any Member on or
after 1 January 1995.WT/GC/M/56
Page 48
163. The representative of Pakistan supported the statement by India on the failure to meet the
deadline for work in the Committee on Rules of Origin.  His delegation wondered if the non-
completion of this exercise was not in the interest of some Members.  However, it was important for
other Members, particularly developing countries, that this exercise be completed at the earliest.  This
was because rules of origin had the potential of being used as a protectionist tool, since they hadimplications on other trade policies instruments, such as anti-dumping actions and quantitative
restrictions.  If this exercise was not completed, the objectives set out in GATT 1994 and reiterated in
the Preamble to the Agreement on Rules of Origin of predictability, transparency, facilitation of flow
of international trade would not be achieved.  Completion by the deadline of 31 December 2000 was
still possible in the view of his delegation, but it was prepared to be flexible on this.  The second
proposal, on the suspension of any interim arrang ements introduced with effect from 1 January 1995,
contained a date limit which had been surpassed, but his delegation that this suspension should stilltake place done because of the implications of this trade policy instrument.
164. The representative of the Philippines, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, said that
the Preamble to the Agreement on Rules of Origin clearly set out the objective of harmonizing and
clarifying rules of origin to ensure that such rules did not create unnecessary obstacles to trade and
nullify or impair the rights of Members.  The work on harmonizing rules of origin was still ongoing inthe Committee on Rules of Origin way beyond the original schedules set out in the Agreement.
Article 2 of the Agreement stated that "until the work programme for the harmonization of rules of
origin … is completed, Members shall ensure that  … rules of origin shall not themselves create
restrictive, distorting or disruptive effects on in ternational trade".  In the meantime, an interim
arrangement introduced by a Member had created restrictive, distortive and disruptive effects insectors of export interest to developing countries.  The delay in completing the work programme was
upsetting the balance of rights and obligations of Members.  To restore this balance it was important
that a reasonable and feasible deadline be set and adhered to.
165. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the timely completion of the rules of origin
Harmonization Work Programme was a priority for his country.  It was important that the harmonized
rules be of high quality, but that quality should in no way be compromised by hastiness.  Taking into
account the progress made thus far and the complexity of the outstanding issues, his delegation did
not believe that the time-frame of end of December 2000 would be realistic.  As the work programme
was a common endeavour, his delegation would join any consensus on a workable date in further
consultations held by the Chairman of the Committee on Rules of Origin.
166. The representative of Brazil said that his country attached great importance to the completion
of the work on harmonization of rules of origin, which it believed was part of the mandated
negotiations.  His delegation was prepared to discuss ways to speed up these negotiations within the
Committee on Rules of Origin.
167. The representative of Canada said that, like others, her country attached importance to
concluding the work on harmonizing non-preferential rules of origin and her delegation had been a
very active participant in those discussions.  However a number of the issues with respect to product-specific rules of origin had only been reviewed once by the Committee on Rules of Origin and still
remained outstanding.  There were also issues ou tstanding with respect to the general rules and the
overall architecture of rules of origin.  Canada would prefer to have a set of rules that were open,
transparent, consistent and well thought-out, rather than a set of rules that had been hastily put
together in order to meet a unrealistic deadline.
168. The representative of Honduras said that his delegation believed that it was necessary to set a
realistic time-frame to finish the Harmonization Work Programme so that the provisions of the
Agreement on Rules of Origin did not distort international trade.WT/GC/M/56
Page 49
(j) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
169. The representative of Egypt said that her country, as it was listed in Annex VII paragraph (b)
of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, had concerns on this Annex.  Seeking to
preserve the efforts exerted to negotiate this Annex in first place, it believed that the threshold of
US$1,000 GNP per capita should be treated as being expressed in real terms and not nominal.  Thereshould also be an understanding that a Member listed in Annex VII(b) would cease to be covered by
the provisions of this Annex only when its GNP per capita had exceeded US$1,000 per annum for
three consecutive years, and that the same Member could become re-eligible automatically if its GNP
per capita fell below that level.
170. The representative of the Dominican Republic said that if there was one good example of an
implementation problem stemming from the of the imbalances of the Uruguay Round negotiations, it
was the case of Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreemen t.  This Annex listed some developing countries
which were not subject to some of the provisions of the Agreement.  It set a threshold of GNP per
capita of US$1,000 for those countries which had the good fortune to be listed, but several countries
below that threshold were not included, such as Honduras.  Once the countries listed crossed this
threshold, they would have to adhere to the provisions of the Agreement.  His delegation wondered
where this threshold had come from and what had been the technical criteria on the basis of which ithad been set.  Once this arbitrary threshold was crossed, these countries were being subject to
disciplines for which they were not prepared.  The proposal made by his country and others was to lift
this threshold to a slightly higher level – an  average income established in the World Bank
methodology of classification.  In this regard, his delegation supported the statement by Egypt, and
hoped that this proposal would be given serious consideration to show that the WTO took intoaccount the interests of small nations.  The 71 member countries of the ACP had supported this
proposal, and the Trade Ministers of the 59 countries which were also WTO Members had stated that
the review of Annex VII was a pre-condition to the participation of their countries in a new
multilateral round of trade negotiations.
171. The representative of Honduras said that her country had cosponsored a proposal to amend
Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement to include those countries with a per capita income lower than
US$1,000 which were members of the GATT but not listed in the Annex.  The threshold should also
be extended to other countries, on the basis of the World Bank categories.  This proposal did not
require technical work, since it was simply a question of political will.
172. The representative of Malaysia said that paragraph 21 contained two proposals on Article 8 of
the Subsidies Agreement.  The first proposal su ggested that the Subsidies Agreement dealing with
non-actionable subsidies should be expanded to include subsidies referred to in Article 3.1 of theAgreement when such subsidies were provided by developing-country Members.  His delegation
believed that this proposal merited serious and urgent consideration to rectify the imbalance in the
Agreement.  Article 8.2 of the Agreement provided for assistance for research activities, assistance to
disadvantaged regions within the territory of a Member and assistance to promote adaptation of
existing facilities to new environmental requirements.  While this provision was available to allMembers and was helpful for economic development, it required huge capital outlays, which was why
Malaysia had not availed itself of this provision.  It was rather the richer industrialized Members
which had benefitted from it.  For this reason, his delegation believed that those subsidies presently
classified as prohibited under Article 3.1 should be considered as non-actionable when provided by
developing-country Members.  Some of the programmes currently classified as prohibited werenecessary tools for economic development of his country, and this prohibition limited its policy
options.  Furthermore, his delegation supported the proposal that the prohibition on using export
subsidies under Article 27.6 should be applicable to a developing country only after its export levels
in a product remained over 3.25 per cent of world trade continuously for a period of five years, ratherWT/GC/M/56
Page 50
than the two years at present.  This would better reflect the actual performance of the products, since
the two year period discounted the effects of inflation and fluctuations in exchange rates.
173. The representative of Indonesia said that, as a co-sponsor of the proposals on subsidies in
paragraph 21(b), his country believed that these proposals should not entail major difficulties since
many concerned clarifications of provisions in the Agreement.  The proposal on Annex VII was agood example of this, and his delegation supported the statements by the Dominican Republic and
Honduras in this regard.
174. The representative of Cuba said that his delegation associated itself with the statements on
subsidies by other developing countries and endorsed all the proposals in paragraph 21 on this issue.
175. The representative of Brazil supported the statement by Malaysia on the provisions of
Article 8 of the Subsidies Agreement.
176. The representative of Saint Lucia said that her delegation believed that the Subsidies
Agreement highlighted the imbalances present in many Uruguay Agreements, and it shared the views
of the developing countries which had spoken in the present meeting.  Such imbalances in the
Agreement were clear where sub-national governments had the authority to grant regional subsidies
because of the restricted language used in Article 2.2 of the Agreement, and where the provisions of
Article 8 permitted subsidies for R&D, as mentioned by Malaysia.  Her delegation supported theproposals in paragraph 21(b), which were aimed at allowing additional flexibility in the Agreement,
particularly in context of Annex VII and the de minimus levels for small economies.
177. The representative of Hong Kong, China said th at there had been developments in the area of
the proposal on Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement since the present proposal had been submitted,
in particular alternative language arising from discussions at Seattle, which might provide a betterbasis for work on this issue.  On the first proposal on Article 8.1, his delegation believed that it was
clear in Article 31 that Articles 6.1, 8 and 9 should apply for a period of five years, and after the
mandated review, the Subsidies Committee would determine whether to extend the application.  No
such decision had been taken.  Furthermore, in the Subsidies Committee meeting of November 1999,
the Committee Chairman had stated that the review would end on 31 December 1999 and, if there wasno consensus to extend the provisions at that time, the provisions would lapse.  The Subsidies
Committee subsequently met on 9 May 2000 and this question was not addressed further.  For this
reason, his delegation believed that these three Articles had lapsed, both legally and procedurally.  In
this regard, there could be no question of considering the extension of the scope of Article 8.1.
178. The representative of El Salvador said that, as a co-sponsor of the proposal on Annex VII, her
country believed that the implementation problem it addressed could be solved through a political
decision taken by General Council to change the application threshold from US$1,000 to the LowerMiddle Income Category of the World Bank.
179. The representative of Pakistan agreed with Saint Lucia that the Subsidies Agreement was a
clear examples of the inequities and imbalances in the Uruguay Round Agreements, and supported the
statements by the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
180. The representative of Ecuador supported the statement by the Dominican Republic.  His
government believed that the proposal on Annex VI I deserved broad support, since it would reap clear
benefits for developing countries.
181. The representative of India supported the proposals on the Subsidies Agreement in
paragraph 21.  His delegation acknowledged that the transition provisions on certain Articles had
ceased to exist with effect from 1 January 2000, as mentioned by Hong Kong, China.  However, allWT/GC/M/56
Page 51
these proposals had been made before the expiry date of those transition provisions with the
expectation that some decisions would be taken before 31 December 1999.  The main point was that
many developing countries believed the Subsidies Agreement to be one of the most inequitable
agreements.  The transition periods of five years had given immunity to the types of subsidies granted
by developing countries, but by the time they had be come aware of that, the period of five years had
expired.  His delegation believed that, because of this peculiar legal situation, the proposals might
have to be re-written without changing their substance.  But, in the consultations on these issues, an
approach would be needed which would help developing countries address the problems they faced.
It might be argued that Article 8 was no longer legally in existence, but it was important to ensure that
the subsidy measures implemented by developing countries aimed at achieving legitimate
development goals were not challenged.
182. The representative of the European Communities said that much time had been spent on these
issues before the Seattle Ministerial Conference, and some progress had been made, in particular on
the issue of Annex VII.  His delegation was willing to look again at this and other proposals.
However, as stated in relation to other issues, in this area it might be necessary to ask the advice of the
experts within the appropriate committee.  One way to achieve this in all cases could be through
special sessions of the relevant Committees, to allow priority consideration to the issues underconsideration.  This might help all sides get closer to a consensus solution on an implementation
package.
183. The representative of Venezuela supported the statements by the Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan.  The measures proposed could
contribute to helping developing countries improve their production facilities so that their exportswould no longer be based on commodities with low added value.  This diversification would be a
basis for the development mentioned in his country's proposal in July 1999 on spaces for development
policies.  These proposals also corresponded to special and differential treatment, not to create more
exceptions but rather to improve the export prospects of developing countries.
184. The representative of Chile said that it appeared that some Members sought to extend the
capacity of number of developing countries to subsidise their exports.  Chile did not find this
appropriate in a multilateral trading system aimed at liberalizing trade, since it had to compete with
imports wherever they came from and wished to comp ete on an equal basis without subsidies.  Chile
would have grave concerns if some Members wished to allow further export subsidies.
185. The representative of the United States said that some of the issues under discussion were also
taken up by the Subsidies Committee under the built-in agenda, as also mentioned by Hong Kong,
China.  However, her delegation believed that the application of Annex VII of the SubsidiesAgreement could be examined in a positive way.
186. The representative of Jamaica said that his country supported the proposals in
paragraph 21(b).  Jamaica believed that the widening of the range of countries able to utilise some
elements of subsidisation to strengthen their participation in global economy should be given due
consideration.  The proposal in this respect placed limits on the share of trade above which this wouldnot be permitted, and his delegation believed that would take care of the question of significant trade
distortion in respect of the application of subsidies.
(k) Agreement on Safeguards
187. The representative of Colombia said that his country had submitted a proposal on the
de minimis margin in the application of safeguard measures.  Colombia believed that in the
Safeguards Agreement and also in the Subsidies and the Anti-Dumping Agreements, the de minimis
margin was too low.  Colombia had proposed to modify Article 9.1 of the Safeguards Agreement soWT/GC/M/56
Page 52
that safeguard measures would not be applied to imports from developing countries which
individually accounted for less than 7 per cent of total imports.
(l) General Agreement on Trade in Services
188. The representative of Egypt said that the implementation of the provisions of the GATS
aimed to facilitate the increasing participation of developing countries in trade in services and the
expansion of their services exports through the strengthening of their domestic services capacity and
its efficiency and competitiveness, and the liberalization of market access in sectors and in modes of
supply of export interest to them.  The proposals in this area in paragraph 21 were aimed at fulfilling
those objectives by fully implementing the commitments undertaken by developed countries in favour
of developing countries.  In the area of movement of natural persons, these aims were to achieved
through reducing and eliminating barriers to their presence, especially those related to licensing
requirements, visa procedures and economics needs tests, as well as establishing a monitoring andnotification mechanism to ensure effective implementation of Article IV of the GATS.
189. The representative of Pakistan said that his country had previously submitted a proposal on
the movement of natural persons under GATS (WT/GC/W/160) and a discussion paper on the same
subject (WT/GC/W/131).  These papers briefly reviewed the results of the Uruguay Round with
respect to the liberalization of movement of natural persons, identified the key barriers to their freemovement and provided strong legal and economic arguments for further liberalization and
commitments in this area.  Throughout the Uruguay Round negotiations, developing countries had
maintained liberalization in labour mobility as one of their major negotiating objectives, since many
of these countries had a comparative advantage in exporting labour services, both skilled and semi-
skilled.  This was important in terms of export earnings, and helped to improve living standards formany.  However, the lack of commercially meaningful commitments in Mode 4 had created a major
imbalance in terms of trade.  Most of the gains in this mode of supply applied to developed countries
for managers and executives, and developing countries did not gain from such commitments.  Barriers
remained in this mode, such as strict and discretionary visa and licensing requirements, lack of
recognition of qualifications and economic needs tests (ENTs).  These barriers prevented developingcountries from participating in a variety of activities essential to their market penetration, particularly
economic needs tests due to their discretionary nature.  Available evidence suggested that further
liberalization of trade in services could not succeed  without addressing the issue of economic needs
tests, as well as the other barriers.  In this respect, two documents by UNCTAD
(UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/8, dated 6 September 1999) and the OECD (TD/TC/SE(2000)2/Rev1, dated
May 2000) contained compilations of ENTs maintained by developed countries, in particular in
Modes 3 and 4.  Furthermore, there was a tendency to confuse the issue of movement of naturalpersons with immigration policies.  Movement of natural persons was not an issue of immigration
policy, and the GATS Annex on Movement of Natura l Persons was very clear in this regard.  The
GATS did not apply to measures affecting natural persons seeking access to the employment market
of a Member, nor did it apply to measures regarding citizenship, residence or employment on a
permanent basis.  Despite these explicit indications in the Annex, the issue of movement of naturalpersons was confused with issues such as immigration policies, residency requirements and work
permits.  To rectify this, Pakistan believed there was an urgent need to restore the balance between the
commitments under Mode 3 and mode 4 and treat the factors of production of capital and labour in a
symmetrical manner.  Finally, prior to any further liberalization in this area, Pakistan believed it was
necessary to ensure that the services of export interest to developing countries through any mode ofsupply were included in developed countries' schedules of commitments.  The second proposal in
paragraph 21 suggested the establishment of a monitoring and notification mechanism to ensure
effective implementation of GATS Article IV.  This Article aimed to ensure the increasing
participation of developing-country Members in world trade through specific commitments relating
to:  (a) the strengthening of their domestic services capacity and its efficiency and competitiveness,inter alia through access to technology on a commercial basis;  (b) the improvement of their access toWT/GC/M/56
Page 53
distribution channels and information networks; and c) the liberalization of market access in sectors
and modes of supply on export interests to them.  Pakistan believed that a monitoring and notification
mechanism would need to be established to operationalize and ensure effect implementation of the
provisions of this Article.  This mechanism would enable developing countries to obtain information
regarding steps being taken by developed countries for implementation of the Article, and alsofacilitate the increasing participation of developing countries in world trade as provided in the Article.
190. The representative of Cuba said that his country agreed with other developing countries on
the importance of the proposals on services.  Neither proposal would give rise to changes in the text of
the GATS, since they were aimed at achieving full implementation by developed countries of their
Uruguay Round commitments.  In particular, Mode 4 relating to movement of natural persons was a
sector where developing countries were competitive and Cuba believed a system of notification would
help confirm that the commitments in this area were being fulfilled.
191. The representative of Japan said that, despite having listened carefully to the statements by
developing-country Members thus far, he failed to understand what was meant by the first proposal on
services.  If these Members were trying to say that they were not satisfied with the way his country
implemented its services schedule, his delegation would be ready to discuss this on a bilateral basis.
But if it was rather the improvement of Japan's services schedule that they were referring to, this wasprecisely the subject of the negotiations that had just begun on services.
192. The representative of India, responding to the statement by Japan on the first proposal, said
that he agreed that if the proposal sought additional commitments, it should be submitted in the
negotiations launched on 1 January 2000.  However, the proposal actually addressed the
implementation of existing commitments.  Even though existing Mode 4 commitments by developedcountries, including Japan, were modest, they had not resulted in increased market access for
developing countries for the reasons explained by Pakistan.  The delegation of Japan had indicated its
willingness to enter into a discussion on this, but the question remained whether this should be
bilateral or multilateral.  The problems in this area were cross-cutting and not applicable to only one
country, and it was for these reasons that some developing countries had raised it in the presentmultilateral forum.  The second proposal addressed GATS Article IV, which his delegation believed
was one of most important articles in the GATS, since it provided for the increasing participation of
developing countries.  Pakistan had elaborated on how this was to be achieved, according to the
Article, but the only way in which one could fi nd out whether this had happened was through the
mandated assessment of trade in services under Article XIX.  However, the Council for Trade in
Services had had difficulties in undertaking this assessment for various reasons, including the of lack
of statistics in this area.  His delegation also believed that this issue was too important to become aroutine item on the agenda of the Council for Trade in Services.  For these reasons, some developing
countries had proposed the establishment of a mechanism to monitor the functioning of Article IV.
193.  The representative of the Dominican Republic supported the statements by India and
Pakistan.  Article IV of the GATS provided for the establishment of contact points by developed-
country Members.  But this Article also stated that developing countries needed access to distributionchannels and information networks and he wondered whether Members had information on the status
of implementation in this respect.  This was not a question of new commitments, but rather a question
of problems of access to these distribution channels and information networks.  These hard-negotiated
provisions were being nullified through a whole series of barriers, as in air and maritime transport, to
access to information networks, such as barriers to access to technology and encryption.  Amonitoring and notification mechanism would ensure that these provisions of the GATS were
implemented, and not nullified by protectionist policies which were unjustifiable in the twenty-first
century.WT/GC/M/56
Page 54
194. The representative of the United States said that the explanations of the proposals in this area
given in the present meeting were interesting, and her delegation looked forward to further discussion
on these issues aimed at resolving the concerns expressed.  With regard to the statement by the
Dominican Republic, the United States had recently taken steps to liberalize its encryption policy.
Perhaps more should be done to increase the tr ansparency of what access to information was
available, and the ITC might be able to play a role in this.  Some of the issues raised concerned areas
where progress had been made, but not everybody was aware of it.  Finally, the United States believed
more could be done in the implementation of the Fourth and Fifth Protocols to the GATS.
195. The representative of Saint Lucia thanked the United States for its statement, as it had
highlighted why a monitoring mechanism would be useful.  Such a mechanism would provide
information on the steps being taken by developed countries, such as the United States on the issue of
encryption, which was an important area to developing countries that wanted to expand theirelectronic commerce activities.
196. The representative of the European Communities said that work undertaken on the second
proposal, on GATS Article IV, at the Seattle Ministerial Conference had resulted in a text which
partially responded to what had been proposed.  This text related to a review of the operation of
contact points under Article IV, and his delegation believ ed that it could be look at again in a positive
way.  With regard to the first proposal on Mode 4, his delegation believed that any reference to full
implementation of commitments should apply to all Members and not just developed countries.  Like
Japan, his delegation questioned whether the issue was an implementation issue per se.  It seemed
rather to be focused on the quality of the comm itments, in which case the correct procedure for
addressing the concerns it represented was in the context of the negotiations which had already begun.
197. The representative of India, responding to the statement by the European Communities, said
that the present process had been established because of the concerns expressed by some developing
countries on a number of areas where they had found their commitments difficult to fulfill, but also
because the expected benefits were not being realised.  In the case of trade in services, these countries
had believed that the commitments by developed countries would provide opportunities for them, and
this was not happening.  The proposal on Mode 4 was clearly based on an implementation issue, since
the expected benefits of this commitment were not being realised by developing countries.
(m) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
198. The representative of Egypt said that TRIPS was an area where developing countries had
experienced many difficulties due to the imbalances in the Agreement.  The implementation of the
Agreement by developed countries should contribute to facilitating the efforts of developing countries
to fulfill their obligations in this area, in particular through technical and financial assistance, as alsoflexibility with regard to transition periods.  The proposals in paragraph 21 were aimed at addressing
the imbalances in this Agreement.  The objectives  and principles of the Agreement as laid out in
Articles 7 and 8 should be also taken into consideration and faithfully implemented.
199. The representative of Pakistan said that one of the proposals on TRIPS in paragraph 21
addressed the extension of the transition period under Article 65.2.  His delegation believed that this
issue had not been adequately discussed thus far and it merited serious and urgent consideration by
the General Council.   The rationale behind this proposal was, that despite their best efforts, many
developing countries might not be in a position to implement all their obligations under the TRIPS
Agreement, and, at the least, would not be in a position to fully meet the wide-ranging enforcement
requirements.  This would not be due to a lack of commitment to implementation in this area, butrather a lack of institutional capacity and resources.  Non-implementation of the provisions of this
Agreement should not be treated as grounds for invocation of dispute settlement procedures.  It was
for this reason that the proposal for extension of the transition period had been made, and hisWT/GC/M/56
Page 55
delegation supported it fully.  The other proposals in this area were aimed at rectifying the more
apparent shortcomings and imbalances in the Agreement.  Some of these issues, such as the extension
of the scope of protection to geographical indications, exceptions under Article 27.3(b) and the
relationship between the Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, had also been raised
in the TRIPS Council.  However, there had been no meaningful progress on these issues in that forumdue to the refusal of some countries to engage in  substantive discussions and to their repetition of
procedural arguments.  His delegation believed that it would be more productive to address these
issues directly in the General Council.  It appeared that some progress might be made in the TRIPS
Council on the issue of non-violation complaints, and his delegation would monitor those discussions
in the hope that a solution would be found.
200. The representative of India supported the statements by Egypt and Pakistan.  The first
proposal on TRIPS in paragraph 21 concerned the extension of the scope of additional protection for
geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits.  This proposal by a number of
developing countries was also supported by some developed countries.  Discussions in the TRIPS
Council had not resulted in progress thus far, which was why the developing countries were
resubmitting it to the General Council.  The second proposal addressed the relationship of the TRIPS
Agreement with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), another area where no progress hadbeen made in the TRIPS Council.  While the TRIPS Agreement recognized intellectual property rights
to be private, the CBD reaffirmed that nation stat es had sovereign rights over their own biological
resources, recognized the desirability of sharing equitably the benefits arising from the use of these
resources as well as traditional knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the conservation of
biological diversity.  These two international agreements were intrinsically linked with one another,and it would be important to find ways to reconcile their contradictions, while respecting the overall
objective of conservation of biological resource s with sustainable development.  The CBD clearly
stated that the authority to determine access to genetic resources was with national governments and
subject to national legislation.  It also stated that access, where granted, should be on mutually-agreed
terms and subject to the prior informed consent of the resource provider.  It further directed the
international community to respect, preserve and maintain knowledge innovations and practices of
indigenous communities.  However, patents were being granted under the TRIPS Agreement on
biological and genetic resources, either completely  without the knowledge of the legitimate owners of
these resources, or worse, against the criteria for patentability in the Agreement.  Such patents were
totally in violation of Article 15 of the CBD Agreement, which listed conditions for access to
biological and genetic resources.  The proposal in this area suggested that, pending an examination of
the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD aimed at harmonizing them, patentswhich were inconsistent with Article 15 of the CBD should not be granted.  With regard to the
proposal on the non-violation provision of GATT  1994, his delegation agreed with Pakistan.
201. The review provided for in Article 27.3(b) of the Agreement was important to India.  This
Article clearly stated that a substantive review should be undertaken.  Some Members believed that
the review was related to the implementation of th e provisions.  His delegation disagreed with this,
since the review was foreseen one year before the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by
developing countries, and a review of implementation was contained in Article 71.  There appeared to
be deadlock in the TRIPS on this issue, and his delegation believed that it should thus be addressed in
the General Council.  In the context of such a review, India had also raised a number of issues in the
TRIPS Council to be addressed, including the link be tween Article 27.3(b) and development issues as
mandated by the General Council, issues relating to patentability of life forms,  sui generis issues, the
relationship to conservation and sustainable use of genetic material, and the issues of traditional
knowledge and farmer's rights.  In the light of this, the fifth proposal suggested that the period for
implementation of the provisions of Article 27.3(b) should be five years from the date the review was
completed.  The next proposal was to include the list of essential drugs of the WHO in the list ofexceptions to patentability in Article 27.3(b), in the light of the public policy objective of protection
of public health and nutrition in Article 8 of the Agreement and references to this issue in the recentWT/GC/M/56
Page 56
Human Development Report from UNDP.  None of these proposals could be considered to be
technical proposals, since they had aspects which were wider than the implementation of the TRIPS
Agreement, and they should thus be addressed in the General Council.
202. The representative of Cuba associated his delegation with the statements by India and
Pakistan.  Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement had become a burden for developing countries,
and the proposals in paragraph 21 in this area could help in this respect.  The proposal on the
extension of additional protection to geographical indications to other products would require a
political decision.  Such a decision would help to strengthen the balance in the Agreement and be of
value developing and developed countries alike.  He fully agreed with India on the second proposal,
to the effect that patents incompatible with Article 15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity
should not be granted.  He also agreed with India on the two proposals on Article 27.3, in particular
on the need to include essential drugs in the list of exception to patentability which would allow manydeveloping countries to afford important drugs.  His delegation also supported the proposal for the
extension of the transition period for developing countries, since it was important for the Agreement
to be implemented and these countries needed additional time for this.
203. The representative of Honduras supported the statements by Cuba, Egypt, India and Pakistan.
204. The representative of Malaysia said that although many of the proposals on TRIPS had been
items on the agenda of the TRIPS Council, little had taken place on the issues they addressed.  There
even seemed to be reluctance on the part of some Members, especially developed countries, to discuss
them.  For this reason, his delegation believed that these issues should be addressed in the present
meeting rather than in the TRIPS Council, incl uding the extension of the transition period.
205. The representative of Canada said that her delegation believed the TRIPS Council was the
appropriate forum to address the issue of the application non-violation, nullification and impairment
provisions, and the TRIPS Council had agreed to examine the scope and modalities for such
complaints under Article 64 of TRIPS.  Some Members had suggested extending the additional
protection for geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits, but her delegation
believed that this would require reopening the TRIPS Agreement.  Finally, her delegation recognisedthat many developing countries faced legitimate difficulties in implementing their TRIPS obligations,
but it believed that the specific problems faced by individual developing-country Members should be
examined through the built-in review process unde rway in the TRIPS Council.  It would then be
possible to identify on a case-by-case basis how best to ensure that these concerns were dealt with in a
timely manner.
206. The representative of Bulgaria said that, like others, his country attached particular
importance to the extension of the additional protection of geographical indications to products other
than wines and spirits.  This issue had been included as an implementation issue in paragraph 21(g)
and as an issue which required immediate action.  Bulgaria agreed that immediate action on
geographical indications was necessary because the negotiations provided for in Article 24.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement were not progressing satisfactorily and the provision of the first sentence of the
Article 24.1 had not been implemented expeditiously thus far.  The negotiations on geographicalindications under Article 24.1 were as mandated as the negotiations on agriculture and services.
Bulgaria was concerned by the manner in which negotiations on geographical indications were
referred to with regard to their status within the Uruguay Round Agreements.  Some Members tended
to describe only the negotiations on agriculture and services as being mandated.  The negotiations on
geographical indications were often pushed away into the category of other work to be undertaken,and in the TRIPS Council there had been resistance to list these negotiations on its agenda.  Bulgaria
was even more concerned when this omission of geographical indications from the category of
mandated negotiations was made by the Chairman of the General Council or the Director-General.
From the point of view of confidence building, which was the purpose of the present exercise, theWT/GC/M/56
Page 57
blurring of the legal status of the mandated negotiations on geographical indications was
disappointing.  If there was any difference between the mandated negotiations on geographical
indications and those on agriculture and services, it was that the latter had started only recently while
those on geographical indications under Article 24.1 had started much earlier.  It was thus logical to
expect that the negotiations on geographical indications would yield results earlier – in the frameworkof the present exercise – than the negotiations on agriculture or services.
207. The representative of Switzerland supported the proposal on an extension to the additional
protection of geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits.  His delegation
believed that progress on this issue could be made in the work programme of the TRIPS Council.
With regard to the proposal on non-violation cases under Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement, his
delegation agreed that work should be undertaken in the TRIPS Council to define the modalities of
the examination of such cases.   The next proposal suggested making the provisions of Article 66.2obligatory, however, his delegation wished to point out that the text of this Article already had an
element of obligation, since it read "shall provide incentives".  It was also suggested that measures
taken under this Article should be notified, but such a notification exercise had taken place in the
TRIPS Council.  Developed countries had supplied information on their implementation of this
Article at the request of Haiti, and his delegation did not see the need to set up a formal notificationsystem.  His delegation believed that the other proposals appeared to entail such an important
modification of the rights and obligations of Members under the TRIPS Agreement that they could
only be addressed in wider multilateral trade negotiations.
208. The representative of the Czech Republic said that his country had a strong interest in the
issue of the extension of additional protection of geographical indications to other products.  While
promoting the extension of absolute protection, his delegation had often stated that there were
products other than wines and spirits which were particularly vulnerable to imitation and counterfeit,
and that an efficient multilateral mechanism was need ed to deal effectively with these practices.  His
delegation had hoped that Ministers at Seattle would have endorsed the extension of the additional
protection required by Article 23 and mandated the WTO to complete the negotiations on this issuewithin a specified time-frame.  His delegation believed that this would have been an endorsement,
since the existing provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, together with the Singapore Ministerial
Declaration, offered sufficient legal basis for holding these negotiations.  His delegation believed that
such negotiations did not entail reopening the Agreement.  His delegation and others had recently
made every effort to move this issue forward in  the TRIPS Council, but no substantial progress had
been achieved thus far.  For this reason, this issu e should be addressed as implementation issue in the
General Council.  Finally, his delegation hoped progress would be made in the TRIPS Council on thescope and modalities of the examination of non-violation complaints.
209. The representative of Peru supported the statement by India on the need for progress in the
work in the TRIPS Council on the compatibility be tween the Convention on Biological Diversity and
the TRIPS Agreement.
210. The representative of Indonesia supported the statements by India and Pakistan.  Indonesia
believed that the proposal to include the list of essential drugs of the WHO in the list of exceptions to
patentability in Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement was most important and needed to be
addressed seriously.
211. The representative of Jamaica said that his country supported all the proposals in paragraph
21(g).  The additional protection on geographical indications accorded to wines and spirits should be
extended to other products.  This was a source of serious imbalance in the TRIPS Agreement, and was
particularly disadvantageous to small countries which had to take advantage of specialised and niche
markets.  Finally, an understanding was needed that the Agreement would not prevent developingWT/GC/M/56
Page 58
countries from issuing compulsory license for drugs listed by the WHO as essential drugs.  Jamaica
believed that this issue was most important in terms of its social implications.
212. The representative of Sri Lanka supported the statements by Egypt and Pakistan, as well as
that by Bulgaria on providing additional protection of geographical indications to products other than
wine and spirits, which was an important issues for Sri Lanka.  A number of developing countries hadrequested this additional protection under the provisions in Article 23 and 24 of the TRIPS
Agreement.  Sri Lanka believed that these Articles provided the mandate for such negotiations, and
that the formulation of Article 24.1 was broad enough to cover negotiations on the extension of
additional protection to products other than wine and spirits.  In addition, Article 24.2 mandated the
TRIPS Council to review the application of the pr ovisions of this section of the Agreement and
Article 71.1 stated that the TRIPS Council would re view the implementation of the Agreement having
regard to the experience gained in its implementation.  Furthermore, the mandated review shouldaddress the impact of the Agreement on the trade and development prospects of developing countries.
It was in this context that the proposals on the extension of the scope of additional protection of
geographical indication and on negotiations for the protection of the intellectual property rights for
traditional knowledge should be viewed.   As a co-sponsor of the proposals in paragraphs 21 and 22,
Sri Lanka believed that all those proposals should be addressed and resolved as implementationissues.
213. The representative of Saint Lucia supported the statement by Jamaica.  Her country had a
particular interest in three issues related to TRIPS which had been raised in paragraph 21: the
extension of geographical indications beyond wines and spirits; the consistency of the TRIPS
Agreement with the Convention of Bio-Diversity ; and the exclusion of non-violation and other
complaints under the Agreement.  There had been an interesting debate on these issues in the TRIPS
Council, but no progress was being made.  Like India, her delegation believed that these issues
extended beyond simple technical analysis and included broader considerations.  With regard to the
proposal on Article 64, the TRIPS Council had already failed in its task as mandated in that Article,
but this did not absolve it of its duty to continue deliberations.  Delegations should reflect on theutility of remanding this issue to the General Council, at least without the express undertaking of all
Members not to pursue non-violation complaints, in an attempt to clarify existing ambiguity over the
expiry of the five year period referred to in Article 64, through the DSB as opposed to the General
Council as contemplated by Article 64.3.
214. The representative of Bolivia supported the statements made in the present meeting by a
number of developing countries, in particular India on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement
and the Convention on Biological Diversity.  Many of the issues raised in this area were of greatimportance to her country, such as access to genetic resources and the protection of traditional
knowledge, and her delegation agreed with the proposal on the inclusion of the list of essential
medicines of WHO into the TRIPS Agreement.
215. The representative of Turkey said that his delegation supported the proposal on an extension
of the additional protection of geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits.  It
believed that the mandate in the TRIPS Agreement was clear enough to enable discussions on this
issue, but that there was also a need for a comprehensive study on geographical indications.  The
questions within the context of this issue, such as protection, additional protection, extension of
protection and establishment of a protection system were all interrelated, and Articles 22, 23 and 24
should be taken into consideration and be discussed together.  His delegation believed that this workwas necessary in the context of the assessment of implementation of the TRIPS Agreement and that it
should take place before any negotiations aimed at further liberalization.  This approach was the most
appropriate way to find remedies for the imbalances within the Agreement.  With regard to the issue
of non-violation complaints, his delegation hoped that a substantive discussion on the scope andWT/GC/M/56
Page 59
modalities of the issue would take place in TRIPS Council.  Such work would enable clarification of
the Agreement, as well as of its relation with other WTO Agreements.
216. The representative of the Philippines said that he wished to respond to the statements by some
Members that if the remedy to any implementation issue necessitated the amendment of an
Agreement, the issue was not an implementation issue, but rather one of renegotiation issue or a newround.  As a developing country, the Philippines also attached importance to the full and faithful
implementation of the WTO Agreements.  But full and faithful implementation went beyond just the
letter of the agreements.  What the developing countries were seeking in this exercise was to question
whether certain provisions of the agreements were fully and faithfully consistent with the objectives
of the WTO Agreement.  It was for this reason that they maintained that a rebalancing of some of the
existing agreements was needed.   If one compared the TRIPS Agreement to the GATT 1994, one
would see that the GATT contained general market access provisions conferred on governments,essentially in a global market economy but ultimately for the benefit of private parties.  But there
were also general exceptions under Article XX to protect other legitimate policy objectives.  There
was no similar provision in the TRIPS Agreement.  The TRIPS Agreement simply protected private
rights without recognising other legitimate policy objectives.  His delegation suggested that Members
should consider recognising the legitimacy of other policy objectives in the TRIPS Agreementthrough a provision similar to Article XX of GATT.
217. The representative of the United States said that in the light of the productive meetings which
had recently been held in the TRIPS Council, many of the issues raised in the present meeting had
been addressed.  Her delegation suggested that this work should continue in the TRIPS Council.
However, like others, her delegation believed that some of these issues would entail renegotiation ofthe TRIPS Agreement.
218. The representative of Brazil said that his delegation agreed with others that the relationship
between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on  Biological Diversity should be examined in
detail.
219. The representative of Pakistan said that the issue of the modification of rights and obligations
had been raised, and his delegation agreed with the Philippines that implementation of the agreements
should be in accordance with the spirit of those agreements.  In the case of the list of essential
medicines, this same issue had been discussed at the recent UN Social Summit.  The same argument
had been used that reference to international agreem ents in this context might involve a renegotiation
of the balance of rights and obligations, and an African delegation had pointed out that if a large
proportion of the population in some countries was under threat of dying, one could not insist on a
procedural pretext to put off discussion of this issu e.  Similarly, his delegation believed that there was
no room for procedural grounds to put off discussions of this issue in the WTO, and the TRIPS
Agreement itself recognised the need to promote the economic and social welfare considerations of
societies.  The issue of essential medicines needed to be addressed seriously.  The final declaration of
the Social Summit recognized that countries had the right to use all options in international
agreements, and the implications of this were quite clear in this case.
(n) Dispute Settlement Understanding
220. The representative of Philippines said that the Dispute Settlement Understanding was the
jewel in the crown of WTO, since disputes were solved on the basis of the rules.  However, there was
no enforcement mechanism in WTO.  Members had to resort to suspension of concessions to enforce
their rights, which was not easy for economically weak Members.  Thus, enforcement of rights waspower-based.  His delegation regretted that it was unable to offer a solution to this.WT/GC/M/56
Page 60
(o) Special and Differential Treatment
221. The representative of Pakistan said that the i ssue of special and differential treatment was a
very important element of the multilateral trading system and of all the WTO Agreements.  His
delegation believed that this issue needed to be discussed in detail with reference to each agreement.
Considering the time remaining in the present mee ting, his delegation suggested that this issue be
taken up in greater detail in the next meeting.
222. The representative of Jamaica supported the suggestion by Pakistan.  Many developing
countries had repeatedly stated that the provisions for Special and Differential treatment should be
made more concrete and specific to facilitate implementation.  These provisions should, thus, be
considered to be binding obligations.  His delegation supported the third proposal in paragraph 21(m)
on preferential trading arrangements, since this important implementation issue could be resolved
immediately.
223. The representative of the Dominican Republic supported the suggestion by Pakistan.  The
issue of Special and Differential treatment was another case in which not only the letter but the spirit
of the agreements had been disregarded.  The elements involved were theoretically well balanced in
the agreements, but the implementation of the provisi ons was often put off.  He agreed that it would
be useful to take this issue up agreement by agr eement, to identify the objectives of, and compliance
with, these provisions.
224. The representative of India said that his country had submitted a number of proposals aimed
at making Special and Differential provisions operational as well as legally binding.  His delegation
supported the suggestion of having a special discussion in the General Council on an agreement-by-
agreement basis, so that the participation of experts could also be facilitated.
225. The representative of Egypt supported the suggestion to revert to the issue of Special and
Differential treatment in the next meeting to enable a more comprehensive discussion.
226. The Chairman proposed that the General Council take up the suggestion by Pakistan to revert
to the issue of Special and Differential treatment in the next Special Session.  He also proposed that
the General Council take note of the statements made on the various issues, and invite him and theDirector-General to hold consultations, in a tran sparent manner, with a view to identifying ways
needed to resolve these issues in accordance wi th the decision of 3 May on implementation-related
issues, and to report to Members sufficiently in advance of the next Special Session.
227. The General Council so agreed.
3. Activities under way in the WTO that may be of relevance to addressing implementation
issues (Job (00)/4217)
228. The Chairman, introducing a report on activities under way in the WTO that may be of
relevance to addressing implementation issues (Job (00)/4217, dated 3 July 2000), said that given the
short time that had been allowed to prepare this text, it should clearly not be taken as definitive.
However, it would be useful in providing a broad overview of activities under way, both in the
various WTO committees and councils as well in the Secretariat, that may be of relevance to the
implementation of existing agreements and decisions.  The information provided in this paper would
of course be updated as one went along so that discussions at the General Council level could be fully
informed.  As he had mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, delegations should also feel free to
inform the Council about any such activities they th emselves or other agencies were undertaking, and
he hoped they would.  This paper was being circulated on his own responsibility, and MembersWT/GC/M/56
Page 61
should see this information and the order of its presentation as being without prejudice to their
position on any issue.  The paper was divided into two parts:  first, information on the work under
way in existing WTO bodies including as a result of the built-in provisions in some of the agreements;
and, second, a brief look at possible relevant technical cooperation activities undertaken by the
Secretariat.
229. In the section on work in existing bodies, information was provided on the reviews of the
operation and implementation of the relevant agreements which many bodies had undertaken or must
undertake as part of the built-in agenda, such as the triennial reviews of the TBT Agreement.
Furthermore, some bodies had decided or had been mandated to create specific mechanisms to
conduct work on provisions of the relevant agreement where implementation problems had been
identified.  Examples of this would be the Ad Hoc Group on the Implementation of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement and the Informal Group on Anti-Circumve ntion.  In certain bodies, a decision had been
taken to include specific provisions of an agreement in the regular work programme with a view to
resolving problems identified, such as in the TRIPS Council.  Technical cooperation activities aimed
at assisting with the implementation of WTO Agreements had been an integral part of the Secretariat's
work since the establishment of the WTO.  Since they covered a wide variety of activities, the
information provided in the paper did not aim to be comprehensive, but was aimed more at providingan idea of the areas in which activities were taking place.  Although many activities concerned
technical missions and assistance provided to delegations in Geneva, he had attempted to highlight the
type of activity which addressed a specific aspect of implementation.  Examples would be the SPS
workshop on risk analysis which took place in June, and the seminar on implementation and related
issues held under the auspices of the Committee on Trade and Development in the past week.  Headded that this information was only the start of what he believed should be a continuing process of
providing information as a background to discussions in the Special Sessions.  The Secretariat's Task
Force on Implementation set up by the Director-General  would assist Members in this process.  As he
had mentioned earlier, the paper should not be seen as being comprehensive, and he intended to add to
the information he was providing today as the discussions progressed.
230. The General Council took note of the statement and of the report.
__________